Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

freebsdfoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 27 posts

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#11

Post by throw0101d »

tyingq wrote: post #6
mikece wrote: post #2

It doesn't say in this press release but are WYSE/Dell contributing back to FreeBSD in any way?

Seems a fair question given this quote: "FreeBSD’s BSD license offers customization flexibility without the obligation to disclose proprietary enhancements." But I suppose maybe some of their less sensitive changes, if upstreamed, relieves them of having to own them.

> But I suppose maybe some of their less sensitive changes, if upstreamed, relieves them of having to own them.

General best practice is to (a) upstream as much as you can, and (b) keep as close to -HEAD (the development branch) as possible. Some discussion on this at the Vendor Conference from a few months ago:

* https://freebsdfoundation.org/news-and-events/event-calendar...

* https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLugwS7L7NMXzSalaF4l_7...

Basically: if it's not part of your secret sauce, upstream it.

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#12

Post by craftkiller »

throw0101d wrote: post #11
tyingq wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems a fair question given this quote: "FreeBSD’s BSD license offers customization flexibility without the obligation to disclose proprietary enhancements." But I suppose maybe some of their less sensitive changes, if upstreamed, relieves them of having to own them.

> But I suppose maybe some of their less sensitive changes, if upstreamed, relieves them of having to own them. General best practice is to (a) upstream as much as you can, and (b) keep as close to -HEAD (the development branch) as possible. Some discussion on this at the Vendor Conference from a few months ago: * https://freebsdfoundation.org/news-and-events/event-calendar... * https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=…

In addition to the vendor summit, Netflix gave a tech talk recently where they recommended both upstreaming and keeping as close to -CURRENT as possible

"Why we run FreeBSD CURRENT at Netflix": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4TZxj-Dq7s

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#13

Post by [deleted] »

throw0101d wrote: post #9
craftkiller wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are donors to the FreeBSD Foundation in addition to committing patches: $ git log | grep -i '@dell.com' | wc -l 86

> grep '@dell.com>' A better search may be 'Sponsored by:.*[Dell|EMC|Isilon]' or some such. Some Dell folks may be committers and be pushing things with their @freebsd.org address.

[deleted]

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#15

Post by freedomben »

throw0101d wrote: post #9
craftkiller wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are donors to the FreeBSD Foundation in addition to committing patches: $ git log | grep -i '@dell.com' | wc -l 86

> grep '@dell.com>' A better search may be 'Sponsored by:.*[Dell|EMC|Isilon]' or some such. Some Dell folks may be committers and be pushing things with their @freebsd.org address.

Thank you. I naturally am very attracted to the permissive licensing, but time and experience of seeing huge companies take permissively licensed code and use it to make, make billions without giving back anything or anything of substance, and comparing that to how the Linux kernel has evolved, has made me really consider whether GPL isn't needed. That debate is forever ongoing, of course, but it greatly warms my heart to see that Dell is contributing back. This seems like a success story of permissive licensing.

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#16

Post by torstenvl »

darkwater wrote: post #10

> Choosing FreeBSD as the base of ThinOS was a strategic decision driven by several key factors: > License Advantages: FreeBSD’s BSD license offers customization flexibility without the obligation to disclose proprietary enhancements. This aspect is crucial for Dell, allowing the company to tailor the OS to its specific security and performance needs while maintaining proprietary control over its software. Ok... I se…

"Security through obscurity" is the vernacular formulation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle and refers to using bespoke encryption algorithms rather than strong encryption keys. I don't see how it has any bearing here.

Indeed, outside of cryptography, keeping substantive knowledge secret is quite often a critical component of security. See generally Rogue One ;-)

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#17

Post by AdmiralAsshat »

darkwater wrote: post #10

> Choosing FreeBSD as the base of ThinOS was a strategic decision driven by several key factors: > License Advantages: FreeBSD’s BSD license offers customization flexibility without the obligation to disclose proprietary enhancements. This aspect is crucial for Dell, allowing the company to tailor the OS to its specific security and performance needs while maintaining proprietary control over its software. Ok... I se…

Yeah, I cringed when I read the GPL sentence. We get it, Dell. You want a free OS that you have no obligation to contribute any changes back to. Fine. But acting like a GPL-based OS is somehow less secure because people are obligated to share their improvements back to the project is asinine.

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#18

Post by darkwater »

torstenvl wrote: post #16
darkwater wrote: post #10

> Choosing FreeBSD as the base of ThinOS was a strategic decision driven by several key factors: > License Advantages: FreeBSD’s BSD license offers customization flexibility without the obligation to disclose proprietary enhancements. This aspect is crucial for Dell, allowing the company to tailor the OS to its specific security and performance needs while maintaining proprietary control over its software. Ok... I se…

"Security through obscurity" is the vernacular formulation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle and refers to using bespoke encryption algorithms rather than strong encryption keys. I don't see how it has any bearing here. Indeed, outside of cryptography, keeping substantive knowledge secret is quite often a critical component of security. See generally Rogue One ;-)

Well, the "security though obscurity" principle has been used for many years now to cover alleged extra protections granted by the mere fact of keeping a software source code closed and secret. As in: you will not find that RCE in the software if you don't have access to the source code. And this statement from Dell and the FreeBSD foundation (yeah, it's not just Dell) clearly follows that line of thought.

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#19

Post by torstenvl »

darkwater wrote: post #18
torstenvl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Security through obscurity" is the vernacular formulation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle and refers to using bespoke encryption algorithms rather than strong encryption keys. I don't see how it has any bearing here. Indeed, outside of cryptography, keeping substantive knowledge secret is quite often a critical component of security. See generally Rogue One ;-)

Well, the "security though obscurity" principle has been used for many years now to cover alleged extra protections granted by the mere fact of keeping a software source code closed and secret. As in: you will not find that RCE in the software if you don't have access to the source code. And this statement from Dell and the FreeBSD foundation (yeah, it's not just Dell) clearly follows that line of thought.

That is simply a mistaken understanding. Keeping source code closed is obviously a legitimate form of security if the source code itself contains proprietary trade secrets (such as hardware details).

No reasonable person could disagree; the proposition is so self-evident it's virtually tautological.

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#20

Post by darkwater »

torstenvl wrote: post #19
darkwater wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the "security though obscurity" principle has been used for many years now to cover alleged extra protections granted by the mere fact of keeping a software source code closed and secret. As in: you will not find that RCE in the software if you don't have access to the source code. And this statement from Dell and the FreeBSD foundation (yeah, it's not just Dell) clearly follows that line of thought.

That is simply a mistaken understanding. Keeping source code closed is obviously a legitimate form of security if the source code itself contains proprietary trade secrets (such as hardware details). No reasonable person could disagree; the proposition is so self-evident it's virtually tautological.

Well, language and meanings evolve over time and you cannot control how they do it. Also, how protecting trade secrets via closed source "creates a robust platform less susceptible to attacks than a CopyLeft-based system with GPL components."?
Post reply on HN