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

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#21

Post by rickydroll »

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…

> Ok... I see where this is going...

Me too, although it might not be the same thing you are thinking of. I see the license as a way to let corporations take advantage of your free work without giving anything back. I LGPL my public work so that anyone is free to use it but if they change it, I need to get the changes back and decide if I want to incorporate them.

So far, I've been fortunate that nobody's paying attention to my work so I don't have to worry about whether to harass someone for violating the copyleft.

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#22

Post by torstenvl »

darkwater wrote: post #20
torstenvl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."?

Does keeping the source code for the Death Star exhaust port controller firmware secret help create a robust planet destroyer less susceptible to attacks?

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#23

Post by torstenvl »

rickydroll wrote: post #21
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…

> Ok... I see where this is going... Me too, although it might not be the same thing you are thinking of. I see the license as a way to let corporations take advantage of your free work without giving anything back. I LGPL my public work so that anyone is free to use it but if they change it, I need to get the changes back and decide if I want to incorporate them. So far, I've been fortunate that nobody's paying atte…

> I LGPL my public work so that anyone is free to use it but if they change it, I need to get the changes back and decide if I want to incorporate them.

The LGPL doesn't do that. If that's what you want, you probably want to use a modified version of the MPL requiring distribution back to you. Note that, while the MPL permits such modifications, they are generally discouraged. Sadly, there are no popular copyleft licenses that do this "out of the box," to my knowledge.

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#24

Post by petre »

rickydroll wrote: post #21
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…

> Ok... I see where this is going... Me too, although it might not be the same thing you are thinking of. I see the license as a way to let corporations take advantage of your free work without giving anything back. I LGPL my public work so that anyone is free to use it but if they change it, I need to get the changes back and decide if I want to incorporate them. So far, I've been fortunate that nobody's paying atte…

They do give some changes back (like drivers, or the ability to use Linux drivers in this case) because it's easier to have them upstream and not patch with every new release and fix every time it breaks due to other changes. The companies that use FreeBSD are also major donors to the founndation.

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#25

Post by pjmlp »

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…

Had AT&T not gotten greedy and lawsuit BSD, all the major UNIXes would be around happily taking whatever they felt like from BSD, and Linux would have stayed Linus hobby project.

You see it on FOSS OSes for IoT and embedded devices, none of them is GPL based, rather Apache or MIT.

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#26

Post by darkwater »

pjmlp wrote: post #25
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…

Had AT&T not gotten greedy and lawsuit BSD, all the major UNIXes would be around happily taking whatever they felt like from BSD, and Linux would have stayed Linus hobby project. You see it on FOSS OSes for IoT and embedded devices, none of them is GPL based, rather Apache or MIT.

OTOH nowadays we are seeing how many Apache/MIT softwares are effectively moving to source-available, non-FOSS licenses because other companies took advantage of what Apache/MIT permit. I'm clearly not able to predict what would have happened if all those projects had used a CopyLeft license, but still one does wonder...

Re: Why Dell's ThinOS Runs on FreeBSD

#27

Post by fch42 »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #17
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.

Technically, it is.

Business-wise ... even inane and asinine "security enhancements" (or "security" "enhancements" to make the window dressing more apparent) done proprietary can be turned into software patents. In large orgs, this is a huge incentive. In fact, double it up by making a software patent and a trade-secret private implementation.

I may not like that ... but I also can't unrealize the facts :-(

Post reply on HN