Thankfully, the world is not comprised of only the opinions of one person; no matter how good their intentions may be. People who disagree with the author are not idiots because they don't look at open source as being the only good thing on planet Earth.

First, the author is under the illusion that Linux is true "open source" software but it isn't. Read the license. It has very strict copyleft restrictions. Why then is that ok with the author one might wonder.

The articles states that encryption algorithms for our Top Secret systems are in the public domain. It is true that the National Institute of Standards and Technolgy (NIST) conducted a public competition for the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), that is NOT used for anything above Secret level. Totally open might be better mathematically but you will never convince the people at the National Security Agency (NSA) to agree with you.

The article say the Chinese will simply obtain export restricted NVDIA chips by starting companies in Europe or other parts of the world. That thinking is pretty naive. America's export contols apply whether the device is sold in Paris or New York. None of America's allies will risk poisioning the well just to pacify the Chinese.

Speaking of the Chinese, they just blew the doors off America's notion of dominating an emerging industry by restricting exports. The American policy of restricting NVIDIA chips has come back to bite us because the Chinese actually made AI far more advanced by cutting the fat American companies thought was necessary. Further, they did exactly what you are asking for. They opened DeepSeek by posing a variety of projects on GitHub. It's out there now!

If one is really looking for the cause of American knee jerk reaction to DeepSeek it only really necessary to read the User Agreement that must be signed before access to DeepSeek is granted. Anyone who actually takes the time to read the license and understand what rights you are granting to the Chinese would be, to use the author's language, an idiot NOT to be concerned especially if one truly considers the Orwellian system the Chinese Communists have imposed on their own citizens.

The author and I ARE in agreement that "open source" is a fantastic idea for many applications. Indeed, it has fueled economic growth and development around the globe. It is not, however, the only shoe that will fit on Cindarellas foot.

The biggest objection I have to this article is that we have the fireman running around screaming his head off "fire". Surely, the solution to counter balancing an American knee jerk reaction to DeepSeek is not to go off the deep end in making the other side of the coin. The author is correct that AI will advance. What no one knows is the rate at which that will be. There are many ways that Americans can, with reasonable safety, use Chinese DeepSeek and AI engines located in what the USA identifies as our enemies. The article, unfortunately, seems to adopt a position that all of the world is one, which may be correct for the ordinary citizen but is not correct in the minds of anyone who has experienced communism firsthand.

This article is way too long and filled with far too much overkill emotional venting. The many good points made by the article could have been presented with 15% of the words the article contains - maximum.

The article is useful in reminding people about the economic benefits that can be reaped globally by allowing innovation to flourish. Sadly, if it was intended to reach the important people who are actually charged with making AI national and international decisions this article will be a complete failure.

I've been a user of FreeBSD since the mid 1990's when I used it on servers that powered the ISP I ran. For operational environments I love that you can simply take FreeBSD to the bank everytime because it always has your back. It purrs like a kitten once configured and unlike people believe, its very easy to configure. It combines brick wall stability, top of the line performance, and incredible flexibility if you can program.

FreeBSD follows a clean separation of the base OS and userland, making it very easy to strip down unnecessary components for embedded use. So is a minimalist customizable kernel a reason that makes it an excellent embedded systems programming candidate? You betcha. For fun I used to rewrite large parts of the UNIX kernel customizing so many different functions.

TinyBSD/NanoBSD offer specialized FreeBSD-based lightweight distributions that are already optimized for embedded applications. Linux? Fails.

Free BSD offers a monolithic kernel with modular components that are optimized for performance while allowing dynamic module loading. FreeBSD offers advanced file systems (ZFS & UFS2) so your choice of high reliability and/or lightweight and stable. The FreeBSD TCP/IP is well-optimized over many decades making it ideal for embedded networking devices. The low jitter & deterministic performance are ideal for real-time or latency-sensitive applications such as industrial control systems.

Yes, the Open-Source & Permissive licensing are important but not as important as FreeBSD's preemptive multitasking, which is essential for real-time applications. Some real-time OSes, like RTEMS integrate FreeBSD's networking stack because it so darn near perfection. Common Address Redundance Protocol (CARP) provides high availability, which is useful for mission-critical embedded systems.

Now I could go on and on or we could start getting down to bits and bytes but FreeBSD is used by people IN THE KNOW who want performance and stability. It's simply a fact.

If you are interested, there is also a new startup built on FreeBSD but built for desktop users who want the GUI. It's better than Ubuntu by far and still comes with the built in stability of FreeBSD that just works day after day, week after week, year after year.

However, it has some drawbacks. No reinstalling the OS everytime you turn around because some new - heedlessly written - code has hosed up the operation so bad reinstallation is the only choice.

One thing for sure, its not about the true Open-Source licensing. Nope.