Is this bunk.

Garry tbcrew at
Mon Aug 23 20:30:25 UTC 2010

Thank you all for your replies. The information I posted to you all was NOT
my opinion or statement. I use and like FreeBSD more than windows having
been introduced to it by a friend some years ago. I was and am most
certainly NOT trolling, I merely did not know how much truth was in the
statement that it was anything to do with Apple. In fact the message I sent
was quoted from the original sender to me an Mr Oliver Stiebel when I asked
him what BSD had to do with Apple. When he originally sent me this message 

I wouldn't recommend Apple to anyone.

in response to my message.

Linux Oliver !, lets at least go for one of the BSD flavours. Personally I
prefer FreeBSD.

Thank you for your help. I am willing to send a single person on this list a
copy of the original email as I received as proof of this conversation, I
have no wish to be considered a troll on this group. As I said I had no
knowledge of Apple having anything to do with BSD and so asked for
clarifications sake for myself.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Kelly [mailto:dkelly at] 
Sent: 23 August 2010 04:18
To: Garry
Cc: freebsd-questions at
Subject: Re: Is this bunk.

On Aug 22, 2010, at 7:25 PM, Garry wrote:

> This is a conversation held on a UK group page, can you confirm or deny
> as twaddle.
> Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in),
> they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get
> much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD.

Apple hired a lot of key people from the FreeBSD project. I don't know just
what comes back to FreeBSD out of Apple but suspect the reason you and
myself don't know is that Apple doesn't care to toot their own horn. Apple
made a significant contribution a while back testing and improving NFS.

As for how much of MacOS X is BSD, pretty much all of the command line
stuff. Apple has gone to great lengths to XML-ize most everything so while
MacOS is BSD, its probably the most distant BSD cousin.

> Also, Windows uses  (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for
> instance.

NT 3.51 used to flash a Berkeley Software Distribution copyright message on
the text console during boot because some code was used. Doubt MS could
leave well enough alone to simply lift the entire stack. The VMS-inspired NT
kernel was probably not organized in such a way as to optimally use an
unmodified BSD network protocol stack.

> So, in supporting/using BDS i would enevatibaly end up writing code for
> or filing bugs or whatever.
> (I have assisted with a few Linux drivers and written kernel patches, as
> well as working on things like DirectX 3D 9 for Wine and work on KDE
> Having seen how BDS license software has been used, to create highly tied
> in, almost crippled proprietary software, I do not feel that I can support
> software developed under such licenses.

So why are you here? Trolling?

It bugs the heck out of some people when others manage to build on their
work to make something better, and then not give it away to everyone else.
Others realize that if what we do is truly useful then others will want to
use it to build bigger and better things. That it doesn't matter if we sell
our work or give it away, what others do with it is no skin off our noses.
Our original work is still exactly as accessible as it was before others
made something more of their own version of it.

> Web-Kit has actually worked quite well as an open system, even though
> done a hostile take over of the project from KHTML in KDE.
> So, the GPL has worked to produce an open product in Web-kit but the BSD
> license has lead to vendor lock-in on the part of Microsoft and most
> significantly Apple.

Thats one of the big problems of the GPL-mindset. Seems they spend a whole
lot more time cloning the work of others than in actually creating anything

> This does not mean to say that I have a problem with the quality of the
> in BSD, I just feel that the license is counter productive.

There is nothing in the BSD license permitting a "hostile takeover." Some
would claim FreeBSD has executed a "hostile takeover" of what it is to be
BSD. The pre-FreeBSD code is out there, you are welcome to it. Some would
say OpenBSD attempted a hostile takeover of BSD.

David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly at
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list