you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 2 months ago (4 children)

yeah I liked that bsd really kept to the unix style but license wise gpl is what I respect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    Agreed. I also want to learn more about micro kernels as well, which the BSDs use.

    I think we have a pretty interesting dynamic viewing the two different licensing schemes. Linux/gnu has been making some huge strides, whereas BSD is kind of just very slowly chugging along in niche areas. It does seem to be pretty damn good at the things it does, though. I honestly feel like the BSD license should be a better license because it gives more freedom, but with the existence of greed and capitalism GPL is required to get profit seekers (greedy bastards) to play nice.

    Edit: I was wrong, got it mixed up with gnu Hurd when looking things up in the past

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    I honestly feel like the BSD license should be a better license because it gives more freedom

    It does not. Saying the BSD license gives more freedom because it lets developers choose to close up the code is like saying the Confederacy gave more freedom because it let white people choose to own slaves.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I will add to the agreement. I wish gpl was not needed. I did not realize any bsds used micro kernels though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    Now you've got me questioning myself, never claimed to be an expert...

    Edit: yep I'm wrong, a microkernel was developed, but looks like it eventually made it's way to GNU Hurd and not really implemented into the BSDs. I recall coming across when looking into different OSs, I guess I got it mixed up.

  • source
  • parent