Why the continued separation from Linux?

mro said:
I for one value diversity as a general principle.

Imagine you nominate your favourite dish and the next day all others but this one would be abolished. Would you like a world like that? I don't. Or take music. Which is the best song? You'll have it 24h/7. And all should have it alike. A terribly totalitarian idea btw.
Click to expand...

Diversity is fine. But I like it when things follow standards.

For food, most countries have regulations to try to prevent people getting killed by bacteria, fungii and poisoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mro
Crivens said:
There is a separation,
Click to expand...
I thought there has to be something like that - otherwise german railways probably got way more breakdowns.

Yeah, I think I got it.
Windows 3.11 is used as the embedded system within the power-cars; was chosen at times of the very beginning of embedded systems, when alternative choices like FreeBSD, or Linux were still making their babystep, if even existed.
(And of course what else would Siemens chose, if they don't have an own [complicated] system themselves {In the 80s Siemens had its own derivate/branch(?) of MS-DOS.})
Those communicate with stationary servers (Siemens also had/(still have?) its own unixlike, right?), presumably over the powerlines, presumably not with TCP.
So if someone wants to hack an ICE (e.g. to stay in schedule) one either needs to get through the internet and Siemens' computer jungle find one of those servers, and then find a way through to get to the 3.11 machines, for which of course also the old knowledge is needed. I bet some APIs changed since then.
[bad idea]...or to attach some wire to the powerlines - Kids! Don't do it! Don't even think of it!
There is way more power on, as you imagine what may come from your household power-socket. You'll simply horrific vaporize in less than a tenth second! That's where the word firewall got its meaning originally from.
All you may achieve is to get a Darwin Award.

Yeah, that's also a neat idea to get a system secure.
It's untouchable because it's untouchable.

Well, that's again prove for the vital value of diversity anyway.
When all are swimming in the same swarm and the whale comes, the species is extinct.
 
Train safety is a topic I spent a lot of time discussing with a friend who ran that route after uni. There is an awful lot of redundancy and equator length amounts of red tape around touching anything. These control nodes in some places are running a software that was part of the certification. Even changing one line in one config file will invoke such a load of evaluation... It's bloody hard. (I was in automotive once and changing one letter in one source file cost 3 person's one day with the paperwork and re-assurement. That was in development, and don't you try that in production. Trains or aerospace are much harder.). And any engineer in that trade (and German engineers, mind you) will come down on you when you try to change something that works without a very good reason. These things will be running unchanged till the sun goes nova - and prolly will still be running as specified.

And that is fine by me. Maybe because I'm a German engineer?
 
Me too.

I also had some peeks in railway systems.
Many redundancies, way more than in automotive, which is consumer sector.
And for a good reason.
(As you know) Those strict regulations came from experiences made while the raise of railways in the 19th century.
There were many, terrible accidents.
A car crash causes a handful casualties.
With a train or an airplane it will be significantly more.

Once a buddy of mine, also engineer, and me were sitting in a bar, listening to some marketing guy from automotive whining about why aerospace is allowed to have steer-by-wire, but not they. It's part of an Airbus since the 80s(?), but still automotive is forced by law to have a continuous pure mechanical connection between wheels and steering-wheel. And what all nice things could be done then, especially saving costs.
We looked at each other, thought "that's the point exactly. For the same reasons you greedy apes may produce any pedal from cheapest plastics, except the one for the brakes. This has to be reliable stable, made out of metal, by law, for a very good reason", decided not to explain it to him, since he probably would not comprehend it anyway, and crossed fingers the law stays forever.

Another situation an engineering colleague asked me:
"Would you entrust you life to some microntroller within an car?"
For a second we looked blank at each other, than bursted out laughing.

This was over fifteen years ago.
We didn't dream of some apes really would try it.
I simply wonder how many accidents are still needed until the last one understands:
It will not work, because it cannot.
Doesn't matter how much CPU-power, or AI, or whatever you may put into it.
It will not.
Of course one needs not only some engineering background in basic principles of automation to understand it, but also what is driving a car is really all about, which one can observe in the streets daily, only very few really get, and not ignoring the laws of nature because they collide with wishful science-fiction dreams, which may some day come true if one only believes hard enough.
People are astonished by those driving assistents, and simply do not understand that the difference to real autonomic driving is like looking at an airplane and believing space travel to other galaxys is just a small step yet.
No. It's not.
No human will never travel to another galaxy.
Ever.
(Okay, maybe as a mummy, but not alive.)

And I am very happy EU has very strict regulations not to allow this until it's proved it works,
and not being allowed until enough accidents proved it's not.
 
%pupil -sceptical said:
2. Don't upgrade your system. The older the version the less the chance malware attacks you.
Click to expand...
Similarly to 3.11, I am sure in a targeted attack I would be absolutely wiped out but these days I actually feel my Windows 95 Classic Quake machine is quite safe online (not that many websites work).

Malware and shellcode has expectations that the platform is at least, slightly reasonable. Which Windows 95 isn't.
 
I see it quite similar.

To me it's of course not a guarantee but also a security feature if one uses something more exotic, less spreaded.
I may be wrong, but I think an old 95 machine, or a single users FreeBSD, or Linux machine is less likely to be hacked, as some Windows 10/11 or Apple machines, simply because there are more of them.
It's also a question of attack surface, and interest.
And of course servers, because they are way more attractive than Johnny Everyone's desktop in some stuffy home-office.
Every machine is vulnerable to automatic attacks, even Johnny Everyone's, I know that.
But 99% of those are script-kiddies, and their sticky fingers are kept outside simply by an up-to-date-system (tell me I'm wrong, if I am.)
The rest - maybe 1%(?) - a "sophisticated", real hackers would not waste time to get into something like my machine. For what?
There is nothing here to make enough money to justify the effort.
For pissing me off, only?
Must be some real small mind with many issues doing such.

On the other hand, what's the worst which might happen?
In the case of your 95 machine:
Format C:, reinstall Windows, reinstall Quake, or simply copy the image.
With some useful backup-strategy annoying but no real damage.
 
%pupil -sceptical said:
No human will never travel to another galaxy.
Click to expand...
With a constant bearable acceleration you can reach the end of the now observable universe in a lifetime. Ship time, of course.

But I see we all have a good understanding of where diversity is a good thing.

And those sales droids are comedy gold. I once tried to explain things to one. I better do that to a traffic meter. At least there you see the needle moving and hear it ticking.
 
%pupil -sceptical said:
Paul Floyd said:
Diversity is fine. But I like it when things follow standards.

For food, most countries have regulations to try to prevent people getting killed by bacteria, fungii and poisoning.
Click to expand...
Those are different things you are confusing.
Standardization is not regulation, and both are not contradicting with diversity.
Click to expand...
Standardization and regulation are not the same, but they are often related; standardization and regulation however, do limit diversity.

Regulation is usually associated with some official body, for example a governmental organization or standards body (that can be a governmental organization or a non-governmental one). Standardization and regulation may happen by different bodies, but it just as easily can be the case that one body both defines a standard and regulates it. Governmental organizations can enforce adherence by law. Non-governmental standards bodies enforce compliance for example by issuing conformance certification. Note that regulation and standardization can each exist without the other.

Standardization by its very definition limits diversity: you cannot diversify outside the area that is demarcated by the standard. If you do and the standard is regulated, you may get into legal trouble or lose certification. FreeBSD adheres or tries to adhere to standards, such as POSIX or adhere to the various RFCs. It does not hold a POSIX certification though, as Apple has managed to get: Mac OS X certification where Mac OS X is a "FreeBSD based" OS*; see also a narrative of its POSIX certification: What goes into making an OS to be Unix compliant certified?

What is important is that FreeBSD has its own set of rules, implicitly or explicitly set by its history, culture and its user community. There is ample documentation about what rules or guidelines to follow when developing parts of FreeBSD. As an OS, FreeBSD does not change on every whim, but also does not shy away from (mostly evolutionary, sometimes revolutionary) change. Internal OS structures, interfaces as worked out in its kernel API, its ABI and more contribute to what makes FreeBSD what it is as a consistent, coherent OS (my impression is that that is sometimes quite different for Linux or some of its distributions). Users and companies rely on that and may even depend on that. In that sense one could say that FreeBSD behaves like it adheres to standards, though they have not been formally defined and written down as such.

___
* More on that: FreeBSD is Just macOS Without the Good Bits
 
Erichans said:
Note that regulation and standardization can each exist without the other.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything contradicting.

Erichans said:
standardization and regulation however, do limit diversity.
Click to expand...
Of course. That's the whole point of it.
That's not a bad thing.
Since both are ment to prevent unwanted, useless, or even dangerous variants of diversity.
A situation without any rules, and any limitations is named chaos.

Let me put it in an example:

Standardization guarantees that the bag of "Miller's Salted Potato Chips" tastes always the same, no matter if bought in april at "Super-Shopping", or in december in "K-Mart".

Regulation guarantees that the 200g bag contains always at least 200g, a certain minimum of potatoes, and you do not buy an almost empty bag of a bit salt, because "Miller" decided to reduce the production cost a bit, thus mocking you, and you can eat it safely in may 2025 when the timestamps says "best before october 2026."
Of course this limits "Miller's" freedom of how to do business,
which can be named as "cutting diversity".
But it also safes him from shooting himself out of the market by pressing his luck too far, thus also saving jobs...

Diversity means that there are not also "Miller's Potato Chips with Vinegar", "Smith's Potatoe Chips with Sour Creme", but also potatos, plant oil, salt, deep fryers, knifes, and also chocolate, vegetables, and fruits, too.
For each also again exist regulations, and standardizations.

But of course it's a large, grey area, not always able to draw lines exactly, and never able to fairly satisfy everybody.
Many people doing long discussions to find usable compromises, and sometimes change the limits of regulations and standards, or redefine them.
E.g. in Europe we do have other standards as the USA, others as South America, others as China, etc. but many are defined within a common standard, the ISO.

Regulations prevent from "variations" like chips with mold, machine oil, maggots,...
Of course this can be seen as a limitation of diversity, or freedom.
The question is who's liberty is limited, who benefits, and which way bring most possible benefit for the majority?
It gets down to the very basic question of what freedom really is, and personal freedom must be limited to allow others to gain more.
Of course you are not allowed to kill anybody who gets onto your nerves - this limits your freedom.
At the same time it safes you from being killed by others.
And btw this is an example how regulations guarantee more diversity.
Otherwise only the guys shoot first will be left. 😁

You named POSIX as an example.
As far as I know the only real, absolutely 100% POSIX conform systems are some of the "true Unix" ones.
On the other POSIX ones are sometimes smaller, sometimes bigger variances, e.g. between FreeBSD, and Linux.
But you can be sure if you type 'ls' in a shell, you'll get the directory's file list, in any case.
And if you feel to have too few diveristy this way, you are free to place an alias dir ls in your shell's config file. ;)
 
kpedersen said:
Malware and shellcode has expectations that the platform is at least, slightly reasonable. Which Windows 95 isn't.
Click to expand...
Yes but isn't this just security by obscurity? Your advantages would evaporate if everyone decided to go back to 95 as a security measure.

As an aside, Windows for Wastebaskets 3.11 didn't even have a TCP/IP stack, if memory serves. I'll have to dig up my old Trumpet Winsock floppies.
 
wtrys said:
Sorry if this is offensive, but why the continued separation from Linux? I know that they both started separate, but I feel like both projects could get a lot of good from a merging. The BSD software could get a lot more eyes upon it, and Linux could gain more ingrained support for things like HAMMER and ZFS. Sorry if this is a rudimentary system, but this question has bee bugging me, as the only solution I could think of is the license difference, but that doesn't seem a very big snag.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, licensing is a very big snag. I did a bit of licensing research, and started a thread right here on these Forums: Thread licensing-rant-debate-thread.90051. That thread kind explains why the licenses are there in the first place, and why they are such a big driver of the wedge between BSD and Linux.

FreeBSD does run a lot of the same software as Linux. Anything you find in the Ports collection - it can compile and run on any Linux distro. In fact, most of that stuff was originally developed for Linux anyway, but runs fine on FreeBSD with pretty minimal patching.

There's been some noise a few years ago about the Big 3 of the BSDs cooperating: OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD. And yeah, the benefits would be obvious: sharing hardware drivers. But at what cost? the BSDs are developed mostly by volunteers who hang out on Reddit. Hell, FreeBSD's lead developers like Colin Percival - they hang out on Reddit. It was a lot of work to move the FreeBSD project to git and Jenkins CI instances. The dev team had to do that while making sure that FreeBSD's base is still up to date.

There are a quite few one-dev projects out there that get started because somebody just disagrees with the available options and wants to roll their own. Such projects get abandoned after a year or two when the dev realizes just how much effort it takes for just the upkeep and being consistent. FreeBSD was able to chug on for so long because of the effort the dev team puts into upkeep. Yeah, Linux is popular, compared to FreeBSD, but major components (like filesystems and base utilities like ifconfig) change at the drop of a hat. So FreeBSD (and all other BSDs) kind of have to decide what to prioritize where they dedicate their rather limited development resources. So far, FreeBSD, at least, did manage to do pretty well - still friggin' stable, since 1993! (Well, Linux is actually similar in age, FWIW).
 
Jose said:
Yes but isn't this just security by obscurity? Your advantages would evaporate if everyone decided to go back to 95 as a security measure.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. My only defense would be to horde every single '95 capable machine but unfortunately my wife won't let me!

I'm basically wearing rabbit ears during duck shooting season... They could easily shoot me, but I'm hoping they desire the other weirdos wearing duck costumes instead.
 
kpedersen said:
Absolutely. My only defense would be to horde every single '95 capable machine but unfortunately my wife won't let me!
Click to expand...
I did wonder where Southwest is finding hardware that'll run WfW or 95. I'm guessing it's all virtual.

kpedersen said:
I'm basically wearing rabbit ears during duck shooting season... They could easily shoot me, but I'm hoping they desire the other weirdos wearing duck costumes instead.
Click to expand...
:D
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17ocaZb-bGg
 
Back to the opening post.

wtrys said:
… The BSD software could get a lot more eyes upon it, …
Click to expand...

I'd certainly like to see more about FreeBSD in the press.
 

Attachments

  • 1721592270824.png
    1721592270824.png
    127.3 KB · Views: 29
Hi , there is no offense, I tell you some points to consider:

1) Linux is not more Linux, and is not evolution(every distro)
if going more dificult,more unable to debug,more slow,more bloated
(my first love was Debian)

in this point:

*the important distros fucke# up in their users when let go green light to
systemd when it grows..and grows....
to the point that a simple ifconfig now is "systemctl net 0 start or!=not 1 now"
Why?

*Everything was good until..again,systemd arrives, if you want parallel boot startup you have
plenty of more proyects

* Why reinventing the wheel? everything was working fine in Linux(besides what distro you choice)
and Linux was respected,now is a proyect of 200 distros every the same under one virus

* My stomach get seek the first time I see a "Ubuntu" linux acting like a server(call it what you want)
and today still I see it , 150 process,you dont know what the fuc# is every process,but they are 150 of them

2) FreeBSD as I see it

*kernel and userland under ONE proyect and only one,there are thinks that is mised it,like some hardware support
but hey, is like is it

*in a fresh install, you see only 8 or 9 process

*I cannot talk about licenses because I dont use fbsd in bussines way,but I know that is more flexible that GNU/Linux

*everything works like IT is , the guys behing this beast never says "hey, LS sounds ugly,change it to LS-Dir21"

*In the beggining maybe for the new users is complicated,but with the time you see that is the opposite
is more..and more..simple that Linux TODAY

*You cand do anything you want..starts with a shell and 8 process, and finish with a tuned OS with a amazing desktop

*In servers..nothing to say, I been using it for years,is a beast

*This is nostalgia,but I see FreeBSD like RedHat 7/8 , do the compare

So, is not nothing about Linux is shi$..Linux is bad..NO

you have a car that consume 20L of fuel every 5 meters, the car weight 9Tons , every year the car get changes that
make it more bloated,heavy and not eficient
in some point the car was good,but after year X is going down...

you have other car,this not use oil,use I dont know..garbage(take back to the future example 🤣 ),weight 1Ton
works the same way over the years,fast and eficient

Make your tests,you see the results
 
Let's think realistically. Let's say someone combines the best of both systems to create a new OS or distribution. There are two problems in this case.

1. Who will do it?
2. Is the new OS just another OS that is inconvenient for some?

Ultimately, it's a matter of cost and a fight for market share.
 
wtrys said:
this question has bee bugging me, as the only solution I could think of is the license difference, but that doesn't seem a very big snag.
Click to expand...

FreeBSD outpaces Linux in almost all areas of systems development.. with less resources. Security, Storage, Networking, Containers, .. etc. It has a history of innovation in systems development. Thanks to Red Hat and their clientele; Linux was able to accrue more driver support and sponsorship due to its significant mindshare. That's all that it has going for itself, however. And it's been that way. It's practically a driver dumpster. There's no reason for FreeBSD to ever be like Linux as a general system. Should FreeBSD adopt SMF; we'd be a functional parity with systemd with a much better and more Unix-like approach to service management.
 
hodong said:
Let's think realistically. Let's say someone combines the best of both systems to create a new OS or distribution. There are two problems in this case.

1. Who will do it?
2. Is the new OS just another OS that is inconvenient for some?

Ultimately, it's a matter of cost and a fight for market share.
Click to expand...
Obligatory xkcd.
Also you skipped over element 0.

0. What is the best parts?
 
wolffnx said:
Linux is not more Linux
Click to expand...
I like to supplement your post.
(With 'you' I do not mean you, wolffnx, I mean the general 'you.')

I participate this forum for app. eight years, reading daily, really trying hard not to post
(which for some may a relieve.)
To me it's nearly impossible to be a FreeBSD-user, and not participate this forums.
Every now and then I stumble over very interesting stuff,
sometimes of real value, enhancing my knowledge and experience.
And when I cannot control my urge for more shall stand up for FreeBSD, anymore, I post - trying to be understanding and polite, which produces long posts.
Sorry for that.
But either it's brief, or polite and understanding.
One cannot have both.
(There are some posts about exactly that somewhere here.)

I had decades of bad experiences with Windows, and within Linux-universe.
With FreeBSD I feel the first time having an operating system that's perfect for me.
And I fight for this will not change, especially not become more Windows, nor Linux.
Which I see the need for, when I presume the pro-Linux stuff increases.
\begin{joke}
I wait for someone asks how to get systemd up and running under FreeBSD.
\end{joke}

As it feels to me:
Many Linux-users turn their back on it, of systemd, or for whatever reasons,
which I can understand,
because I never got into love with any Linux long before systemd for several reasons (long list, you pointed out some.)
Now they are looking for an (almost equal) alternative, find FreeBSD, and join, which is great. Really!
No question.
Then they realize things are different, as they are used to.
But instead of relearn, arrange themselves with the other situation, which presumbly many do, not a few start whining, complaining, asking, why FreeBSD does not become more like Linux, because Linux is so (much) great(er), in one form or the other, often quite subtle.

At least once every two weeks (I do not keep exact count) again a thread like this one, or similar comes up.
They simply trying to do things Linux-style instead of FreeBSD-style, and then ask/complain, why it's not working as they are used to, and if it wasn't better if it changes.
No!
I don't want to change my system, my config, my habits...because they don't want to.

Classics are:
- fully automatic install including pre-configured desktop-environment - NO!
It seems to me I'm not the only one tired to explain it every two weeks over and over again.
There are several threads here with exactly that topic. No. No! and again NO!!
I don't want no KDE for the exact same reason you don't want no fvwm, twm, xfce, lxde,....
(With 'you' I do not mean you, wolffnx,I ment the general 'you.' Just to be crystal about that, again.)

- pulling sources from github instead of using the sophisticated, reliable ports-system. Don't complain when there're may occur some inconsistences, and you don't exactly knew what you're doing, and why!
Do a pkg install, for heaven's sake! RTFM!

If pissed by the Monopoly-club, one does not join the local chess-club, because one may heard being a chess-player was cool, and then asks: "Wouldn't it be better if the pieces were moved by throwing dice?"
No!

You may leave your country because of poverty, and insecureness, because of corruption, and go to another country.
(I myself am an alien in another country.)
Okay.
But what you don't do is, to complain about all the problems and bad things there were, and praise the greatness of all the good things there are in the country you left, only.
Besides you not only piss off the indigenous inhabitants, but much further expose yourself as a moron.
Because one question automatically comes to mind:
"If it's here so bad, and there where you came from so great,
why didn't you stay there in the first place, or simply go back?!"

Most people are aware of nothing is perfect, and there is always room for improvement.
But nobody accepts criticism by a moron.
Nobody needs nor wants additionally the problems from somewhere else,
and especially not being turned into something like that.

[rant-end]

Sorry for that,
but already the title of this thread is a subtle offense against FreeBSD,
because it implies FreeBSD are the bad guys by seperating from Linux.

As I said before FreeBSD 'seperates' the same from Linux, as Linux from FreeBSD, and no-one is bad because of that.

Doing things the own way - which was the core idea to start the FreeBSD-project, as it was the same for Linux - and perhaps add from others by picking carefully, reasonably, and by sophisticated tests only what be a real improvement and suit the concept, is not a separation at all.
Separation means throwing out, and blocking by principle.
Except for maybe the not to be touched core principles, nothing is blocked. And only obsolete stuff is thrown out.
FreeBSD conjuncts more as I know by any other OS, including Linux.

Just not frantic rushing into any new ideas, but weighing up carefully, is not "old-farts blocking ignorantly" but simply sophisticated, mature, reasonable.
Maybe the bit too quickly and unreasoned rushing into new things is exactly the point why Linux became unattractive for some.
And maybe the conservative, careful way of pushing things forward by reasoning testing is the reason why FreeBSD is so reliable, stable, and attractive.
Maybe.
And maybe there is some understanding why many does not want that to be changed,
and are really sensitive about anything that even remotely smells like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top