Open Source Software Community - it's about ethics in Code of Conducts

[Fcret]

FreeBSD at least is not very based. Their people have been going to conferences and reeing about GamerGate and chuds who won't accept Codes of Conduct since like 2017:

 

[CrunkLord420]

If you're going to purity test fucking everything you'll end up with nothing. It doesn't matter unless something is actually happening.

 

[Ferryman]

FreeBSD at least is not very based. Their people have been going to conferences and reeing about GamerGate and chuds who won't accept Codes of Conduct since like 2017:

Even then, they are a lot less receptive about politisperging on the (technical) forums. The handling of xlibre port development serves as proof, that thread has had entire pages worth of sperging trimmed to make way for proper technical discussion. That alone puts them a good few steps ahead of most other FOSS places of discussion. Software-side, FreeBSD is very nice once you get it set up. Still, I prefer OpenBSD. Would be using it exclusively if my machine didn't rely on NVIDIA drivers.

 

[GNU Abyss]

FreeBSD at least is not very based. Their people have been going to conferences and reeing about GamerGate and chuds who won't accept Codes of Conduct since like 2017:

Wait a second... That ponytail, the stupid fucking potato head. That's Benno Rice.

In case you thought "tragedy" means "bad", no. Benno's tragedy is people not recognizing the greatness of systemdicks.

Sperging aside, he hasn't made a single commit to FreeBSD since 2018 and is currently a jobless bum. This particular dumpy looking crisis has been averted.

 

[Fledgling Neuromancer]

I fear said influx is exactly why they want to ship it with KDE as an optional out of the box DE with 15

Why KDE man. At most they should have picked XFCE or something. This is gonna bloat the shit out of the install media.

Why are they even bothering to do this? It's going to take years and years of work to get to the same level as the Linux desktop, they even have to use the DRM drivers from Linux to get it to work right now. Even if the desktop did work perfectly tomorrow, FreeBSD is never going to be normie-friendly simply because of the lack of compatible software. The only people who would use it are those who are already familiar with FreeBSD on a server and want their desktop to be a pain in the ass to use.

 

[Betonhaus]

After a number of significant issues when running under Wayland, Valve's CS2 is now back to X11 as default. Wayland advocates blame everything but Wayland.
More from The Lunduke Journal:https://lunduke.com/

 

[AnOminous]

The only people who would use it are those who are already familiar with FreeBSD on a server and want their desktop to be a pain in the ass to use.

I haven't ever even used it as a desktop. It's great to run services on, though. My longest use of one was as a firewall/router and I just kept it headless under the bed for like five years. Maybe had to take duster to it to get rid of dust bunnies every year or so.

 

[Atlas Sneezed]

Not wanting to start a flamewar here, genuinely interested - what are the pros of FreeBSD over Linux nowadays? I ran it for an hour as a server VM, and it appeared to me that whatever upside it used to have, have dissipated over the years, or at least are niche enough not to care for most people interested in the usecase. ZFS is better on Linux, as would appear networking (unless someone really wants TLS in the kernel?). Containers and LXC caught up and surpassed jails. Hardware support also seems to be miles better on the penguin. Anything that's left on the FBSD side that's unique to it?

I don't care about the desktop side since at this point the kernel is irrelevant to the problem

 

[Moist Boys]

Not wanting to start a flamewar here, genuinely interested - what are the pros of FreeBSD over Linux nowadays? I ran it for an hour as a server VM, and it appeared to me that whatever upside it used to have, have dissipated over the years, or at least are niche enough not to care for most people interested in the usecase. ZFS is better on Linux, as would appear networking (unless someone really wants TLS in the kernel?). Containers and LXC caught up and surpassed jails. Hardware support also seems to be miles better on the penguin. Anything that's left on the FBSD side that's unique to it?

I don't care about the desktop side since at this point the kernel is irrelevant to the problem

FreeBSD can't game at all. Linux is just getting the point of being a competitor on that front.

 

[Angie Wormwood]

ZFS is better on Linux

That's debatable. There's not a lot of people using ZFS on Linux. And most of the useful features of ZFS you can emulate well enough under ext/xfs, like with md instead of native RAID-ish in ZFS.

as would appear networking

Networking is leagues better in BSD, particularly when it comes to state handling and routing. That's why it's a much better alternative to Linux when it comes to firewall and router appliances. Not to say that Linux can't do the job (see: Openwrt), but BSD tends to be the preferable option there. Also BSD's design philosophy results in a lowered attack surface.

Containers and LXC caught up and surpassed jails

They did and didn't. Containers offer better isolation than chroot jails, but that comes at a cost of increased isolation between them. A chroot jail can still, IIRC, use system calls and signals to talk to each other or the host system, but a container cannot.

Hardware support also seems to be miles better on the penguin

That's likely due to increased vendor support from the likes of RH, Canonical, SuSE, etc.

 

[filthypenguin]

That's debatable. There's not a lot of people using ZFS on Linux.

Proxmox is eating a pretty huge chunk of the VMWare market, and a pretty good chunk of those installs are going to be using ZFS somewhere. A good chunk of the Backup and Disaster Recovery companies outside of Veeam are selling appliances that run ZFS for storage and KVM for spin up. A lot of NASes too, though I've seen those on BTRFS too.

 

[Angie Wormwood]

Proxmox is eating a pretty huge chunk of the VMWare market, and a pretty good chunk of those installs are going to be using ZFS somewhere. A good chunk of the Backup and Disaster Recovery companies outside of Veeam are selling appliances that run ZFS for storage and KVM for spin up. A lot of NASes too, though I've seen those on BTRFS too.

Admittedly it's been quite a while since I touched Proxmox, so good to see they're moving on to other things. Also didn't know that about backup stuff, most of the under-the-hood I've seen there was TSM. Also, just checked -- missed the time when TrueNAS moved over to Debian from BSD, interesting.

 

[filthypenguin]

Admittedly it's been quite a while since I touched Proxmox, so good to see they're moving on to other things.

I don't know if Proxmox is much different than the last time you used it, it's just that VMWare is moving away from the vast majority of their customers and Proxmox is filling the gaping hole they've left behind.

If you're not aware, Broadcom purchased VMWare from Dell and immediately tripled the prices for license renewals. They've since stopped allowing VARs to sell the licenses, and I've been told that even buying direct isn't an option anymore unless they deem you worthy. My understanding is that Hyper V took less of the market than anticipated (because anyone willing to use HyperV was already using it). If you want something simple that isn't HyperV and can no longer be VMWare, Proxmox is basically the only thing left. Doesn't hurt that Proxmox added a "import from live ESXi" migration button. Microsoft also dropped support for free standalone HyperV installs not long ago, which is giving some people the idea that HyperV may go away entirely at some point in the near future in an attempt to push people to Azure.

Granted, a lot of the installs replacing ESXi are just going to be using whatever shared storage they were using before, with the people using vSAN moving to Ceph, but I would wager most of the installs that were using ESXi with local storage are now running ZFS on Linux. I would think that'd be mostly smaller businesses that don't use HyperV, and places with servers that have redundancy on the application level instead of server level, but I would guess that those proxmox installs probably outnumber the total number of BSD servers running ZFS, especially if you factor in the installs where there's some sort of Linux ZFS NAS for shared storage or Linux ZFS backup appliance (either something like Datto that was in use before, or Proxmox backup appliances that got installed along with Proxmox).

 

[DavidS877]

I don't know if Proxmox is much different than the last time you used it, it's just that VMWare is moving away from the vast majority of their customers and Proxmox is filling the gaping hole they've left behind.

If you're not aware, Broadcom purchased VMWare from Dell and immediately tripled the prices for license renewals. They've since stopped allowing VARs to sell the licenses, and I've been told that even buying direct isn't an option anymore unless they deem you worthy. My understanding is that Hyper V took less of the market than anticipated (because anyone willing to use HyperV was already using it). If you want something simple that isn't HyperV and can no longer be VMWare, Proxmox is basically the only thing left. Doesn't hurt that Proxmox added a "import from live ESXi" migration button. Microsoft also dropped support for free standalone HyperV installs not long ago, which is giving some people the idea that HyperV may go away entirely at some point in the near future in an attempt to push people to Azure.

In the mid to high end I'm seeing Nutanix. Which has more limited hardware options, Fibre Channel for instance is missing. But has a very pretty GUI and seems to be making inroads.

The other one I've seen some interest in is RedHat OpenShift Virtualization... don't laugh. But it's really just due to cost from what I'm hearing. You get all the goodness of Kubernetes with all the legendary* support of RedHat. As expected it's a royal shitshow, rumor is they're improving the GUI to make it more VMWare like, but the early versions the GUI just served as an editor for the YAML files that run it, which didn't seem very friendly to anyone coming from VMWare.

* Remember, legendary doesn't mean good, sometimes legends are just a warning to others.

 

[filthypenguin]

Nutanix

They use ZFS on Linux, too, don't they?

But yes, they're also eating a lot of the market, but they were already in the same sort of space as VMWare was to begin with and I think it's been pretty proportional to what people expected to happen. Same thing with RedHat. I think Proxmox went from "hobbyist" to major player in the SMB market basically overnight, and it looks like it'll end up the number 2 (after HyperV) in that space once the dust settles.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

+2 MPL.
I really don't get why would you need anything more then BSD, MPL, or maybe CC0 for public domain. Forcing people to a use certain license and poison their projects, why? If you're going to cry about what they do with your code or how much money they make off it, why not just release it as source-available instead? You would have a complete control and most successful open source projects are run like private dictatorships anyways.

To me, it seems more like these people want to be seen as benevolent saints, but behind all that, what they really want is credit, control, and money, which is fine, just keep your copyright and don't cosplay as Christ.

And don't even get started on "muh contributions", I've seen enough of how the contribution process works to know how much kowtowing is usually required to get anything accepted, source-available doesn't change that.

I don't like the GPL 3.0/ AGPL becuase of the sheer amount of fuckery I've seen with it (Granted these are super autistic troons in a 2D space game). In the SS13 thread we talk alot about "abusing" the GPL3/AGPL so often someone came up with the Autogynphilia Public License to mock them.

Post in thread 'Space Station 13 and Its successors communities'

Jun 20, 2025

Updated the AGPL license to fit today's dev culture.

Autogynephilia Public License (AGPL)
Version 1.1, June 2025
Preamble
The Autogynephilia Public License (AGPL) is a free, copyleft license for software and other creative works, designed to ensure that all users, contributors, and distributors of this software acknowledge and embrace the latent autogynephilic tendencies (hereinafter referred to as "AGP") that may manifest through participation in certain online roleplay (RP) and gaming communities, particularly those associated with Space Station 13 (SS13) and similar...

• SuStallone

• 
• 

There's also the De Raat view on the GPL and the FSF being disengenous faggots. It's not a popular view though imho.

The second advice given by the SFLC was that a GPL can be wrapped
around another author's work. [...] but it
unfortunately says nothing about _when_ an author of a derivative
receives the right to do such a thing. The SFLC waives that concern
away. But that is the clincher -- by law, a new person doing small
changes to an original work is not allowed to assert copyright, and
hence, gains none of the rights given by copyright law, and hence,
cannot assert a license (copyright licenses surrender a subset of the
author's rights which the law gives them; the licenses do not not
assert rights out of thin air).

Those files are still invalidly being distributed -- Nick and Jiri did
not proveably do enough original work to earn copyright on a
derivative work, since their work is just an adaptation. It is in
their best interest to talk to the original author in respectful tones
and have him recognize their work. A lawyer like Eben Moglen will not
help at this point since his misrepresentations have caused all this
grief to begin with.

Now it may seem petty to be pointing out the above, but these Linux
wireless developers have ignored the ethical considerations of
honouring the author for his work, and then violated the law _3 times_
under advice from a ex-FSF laywer. Come on. By that point someone
should at least be offering the author an apology, and who cares if it
makes the lawyer look like he's incompetent. The only thing he is
competent at is convincing a bunch of programmers to follow his agenda
and walk into a legal mess.

If those developers who live in Europe want a court case in the EU
where the original author lives, they should perhaps consider that an
American lawyer who has made three bogus assessments in a row
regarding a criminal code won't be able to help them in that
jurisdiction. Furthermore, the American developers involved should
recognize that copyright law cases decided in one country apply to
other countries.

By the way, Richard Stallman eventually replied with the one liner
"The FSF is not involved in this dispute."

Still, I prefer OpenBSD. Would be using it exclusively if my machine didn't rely on NVIDIA drivers

The proper solution is to use freeBSD with HAMMER2 obviously.

 

[Angie Wormwood]

If you're not aware, Broadcom purchased VMWare from Dell

Extremely aware. And anyone who knew anything about Broadcom knew that was the death knell sounding for VMWare. Shame, because there's not really any other true virtualization products out there. Plenty of pseudovirtualization.

In the mid to high end I'm seeing Nutanix. Which has more limited hardware options, Fibre Channel for instance is missing. But has a very pretty GUI and seems to be making inroads.

The other one I've seen some interest in is RedHat OpenShift Virtualization... don't laugh. But it's really just due to cost from what I'm hearing. You get all the goodness of Kubernetes with all the legendary* support of RedHat. As expected it's a royal shitshow, rumor is they're improving the GUI to make it more VMWare like, but the early versions the GUI just served as an editor for the YAML files that run it, which didn't seem very friendly to anyone coming from VMWare.

* Remember, legendary doesn't mean good, sometimes legends are just a warning to others.

Nutanix is the only real enterprise contender to VMWare. And they may stay that way, until there's a major shift to repatriate workloads from the cloud. Then we might see another contender step up. Xen is the next best option likely.

But yes. At my last job we had a sales droid from Red Hat come on site and try and pitch Openshift to us. Our whole team was there. During the sales pitch he made some wild claims that had me and the VP glance at each other with knowing looks. They claimed all kinds of security features, when I found a bunch of container vulns and escapes with just a 2 minute Google search.

 

[AnOminous]

Networking is leagues better in BSD, particularly when it comes to state handling and routing. That's why it's a much better alternative to Linux when it comes to firewall and router appliances.

That's exactly what I used it for.

 

[Flaming Dumpster]

A good chunk of the Backup and Disaster Recovery companies outside of Veeam are selling appliances that run ZFS for storage and KVM for spin up.

ZFS on Linux is very mainstream these days. I did an evaluation of a couple software NAS vendors recently (StarWind VSAN, SoftNAS) and all their newfangled products were fundamentally Linux + ZFS.

 

[Redeemer]

The reason ZFS is not as popular as it could be on Linux is mostly because of the legal situation surrounding it that prevents it from being mainlined into the kernel. As a result, packaging it on its own is extremely problematic. The ZFS On Linux Team only builds new releases for LTS kernels, and if you're not on LTS there's no guarantee it won't just crash (or worse).

On Arch (which always uses the latest stable kernel), they have a separate package repo that contains the ZFS packages, and a group of people that do burn-in tests with the latest kernel releases to empirically test whether it's busted. When it breaks, you can end up blocked from upgrading or even installing new packages on your system for weeks to months due to how pacman works.

But, if you're on an LTS kernel / distro that has good support, it works really well.