Is there any reason why BSDs still exist when there's Linux?

File: 1497455811023.jpg (537KB, 700x502px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 700x502px

not trying to license shitpost or anything, but a lot of large companies--especially in the tech industry--gravitate towards BSD/MIT licensed software/infrastructure for the fact that said licenses permit the integration of proprietary software under rather lenient circumstances such as giving credit to the software maker or just providing the source code for the software these companies borrowed. GNU/Linux and other GPL-licensed software--especially when it comes to GPL3--forces a lot of compromise for companies, which generates friction apprehension towards the prospect of investment.

What tends to happen is that these companies will invest in the BSD's--most notably, Free and Open, and also OpenIndiana, even though the latter-most isn't a BSD image. Corporations, although not to the degree that GPL projects enjoy, may even send some open-sourced software upstream. Many of the fBSD commiters are in fact being paid by other companies in order to maintain fBSD in such a way that it is favorable--or, at least tolerable--for that company. Don't be mistaken, though; the fBSD project has its own principles, and they won't be steered towards the interest of any one company--especially if the company uses proprietary software.

For that reason, the BSD's, if useful, cannot die, because there is a corporate interest to ensure that they stay alive. This benefits everyone, because corporations get their free-as-in-gratis software, and the BSD projects get to remain sovereign and, in their minds, morally pure.

>>61032932
Choice

>>61032932
Memes.

>>61033146
Speaking of OpenIndiana, to add to that point, the simple reason why (Open)Solaris was discontinued was because there was A LOT of overhead involved in the maintenance of an effective, enterprise-level UNIX OS. Which is why it makes more sense for Oracle throw some money at a FOSS projects, like, for example, BTRFS. As in the enterprise world, the delineation between GPL and MIT is actually a lot clearer once you nix the moral dynamic of free software. If there's a project whose interests are in line with yours, and there aren't too many hurdles you have to overcome to use it, then you might as well.

I remember, when Steve Jobs was still alive and Apple was in between a rock and a hard place, Steve jobs, ostensibly, actually went to Bill Gates for some money.

I know that sounds really counter-intuitive, to beg for money from what is literally your only competitor, but Steve's reasoning was this: if Apple were to leave the market, Microsoft would be the only company in the industry, and if Microsoft were the only company in the industry, then it would be a monopoly. Well, we all know what happened to AT&T. In a way, it was in Bill's best interest to protect his competitor, if he wanted to preserve the presence his own company had.

>>61033157
it's ironic that freetards are the people who want people to have the least choice

>>61033280
It's not that freetards are anti-choice, it's that they want to have choice and diversity within the parameters of ethical software. The pursuit of making software in adherence to the FSF principles is no different than making software in adherence to the UNIX principles. Both of them exist for pretty good reasons. Are they the right decisions? That's up to debate, but they are, at the very least, quite cogent.

>>61033157
/thread

Because Linux is the new Windows. It's practically owned by the freedesktop/Red Hat cabal. Linuxcucks eat whatever they shit

retarded hipsters don't give a fuck about technology, linux got too good and mainstream, they have to have something to pretend to be better than everyone else.

>>61032932
Because GNU is bloated and insecure.

If there was a FreeBSD flavour with the Linux kernel I'd install it in a glance. Unfortunately there isn't.

>>61033469
>le ebin everyone who likes what I don't is a hipster maymay

>>61032932
No

>>61033475
There's Alpine Linux, without GNU

>>61033771
Alpine still uses GNU. Just not a lot.

>>61033280
Fuck off, capitalist retard.

>>61032932
Is there any reason Loonix still exist when there is windows?

>>61034232
>capitalist retard
If not for capitalism you would be starving right now

File: diversity.jpg (55KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x480px

>>61032932
I'm going to take an example from the plant/animal/food world.

variety is good because having a monoculture is recipe for disaster. take bananas: the main type exported worldwide before the 50s was gros michel. they got decimated by one - ONE - pathogen (panama disease). now we have cavendish, which may go the same way within a couple of decades (another strain of the panama disease fungus)

windows is vulnerable because of its ubiquity, but as long as it's not universal, there will be survivors after a mass disaster (think nimda+wannacry).

that's why I am interested in different OS and kernels like solaris, BSD's, gnu hurd. I do wish they had more hardware support and funding.

P.S: for all the cult-ish bickering over OSes, I for one am glad there's choice and variety

>>61034292
Yeah and the serfs would have starved without feudalism too, huh?

>>61034292

food prices and public health are subsidized nigger

>>61035474

>choice and variety

I too enjoy making the choice between an outdated unix clone, poorly supported toy OSs, and a system whose designs is still made around decisions based on backwards-compat with CP/M

>>61034292

>muh free market
>but pls big daddy government subsidize my business and enforce patents on technology I've built by appropriating taxpayer-funded tech

>>61032932
servers

>>61035552
Uh... yes? Read a book nigger

>>61032932
Use it and you'll understand.

>>61035738
Oh you're one of those.

>>61036562
literate? Yes

>>61032932
Hello


Why is that puffer choppin