Slashdot Mirror

The drinking bird broke last week. The system has been modernised by switching to using yes(1).

ohh great another dead OS for competition. No wonder Linux does so well.

Not quite as pretty, but easier to use (and more functional)

Hey insightful fool. Would you mind explaining how the zlib buffer vulnerability being discussed could be exploited? Or even why it is a buffer overflow at all? Here's the patch: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/CERT/patches/SA- 05:16/zlib.patch and here's thee source: http://www.zlib.net/ And btw, there's no way in hell to prevent oversights like this. It's not a typical, duh I used gets() type buffer overflow.

For the undead crowd out there:

OpenBSD is affected, and was patched on the 6th of June
FreeBSD is affected, and was patched on the 6th of June
NetBSD base system is not affected, but a zlib from pkgsrc is, and was patched on the 8th of June

You follow the fanboy distro cycle?

In two months some other Linux distro will be everybody's darling, and we'll have to see a million posts about how absolutely wonderful it is.

Do yourself a favor, article submitter. Install FreeBSD and get some real work done.

Users can install the "portaudit" tool to get daily emails of known problems with installed packages.

I thought that this sub-thread was so stupid that it was not worthy of a response but this list of incredible flaws in Linux that are supposedly fixed in OS X or Windows is so ridiculous, I just had to respond.
1. More secure? Not true. All Operating Systems have problems, closed sources Operating Systems have more problems than others becuase there are fewer people viewing and fixing the bugs and other problems. An Operating System's security depends greatly on the configuration and administration not that is is created or modified by a certain company.
2. Not true either. Speed depends on configuration and administration. Mac's are tuned for certain things where Linux can be tuned in any cofiguration you so desire.
3. More advanced or aged only because it is running a version of FreeBSD which is so close to linux how can you call it anything but *NIX?
4. Built for idiots that rather the computer maintain control. I, on the otherhand, like to control my computer.
5. Linux is backed by many successful companies such as IBM, Novell, Redhat, etc., etc as well as a world of seasoned programmers.
6. See above. Open source programming does not mean amateurs. Most of the open source programmers are seasoned vets that work full time for large companies.
7. Most of OS X is open source because it is Free BSD. Note the "Free" part of that. (see http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/copyright.html)
7. (you probably meant 8 right?) See above statements. OS X is mostly FreeBSD which means they do not own the code. The GUI, they own, but so what. The kernel is still UNIX!

If the list goes on I would like to see it because this preliminary list is bogus.

They make quite a few binary packages available.

That doesn't seem like a distribution-maintained package at all.

Is there a fundamental difference between providing a binary archive, and distributing the tools for users to automatically create exact copies of that archive?

Here's a solution.

*dodges flying tomatos*

OK, OK, here's a patch.

*runs*

• FreeBSD doners gallery
• NetBSD doners gallery
• ActiveState pays several developers to work full-time on PHP, Python and Tcl, and a lot of their work goes into the core distributions not just ActiveState's proprietary development environments.

None of these products in under copyleft. Enlightened self-interest is more effective than a big stick.

Your computer can be seized -- and pretty quickly. All non-trivial data (including risky photos of your partner) should be encrypted on disk. Major operating systems support this option -- including FreeBSD, Windows, and, no doubt, Linux.

Certainly, "honest people have nothing to hide", but it is not even so much about winning the case (you will, likely, prevail), but also saving yourself a lot of time and money. Your adversary will go through all data found on your machine and your lawyer (don't even think of not hiring one) will be billing you in proportion to the amount of things, the other party brings up. Even if all of it ends up being nothing.

True, the opponent may demand, that you decrypt the data -- but you (your lawyer) can fight that demand -- it will likely be cheaper, than explaining away all messages in your ExEmployer-folder.

Do not rely on mere obscurity -- I found out first-hand, that even FreeBSD is "mainstream" enough for professionals (yes, there is a good market for these services) to know it. They came with software (something from SourceForge) to search through filesystems (very easy -- "grep" for the disk devices). For Linux they'd probably even have GUI.

Treat these guys decently -- they are just doing their jobs. If you do, they are more likely to overlook your older computer, which will let you post about your troubles on Slashdot when they are gone.

Set up encryption. Encrypt your back-ups, before they leave your computer. Do not automate decryption so that it happens by itself on boot (duh!)

When you are done, treat yourself to "Cryptonomicon" for fun and more behind-covering ideas.

1. Beastie is generic, it's associated with all of the BSDs and not specific to FreeBSD.

• OpenBSD has a puff fish for a mascot
• NetBSD has a yacht flag for a logo
• DragonFlyBSD has a stillwater aquatic insect for the mascot and a logo.

Q. Please save Beastie!

A. Beastie will continue to represent the FreeBSD Project as our mascot. We won't kill Beastie. The closest logo-like thing that we have now is shown below, and we are looking for other options to be used like there. The new logo design may or may not include Beastie, or even a stylized representation. Again, Beastie is still alive!

"whatever BSD uses"

pf, ipf, and ipfw, depending on flavour/taste.

There's no such thing as an OS clone. ... In the end people just want to run what software they want to and Microsoft is positioned to allow that to happen and I don't see an easy way for someone else to come in and take that away from them.

Yeah sure. So you are saying FreeBSD can't run Linux binaries or Linux can't run any MS Windows (or DOS) programs? From a program's point of view, an OS is just a set of API which help it get its job done. It doesn't really care if it is running MS Windows, Linux, or OS/2. The only problem which has slowed other operating systems from supporting MS Window's API would be that it is constantly changing, so it has grown to this huge beast. It also has so many bugs, nearly every program works around them, so the bugs have to be emulated too, not just the APIs.

1. Interrupt handling bottleneck. Even with interrupt mitigation your typical pps value for a single CPU P4 is under 100 kps. It falls down to under 60 kps when using Intel dual CPUs (dunno about AMD or Via) or SMT due to the overly deep pipeline on the P4. That is way less then 1G for small packets.

from http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/200 4-September/004840.html

"PS: Linux guys where pretty much floored that FreeBSD 5.3 can route 1Mpps and
they can't do much more than 100kpps. ;-) Yes, way to go!"

sl HKLM:\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion
( set-location / cd)

I'm sure all sorts of people are rude to you - it's because you are a pompous, pretentious idiot. Stop lecturing on subjects you don't know.

In the case of FreeBSD it is the stuff that under /usr/src. See http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/ for what all is there.

What is the OS? Is up for debate. I'll say kernel, basic network stuff(e.g. ssh, telnet, ping, etc), init scripts and logging facilities(i.e. a syslog daemon). Granted most distros include more this(e.g. sendmail).

Apps like Apache, Nagios, X, etc, I don't consider part of the OS.

1. /usr/local. Everything that you add afterwards goes in there. It's just extra to type. And is apache config in /usr/local/apache/conf or /usr/local/etc/apache/conf ?

That is where it's supposed to go. Read hier(7). AFAIK, before Linux, all *NIX variants used /usr/local in this way.

2. The interface names change with the drivers of the card. em0? or fxp0. Who knows. What a silly idea.

Actually, I prefer that to eth0 and eth1 magically switching places as has happened occasionally for me after rebooting Linux.

What a fantastic idea, promote ideas that will drive people away from your distro rather than encouraging people to try Debian.

So, if you're tired of Linux Politics I suggest a free and a not-so free alternative to Lurmickes.

Read The License:
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.h tml

You can't re-license BSD code - it's like claiming it's yours, right? But you can do whatever you want with derived work. Derived work does not include code you borrowing with BSD license.

Looks like you are mixing derived work and original work.

Daemon wins.

And while we are at it, something like atacontrol - to be able to hotswap ide drives. I know about hdparm, but last time I tried it (it was more than a year ago though) it didn't work very well.

Why, I guess it is. I couldn't remember the name, honestly, just the latex outfit. If you look, you'll notice that there is at least one image of Ceren on the page I referenced above, though.

Now I can only question why you'd choose an image without said red latex suit... I'm going to guess you're just showing off/trolling. Typical BSD geek behavior ;-)

So no, I didn't know her by name, nor did I recognize her without the outfit. You're clearly a much bigger BSD geek than I. I bow before you in shame.

But really, how famous do you expect the 'most famous BSD chick' to be ?

Documentation is very easy to find and readily available for the BSDs:

NetBSD packages
OpenBSD packages
FreeBSD packages

DragonFly uses FreeBSDs ports at this time as per the FAQ

Also see FreshPorts

This is easy. Linux is cool because it has an X in it. Everyone knows Xs are cool. (Of course, Linux would be cooler if they capitalized the X, but that's a minor point.)

On the other hand, BSD is cool because it has a hot chick.

Both are valid attributes and neither side should feel bad.

Forget the content of the post... (Score:0)
by ninja_assault_kitten (883141) Neutral on Sunday June 12, @04:20PM (#12796893)
( http://www.freebsd.org/ )

Why the hell is this even on Slashdot in the first place? Who is this guy? Is he anyone I should know? Is he known to be an authority on anything?

Does any dumb fuck get to post on Slashdot if they write something that's anti-OSS? FUCK.

Btw, it seems that *somebody* is sharing my preference, since FreeBSD is used on web servers much more than any Linux distro (2.5 million active sites, against 1.6 million of Red Hat). And from Netcraft numbers (June 2004), FreeBSD had a 25% increase in the last year.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/06/07/nearl y_25_million_active_sites_running_freebsd.html
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/03/14/fedor a_makes_rapid_progress.html

I know, facts like this one are little known on Slashdot - for a reason, I'm afraid. The same reason why lousy "reviews" like this one get produced by NewsForge and posted on Slashdot (they belong to the same company), and the same reason why in the /. BSD section, in the latest 20+ news items, only 2 (two) are about FreeBSD (the 5.4 release, and this piece of crap), notwithstanding its huge user base.
That alone says that FreeBSD is a strong Linux contender: if it weren't, there would be no point in obscuring it.

Btw this is an observation, it's not a complaint. FreeBSD has already shown that it can thrive even without the hype.

--
Requiem for the FUD

Btw, it seems that *somebody* is sharing my preference, since FreeBSD is used on web servers much more than any Linux distro (2.5 million active sites, against 1.6 million of Red Hat). And from Netcraft numbers (June 2004), FreeBSD had a 25% increase in the last year.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/06/07/nearl y_25_million_active_sites_running_freebsd.html
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/03/14/fedor a_makes_rapid_progress.html

I know, facts like this one are little known on Slashdot - for a reason, I'm afraid. The same reason why lousy "reviews" like this one get produced by NewsForge and posted on Slashdot (they belong to the same company), and the same reason why in the /. BSD section, in the latest 20+ news items, only 2 (two) are about FreeBSD (the 5.4 release, and this piece of crap), notwithstanding its huge user base.
That alone says that FreeBSD is a strong Linux contender: if it weren't, there would be no point in obscuring it.

Btw this is an observation, it's not a complaint. FreeBSD has already shown that it can thrive even without the hype.

--
Requiem for the FUD

The FreeBSD 5.4 Release is dedicated to the memory of Cameron Grant. Cameron was an active FreeBSD Developer and principal architect of the sound driver subsystem despite his physical handicap. His is a superb example of human spirit dominating over adversity. Cameron was an inspiration to those who met him; he will be fondly remembered and sorely missed.

http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.4R/announce.html

This just hit the lists...

The FreeBSD Project is happy to participate in Google's Summer of Code 2005 program. Basically, this program provides $4500 in funding to allow students to spend the summer writing open source software.....

http://www.freebsd.org/projects/summerofcode.html

BitTorrent search however proves with first tests [that it is] as...Google...fast.

So fast that the browser times out on a search for "mozilla". Hopefully they'll get those kinks worked out soon. :-/

Bandwidth generously provided by Hot or Not

That explains everything. ;-)

Will he get sued?

I still think that anyone trying to sue Bittorrent or a generic search engine would have a hard time of it. Bittorrent has so many legal uses that it just isn't funny. Here's some example of legal torrents:

Privateer Remake
OpenOffice
Star Trek: New Voyages (legal fan made)
FreeBSD
Star Wars: Revelations (legal fan made)
Xandros Free Edition
Mozilla Firefox
Doom 3 Demo
America's Army (now for Linux and OSX)

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

AKA SecureID. Nearest open source equivalent is S/Key.

I linked to the FreeBSD Handbook, that is the user documentation. But for more general info about the FreeBSD project you might want to have a look at the FAQ first
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/f aq/index.html

I also forgot: this is a very nice place to find competent and informative answers to BSD and Unix related issues
http://bsdforums.org/forums

Btw, one little thing that the forum above has, and IMHO Slashdot is missing *badly*, is the ability to edit comments to add things you forgot (damn it).
--
Requiem for the FUD

I simply told you which one I like better and why (i.e. what you asked for). I didn't tell you what are the differences between them, so your deduction is wrong.
In fact, the main differences are technical, in their very goals: while FreeBSD focuses mainly on features and i386 performance, OpenBSD focuses mainly on code correctness and security.

>Do these two share between each other?

Sure they do - and massively.
For example, one little jewel that came from OpenBSD to the other *BSDs is pf (packet filter), that has an excellent reputation for its being very clean and easy to use.

>Is there a common BSD kernel or anything like that?

No.
The *BSDs are developed like OSes, not "distros". So, while they massively share code, they maintain their own kernels.

To better understand the differences, it helps to notice that OpenBSD was born as a NetBSD fork, 8 years ago - and even today, it shares more code with NetBSD than with FreeBSD.

But to understand even better, well.. FreeBSD and OpenBSD are renowned for their excellent documentation, that is well worth having a look at.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/h andbook/index.html
http://openbsd.org/faq/index.html
--
Requiem for the FUD

I'll stop whining as soon as GPL zealots stop insisting that using GPL code doesn't restrict your rights. It all depends on how you use it. If you use it as a component within existing code, you have to sacrifice the right to use proprietry third party code with it

Hmm yes... that is why I can use a machine with nvidia video hardware, running Linux with a non GPLed nvidia kernel module for example.

There are people who strongly believe in the goal that the GPL tries to achieve, you are obviously not among them, and that is fine, I am not among those either. I do however respect the choice that people made with regards to what license they use.

Except the preamble and clause 7. My point is that if we use a patented algorithm, then however hard we try, there is no way to release our software in a manner compliant with the GPL. If we don't use patented algorithms, then our equipment is no longer compatible with the standard and therefore useless.

Well, if you choose to use something that puts up additional restrictions then that indeed can mean you cannot use GPLed code, but that is not always the case, it depends on how exactly things are intefgrated with eachother. See my example from above.

If you use a patented algorithm on which you own the patent, and you do not put additional restrictions on its use in GPLed software, then you can use a patented algorithm.

If you don't own the patent then well, that is not going to work, but in that case you may find that the GPL is not unique, it is a consequence of using a patented algorithm.

Yes, but that's splitting hairs. It doesn't actually help does it?

It does not help you for the simple reason that you want something that the GPL will not offer you, get the things you need for no price whatsoever.

You seem to still not understand that this is all about choices. If you make choices incompatible with the GPL then that is your problem, not that of the GPL.

Fine, but if you're dictating terms, stop claiming that you're providing me with freedom. I'm only "free" to do things your way.

You are free to do whatever you want, but if you are going to distribute what you built using a GPLed work then you have to comply with the GPL in many cases. You have a choice to use something else.

The GPL is about freedom, but not about the freedom to rip off someone elses work, but about preservation of the freedom to see and modify the source code of software you use. The restriction you have such an issue with guarantees that.

It is indeed not total and complete freedom, but it is a lot more freedom then most software licenses offer you.

It is exactly because of people who want the thing that you are asking for that the GPL contains this specific restriction.

Again, I don't like the GPL much, but I won't go whine about it, rather, I pick something more suitable, and with regards to the thing this discussion started with, Linux, there are very good alternatives that do not impose this kind of restriction..

Look for example at this operating system.

You still want to use Linux because it gets you a better marketing position_ then fucking pay the price and stop your whining.

If the number of ports/packages is one of your main concerns, FreeBSD currently has more than 12.000 ports.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.

There are more details available at http://people.freebsd.org/~jlemon/papers/kqueue.pd f

I fear the space time continuum will rupture spewing forth a hoard of evil flesh eating time daemons.

i think you mean "demons" -better watch it, as you don't want the BSDers to get their panties in a wad...

You are more or less correct ... it depends on how close the compile flags a distro uses are to those used by the mozilla project. They don't need to match one by one, they just need to be close enough (so I can imagine that a simple i686 optimized build with -O will pass - see this email.)

The FreeBSD Java home page says: "The current release of the JDK and JRE available via the FreeBSD Foundation is 1.3.1". As for 1.4.x, use "in a production environment is at your own risk", according to the porting team. The Java 5 port is, as you say, alpha quality.

Despite this, two-thirds of all webservers run Linux.

No. Two-thirds of all publicly visible web servers found by netcraft run Apache, but this includes many other operating systems.

17.3. How many FreeBSD hackers does it take to change a lightbulb?
One thousand, one hundred and sixty-nine:
Twenty-three to complain to -CURRENT about the lights being out;
Four to claim that it is a configuration problem, and that such matters really belong on -questions;
Three to submit PRs about it, one of which is misfiled under doc and consists only of “it's dark”;
One to commit an untested lightbulb which breaks buildworld, then back it out five minutes later;
Eight to flame the PR originators for not including patches in their PRs;
Five to complain about buildworld being broken;
Thirty-one to answer that it works for them, and they must have cvsupped at a bad time;
One to post a patch for a new lightbulb to -hackers;
One to complain that he had patches for this three years ago, but when he sent them to -CURRENT they were just ignored, and he has had bad experiences with the PR system; besides, the proposed new lightbulb is non-reflexive;
Thirty-seven to scream that lightbulbs do not belong in the base system, that committers have no right to do things like this without consulting the Community, and WHAT IS -CORE DOING ABOUT IT!?
Two hundred to complain about the color of the bicycle shed;
Three to point out that the patch breaks style(9);
Seventeen to complain that the proposed new lightbulb is under GPL;
Five hundred and eighty-six to engage in a flame war about the comparative advantages of the GPL, the BSD license, the MIT license, the NPL, and the personal hygiene of unnamed FSF founders;
Seven to move various portions of the thread to -chat and -advocacy;
One to commit the suggested lightbulb, even though it shines dimmer than the old one;
Two to back it out with a furious flame of a commit message, arguing that FreeBSD is better off in the dark than with a dim lightbulb;
Forty-six to argue vociferously about the backing out of the dim lightbulb and demanding a statement from -core;
Eleven to request a smaller lightbulb so it will fit their Tamagotchi if we ever decide to port FreeBSD to that platform;
Seventy-three to complain about the SNR on -hackers and -chat and unsubscribe in protest;
Thirteen to post “unsubscribe”, “How do I unsubscribe?”, or “Please remove me from the list”, followed by the usual footer;
One to commit a working lightbulb while everybody is too busy flaming everybody else to notice;
Thirty-one to point out that the new lightbulb would shine 0.364% brighter if compiled with TenDRA (although it will have to be reshaped into a cube), and that FreeBSD should therefore switch to TenDRA instead of GCC;
One to complain that the new lightbulb lacks fairings;
Nine (including the PR originators) to ask “what is MFC?”;
Fifty-seven to complain about the lights being out two weeks after the bulb has been changed.
Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.org> adds:
I was laughing quite hard at this.
And then I thought, &#8220;Hang on, shouldn't there be '1 to document it.' in that list somewhere?&#8221;
And then I was enlightened :-)

I think you need to learn a bit more about the way Red Hat or Debian are integrated and how much they influence and contribute to the "upstream sources". Alan Cox ...

kernel recompilation is way more common in BSDland, http://www.freebsd.org/doc/....

This is not the same. Red Hat and Debian mostly pull from upstream sources which do not develop together. For most of OpenBSD userland, the upstream is the same as the package maintainer.

I think you need to learn a bit more about the way Red Hat or Debian are integrated and how much they influence and contribute to the "upstream sources". Alan Cox is one example, he's a key kernel developer and he serves Red Hat interests, just as many other Red Hat employees or Debian devs helping out Linus. The same applies to different projects.

By the way: for every Linux distro I've used, the default kernel always lacks something or doesn't work in some way, and I always end up building a custom one. With OpenBSD, the default kernel is much better than any default Linux kernel I've seen.

That's cool, but I hope you concede that your situation it's not common. That the vast majority of Linux users do not need to recompile kernels and, as a matter of fact, kernel recompilation is way more common in BSDland, http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/h andbook/kernelconfig-custom-kernel.html

As for your last argument, about how many people use Linux: This proves nothing. I can just as easily say, "Look how many people use Microsoft Windows! Obviously, it must be better!"

You missed the point. I never said that Linux was better because more people use it, I said that experts and corporations that really need performance, security, and overall a well written OS choose Linux over OpenBSD and I gave you plenty of examples that you are free to compare against the testimonies in the OpenBSD website. http://www.openbsd.org/users.html

link

Download the 'bootonly' ISO image.

One of the things that helped me install fonts is this paper. Yes, it's from the FreeBSD handbook, but nearly all of it deals with just X11 and not FreeBSD-specific.

A few little tips; you might want to install the Microsoft web fonts (they're free as in beer and pretty nice) as well as the Bitstream Vera fonts. If you have a Windows box, you can copy those fonts, put them on your *nix box, and update the fonts database by typing ttmkfdir > fonts.dir where the TrueType fonts are stored.

Pretty much, my experience with fonts have been, for the most part, pretty good. I'm using FreeBSD with Window Maker, so no, I don't have all of the nice KDE/GNOME bells and whistles, so my fonts might not look as good. However, it is a great idea to get a nice understanding of how fonts work under X11. You never know when you need it....

As for the Sheldon font, X11 comes with a program called xfontsel. (Yes, it's ugly and it comes from the bad old days of X, and its description of fonts is a stark departure from Windows/Mac, but it does the job). Anyways, look under the fmly menu and see if your font is located there.

The kernel developers don't seem to agree on the right way to fix this, whether at the kernel level or in userspace. However, it may affect the performance of the kernel if it's done in kernelspace, and it is impractical to have everyone rewrite their userland software, as someone else pointed out. The "patch" which is available for FreeBSD to fix this problem only disables hyperthreading and does not provide a real fix.