Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems

Minix Now Under BSD License 127

Posted by Hemos from the released-under-new-management dept.
Minix is now Free Software! Andrew Tanenbaum posted to the comp.os.minix newsgroup yesterday announcing: "Better late than never. I finally got permission from Prentice Hall to change the MINIX license to the BSD license. The lawyers sort of sat on this for two years." You can read the full posting on deja, as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Minix Now Under BSD License More

Minix Now Under BSD License

Comments Filter:
  • Does this means we get to witness another LT/AT flame war?

  • A.T. vs L.T. and the future of Minix (Score:4)

    by ajs ( 35943 ) <ajs.ajs@com> on Saturday April 08, 2000 @05:20AM (#1143952) Homepage Journal
    I really enjoyed reading the Tanenbaum vs. Torvalds debate in the back of Open Sources. As much as many of A.T.'s arguments seem short-sighted in retrospect, he had several very good points about Linux (e.g. it was not portable, it could not deal with externally maintained extensions, and other things that had to be fixed in the 2.0 and later series). I think it will be well worth the community's time to re-read the Minix source and figure out if there's any more lessons to be learned, and/or incorporate the features that make sense.

    Question, though: does Minix still have a future as a teaching tool, or do OSes like Linux and *BSD make it obsolete? I would certianly like to see a good textbook that teaches OS design, using the source to a modern OS as examples....
  • BSD is designed to allow people the freedom to do what they want with code. GPL is designed to keep code free. These types of "freedom" are really very different.

    BSD actually causes many fewer headaches, because the code can be used in closed source products with no worries over licensing issues and that sort of thing. And of course, you can always start with some BSD code, make some changes, and release the resulting code under GPL.

    --
  • Minix was not meant for small devices. Minix is meant to be understandable to the students in an Operating System's Design class in one semester. The only real difference now is that the source is free to people who aren't taking an OS class( IIRC professors were allowed to copy and distribute the source to students in their class).
    treke

  • Re:A.T. vs L.T. and the future of Minix (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I would certianly like to see a good textbook that teaches OS design, using the source to a modern OS as examples....

    Zen and the art of motorcycle maintainence is good.

  • Minix is Linux's daddy, and is is finally available under a Good license. I haven't seen any "too little too late!" comments, which is good, because it's not too little too late. Minix runs on the 80[2]86 whereas Linux still doesn't AFAIK (ELKS doesn't seem too far along as of yet). Perhaps we will see an increase in Minix activity now that it's BSD licensed.

    Although I do think this whole thing is funny, perhaps Linus will post a "MINIX is obsolete!" comment on the comp.os.minix newsgroup, that would be priceless! =)

  • Re:Possible uses of Minix? (Score:3)

    by Danborg ( 62420 ) on Saturday April 08, 2000 @05:27AM (#1143957)
    Did you even read the post? It answers all of your questions:

    MINIX is much smaller than Linux and might well be suitable as the operating system for a watch, camera, or transistor radio. The manufacturer of, say, a watch might really not want to provide a CD-ROM with the source code with each watch or even a web site with the source code, as being too much trouble. The new MINIX license says you can distribute source if you want to, but you don't have to.

    So, that's what it's good for, and that's why he didn't pick the GPL. 'Nuff said.

  • Re:This is a very Good Thing (TM) (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    COBOL is obsolete!! WHEEEeeeeee!

  • Put this announcement in context (Score:4)

    by wct ( 45593 ) on Saturday April 08, 2000 @05:28AM (#1143959)
    For those who think this is just another Open-Source announcement, check the "Linux is obsolete" background. [kde.org]

    Who would have though it would end like this :)

  • I'll respect this guy's choice of a BSD-like license over the GPL. But the reason he chose it shows an obvious lack of understanding of the GPL.

    For those who haven't read the post, he believes that a person releasing something under the GPL must include the source code with every copy. Since Minix is intended for embedded purposes, he figures companies would have to include the source with the device (rather impractical for a wristwatch).

    What he doesn't get is that you do not have to include the source code with the binaries. All the GPL says is that if anyone wants the source, you have to make it available for no more than the cost of actually getting the source to them. Since distributing the source over the Net is basically free, authors have almost always distributed the source with the app, but that's not the only way to do it. An embedded device maker could, for example, include a mail-in card for a source CD with the device, for the cost of shipping and handling. A neat, tidy way for people who want the source to get it, without having to include the source with every single device. This is not unlike the way it was done before the Net took off.

    This guy's the author of Minix, and he can put it under any license he wants, I suppose. But he could at least have based his choice off of informed reasoning. If the trouble of including a CD-ROM with a wristwatch was the only concern, then there was no reason at all to choose BSD over GPL (or vice-versa).
  • Seriously, outside of Operating Systems 101, who uses Minix?
    Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a high grade for such a design :-)

  • Re:A.T. vs L.T. and the future of Minix (Score:3)

    by DanaL ( 66515 ) on Saturday April 08, 2000 @05:30AM (#1143962)
    I think I read somewhere (this may even have been in the Debate) that Tanenbaum was intentionally getting it simple and refraining from adding too many features in order to get in manageable for instruction purposes.

    If you are a prof teaching an OS course and you want your students to mess around with the source for an OS, then Minix might be a little less overwhelming.

    Mind you, you are probably also likely to find lots of students who already are messing around with Linux or *BSD source code. But having Minix is just one more option, and it never hurts to have options :)

    Dana

  • Venn Diagram People!!! (Score:4)

    by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Saturday April 08, 2000 @05:32AM (#1143964) Journal

    OK. To all the complainers that it isn't GPL'ed: Anything that is (non advertising) BSD can be incorporated into GPL. In other words, GPL provides a subset of the freedoms provided by BSD.

    Now, follow my directions. 1. Draw a big circle. 2. Label it "BSD". 3. Draw a little circle inside the big circle. 4. Label it GPL. 5. Draw another little circle inside the big circle, but be very careful to make sure that it doesn't touch the other little circle. 6. Label the second little circle "closed source".

    Now, what have we learned from this little exercise? We learned that BSD is a big circle that encompasses both free and proprietary software. It's a rising tide that lifts all boats, not a whirlpool that sucks them down.

    Let's sing a little song: "Now I know my BSD's, won't you come and play with me..."

    Got it kiddies? Good. Now it's nap time.

  • *Far* superior? The only reason people compare the BSDL and the GPL is because their both considered "free". But they serve two entirely different purposes. If AT had released Minix under the GPL, company-X would not be able to incorporate it into their proprietary devices/OS without releasing the source. That's fine if it's what you want. Clearly AT wanted people to be able to use Minix however they'd like, proprietary or not.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • This is good for Open Source (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In the long run, I believe this will be extremely good for Open Source and Linux, given the fact that alot of inexperienced people now will be drawn to hacking and learning from this OS, which is just the right size to quickly learn the fun of programming OSes. Go Tanembaum, go Minix! =]

  • The OS for a transistor radio? (Score:3)

    by acb ( 2797 ) on Saturday April 08, 2000 @05:45AM (#1143967) Homepage
    A device made out of individual transistors and capable of running MINIX would be... interesting, to say the least.
  • Actually, you cannot release BSD code under the GPL. The GPL specifically prohibits this.
  • What he doesn't get is that you do not have to include the source code with the binaries

    What makes you think he thinks this?
    This is what he says:
    "The manufacturer of, say, a watch might really not want to provide a CD-ROM with the source code with each watch or even a web site with the source code, as being too much trouble. "


    ====
  • Actually I did read the article... and he says it might be suitable for small devices. Allow me to quote the Andrew Tanenbaum, "It is simply focused on the target area it was always focused on: education." http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/ast_home_page/faq.htm. Linux and the BSDs have never really been in competition with Minix because of the goal to keep it simple.

    Normally I hate feeding trolls, but this guy could have fooled someone who new nothing about Minix
    treke
  • He specifically says "or put the source code on a web site". That is, he acknowledges specifically that the source code need not actually be bundled, just available.

    Why is this flame bait at +4?

    --

  • Stallman... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    insists that it be called GNU/Minix.

    Not for any real reason. Just because he is a bearded dictator with a bunch of stupid impressionable geeks following his every word.
  • It is really wonderful to see a major project released under the BSD license instead of the GPL or a home-rolled license. Publicitly like that will only help the BSD crowd and having more code under the BSD license is just grand. And of course, it is nice to see someone realizing that the BSD license is absolutely perfect for the majority of projects. The GPL only causes problems with minor projects.

    Also, I think a reason (though I didn't see it listed) to use a BSD license is the fact a lot of the utilities in Minix have really old BSD copyrights in them. They probably were derived from some ancient BSD tapes and cannot be put under the GPL. (Yes, I am aware of UCB's pulling of the advertising clause but you would have to get every person who contributed to that code in Minix to agree to pulling the advertising clause from the forked Minix version. Even if one person said no, it can never be GPL'd.)
  • I found the following in a reply of Linus in the AT-LT discussion:

    If you write programs for linux today, you shouldn't have too many surprises when you just recompile them for Hurd in the 21st century.

    So, where is the HURD?? :-)

  • Now I know my bAS (Score:5)

    by orpheus ( 14534 ) on Saturday April 08, 2000 @05:54AM (#1143975)
    Let's sing a little song: "Now I know my BSD's, won't you come and play with me..."

    FreeBSD really rocks,
    But only Intel / Alpha box.
    The 'Net' one runs on so much more.
    The 'Open' one is more secure.

    Now I know my BSD's. Won't you come and play with me?

    __________

  • A plan (Score:3)

    by VAXGeek ( 3443 ) on Saturday April 08, 2000 @05:55AM (#1143976) Homepage
    You know what?! Someone should take the Minix code and add a bunch of stuff to it, like virtual memory and increased driver support. In a few years, you might even have a new operating system that would take the world by storm.
    ------------
    a funny comment: 1 karma
    an insightful comment: 1 karma
    a good old-fashioned flame: priceless

  • Re:Licensing... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    You either haven't read Tanenbaum's posting, or you just glossed over it. Here's the relevant text from the post.

    Anyway, the new license conditions are below. These are the same as for Berkeley UNIX. It seems to me better for the users than GPL since there is no requirement to provide source code. MINIX is much smaller than Linux and might well be suitable as the operating system for a watch, camera, or transistor radio.
    The manufacturer of, say, a watch might really not want to provide a CD-ROM with the source code with each watch or even a web site with the source code, as being too much trouble. [emphasis added]

    So yes, he knows that you don't have to provide the source code with the product you sell. But he believes that even offering a CD-ROM of the source, or posting it on the manufacturer's website, may be too much of a burden for some.

    (Rather ironic that Millenium should claim that Tanenbaum made his licensing decision on the basis of uninformed reasoning!)

  • It is not the 21st century yet. We still have eight months to go :)
  • Virtual memory was added by Kees J. Bot a long time ago.

  • Now, what if... (Score:4)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig@hogger.gmail@com> on Saturday April 08, 2000 @06:01AM (#1143980) Journal
    ... somebody reposts it under the GPL???

    --

  • better link (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    http://x27.deja.com/ [ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=607967341&fmt=text [deja.com] None of that mess, just text.

  • Yeah, but the chapter on dynamically loadable kernel modules was a bit weak and they spent entirely too much time on cleaning your carburator
  • Three nipples on one hand? that sounds unusual!
  • The original BSD license with it's, as the FSF puts it, "obnoxious BSD advertising clause" is incompatible with GPL. The modified BSD license, which is almost certainly the license being here, is fully compatible with GPL. The FSF states this specifically.

    --

  • Then I would just grab a copy that was distributed under the BSD license and have my way with it.

  • Re:Venn Diagram People!!! (Score:4)

    by ianezz ( 31449 ) on Saturday April 08, 2000 @06:32AM (#1143986) Homepage
    1. Draw a big circle. 2. Label it "BSD". 3. Draw a little circle inside the big circle. 4. Label it GPL. 5.Draw another little circle inside the big circle, but be very careful to make sure that it doesn't touch the other little circle. 6. Label the second little circle "closed source".

    Since all BSD (version 2) softare can be relicensed without notice (even if it not usually the case), I'll draw instead 1 big circle labeled BSD, which intersecates many other circles labeled GPL, LGPL, Artistic, MIT, MPL, QPL, ZPL, etc. Then, a circle labelled "closed source software" that intersecates mainly the BSD circle, but other circles as well.

    The result? A pretty complex picture.

    So: if you want your software to be used by as many as possible, choose BSD (version 2). If you want your software to stay free, choose GPL. If you want something in the middle, choose something in the middle. But please, stop whining on what's the best license (best for what?) and ask yourself "what do I want to do with my code?" and "what if I want to merge it with some other people's code or someone else wants to?"

    My 0.03 Euro. Damned inflation.

  • "Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a high grade for such a design :-)"

    8-]

  • Better Deja link (Score:4)

    by mattdm ( 1931 ) on Saturday April 08, 2000 @06:37AM (#1143988) Homepage
    If you don't want to see all the surrounding crap, Deja thoughtfully makes this format available as well:
    <http://www.deja.com/[S T_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=607967341&fmt=text [deja.com]>.

    --

  • It's a fully featured PC with a 8088 and 128K ram (I've got a 256K upgrade, making a total of 384K), which has to double as disk space as well.

    How big is it? Does it support ramdisks?
  • Man, it's so much trouble to put your patches on a website nowadays ... I mean, it's not like my 10 year old cousin could make her own webpage on Geocitites ... oh wait a minute, she has ... nevermind.
  • Just a quick note before I start, it's interesting how only one person who is accusing me of trolling isn't an AC. Makes me wonder who should be accusing whom.

    No, that post isn't a troll. Or at least, it wasn't intended as such. And I stick by my claims. The author does state that maintaining a Website with the source would be "too much trouble." Right. Consider: embedded devices tend to be static in nature. There isn't much in the way of upgradability, particularly not in terms of the operating system. This means that things like CVS aren't that necessary; the OS as used by the company isn't going to change much if at all.

    Oh, and then there's CD-ROM distribution. How difficult is it to burn a CD with source on it? Not very hard at all, actually, seeing as you're only including the source for one thing (when you're including the source to many things, as is done with a Linux distro, that's another subject). Plus, there's this little thing called volume. This is not Linux we're talking about. Who's going to want the source for the OS on a wristwatch? Some will, certainly, but I'd be shocked if any company taking this route got more than five orders a month for source CD's, if that many. Is five CD's a month any kind of a burden? The costs alone are lower than the margin of error in the account books of many corporations. I'll grant that distributing a CD with every device would be troublesome indeed. But that's not what we're talking about anyway.

    I didn't intend to troll (sorry to disappoint the trolls out there; I have no intention of joining your ranks), and if anyone was offended by this post then I'm sorry you feel that way. I had no intention of offending anyone. But I do stick by my claims.
  • I think everyone complaining about the license is missing the point. Maybe watch manufacturers don't WANT to give out the source code period. And before you open source nazis start jumping down my throat complaining that not distributing the source is imoral or whatever else, when is the last time you got the source code to a watch, or a PDA, or just about any embeded device.

    With the (new) BSD license there is nothing at all preventing a company from distributing the source, there is just nothing requiring it. And someone could take minix and make a GPL'd fork, now that the advertising clause is out BSDL and GPL are perfectly compatible.

    Just remember, the GPL isn't the end all and be all of free licenses, it's just one of many. Or have you all forgotten that Linux, etc, are about choice.
  • Interesting, but they should at least get the facts straight.

    Quote: "...Linux itself, product of an experimenting computer science student, is originally based on Minix code and research."

    --

  • Some words on Tanenbaum (Score:3)

    by rutger21 ( 132630 ) on Saturday April 08, 2000 @07:28AM (#1143994)
    There is a very interesting FAQ written by Andrew Tanenbaum on Tanenbaum's site [cs.vu.nl]. Amongst other answers and questions, I found this ones:

    What do you think of Linux?
    I have never used it. People tell me that if you like lots of bells and whistles, it is a nice system. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Linus for producing it. Before there was Linux there was MINIX, which had a 40,000-person newsgroup, most of whom were sending me email every day. I was going crazy with the endless stream of new features people were sending me. I kept refusing them all because I wanted to keep MINIX small enough for my students to understand in one semester. My consistent refusal to add all these new features is what inspired Linus to write Linux. Both of us are now happy with the results. The only person who is perhaps not so happy is Bill Gates.

     What's wrong with LaTeX?
    Nothing, but real authors use troff.

    What do you think of MS-DOS?
    It is better than Windows. At least it has a command line interface, albeit a pretty feeble one.

    Ehm... I guess Tanenbaum likes simplicity a bit too much. I mean, he is convinced that a GUI can not make any improvement at all. For example, I use Lyx for making my thesis and I am convinced it is able to produce real quality material. Yes, it's a graphical WYSIWYM frontend to LaTeX. How can anyone be convinced Lyx isn't good because of that?
  • I would certianly like to see a good textbook that teaches OS design, using the source to a modern OS as examples.

    Check out "Unix Internals: The New Frontiers" [amazon.com]. It covers all the typical OS textbook topics: VM, filesystems, IPC, ... but it is very implementation oriented. It also compares the implementations of modern Unixes like Solaris and BSD. A great read!


  • Re:If it ain't GNU then FUCK IT! (Score:3)

    by yerricde ( 125198 ) on Saturday April 08, 2000 @07:31AM (#1143996) Homepage Journal

    WE DO NOT WANT YOUR COMMERCIAL SHIT. And yes we include BSD in this because it can be used in commercial software.

    You say non-copyleft licenses suck. You're reading this on a text browser, right? Mac OS is proprietary buyware. Windows 9x is proprietary buyware. BeOS Personal is freebeerware but still proprietary. X Window System is X11-style free software, and so is BSD. So you're reading Slashdot on GNU/Linux with the Lynx or w3m browser, right?

    If you want it to be GNU GPL, then just make a couple changes and fork off your own distro. That has been OK since June 1999, when Berkeley finally removed the advertising clause [gnu.org] from the BSD license.

    And there is commercial free software: just look at boxed distributions (e.g. Red Hat Linux) of primarily GNU GPL software.

  • Re:A.T. vs L.T. and the future of Minix (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Linux and *BSD are unusable as an OS design teaching tool due to their complexity. They're simply too big to be comprehendable as a whole by an OS design student. The reason Minix was deliberately cut short was because it was designed as a teaching tool, not as a fullblown OS. It incorporates all the basics, and teaches those. And the fact that the entire source could be explained in one book proves the simplicity of it.
    I don't see the fact that it became BSD as an advantage. You could already do with it what it was meant for : browse it's code.

    And tanenbaum's OS design book that uses Minix as an example is very good for what you need to learn from it.
  • I would certianly like to see a good textbook that teaches OS design, using the source to a modern OS as examples....

    Funnily enough, try the book "Operating Systems Design and Implementation", using none less than the Minix source as an example, written by none other than Mr Tanenbaum & his ascociate Mr Woodhill.

    The ISBN, if you prefer, is 0-13-638677-6.
  • > BSD can be incorporated into GPL.

    Not.

    --

  • Problem: Mac OS X has a server version that collides in namespace Product with the generic name of XFree86 Project Inc. [xfree86.org]'s product, an X [x.org] server. That's why I always write "Mac OS 10" and "Mac OS 10 Server".

    <offtopic>
    XFree86 is making an X server for Windows. I just wonder what will happen if someone decides to make an open-source Mac OS X server.
    </offtopic>
    See where confusion can arise?

  • The license is quoted in full at the Deja archive. The advertising clause afflicted only the "old" BSD license, the language is included in the notice [berkeley.edu] which rescinded this clause.

    What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
    Scope out Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org]

  • Not entirely true. At the low end, Linux is increasingly useless. A distro like Slack 4.0 doesn't run well on (say) even a 386/40 with 8M of RAM, while Minix 2.0 is surprisingly smooth on a 286/16 with 1M, and tolerable on a 640K Turbo XT.

    At this time, the Linux/8086 port is crummy at best (it kept producing inexplicable disc errors for me)-- why use that for a small system when Minix works, works well, and works well TODAY?

    Furthermore, I believe he noted that the lawyers held it up for two years. If it had gone as intended, this would be the free-software breakthrough of 1998. It's unfair to blame him for it being this late.

    Congratulations, Mr. Tannenbaum. You've done well.

  • Shortly after I posted, I went to download it and realized that you are right--it is advertising BSD. So, draw a slightly smaller circle inside the big circle. This circle encompasses most, if not all, of the other small circles. It may not encompass GPL. I've always wondered about that. For example, have the authors of GPL'd software written their own JPEG implementation, just to get around the IJG advertising clause? If they have, I think that's a bit ridiculous.

    After filching around inside the Minix distro, I discovered that a number of the packages that come with it are in fact GPL'ed!!! So, it's not totally BSD. In fact, as with a lot of newly freed software, they were careless about changing the licensing documents in this distro, and if you didn't know better you'd think that some parts were still commercial.

    Obviously, they can't remove or re-license the GPL'd components without permission from the author(s) of those components. So, what MINIX 2.0 really is, is an aggregate with some components that have now been placed under an advertising BSD license.

    It doesn't matter too much to me. I just thought it was cool to download a *NIX like OS over my 28.8 modem in a reasonable ammount of time. (It was roughly a 5 meg download).

  • Re:Seems some self-defense is in order... (Score:3)

    by spiralx ( 97066 ) on Saturday April 08, 2000 @07:53AM (#1144004)

    How difficult is it to burn a CD with source on it? Not very hard at all, actually, seeing as you're only including the source for one thing (when you're including the source to many things, as is done with a Linux distro, that's another subject). Plus, there's this little thing called volume. This is not Linux we're talking about. Who's going to want the source for the OS on a wristwatch?

    True, but.... Seeing as how no-one (in terms of percentage of buyers) is likely to want the source to the OS, then providing the source for those few is going to be a waste of *some* money, even if it is a very small amount. It will require some resources, no matter how small, and margins are always of concern to companies.

    But the real point is, if no-one is going to want the source then why use the GPL? Think of it in terms of a company's perspective - they have Minix as the core of their embedded OS, with certain proprietary extensions designed for the technology it is controlling. Under the GPL, this source would have to be made available to anyone asking for it. Given the intense competition in the embedded market, this is not a path that a company would be willing to take, and thus if Minix was GPLed, it wouldn't be taken up as a solution.

    I know /. is a place full of GPL supporters, and yes, it's a great way of keeping source open and free, but it doesn't always make sense from a business's (is that right?) perspective. When you're in a competitive market, the slighest advantage can win the day, and companies won't adopt an OS that could compromise that. It's sad, but it's capitalism.

  • Amen! Thats the beauty of the BSDL. It is pro-capitalist. Free is good but not a necessity.
  • The problem with posts that have been moderated up way too much like this one, is that moderating it down will be 'punished' by the metamoderating system. If you metamoderate a moderation you are only told that it was moderated down or up, but not that it went from +4 to +3 instead of from 0 to -1. There's a big difference between the two.

  • A Venn Diagram (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08, 2000 @08:11AM (#1144007)
    http://charged.net/tim/venn-bsd2.gif [charged.net]

  • While having a useful teaching tool is a laudable goal, there's no reason why the project couldn't fork, with one version of the kernel being a simple, understandable kernel, and the other serving as the basis for more complex (and presumably useful) designs.

    Both the BSD and GPL licenses make forking possible. What the GPL does is ensure that, to the extent anyone wishes to do so, there are no legal embarrments to merging forks down the road. If a full-featured Minix (Maxix?) were to implement some trick-cool concept, that feature and it alone, could be merged back into Minix.

    While fork/remerge is possible with BSD code which remains BSD licensed, proprietized development based on BSD code cannot be remerged back to the original core without explicit permission of the new copyright holder.

    IMO Tanenbaum's probably too little, too late, though it would be interesting to see what shows up under system software at SourceForge over the next few months....

    What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
    Scope out Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org]

  • Um (Score:1)

    by astyanax ( 8365 )
    Note that my post was almost two hours ahead of the one you refer to :P How could I have seen it then?
  • There's no problem with having or using BSDLed software. It's only when people release something under the GPL and we get a bunch of zealots yelling "No! Not the GPV, make it BSD!" that I get annoyed.
    --------
    "I already have all the latest software."
  • Did he? The newest version of the BSDL doesn't have an advertising clause in it. If, in fact, he did choose the older version, it would be purely for vanity purposes... And I personally have no problem with that -- there's nothing wrong with wanting to be acknowledged for something you've spent a lot of time on.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • Actually you'd have to fork off 4.4BSD-Lite2 because all of the later contributions to Free/Net/OpenBSD were made under the then-existing license (not GPL-compatible), and some of the contributors may not want their work relicensed without permission. The code owned by UCB can be (and was) relicensed by them, but code contributed by third parties can't be without the permission of all involved.

  • A good reply in a thread that seems to be inviting flames and trolls, over an issue that invites flames and trolls. There is no "ultimate" lisence, just like there's no "ultimate" OS or GUI or interface or text editor. There's just different types, each of which has its uses and is liked by different people. Personally, I like the GPL, but I can understand where the BSD people are coming from.

    Of course, I necessarily like their viewpoint.


    -RickHunter
  • That's the most arrogant post I've ever seen on slashdot. You should be ashamed..
    Or proud... I mean the most arrogant post? On Slashdot? That's an accomplishment that is pretty difficult to come by... especially since a lot of people around here seem to shoot for it.

    Of course, now we run the risk of starting an argument over whether this is/is not really the most arrogant post...

    ^_-

  • there's no "ultimate"... text editor.

    man are you wrong. there is a "ultimate" text editor it's called vi!
    what are you some emacs freak?
    now what what this thread about? lisences . . .

    nmarshall
    #include "standard_disclaimer.h"
    R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
  • But that only affects UCB code. Any other code not written by UCB put under the full BSDL is not affected by the change. You cannot violate their license merely because someone changed theirs. Does that mean that if Corel OpenSources WordPerfect, Word and Lotus WordPro must be too?

    Rather, you should have noted whether Minix includes the advertising clause of the BSDL.
  • If you would actually take the trouble to _read_ the GPL (it's in a file called COPYING included in almost every piece of software that (you can legally download AND isn't a demo AND runs on Linux)), you would know the GPL DOES allow people to sell GPL'ed software. I can copy the newest Redhat and sell it for $1852 if I want to. No-one will buy it, though.
  • Better still was a quote from AT:

    Of course 5 years from now [1992] that will be different, but 5 years from now everyone will be running free GNU on their 200 MIPS, 64M SPARCstation-5.

  • But I do stick by my claims.

    What were your claims? That you thought Andrew Tanenbaum didn't know what the GPL required?

    You didn't bother reading his post carefully before attacking him on Slashdot. You got things wrong. You could have done the right thing by admitting your mistake - instead, you're changing your tune, and calling people who pointed out your mistake trolls, just because they're anonymous. This is very lame.

    ====
  • Geez, buy the book and read it. Minix is a teaching tool. It isn't the precursor of BSD or an embedded OS -- as some clueless weinies have stated here. Nor is it a Quixotic jab at corporate America, as Linux's political cadres seem to think. Get over it.
  • Has anyone else noticed the date on the DejaNews posting? It's exactly midnight on April the 7th. I wonder if it was deliberate...
  • Don't be silly. He was talking about having six fingers on three nipples.

    -David T. C.
  • Haven't you everheard of a time machine?

    -David T. C.
  • Hey! I don't approve of people reading my comments, then going back in time and psting followups to the same posting that say the same thing!

    -David T. C.

  • If you metamoderate a moderation you are only told that it was moderated down or up, but not that it went from +4 to +3 instead of from 0 to -1. There's a big difference between the two.

    Really? Are you told if it was moderated down for being "flamebait" or "overrated" at least?

  • They do roll over at different times.
    The 90s are the years 1990 through 1999, or 1890 through 1899 if you are old enough.
    The two-hudredth decade is the years 1991 through 2000 inclusive, which we are still in.
    The twentieth century is the years 1901 through 2000 inclusive, which we are still in.
    The second millenium is the years 1001 through 2000, which we are still in.
    The two-hundredth decade is almost a tounge twister, so people refer to aproximately the same time span as the 90s, which comes out a lot easier.
  • The thread you linked to was from late January of 1992. Linux has changed substantially since then. Concerning the arguments about Linux's monolithicity, Linux is no where near as monolithic as it once was. About portability, TONS has changed in eight years. Andy Tanenbaum says that Linux is tied fairly close to the 80x86. This has changed substantially since then. Linux is ported to two (680x0, SPARC) of the three (I don't even know what the NS3201 is) architectures mentioned there. He also says that "[w]hat is going to happen is that [RISC] will gradually take over from the 80x86 line." This has shown itself to be not true, regardless of whether it's a good thing to happen.

    Chris Hagar

  • "The 90s" can be read two different ways. If you mean the years from 90-99 then obviously it is not. If you mean the 9th decade of the current century, then it is. Ultimately this is simply a matter of imprecise terminology. It does nothing to change the fact that centuries are 100 year increments, and that they start with the year 1, not 0, at least in the calendar that we normally use. If you don't like that, feel free to write a new calendar, and good luck getting people to use it...

  • Hardly. Mac OS 10 is a proprietary product, it may be built on Mach and thus similar to the HURD technically, it is not cross platform and it is not Open Source.

  • >>would have no problems killing any BSD proponents
    >Yet another reason for posting as AC I guess: you can get killed these
    >days for criticizing the GPL. And they say GPL zealots aren't fanatic...
    After the stunt Microsoft pulled with Kerboros, do idoits like yourself that keep on esposing the same old stupid pro BSD bullshit concering BSD-type licenses really expect to be treated any diffrently?

  • I noted that the Minix license, as quoted [deja.com], does not include the advertising clause. What part of this do you not understand?

    I referred to the change notice [berkeley.edu] posted by UC Berkeley because I couldn't find a copy of the full text of the earlier version of the BSD license. However, it is the same clause 3 which effects the advertising clause. You'll note (if you bother to follow the two thoughtfully provided links) that this clause three isn't present in the Minix license.

    Minix was never issued under the prior version of the BSD license, so no, the change notice doesn't affect Minix. You appear to be confused on this point.

    What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
    Scope out Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org]


  • And then, of course, there's the immortal "The Design of the UNIX Operating System" by Maurice Bach. ;-)
  • Hint: If Kerberos WAS under under MPL or APSL Microsoft would have engineered their version to be different.

    Microsoft WANTS to be different, either thru gross incompentancy, or as the Halloween document outlines, to destroy standards.

    Nice try at a GPL/BSD flamewar. The way to do the flamewar tho is to take an lay down a token ring of protection about yourself and say
    Brett Glass
    Brett Glass
    Brett Glass

    and the defender of the BSD licence will appear. Then, by virtue of Brett being here, a horde of GPL daemons will appear and the flames will drive out any reason from the posts!

  • >what does the GPL prevent you from doing with the source, Mr. liar?

    In comparison to, say the BSD licence or a licence called public domain?

    It should be obvious to anyone who can read, or not read in the case of public domain.

    And, if it needs to be spelled out for you, might I suggest you go retain a lawyer who can explain it to you?
  • RedHat was going to announce at Linux World in NYC how they had an 'embedded Linux' offering, according to infoworld.

    Seems a bit odd to do that for 'a joke'.
  • Does this mean we'll be seeing Debian GNU/Minix soon? :)

    --

  • The 9th decade of this century is [1981,1991>. You mean the 10th decade.
    --
  • Try reading at Score: 1 or higher.

    You miss most of the junk that way.

    It's much better than just complaining. :-)
  • You know what?! Someone should take the Minix code and add a bunch of stuff to it, like virtual memory and increased driver support...

    Hey, I heard some crazy Finnish guy did that. I wonder if it ever amounted to anything ... ;)

  • Even if Minix were (in the past or right now) released under the four clause BSD license, the UCB announcement still does not affect Minix. UCB has no right to the Minix code and nothing UCB does will ever affect Minix.
  • Yea, but then you miss a lot of the good posts from ACs who have a good point. A lot of the pro MS stuff gets posted by ACs and /. moderators rarely bother to mark them up. Thats why I keep saying that slashdot needs to retool its moderation system a bit.
  • Does anybody bother to read the entire post anymore? I had a few questions. That might deserve an offtopic (fine if you don't want to answer my question) but I doubt it deserves a flamebait. Or were you just reading the first two lines?
  • Linux vs Minix is yet another example of 'worse is better'. Start with something that isn't pretty but does the job, and then improve it (modularize, make portable, etc) once you have built up some momentum.

    If Minix had been free when it was released in 1985, people might today be using Minix instead of Linux. But that's another of those 'what if' questions which you can never prove either way.

    Okay, so they've changed the copying conditions. When are they going to fix the spelling, from MINIX to Minix?
  • Does it really matter anymore if newer Linux distros no longer run well on old 386's? Maybe for what most of the 386's and low end 486's are being used for these days the single floppy sort of distros are more suitable?

    As cheap as hardware is today, if you were designing say, an embeded device or handheld, would you start with anything less than a 486 core? I don't think there is much of any technical or financial reason to do so anymore. If you are designing something from scratch and don't need x86 compatibility, there are other processors that probably make more sense from the standpoints of cost, power consumption and heat generation anyway.

    For home experimentation and dedicated purpose uses these days when you can get about as many 486's as you can haul away for FREE (as in beer) these days, why would anyone care about 386's, let alone 286's? A Turbo XT is more suitable as a museum piece than anything that anyone would want to use.

    I know from experience because I've got stacks of 486's in my basement that people were happy to have me haul away for them.

    Minix may have been interesting back when hardware was expensive, but it just doesn't seem that relevant anymore. The question is basically whether the low end you are talking about even exists anymore. Even in 1998, I just don't see how Minix would have been that much of a breakthrough. I think its day was more towards the early 90's, and for anything other than a tool for OS kernel design it looks to me like its day has been past for a long time.

  • I haven't read the whole debate, so I can't comment for certain on Tanenbaum's attitude, but... I don't see much sense of accusing ast of arrogance here. It may not be inaccurate (I don't know the man so I can't say), but it's irrelevant. Minix was created strictly as an academic system. If it does it for you, fine. If it doesn't, well, that's why it's under BSD license now. You can change it or use something else. But saying that ast got snowed for being arrogant and resistant to change misses a few points: -Linus was mostly learning low-level 386 assembler at that point, not trying to create a revolution. That didn't even begin to gather steam until the 2.0 kernel showed up. -Andrew Tanenbaum is a CS professor, and his intent with Minix was not to create a commercially viable OS but to create a functioning toy that does everything it has to to teach the student *but nothing more*. If I want to learn how Linux works, I have the Coriolis book, but that's only the very basics of the system. If I want to learn Minix, that's much easier -- everything is there, not that much more complicated than the Lions book I imagine. Ripping ast for his design is shortsighted as well -- there are those out there that might conveniently forget that Linux is hardly cutting-edge. It's a monolithic kernel, built with no principle in mind save "make it work and work well". Minix is a microkernel-based OS, designed to illustrate and teach as much as being used. Blew up in his face? Why, because a system designed for simplicity and elegance didn't take over the world? Slow down, buddy. The OS wars aren't a zero-sum game, and Minix was never even fighting in them in the first place. /Brian
  • I understood that. When I said "a modern OS", I was referring to something which is still under active development and use. Things like the debate over khttpd and the post-2.1 Linux VFS design would be great topics for modern OS students. I'm sure the *BSD world has equally interesting debates/re-implimentations going on (e.g. I've heard good things about what NetBSD is doing with VM).

    My point was that there seems to be no large-scale effort to teach college kids about the things that are important, nay pivotal, topics in today's OS design world. Linux and other free UNIXen are being put into super computers and telephone switches. It makes sense for the topics of debate in that world to be the meat of modern OS courses.
  • Why don't you pour a bowl of hot minix down your I/O channels instead? :-)
  • Linux and *BSD are unusable as an OS design teaching tool due to their complexity.

    I don't agree. You could certainly do a "whirlwind tour of the Linux kernel" in a semester and give the students assignments that involve augmenting the kernel in small ways that touch important subsystems. Yes, you can't get your head around the whole system, but that's the nature of large-scale programming, and working in that environment is practically a given in the industry.

    The important part is that the students learn why an operating system works the way it does, and how the OS that they are studying has tackled certain problems. I would cover: VM, task/process management, kernel/user space issues in driver writing, writing a loadable module. I think this would give them a good head-start on the lay of the land. If I had time, or as extra credit, I would go into the interface between the core kernel and something like the IP stack. Either that or a few SMP features that would give them a sense of the depth of that abyss.

    Now take the student who uses Minix as his/her example. There's no sense of how modern hardware issues are tackled. None of the complexity that stems from supporting every $0.25 ethernet card on the planet. How exactly is that supposed to introduce MODERN OS design. I mean, you could always teach them Tandy Color Computer BASIC/OS. The assembly exists in several well-annotated forms....
  • Maybe things are different in Germany, but over here in the US, you can get as many 486's as you want for free. They typically have from 8 to 32M of RAM and have hard drives from 120-540M. Sometimes you even do a little better than that. I got a Pentium 60 for free not that long ago.

    The point being, that if hardware good enough to run Linux is available for free or nearly so, why run Minix instead of Linux? If a 386SX with 2M of RAM and a 40M hard drive makes your day, wouldn't a 486DX2-66 with 24M, a 540M HD, a 3x SCSI CD-ROM drive and a 14" SVGA monitor (an example of an actual machine I got for free the other day -- all I had to do was add a keyboard and mouse) make it a lot better?

  • You've still missed the point. Minix isn't released with the advertising clause. That, my dear sir, is the point.

    Feh!

    What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
    Scope out Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org]

Slashdot Top Deals

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam

Close