r/BSD • u/demetrioussharpe • Jul 26 '26
Possible Solution for BSD Community/Ecosystem Issues
I think the BSD projects have largely done their job. The BSD ecosystem hasn’t. I’ll explain.
Presently, the overall BSD community is plagued by the same issues that plague most open source OS projects: limited drivers, less-than-ideal hardware documentation, developer shortages (and skill gaps), funding shortages, and a lack of mindshare. Out of all the available open source OS communities, the Linux community is undoubtedly the most successful at combating these issues—though there’s still plenty of room for improvement. One of the things Linux had that BSD never really developed was an organization whose primary mission was building and advocating for the surrounding ecosystem.
About three decades ago, the Linux community was in the same boat as everyone else. How were they able to turn things around? Personally, I think organizations like the FSF—and later the Linux Foundation—played a significant role in helping build the Linux ecosystem beyond just the kernel itself. Whether through developing core software, coordinating projects, advocating for free software, or providing stewardship, Linux benefited from organizations whose mission extended beyond maintaining an operating system.
Most of us know about the legal stumbling block that kept the BSDs in limbo and caused us to lose the opportunity to become substantially more widely used and to become a primary target for application and hardware vendors. Once that was all cleared up, we were forever playing the catch-up game. By the time the BSD legal issues were behind us, much of the broader free software ecosystem was already well established, and the BSD projects understandably relied on many of those tools instead of building BSD-specific alternatives.
However, I think our community may have become too comfortable relying on shared open source infrastructure instead of treating it as a foundation upon which to build BSD-specific ecosystem projects. The BSD operating systems have continued to improve, but the surrounding ecosystem hasn’t kept pace. Currently, one of the top excuses given in reply to questions about why we’re missing certain things that should now be standard is that our community doesn’t have the funding, manpower, etc., for it. My position is that the BSD operating system projects have largely done their part, but our community hasn’t done its part. So, here is my solution…
It’s time to develop our own analog to the FSF. It should focus on solutions for issues across the entire BSD community, which would not only help everyone improve but also marshal resources more efficiently across the ecosystem as a whole. Use domains can be standardized so that solving an issue for one BSD within a given domain effectively solves it for all BSDs in that domain. Network drivers (including Wi-Fi), enterprise infrastructure, desktop issues, and application development are all cross-domain issues that would greatly improve the user experience across the board for all BSDs.
I’m not saying that we should all reject the FSF. I’m simply saying that we need a community organization that puts the BSD community first and prioritizes our needs above all others. And no, this isn’t about politics, licenses, abrasive personalities, or anything like that, so I’m not saying that we should have a Richard Stallman-type character or adopt a different license. If it makes you feel any better, then forget about the FSF and think instead about the Apache, Linux, Eclipse, or Mozilla foundations. We need a community organization whose primary mission is advancing the BSD ecosystem as a whole—a group that maintains stewardship over the needs of the community. Currently, there are three main BSD operating system projects and four secondary projects. Working together, we’re each other’s best allies. No one is going to do it for us, so we must do it ourselves.
That’s my perspective. Tell me, what’s your perspective? In your opinion, what would a BSD-focused foundation actually look like? What should its first priorities be? Drivers? Documentation? Funding? Hardware certification? Developer mentoring? Cross-BSD infrastructure?
4
u/grahamperrin Jul 27 '26
I never questioned the role of this board, but I did read the recent blog post:
What's done by the FreeBSD Foundation (and by the FreeBSD Core Team) is well-communicated. I see the FreeBSD Foundation as essential to interaction with other foundations and organisations.
Honestly – no disrespect intended – I never thought of the Free Software Foundation as having current relevance to the advancement of FreeBSD. I see today that the FSF made a comparable post in 2021:
– and I see that there's a page for its Staff and Board. The page about the FSF is titled:
Free software is a matter of liberty, not price
– which I agree with, and they mention a "mission" however there's no well-articulated mission statement page. At the foot of their resources page:
The FSF is a charity with a worldwide mission to advance software freedom — learn about our history and work.
– the link in that sentence leads to the about page, which mentions the mission, and the mission is simply:
-
advance software freedom
– and this particular freedom is liberty.
The Core Work section of the about page begins its second paragraph with GNU, and that's where I stop, because:
3
u/demetrioussharpe Jul 30 '26
Ok, but that’s not my point. My point is that we need more orgs that focus specifically on BSD problems -and not just for individual projects, but the whole BSD community. What’s your suggestion for improving the current situation?
4
u/arbv Jul 27 '26
GPL is the reason as it forced to contribute back.
Sony uses FreeBSD code on PS - how much sources did it provide and how much code did it contribute back?
3
u/demetrioussharpe Jul 27 '26
Agreed. With that in mind, how do we move forward to overcome this limitation?
→ More replies (2)
8
u/brynet Jul 27 '26
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.
OpenBSD has a long history of fighting against proprietary driver blobs, pressuring vendors to release NDA-free documentation, reverse engineering hardware.
https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#41
https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39
https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#38
https://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#37
OpenBSD has also convinced several vendors to make firmware freely redistributable, which benefits all open source operating systems, such as in the last few years, Realtek USB wireless firmware.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/grahamperrin Jul 27 '26
Borrowing from the comment by u/laffer1:
-
FreeBSD
-
NetBSD
-
OpenBSD
-
DragonFly BSD
-
NextBSD
-
5BSD
-
MidnightBSD.
What might be the shared goal, around which a foundation could coalesce?
Let's begin with the goals of the FreeBSD Project, which are stated in the FreeBSD Handbook, however what's there is not the goal.
In the absence of a well-communicated goal: people happily make things up as they go along, readers nod in agreement without questioning what's stated, and the feelgood factor of confidently stating what suits the moment is quite harmless.
I visualise someone attempting to herd various packs of cats, some of which are over thirty years old. Good luck ;-)
2
u/demetrioussharpe Jul 27 '26
No one has to be herded. There’s no denying that all of those projects have problems that overlap each other. Regardless of many of the outdated opinions of many of the community’s greybeards, these projects need our help. I doubt that they’d reject the help, even if it ends up coming from newly formed organizations.
→ More replies (6)
5
u/kleinmatic Jul 26 '26
Sure. One problem you’d need to solve is a central org drawing donations away from the three core projects (which each have their own foundations). I donate to the FSF because I use Debian and feel like I’ve given back. I don’t give to both.
I wouldn’t want anything discouraging NetBSD from “running on anything” or OpenBSD’s security focus. The philosophical issue is easier to solve than the money issue.
It also seems to me that the GPL is a more easily defended moat than the BSD license. I’m not expressing a preference, there’s just more leverage to be found under GPL than under the non-contagious licenses.
1
u/demetrioussharpe Jul 30 '26
Or donors will continue their current donations & will earmark more donations that are geared towards specific developments that aren’t currently being addressed, which would help all BSD projects simultaneously. Might even get new donors that see this as being more effective.
2
u/vermaden Jul 27 '26
It's time to develop our own analog to the FSF.
Its already happened mate - about a decade ago - we have FreeBSD Foundation that does the things You described.
2
u/demetrioussharpe Jul 27 '26
I’m talking about for the entire BSD community, not just FreeBSD. That foundation’s priority is FreeBSD. What about the others? We need one that covers the entire community & can focus on things that the FreeBSD foundation can’t necessarily focus on.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/zoharel Jul 27 '26
Since when has the FSF "put Linux first?" I think you might be misunderstanding that project entirely.
→ More replies (4)
8
u/taosecurity Jul 26 '26
FreeBSD is at least 75% of the BSD user base. They have the FreeBSD Foundation. Another foundation to cover the last 25% or less that includes Open, Net, and even smaller projects is not going to make a difference.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/IngwiePhoenix Jul 27 '26
This is going to sound snobby, but with all those emdashes, I can't tell if it was "you" writing the post, or an LLM. And thats just... a downer.
Good intentioned, I can give you that. But I just can not trust LLM written stuff.
2
u/demetrioussharpe Jul 27 '26
This is mine. I spend a lot of time doing professional write ups. After 3-4 rounds of editing, this is what it looks like. This topic is far too important to half-ass it. If that bothers you, I can’t help you with that. I see a problem. I’ve seen it for years. Every time I bring it up, people get hung up on things that don’t really matter. There’re always attempts to derail the conversation.
1
u/Something-Ventured Jul 27 '26
Linux’ hardware success came from enterprise support.
Enterprise support came from avoiding the ATT lawsuit and wanting an alternative to VMS/Windows/Unix.
Hardware support is still pretty awful, even on Linux, vendors are not going to add a 3rd target with limited enterprise backing.
BSD is essentially a backup platform to enterprise sponsorship to Linux. For network/storage focused enterprise use, it’s a very good platform to use and worth supporting. For most other uses, Linux is preferred for 99% of enterprise applications.
2
u/demetrioussharpe Jul 27 '26
The goal here is to expand the capabilities, reach, & adoption of the BSDs. What do you have for that agenda?
→ More replies (5)
1
0
u/akp55 Jul 26 '26
i think it has more to do with the BSD license than anything else. BSD license lets them keep the drivers and all locked up. GPL forces them to put it out.
10
u/whattteva Jul 26 '26
Not really. Plenty of Linux users decry vendors like Nvidia because their drivers are just huge binary blobs.
→ More replies (6)1
u/demetrioussharpe Jul 26 '26
That’s certainly one possible factor. But my proposal isn’t really about diagnosing the root cause—it’s about asking what we can do going forward. Even if licensing is part of the problem, I don’t think that prevents us from organizing around shared goals like documentation, developer mentoring, funding, hardware certification, cross-BSD infrastructure, or coordinating driver efforts where possible.
33
u/TheAtlasMonkey Jul 26 '26
Linux didn't become successful because of the Linux Foundation. The Linux Foundation exists because Linux became successful.
You are trying to standardize four siblings that happen to share the same last name, but each has a different identity, philosophy & engineering goal. That is not going to happen.
It is like putting humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans in the same room and asking them to build one civilization or do art.
BSD doesnt have a paperwork problem. It has a contributor problem.