FreeBSD and the GPL
By Richard Hillesley,
The first free Unix-like operating system available on the IBM PC was 386BSD, of which Linus Torvalds said in 1993: "If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never have happened."
386BSD was a direct descendant of Bill Joy's Berkeley Software Distribution, which was the core of SunOS and other proprietary Unix distributions. 386BSD and the patchkit for the port to the Intel chip formed the basis for FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, which have carried the torch for BSD and open source Unix to this day.
Lars Wirzenius, a student friend of Linus Torvalds, recalled: "FreeBSD didn't exist then. 386BSD did, but it wouldn't have worked on my computer, since it required a 387 co-processor. I used SCO Xenix from fall 1991 to spring or summer of 1992, until Linux matured enough to be a usable environment for writing code."
Alan Cox tells a similar story. When he saw the 386BSD announce he thought "Woah! - finally there is something worth running on a PC."
The trouble was that 386BSD needed floating point hardware, and Linux didn't. "I hadn't got the floating point chip, which was 70 quid at the time, so I installed Linux," he said.
386BSD was a long time coming. The first public release (Version 0.0) was on St. Patrick's Day, 1991, and was barely functional. Most users had to wait until Bastille Day, 1992 for the first functional release (Version 0.1).
A year or two earlier, a couple of small fixes, and Linux may never have seen the light of day.
What ifs
The most popular of the BSDs is FreeBSD. FreeBSD, like the other BSDs, had a 15 year start on Linux, based as it was on BSD Unix, which had played a large part in defining the standards for operating systems and networking that have held good to the present day. For much of its early history, FreeBSD was technically superior to Linux and still retains an enviable reputation for reliability.
So it is interesting to speculate why Linux, and not FreeBSD, became the flag bearer, not only for free software, but for Unix-like operating systems.
BSD had been around for a long time, and Linux grew from small beginnings. Most of the early contributors to Linux and the projects that sprang from the early success of Linux, were hobbyists and students with no great history in computing, yet GNU/Linux, not FreeBSD, was adopted by the traditional Unix companies to become the universal operating system that Unix had promised to be.
Could have been a contender
FreeBSD didn't stagnate, or lose, and is probably healthier that it ever was, big on networking devices, friendly with web hosting companies and big with Apple, but hasn't had the impact of Linux on the rest of the computing industry, despite an enviable record for technical excellence.
Any number of reasons can be given for this. During the period 1992-1994, when GNU/Linux was beginning to emerge as a viable option for Intel servers, the BSDs were the subject of a copyright dispute between USL and BSDi, which was indisputably a setback to uptake and development, but the BSDs bounced back from this setback and were the favoured solution for many web and ftp servers during the dotcom boom.
In 1999, "Walnut Creek CD-ROM set the world record for most bytes of network traffic processed in 24 hours by a single host: One single-processor PII box (a then-famous FreeBSD ftp server) handled 1.39 terabytes. (This burst of traffic was, ironically, occasioned by the release on that machine of Slackware 4.0.)"
You may also like...
For more details about purchasing this feature and/or images for editorial usage, please contact Jasmine Samra on pictures@dennis.co.uk
You may also like...
advertisement
Latest Management News
Meeting the £12,500 IT costs of meetings
IT problems in meeting rooms are costing businesses thousands of pounds, according to a new report.
Latest Management How Tos & Tutorials
A guide to BlackBerry Messenger 5.0
Andrew Williams guides us through the range of new features available in BlackBerry Messenger 5.0.
advertisement
Most popular
- Government calls mobile broadband spectrum auction
- Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 Mini Pro review
- UK web guru handed key to the internet?
- Samsung Galaxy S review
- 100 million Facebook user info scraped
- HTC Hero to finally get Android 2.1 update
- Top 10 remote desktop applications
- Amazon sets UK Kindle launch date
- Head to Head: Office 2010 vs Open Office 3.1
- Top 10 future trends for mobile phones
Whitepapers
Want more background on today's hottest IT trends?
Visit IT PRO's whitepaper library for more on virtualisation, encryption and other topics.







Irony
It's telling (and ironic) that the second most popular desktop OS is based on BSD, but nobody cares - because Apple will sue the pants off of you if you even THINK about hacking it yourself. Linux is the OS for the rest of us, and its sprawling growth in virtually all areas of technology indicate a bright future indeed.
By Ip_itproc07081b6 on Monday Feb 22
BSD is not 'more friendly'.
The fact is there is a reason why Linux is so more popular than the BSD's. Its the license stupid. The simple fact is that more developers like the GPL and the way the GPL works compared to the BSD license for their work. The GPL simply attracts more people to be willing to give their time,money and sweat to the community than the BSD, which many open source developers consider a "license-to-steal". If the BSD was so great then it would attract more developer support than GPL projects, but it doesn't and as a open source developer I know exactly why because thats exactly how I feel about it. The proof is in the numbers, some people (who want to make money off of others work) may not like it but they are going to have to get over it or hit the road and go write their own software. Linux is so popluar and has such a large community BECAUSE of the GPL, without it then SOooo many things would have never been implemented or contributed by other people and companies and it would never have had as large a community as it does today. BSD licenses are more attractive to lazy commerical programmers, but much less attractive to actual open source programmers. It really IS as simple as that.
By Milo_Hoffman on Monday Feb 22