Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems Software Linux

FreeBSD, Linux Kernel Source Cross Reference 42

Posted by michael from the footnote dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Robert Watson of the FreeBSD Core Team has put up a FreeBSD and Linux kernel source cross reference based on the LXR software used for the Linux kernel cross reference. The stated purpose is to make it easier for FreeBSD users and developers to explore and understand the FreeBSD code, as well as to compare the FreeBSD approaches with abstractions and implementation in the Linux kernel. This should help with portability, compatibility, and architectural cleanliness. Robert has posted to the FreeBSD mailing lists indicating he'll be pushing source code for other *BSD systems and Darwin in the near future as well. Sounds like this may be a really useful site for FreeBSD developers, but also for all open source kernel developers (Linux and others)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeBSD, Linux Kernel Source Cross Reference More

FreeBSD, Linux Kernel Source Cross Reference

Comments Filter:
  • I do some software devel, but I don't even get the meaning of this post :)
    • Ahh... I *think* I get the meaning... but I do not understand how to navigate this source tree...

      Well... and, of course, I wonder why my posts are always rejected, since they are more understandable than this freak thing.

      Must be the smell of the old chocolate cake behind my keyboard or something...

  • Danger Will Robinson, Danger! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DShard ( 159067 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @02:57PM (#7350163)
    isn't this dangerous for BSD developers when looking at GPL software to place less restrictions on there code which could arguably be derivative from Linux. I would think FSF would get their panties that much but I have read quite a bit from Stallman who seems to have an axe to grind with the GPL linux, let alone the closable BSD's.
    • It's not cross referencing between Linux and FreeBSD source, it's just a cross reference within the software itself. Fr'instance, I have a driver, and it talks about some function in the DDK, you click on a link and it takes you there. Very confusing title I admit.

      Closable BSDs? Yes someone could make a fork of FreeBSD and close it, but the original FreeBSD source would still exist.

    • Here's the deal (Score:5, Informative)

      by ciaran_o_riordan ( 662132 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @03:33PM (#7350680) Homepage
      > isn't this dangerous for BSD developers when looking at GPL software

      BSDers can look, and learn (or laugh). They just can't copy the code.

      > could arguably be derivative from Linux

      Copyright covers work of an author, not ideas. So as long as they only borrow ideas, they'll be fine.

      > I would think FSF would get their panties that much

      That's not much of a sentence, is it :)
      FSF own no FreeBSD-kernel code, and only own bits of Linux. I don't see any problems here.

      > read quite a bit from Stallman who seems to have an axe to grind with the GPL linux

      You're probably talking about proprietary binary-only modules being linked to Linux at runtime?
      Nothing to do with a cross-reference.

      > let alone the closable BSD's

      [Free|Net|Open]BSD is Free Software, but the freedom isn't protected by copyleft, so anyone can make a modified version and not contribute their modifications back to the original developers. This situation encourages companies *not* to contribute their code, because if they keep it proprietary, they have an advantage over the original developers.

      Ciaran O'Riordan

      • Re:Here's the deal (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @04:03PM (#7351063) Homepage Journal
        This situation encourages companies *not* to contribute their code, because if they keep it proprietary, they have an advantage over the original developers.

        Though there may be no legal demands to open the code, there are many other pressures to do so. One big one is economic incentive to avoid closed forks. This was probably the biggest factor leading to the opening of Darwin.

        But a more subtle incentive, and one that the FSF completely ignores, is simply that it's the right thing to do. When you don't treat your users as potential thieves, but with respect, you tend to find that they will gladly open their derivative bits without you even asking. I've get patches to my own BSD licensed works, without asking for them. They spontaneously come in.

        The reason for this is community, not licensing. When you deliberately exclude people from your community, they of course will not participate in it. BSDi was always a part of the BSD community, and has always contributed huge chunks of *original* code to BSD projects. But the FSF never made NeXT feel welcome, so they had to hound and badger them into opening the ObjC frontend. Maybe if the GNU project hadn't been so isolationist, they wouldn't have had to ask in the first place.

        When you treat people like theives, you'll find that people are theives. When you treat them with respect, you'll find that most will behave quite respectably.

        • pistols at noon (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ciaran_o_riordan ( 662132 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @05:29PM (#7351921) Homepage
          Call me a cynic, but I get the feeling we won't agree today :)

          Of the Free Unices, GNU/Linux has the most commercial interest, the most users, and the most developers.

          This is fact. So any theoretical arguments about BSD creating a more productive atmosphere, are automatically incorrect. All that's left is to figure out why the GPL-based community has been more effective. I'll stake a guess it's because copyleft levels the playing field.

          > one that the FSF completely ignores, is simply
          > that it's the right thing to do

          The right thing to do is to give freedom to computer users. Permission to create software that doesn't pass on these freedoms is of no use for this goal. So the GPL trades this in return for securing freedom.

          Ciaran O'Riordan
          • Of the Free Unices, GNU/Linux has the most commercial interest, the most users, and the most developers.

            Which came first? It makes a difference. From my perspective, it's the popularity of Linux that attracted the commercial interest. There's more developers because they're more users, and more users because there are more developers.

            Is this because of the licensing? Some would say so, but you need to take into account that Linux gained its initial popularity with developers at precisely the same time BS
            • While Linux may have been in the Right Place at the Right Time, it is the enabler of the GNU system(hehe). The GNU system (frequently shortened to just Linux) is a philosophical one which has gotten the mind share. BSD was around a _lot_ longer and never caught on fire like linux.

              I'm not saying that BSD is dead, dying or morally bankrupt. That's a religous war that I frankly could care less about. There _many_ systems based on parts of BSD out there. (NT, OSX, etc...)

              What can't be argued though is tha
              • There _many_ systems based on parts of BSD out there. (NT, OSX, etc...)

                NT??? From what I've heard NT5 was written by a bunch of DEC VMS guys and architecturally is closer to VMS than to ANY Un*x. The fact that they took BSD IP stack does not make them BSD-based, sorry...

                Paul B.
              • Our histories are ever colored by our ideologies. Here's another way of looking at it, through my own colored lenses...

                At precisely the time that cheap 32 bit computers and cheap internet access became available, the world was ready for a free operating system. Whichever got a certain mindshare first would dominate for a long time. But USL tripped 386BSD just as it was leaving the starting gate. Then when it picked itself up, Bill Jolitz tripped it again. BSD didn't get the initial mindshare first.

                Heck, a

          • but how well was GNU doing without Linux? It is Linux people want, not GNU.

          • Of the Free Unices, GNU/Linux has the most commercial interest, the most users, and the most developers.

            I think you'd have to take a very limited view of the term "commercial interest" to come to that conclusion. For example, even the good ol' FSF considers the latest version of Apple's Public Source License "Free" [fsf.org], so it seems hard to argue that Darwin [apple.com] doesn't qualify as a "Free Unix". And given that Darwin is at the core of Apple's OS X [apple.com], which has a larger userbase than Linux, and an active developer

          • Of the Free Unices, GNU/Linux has the most commercial interest, the most users, and the most developers. This is fact. So any theoretical arguments about BSD creating a more productive atmosphere, are automatically incorrect.

            And of all operating systems, Microsoft Windows has the most commercial interest, the most users and the most developers. This is fact. So any theoretical arguments about GNU/Linux creating a more productive atmosphere, are automatically incorrect.
        • > > This situation encourages companies *not* to contribute their code, because if they keep it proprietary, they have an advantage over the original developers.

          > Though there may be no legal demands to open the code, there are many other pressures to do so. One big one is economic incentive to avoid closed forks. This was probably the biggest factor leading to the opening of Darwin.

          Putting "closed forks" another way, there is a pratical pressure to contribute back: nobody wants to maintain their
          • In theory all would see the benefit of share and share alike. It stops inefficiency, causing truelly the most innovative superior. Those who lose their innovation lose their lead and therefore their position.

            Now to reality. If I as a vendor spend money to fix problems in my public codebase and my competitors don't that is a competive edge. I have something that those people don't. Hell, I can always move back to the main tree when those things get fixed, but not until I exploit the difference to my ga
            • Here's the thing the businesses will not use GPL code in theirs, while they would use BSD.

              Using GPL code in your code is the death kneel, because RMS doesn't want your money he wants to ruin your software business.

              GPL wants to end all proprietary software, plain and simple.

              Slighty offtopic: And why don't these same GPL principles apply to music, architects, books, etc.

              • You don't know what you're talking about. Stallman may be rabid in his distaste for proprietary software, but that doesn't mean he wants you to go out of business. The GPL itself is simply a legal tool that protects a public development model from theft. It says nothing and can do nothing to propietary software houses who will always be free to sell closed software. Your disposition reminds me of what H.L. Mencken said of puritans: They know that someone somewhere is having fun.

                As far music, architecture a

        • But a more subtle incentive, and one that the FSF completely ignores, is simply that it's the right thing to do. When you don't treat your users as potential thieves, but with respect, you tend to find that they will gladly open their derivative bits without you even asking. I've get patches to my own BSD licensed works, without asking for them. They spontaneously come in.

          So have I. But nobody's going to get rich selling modifications of my code, so they have an economic incentive to contribute back.

          RMS

        • One big one is economic incentive to avoid closed forks. This was probably the biggest factor leading to the opening of Darwin.

          How could Apple possibly lose money by keeping Darwin closed?

      • Re:Here's the deal (Score:2, Insightful)

        by /dev/trash ( 182850 )
        Copyright covers work of an author, not ideas. So as long as they only borrow ideas, they'll be fine.



        But how many ways can you code "hello world" in C?

        • 1. int main() { printf("hello world\n"); return 0; }
          2. Recursive invocation of main, printing randomize letters and spaces of length 11 until you print hello world.
          3. This one is left as an exercise for the reader.

  • The consensus seems to be that BSD-derived systems don't have the potential intellectual property issues with which SCO is threating Linux. Whenever SCO finally shows any of the "infringing" Linux code, perhaps this tool could be used to check and see if any of it is actually in the BSD domain.

    • Here's where we need a cross-reference tool between SCO and Linux code.

      Of course if SCO develops it, then we'll have to pay a license fee to use it, and if the Linux side develops it, it must have been stolen from SCO.

Slashdot Top Deals

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin

Close