• cenzorrll@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day 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.

    • HubertManne@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

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

      • cenzorrll@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day 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.