Slashdot Mirror

BSD is still open source. You can download any of several flavours here. If you want to download Apple's version, it's here (and elsewhere).

No pity for the Million Micro$oft Virus/Bots/etc. because smart people run one of the 452 stable, safe, secure, virus free GNU/Linux distros, or one of the 36 *BSDs! My tolerance for any businesses that run very vulnerable Micro$oft, thus risking customers, is now zero. If forced to deal with them, do cash only, with the 3% discount for cash! Get Linux or BSD! http://linuxmint.com/ http://distrowatch.com/ http://www.bsd.org/ http://linux.org/

Well, there is this and this. But yeah, OP kinda forgets what Unix is.

I think you mean DEC WARS.

I will have to aggree with the this point in the fact that Mac OS X isn't entirely new. it melds some pretty old ideas. NeXt, Mach, and BSD . but this doens't mean that you shouldn't start forsaking compatibilities (emphasis on the plural) for increased security (and potentials there of ) and functionality as well (EG: the below QT/KDE example). Note how most of these examples started working ont the new stuff long before they released it (like PY3k)

Do you think MS will go down without a fight? Do you think that a company with almost limitless cash is going to be threatened by anything less than all-out war from the FOSS community?

I defy anyone to disprove any of my facts.

- No one is going to do anything about MS's monopoly.

- The monopoly will get worse.

- The only people who have a chance to break it are the geeks.

- Even then it would take a united effort from all of us.

I was browsing Slashdot while I sit here waiting for 20 minutes to copy a 17 meg file at my freelance gig in front of a Mac when I noticed it's Slashdot's 10th anniversary. So, I think it's equally important to celebrate ten years of successful Slashdot trolling.

For maximum effect I need to post this 3500 times and widen the page, but I won't because it takes too long and I'll be dead before it gets done. ARE YOU GAY? ARE YOU DEAD? Then you should join the BSD USERS GROUP!

I read this great book about trolling and you should buy it right away. Click on the link I conveniently provided. By the way Netcraft has confirmed that Dumbledore and Stephen King are dead. Snape killed them.

hot grits, natalie portman... at least she doesn't have smelly feet like some desktops I could name.

Thinking about your breathing... is it good, or is it whack? Only OOG can decide!

Think about your parents having hot sweaty sex next time you masturbate to a horsecock in space!

http://www.bsd.org/?

There's just one problem. This perception of the software-as-services model is a jaundiced misrepresentation of the way that on-demand applications actually work. No on-demand customer pays simply for the privilege of accessing the software. They pay because the software delivers business results. And that simple distinction exposes once and for all the clay feet, the emperor's new clothes, of the traditional applications software industry. Their products don't actually work until they've been tweaked and customized by customers or partners, and therefore the licence of itself has no out-of-the-box value to the end user. Asking people to pay for the privilege of using the software isn't offering a service, it's taking a liberty. It's as much of a nonsense as asking a punter to pay a performance fee for whistling a copyrighted tune. If I'm paying a fee to watch a movie, listen to a song, or use an application, I expect to experience a professional, finished execution.

True on-demand application vendors understand this. Conventional software vendors seem to think the world still owes them a living, just for bothering to write some software.


This article sounds as if the guy was jaded from the start. His complaints are similar to those people who first scoffed at the notion of leasing a car instead of buying it. Some may consider it foolish, but some also see the benefits. In my experience you can lease a car for 12 months, have the "owner" of the car (or software) continually maintain it when it needs it.

Don't read too deeply in on that analogy, please.

But BOTHERING to write some software? By us Bothering to write some software you have some of the best software out there that's been used to secure most of the IT infrastructure the world runs on. Apache, The Linux Kernel, The Various BSD's, SQL Databases, Iptables, SNORT IDS software, OpenSSL, and many many more!

This guy is just trolling. The article is slanted because he believes that once written, any bugs, flaws (as in it doesn't do this the _way_ it should for ME) should all be done for free simply because he or general consumers are greedy. To a point, bug fixes should be fixed like glaring security flaws that could be used to take over your computer (ala windows in general, yes I'm biased) or damage your information etc.

But get real. If you paid ONCE for your anti-virus software and expected it to work flawlessly and capture all viruses, worms etc without having to pay extra every year to maintain that reliability you're just out of your mind. There is no incentive to keep something up for free especially in an evolving industry. One that evolves and almost 2-5 times the normal rate of other industries.

Think of it this way. You pay a subscription service similar to that of an anti-virus vendor. Receive continual updates, bug fixes, serious flaws get fixed for an annual price. This ensures the developers can work and continue to live as well. Why not? If you don't pay for the next years license, you simply don't get major version upgrades (maybe a serious bug fix or service pack) or new "features".

I'm not keen on the idea of keeping your apps on a server/central location, unless it's on my home network and I have the option to install it centrally or on each workstation. It's just foolish to do it that way. But this guy's "it's mine, I want it all forever" after a simple purchase doesn't cut it. Want that new fender or tires? They're better quality than the current tires you have, then pay for them. Don't expect it for free buddy.

This guy really pissed me off. And I have a football game to watch.

No it doesn't. They're not charging anyone to use Linux.
In the US, at least, the word BSD is a trademark (look at bsd.org) so Berkeley Software Design, Inc would be equally entitled to ask for money like this.

Most OS X users probably don't even know they're running a flavor of Linux, but they can slowly get more involved with that world while as they feel comfortable.

Since no one explicitly why OS X is not Linux: OS X is based on the Mach Microkernel and FreeBSD (a BSD Unix variant, not Linux (see section "What is Linux?").

I can tell ya that their aren't many issues that will get the collective hippy minds a buz and focused but security and data loss will. We started few stoned hippies and a small operating system and that lead to security to the and a realy parandoid one and aparently even have a www.420.org and what we do alot>

I think you've misunderstood; Darwin is alive and well...it's BSD that's dead.

It would not be possible to get an accurate reading from this. Because the operating system would have to be compiled for each hardware platform. Also to keep it fair we would have to do the same for the benchmark software. I am aware of no OS that will go accross all platforms. BSD comes close (since OS-X is BSD based) but doesn't quite get all architectures.

This place is still up and fits the subject very well.

This is off-topic, which is why I am posting as AC, but I was just thinking about the story regarding controlling teenagers internet usage. I want to provide some links right now so that people can discover alternative "lifestyles" before it's too late.

gay
necro
scat (krap)

I must point out that this is not a troll because I provide an accurate description for each link.

This is off-topic, which is why I am posting as AC, but I was just thinking about the story regarding controlling teenagers internet usage. Before the internet becomes censured in the US, I want to provide some links to alternative "styles" for people to discover (warning, some may be mildly offensive to you):

gay
necro
Krap

I must point out that this is not a troll because of the fact that I provide an accurate description for the links. Merely off-topic.

Oh great, I can see the spam now! :(

Someone you know has died! Click here to find out who!

Perhaps we shouldn't give them any ideas, though? :/

Now repeat after me.
I will not post trolls on Slashdot.
I will not post trolls on Slashdot.
I will not post trolls on Slashdot.
...

In case anyone hasn't already been beaten over the head by this, the two licenses are very different and serve different circumstances and individuals. There is no right or wrong here, just two great licenses.

Summary:

GPL=Free software must remain always free.
BSD=Free software should be free even to not to be free.

Correct license? Whichever you prefer or suits your project better.

Other alternatives? Sure, but trolls don't care. ;-)

> Let me start by saying I'm all for Open Source software

That's it. You don't grok free software. It is not the same thing philosophically.

> Oh grow up!

I'm amazed my maturity interests you, but I am 30, have a job and a family, and have had some pretty good education, including some reading in Philosophy. Now on to the debate.

> Think for a moment about who you're freeing.

The users, and in the measure in which government has grown dependent on Informatics, the people.

> Most corporations are given the right to modify programs to fit their individual needs.

No, they aren't. I work at a big European telecom operator, and we have neither the Microsoft source code nor the Amdocs (our billing system vendor) one. Now, I think it is self-defeating proposition to run a business without the source code to one's core system, as is a billing system to a telecom operator. But the incredible thing is that MBAs think it is good. No need to tell you how much shareholders' money is wasted.

> The average consumer doesn't know source code from techno-bable. They couldn't change or modify their programs any way.

The main purpose of source code is not modifying it, but avoiding proprietary lock-in. Please educate yourself.

> now stop fighting the licence war

If we allow everyone to hoard software and claim it's free or open or standard, like Apple and the Unix vendors and Microsoft all have done, we loose our freedom again.

> make your products useable.

That needs efforts currently wasted on useless forking, semi-free code and proprietary systems interoperability.

> So then why are people complaining when Apple and other companies release the sorce to programs?

They didn't. Apple released under a quasi-free license mostly that was already available under a really free license.

> Just because it isn't GPL licensed?

No, because it is not free.

> You can't have consensus because different people want different things.

Yes, but most forking is not because of different, valid goals: it is because of bad technical decisions (for instance RPM as a dpkg fork), proprietary licensing (for instance the original TrollTech Qt licensing) or just the not-invented-here syndrome.

> Freedom and Security are on to ends of a scale. There has to be a balance. Complete freedom means no security, complete security means no freedom, but you have to provide a reason.

Go educate yourself about risks and security. Usually free software is more secure than equivalent proprietary software.

> Safety, if M$ Office breaks, theres technical assistance for them.

There isn't. There is no warranty, there is no security, there is no source code to fix things. There are thousands of people who know a little about MS Office, but no one has the source code. The end result is that people learn to live with brokenness in proprietary programs, while with free software it can always be fixed.

> Ease of use, most OSS software is nice sometime seven great once it's running, but getting it up and running is a pain.

This is being addressed by several distributions. Rome wasn't built in one day.

> Extra steps, as nice as the OSS office suite is, the users still have to select M$ Office format to save their documents so everyone else can read them.

This is because MS Office documents are proprietary. If they were open standards, there would be no need of converstion. But still, if things are saved in XHTML, PDF, RTF and the like, MS Office users can read them.

I don't know why I loose time trying to teach people who can't to their homework reading.

beg me pardon, on the risk of beeing downmodded etc. why the hell is everyone thinking debian is the only free distribution ? go to http://www.bsd.org/, http://old.lwn.net/Distributions/ or http://www.distrowatch.org/ if you want a unbiased answer to what`s free software based systems - have a look there, and discover there is more to *n?x than redhat and debian.
why is everyone so biased and mainstream ?

regards,
anonymous rocklinux, openbsd and slackware user.

> "The Linux OS?! when did that come out?"

Sigh.

&lt bite&gt Some time in 1991, Let met quote from the www.linux.org webpage: "Linux is a free Unix-type operating system originally created by Linus Torvalds with the assistance of developers around the world."&lt/bite&gt

Insisting on calling Linux "GNU/Linux systems" is like insisting on calling a car a "horseles carriage".

Wat we call Linux today is an OS, deal with it.

Note that there are also other OS's that use FSF/GNU tools (such as the gcc compiler). You can find some more information here.

And if you put the representatives from those three websites in the same room, you've got yourself a really nice family reunion: they're all related but they don't really enjoy it. But they are family and will have to get over it.

My God! That would mean M$ would have sell their soul to the Daemon ... er ... Devil!

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

Is Mac OS X a Threat to Linux?

In short, yes! On March 24, Apple Computer, Inc. released its next-generation operating system, Mac OS X (the "X" is pronounced as "ten," for the version number of the operating system) to Macintosh addicts around the world. While this isn't such a big deal to some, others view it as a new beginning that could squash all thoughts of a desktop Linux for the general public.

What's this, "Apple out-maneuvering Linux?" you say? Well, maybe not as a server platform for the immediate future, but just think about this for a second: Would it be possible for Apple to deflate the hopes and dreams of developers worldwide of bringing Linux to the desktop? The short answer to this is yes, but it's more complicated than that.

Aside from the fact that an apple is a fruit and a penguin is a flightless waterfowl, there used to be a big difference between the Apple Macintosh operating system and Linux. Apple had a nice GUI; Linux did not. Linux had a command line; Mac OS did not. Linux is a multitasking OS that supports multiple processors; Mac OS is not. Linux runs on just about anything these days; the Mac OS runs on, well, Apple equipment. Linux is free (well, sort of, depending on your method of install); Mac OS X will set you back $129.

So, the lines were pretty clear about the differences between Linux and Mac OS. But lately, that clarity has been blurred as Apple rolls out Mac OS X to the public. The new Mac OS now has preemptive multitasking and support for up to two processors, which is still a far cry from Linux's support for up to 16 processors, but it's a move in the right direction.

Traditionally, the only control Apple users had over their system was via the Control Panels and scripting system functions with AppleScript, MacPerl, or ResEdit. However, with Mac OS X's BSD base, Apple users were given something they've always wanted: a latch to take a peek into Apple's core.

At the core of Mac OS X is a kernel built on the Mach 3.0 kernel, BSD 4.4, and Darwin (Apple's open source kernel project), giving network and system administrators the ability to use Unix programs and add them to their Macintoshes. When combined, these components offer a rock-solid operating system that's hard to beat. (OK, I know that Mac OS X has its fair share of bugs, so no flames, please.)

One of the advantages of Mac OS X is that it now offers Macintosh users with a command line on top of a slick, stable GUI, known as Aqua. With OS X's BSD core, Macintosh users will now be able to use GNU software. This means they will be able to run tools like Emacs, vi, Apache, and even XFree86 and the GIMP (something that Adobe Systems should fear). If you're looking for a place to download ports of GNU tools that run under Mac OS X, you should visit the GNU-Darwin Project on SourceForge.

One of the downsides of OS X is that it requires you to have a native G3 or G4 processor. This means you have to be running a G3 Mac, an iMac or iBook, a PowerBook G3 or better, or any of the G4 models and above. So, if you have an older 604 PowerPC-based Mac, you can't run OS X (that is, unless upgrade manufacturers, such as Sonnet Technologies release updates to their processor software). For now, though, if you want to run OS X your best bet is to run it on native hardware.

One group that stands to lose a chunk of the market is the Mac-based Linux distributions, such as MkLinux, LinuxPPC, or Yellow Dog Linux (YDL) from Terra Soft Solutions. Up to now, these were your best options for running Linux on the Mac, with LinuxPPC and YDL leading the pack. But OS X changes this landscape significantly. The downside to running Linux on your Mac in a dual-boot configuration (as with Windows) is that if you want to access any of your Mac apps, you had to either reboot, or install and run Mac-On-Linux. Neither option is ideal, but now OS X allows you to work in the command line, and run your Mac apps right along with them--no rebooting required.

I Wish I had written it. Enjoy!

As an enlightened, modern parent, I try to be as involved as possible in the lives of my six children. I encourage them to join team sports. I attend their teen parties with them to ensure no drinking or alcohol is on the premises. I keep a fatherly eye on the CDs they listen to and the shows they watch, the company they keep and the books they read. You could say I'm a model parent. My children have never failed to make me proud, and I can say without the slightest embellishment that I have the finest family in the USA.

Two years ago, my wife Carol and I decided that our children's education would not be complete without some grounding in modern computers. To this end, we bought our children a brand new Compaq to learn with. The kids had a lot of fun using the handful of application programs we'd bought, such as Adobe's Photoshop and Microsoft's Word, and my wife and I were pleased that our gift was received so well. Our son Peter was most entranced by the device, and became quite a pro at surfing the net. When Peter began to spend whole days on the machine, I became concerned, but Carol advised me to calm down, and that it was only a passing phase. I was content to bow to her experience as a mother, until our youngest daughter, Cindy, charged into the living room one night to blurt out: "Peter is a computer hacker!"

As you can imagine, I was amazed. A computer hacker in my own house! I began to monitor my son's habits, to make certain that Cindy wasn't just telling stories, as she is prone to doing at times.

After a few days of investigation, and some research into computer hacking, I confronted Peter with the evidence. I'm afraid to say, this was the only time I have ever been truly disappointed in one of my children. We raised them to be honest and to have integrity, and Peter betrayed the principles we tried to encourage in him, when he refused point blank to admit to his activities. His denials continued for hours, and in the end, I was left with no choice but to ban him from using the computer until he is old enough to be responsible for his actions.

After going through this ordeal with my own family, I was left pondering how I could best help others in similar situations. I'd gained a lot of knowledge over those few days regarding hackers. It's only right that I provide that information to other parents, in the hope that they will be able to tell if their children are being drawn into the world of hacking. Perhaps other parents will be able to steer their sons back onto the straight and narrow before extreme measures need to be employed.

To this end, I have decided to publish the top ten signs that your son is a hacker. I advise any parents to read this list carefully and if their son matches the profile, they should take action. A smart parent will first try to reason with their son, before resorting to groundings, or even spanking. I pride myself that I have never had to spank a child, and I hope this guide will help other parents to put a halt to their son's misbehaviour before a spanking becomes necessary.

1. Has your son asked you to change ISPs?

Most American families use trusted and responsible Internet Service Providers, such as AOL. These providers have a strict "No Hacking" policy, and take careful measures to ensure that your internet experience is enjoyable, educational and above all legal. If your child is becoming a hacker, one of his first steps will be to request a change to a more hacker friendly provider.

I would advise all parents to refuse this request. One of the reasons your son is interested in switching providers is to get away from AOL's child safety filter. This filter is vital to any parent who wants his son to enjoy the internet without the endangering him through exposure to "adult" content. It is best to stick with the protection AOL provides, rather than using a home-based solution. If your son is becoming a hacker, he will be able to circumvent any home-based measures with surprising ease, using information gleaned from various hacker sites.

2. Are you finding programs on your computer that you don't remember installing?

Your son will probably try to install some hacker software. He may attempt to conceal the presence of the software in some way, but you can usually find any new programs by reading through the programs listed under "Install/Remove Programs" in your control panel. Popular hacker software includes "Comet Cursor", "Bonzi Buddy" and "Flash".

The best option is to confront your son with the evidence, and force him to remove the offending programs. He will probably try to install the software again, but you will be able to tell that this is happening, if your machine offers to "download" one of the hacker applications. If this happens, it is time to give your son a stern talking to, and possibly consider punishing him with a grounding.

3. Has your child asked for new hardware?

Computer hackers are often limited by conventional computer hardware. They may request "faster" video cards, and larger hard drives, or even more memory. If your son starts requesting these devices, it is possible that he has a legitimate need. You can best ensure that you are buying legal, trustworthy hardware by only buying replacement parts from your computer's manufacturer.

If your son has requested a new "processor" from a company called "AMD", this is genuine cause for alarm. AMD is a third-world based company who make inferior, "knock-off" copies of American processor chips. They use child labor extensively in their third world sweatshops, and they deliberately disable the security features that American processor makers, such as Intel, use to prevent hacking. AMD chips are never sold in stores, and you will most likely be told that you have to order them from internet sites. Do not buy this chip! This is one request that you must refuse your son, if you are to have any hope of raising him well.

4. Does your child read hacking manuals?

If you pay close attention to your son's reading habits, as I do, you will be able to determine a great deal about his opinions and hobbies. Children are at their most impressionable in the teenage years. Any father who has had a seventeen year old daughter attempt to sneak out on a date wearing make up and perfume is well aware of the effect that improper influences can have on inexperienced minds.

There are, unfortunately, many hacking manuals available in bookshops today. A few titles to be on the lookout for are: "Snow Crash" and "Cryptonomicon" by Neal Stephenson; "Neuromancer" by William Gibson; "Programming with Perl" by Timothy O'Reilly; "Geeks" by Jon Katz; "The Hacker Crackdown" by Bruce Sterling; "Microserfs" by Douglas Coupland; "Hackers" by Steven Levy; and "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric S. Raymond.

If you find any of these hacking manuals in your child's possession, confiscate them immediately. You should also petition local booksellers to remove these titles from their shelves. You may meet with some resistance at first, but even booksellers have to bow to community pressure.

5. How much time does your child spend using the computer each day?

If your son spends more than thirty minutes each day on the computer, he may be using it to DOS other peoples sites. DOSing involves gaining access to the "command prompt" on other people's machines, and using it to tie up vital internet services. This can take up to eight hours. If your son is doing this, he is breaking the law, and you should stop him immediately. The safest policy is to limit your children's access to the computer to a maximum of forty-five minutes each day.

6. Does your son use Quake?

Quake is an online virtual reality used by hackers. It is a popular meeting place and training ground, where they discuss hacking and train in the use of various firearms. Many hackers develop anti-social tendencies due to the use of this virtual world, and it may cause erratic behaviour at home and at school.

If your son is using Quake, you should make hime understand that this is not acceptable to you. You should ensure all the firearms in your house are carefully locked away, and have trigger locks installed. You should also bring your concerns to the attention of his school.

7. Is your son becoming argumentative and surly in his social behaviour?

As a child enters the electronic world of hacking, he may become disaffected with the real world. He may lose the ability to control his actions, or judge the rightness or wrongness of a course of behaviour. This will manifest itself soonest in the way he treats others. Those whom he disagrees with will be met with scorn, bitterness, and even foul language. He may utter threats of violence of a real or electronic nature.

Even when confronted, your son will probably find it difficult to talk about this problem to you. He will probably claim that there is no problem, and that you are imagining things. He may tell you that it is you who has the problem, and you should "back off" and "stop smothering him." Do not allow yourself to be deceived. You are the only chance your son has, even if he doesn't understand the situation he is in. Keep trying to get through to him, no matter how much he retreats into himself.

8. Is your son obsessed with "Lunix"?

BSD, Lunix, Debian and Mandrake are all versions of an illegal hacker operation system, invented by a Soviet computer hacker named Linyos Torovoltos, before the Russians lost the Cold War. It is based on a program called "xenix", which was written by Microsoft for the US government. These programs are used by hackers to break into other people's computer systems to steal credit card numbers. They may also be used to break into people's stereos to steal their music, using the "mp3" program. Torovoltos is a notorious hacker, responsible for writing many hacker programs, such as "telnet", which is used by hackers to connect to machines on the internet without using a telephone.

Your son may try to install "lunix" on your hard drive. If he is careful, you may not notice its presence, however, lunix is a capricious beast, and if handled incorrectly, your son may damage your computer, and even break it completely by deleting Windows, at which point you will have to have your computer repaired by a professional.

If you see the word "LILO" during your windows startup (just after you turn the machine on), your son has installed lunix. In order to get rid of it, you will have to send your computer back to the manufacturer, and have them fit a new hard drive. Lunix is extremely dangerous software, and cannot be removed without destroying part of your hard disk surface.

9. Has your son radically changed his appearance?

If your son has undergone a sudden change in his style of dress, you may have a hacker on your hands. Hackers tend to dress in bright, day-glo colors. They may wear baggy pants, bright colored shirts and spiky hair dyed in bright colors to match their clothes. They may take to carrying "glow-sticks" and some wear pacifiers around their necks. (I have no idea why they do this) There are many such hackers in schools today, and your son may have started to associate with them. If you notice that your son's group of friends includes people dressed like this, it is time to think about a severe curfew, to protect him from dangerous influences.

10. Is your son struggling academically?

If your son is failing courses in school, or performing poorly on sports teams, he may be involved in a hacking group, such as the infamous "Otaku" hacker association. Excessive time spent on the computer, communicating with his fellow hackers may cause temporary damage to the eyes and brain, from the electromagnetic radiation. This will cause his marks to slip dramatically, particularly in difficult subjects such as Math, and Chemistry. In extreme cases, over-exposure to computer radiation can cause schizophrenia, meningitis and other psychological diseases. Also, the reduction in exercise may cause him to lose muscle mass, and even to start gaining weight. For the sake of your child's mental and physical health, you must put a stop to his hacking, and limit his computer time drastically.

I encourage all parents to read through this guide carefully. Your child's future may depend upon it. Hacking is an illegal and dangerous activity, that may land your child in prison, and tear your family apart. It cannot be taken too seriously.

BSD's SIte kicks ass??

Jeezus H. Krist! I'm color blind and it STILL looks bad. I'll take /. over that any day.

Head over to http://www.bsd.org/

There is also the HURD (from GNU), and there are hundreds of GNU/Linux distros, and probably a few systems that are a combination of the Linux kernel and *BSD utilities. (I think that MINIX is completely dead by now, so that doesn't count.)

No, no, no.
If you want to go the "Windows [microsoft.com] is buggy" way, well, at least, try to be informative where the alternatives are concerned.

For those who wish to try another OS, the three big ones, not counting Windows, are BSD [bsd.org] (four powerful, secure, and robuts variations), Linux [linux.org] (more distributions than you can shake a CAT 5 at), and Solaris [sun.com] (The premiere commercial *Nix). All four have their good points, and all four are certainly worth checking before you decide on one.

See? I mean, if Windows is still so widely used, there is a reason, you know... :)

Am i the only one that gets annoyed with these silly little asides that are all over the place (inside of these ()s)? Do you people have multiple personalities (or any at all)? (I'm currently thinking about going home. maybe i will soon) (The sky is blue) (I wish i knew a girl).

"If the BSD project wanted to have the code fall under the more liberal BSD license..."

It looks to me like the logo is a merge of:

1. The Linux Penguin, Tux: note the black feathers and beak.
2. The BSD Daemon: note the fork. (Officially it has no name according to the copyright holder Marshall Kirk McKusick. But some call it Beastie -- 'bsd'.)
3. The Free Software Foundation mascot, GNU: note the horns.
4. The GNOME "G": note the feet.

Cheers,
Andrew

I'm not arguing for affirmative action among opensource development teams. Far from it. But it still bugs me that here an entire new team has been elected and yet there remains not a single female team member among them. Sure, I could do my part and try to join, but I bear that burden enough here on slashdot and I have my priorities; isn't there some female programmer willing to join the "old B oy S D evelopment network?.

I'm not arguing for affirmative action among opensource development teams. Far from it. But it still bugs me that here an entire new team has been elected and yet there remains not a single female team member among them. Sure, I could do my part and try to join, but I bear that burden enough here on slashdot and I have my priorities; isn't there some female programmer willing to join the "old B oy S D evelopment network?.

I'm not arguing for affirmative action among opensource development teams. Far from it. But it still bugs me that here an entire new team has been elected and yet there remains not a single female team member among them. Sure, I could do my part and try to join, but I bear that burden enough here on slashdot and I have my priorities; isn't there some female programmer willing to join the "old B oy S D evelopment network?.

Well now that Sonique is on Linux, We can look forward to RMS screaming about how their source license violates the GPL. I'm tired of his communist antics. That bastard.

Note, I am not a very good troll, for better ones, see the troll homepage.

Thank you.

I don't think this is really an issue, at least from my reading of the article. They most certainly would be protected by the 'internal distribution' umbrella you are describing, however they would be reluctant to fork the code for the same reasons others would-compatibility.

Once they have their own closed version of the kernel it would be difficult to keep their version in sync with outside development, make newer drivers function properly and even some neccesary apps.

In short, they would wind up reinventing the wheel, which is one of the exact things open source is supposed to prevent. If it were really a question of licensing I'm sure they would opt for an easier way around it, while still getting a decent 'nix fix.

Very interesting. Its a good idea: Free access to information. The problem that I see is the overall lack of computers in South America. Sure, rich families will have them, but most people will not. Still as the article says, terminals will be installed in public areas.

Again, though, how many people will use them? Here in Canada the level of literacy is (IIRC) about 80%. What is it like in South America? You cannot use the internet without a functional ability to read.

With the spread of this idea it gives all the more reason to donated your used systems to South American countries, its better than sending them to landfill. I know that there was an organization here in Canada that was sending used systems to Cuba (yes, its Central America...)

If "free" (donated) PC's begin to become common, I wonder what OS they will use? I sure hope its a free one. Competition would still be good too.

It appears that LinuxPLanet has been Slashdotted! Oh well, so much for stable Linux web serving. Next time, try BSD for an OS that is not U*IX-like, because, it is UNIX!!!

> Stop playing hippie counterculture wannabe and unite the 'nix community

BSD is hippie counterculture?
I wouldn't say the BSD has a "not invented here" syndrome either.

Maybe you should do some reading.
BSD.org
FreeBSD
OpenBSD
NetBSD

Having the source code available pretty much ensures that anyone can do anything they want to the system. Some people will want to slow everything down because they can't keep up with the rate of change to the system. However, they will be unable to remain competitive with the fast moving systems over time. Some others will try to add in non-libre components to the free systems in order to control them, but most of us know better and will route around that kind of damage.

By far the worst threats are software patents and other forms of legal monopoly that artificially prevent free systems from competing. However, even those can be routed around given enough time and effort (and hacking of the legal system). bladeenc and the MP3 patents are a good example of how we might go around such measures.

It's also important to keep in mind that we have the source code. For the same reasons that the linux apocalypse could happen, we could one day find ourselves all switching to the HURD, or one of the BSD deviates, or some competitive new kernel that runs well on hardware that doesn't even exist yet. The only pieces of the free systems that won't survive the transition are the ones without source code and the hardware-dependent pieces.

Hi Mom!

Reference? Like www.bsd.org?

FreeBSD -- optimized for Intel platforms
NetBSD -- optimized for portability
OpenBSD -- optimized for security

Of course, FreeBSD supports Alpha, Net and OpenBSD have very good Intel support, OpenBSD derives from NetBSD, and everyone keeps importing features from everyone else.