Slashdot Mirror

Support for RFC 3514 was committed to FreeBSD already.

If they don't include the IPv4 header changes all is lost. And surely BSD will die.

In all seriousness, FreeBSD now supports the evil bit. Kernel patch here.

I have since switched to Gentoo Linux for my personal workstations. IMHO, Gentoo beats FreeBSD at its own game, in three ways:

• The Gentoo base system is even more streamlined and minimal than FreeBSD's. For instance, the FreeBSD base includes sendmail, tcsh, a real sh, uucp, and inetd (among others). These are optional in Gentoo, and I prefer that, since I don't need those packages.
• The Gentoo Portage system is like FreeBSD's /usr/ports, only better. They feel very similar, but Portage is simply more featureful. I like Portage's USE flags, though I wish they weren't limited to on/off boolean values. The way Portage integrates packages with the base OS is also rather clean, though I am also a big fan of the FreeBSD "ports go in /usr/local" method as well.
• Gentoo is somewhat more cutting-edge than FreeBSD. If I want to use bash instead of sh, metalog instead of syslog, vcron instead of cron, postfix instead of sendmail, cups instead of lpd, etc., I can, and without munging up the base system. And a pet peeve: FreeBSD only recently moved from more(1) to less(1).

I have seen Linux panic thrice (way back in 1997). I've only seen FreeBSD panic once. They are both wonderful OSes. If only I had the time to run them both. Right now Gentoo gets my time.

The OpenSSH port for FreeBSD (under security/openssh) has been updated to 3.6 this morning. One can pull down the individual port tarball from a local FTP mirror or by using CVSup to update a local Ports collection.

Check out the list of packages included with Red Hat Linux 9. You'll find exactly zero non-free software. There is one file (the README, perhaps? It's been a while) that states that while you have the right to copy it (the file), you do not have the right to modify it (the file). If you have a problem with that, dump the GPL now, because the GPL (the document itself) has the same proviso as does the BSD license. FreeBSD even has a whole document devoted to how various degrees of restrictive licensing interact in the ports system.

But you are probably thinking of the Office and Multimedia Applications CD which is not part of Red Hat Linux 9, but rather an add-on 7th or 8th disk included with Red hat Linux 9 Professional and you will find that the licensing on all of that software includes specific language that allows for duplication of the Red Hat Linux 9 Professional ISOs. These packages are also not required (in fact, I don't even think they're referenced) by the base installation of the software.

What I don't understand is how there can be such wild misinformation as there has been about Red Hat.

This move has the obvious intent of invoking one of the more useful properties of the Internet: it interprets restraint (I'm generalizing the concept of censorship, which is usually what is cited in this particular quote) as damage and routes around it. Red Hat was spending more and more money per release on providing ISO downloads. What to do? Stop providing a download for the ISOs and let the community create a better solution. If they didn't think the community would do so, they certainly would not be in the free software business (I say free software only because Red Hat as a company pre-dates other terms for this business model, not be cause "open source" would not have applied equally well).

Check out the list of packages included with Red Hat Linux 9. You'll find exactly zero non-free software. There is one file (the README, perhaps? It's been a while) that states that while you have the right to copy it (the file), you do not have the right to modify it (the file). If you have a problem with that, dump the GPL now, because the GPL (the document itself) has the same proviso as does the BSD license. FreeBSD even has a whole document devoted to how various degrees of restrictive licensing interact in the ports system.

But you are probably thinking of the Office and Multimedia Applications CD which is not part of Red Hat Linux 9, but rather an add-on 7th or 8th disk included with Red hat Linux 9 Professional and you will find that the licensing on all of that software includes specific language that allows for duplication of the Red Hat Linux 9 Professional ISOs. These packages are also not required (in fact, I don't even think they're referenced) by the base installation of the software.

What I don't understand is how there can be such wild misinformation as there has been about Red Hat.

This move has the obvious intent of invoking one of the more useful properties of the Internet: it interprets restraint (I'm generalizing the concept of censorship, which is usually what is cited in this particular quote) as damage and routes around it. Red Hat was spending more and more money per release on providing ISO downloads. What to do? Stop providing a download for the ISOs and let the community create a better solution. If they didn't think the community would do so, they certainly would not be in the free software business (I say free software only because Red Hat as a company pre-dates other terms for this business model, not be cause "open source" would not have applied equally well).

If you want to patch your system up quickly, simply get the updated sendmail program in binary form from:

ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/CERT/patches/SA- 03:04/

For my system (FreeBSD 4.7) I grabbed:

sendmail-4.7-i386-crypto.bin.gz

And installed it with these commands:

gunzip sendmail-4.7-i386-crypto.bin.gz
install -s -o root -g smmsp -m 2555 sendmail-4.7-i386-crypto.bin /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail

--
Dreamweaver Templates
--

After seeing this article, I wondered, why doesn't the FreeBSD project do something similar ? There is a lot of FreeBSD-related projects that would be better off being hosted in a centralised place, with all their mailing lists and forums. That would make following their progress so much more easier...

It's out

5.0 was released 2 months ago. Even the /. editors know

Linux for the rest of us

The concept of the community voting for membership in the leadership of the project is an almost, if not totally, non-existant concept in the Open Source world (feel free to show me examples). I'm not talking about advocacy groups, like Linux International. I'm talking about development projects. XFree86 has no interest in this, as far as I can tell.

I can think of one right now. So can he, since he mentions it a few paraghraphs later. The FreeBSD Core team is elected. To be core on FreeBSD you have to be an active developer, and have not pissed too many other developers off recently (or at least pissed them off less than most other people). Sounds like a good idea to me...

Oh. Wait. Sorry, I forgot. FreeBSD is dead. I really should stop using it sometimes soon. Can't be using a dead OS on my desktop...

Shells

They already have the idea of a core. All they need now is to create a level of developers with commit permission to take the load off the hands of a few committers.

There are established rules to how to be a committer.

Most important are the perks! :)

They already have the idea of a core. All they need now is to create a level of developers with commit permission to take the load off the hands of a few committers.

There are established rules to how to be a committer.

Most important are the perks! :)

They already have the idea of a core. All they need now is to create a level of developers with commit permission to take the load off the hands of a few committers.

There are established rules to how to be a committer.

Most important are the perks! :)

They already have the idea of a core. All they need now is to create a level of developers with commit permission to take the load off the hands of a few committers.

There are established rules to how to be a committer.

Most important are the perks! :)

KGI FreeBSD project

Just so you know KGI is the Kernel Graphics Interface project that was to be the underlying layer of GGI in Linux.

I used to mess around with this back when Linus was saying how much it was a bad idea. The neat thing about ggi applications is if you compile them once they will run within X as well as at the console without a recompile. At least that used to be a goal... Admittedly I stopped following this project a long time ago but I am glad that it appears to be moving forward elsewhere :).

I heard Linux LVM does snapshots too. So FreeBSD is actually behind Linux in this.

This is a prime example of what's wrong with slashdot today. Whoever modded this up is a fucking idiot. Let's break it down:

You heard linux LVM does snapshots. So basically, you have no idea. Shot in the dark. I don't know why you used your karma bonus on such an obvious gem of wisdom. But hey, you were right at least.

"So FreeBSD is actually behind Linux in this." I like how you made an assumption, and then stated a fact based on that. Karmaworthy indeed. The thing is, YOU'RE WRONG. But nevermind that, I knew you were an idiot already.

What really bothers me is, I know I'm not the only who followed this exact same train of thought, but here two days later I'm the only one replying to smack this guy down. So instead of the majority of people who read this then remembering the real facts, they're going to remember what this guy said and probably go around quoting it in a smug manner thinking they're oh-so-leet.

Until they meet me, and I kill them.

We prefer to refer to him as the Daemon, thank you very much! ;)

-Dan

Yes, they do know PicoBSD exists.

Try either
MuLinux
or
PicoBSD
to get started with a minimilist distro. Pico BSD runs on a single floppy, and I think MuLinux requires at least two. Onoe advantage of MuLinux is that it can actually run X after a few more floppys. I had both of these running at one point on a Laptop w/ 8 megs of ram.

Enjoy.

dump isn't broken; Linux is broken.

The question of how to perform backups on linux remains perfectly valid, of course, but recognizing where the problem lies makes other solutions more obvious.

Just because it's broken on Linux doesn't mean that:

* it's not better on other platforms
* the other tools aren't worse

Elizabeth Zwicky's classic Torture-testing Backup and Archive Programs will give a whole list of reasons why you should be suspicious of tar or cpio.

Heck, the FreeBSD Handbook answers the question "Which backup program is best?" by saying "dump(8). Period."

I read this article a few days ago and bookmarked most of the links I thought valueable. If anyone else is interested add some more to this thread so I can grab them :)

Exported bookmarks Fingerprint
blackhole(4) - a sysctl(8) MIB for manipulating TCP
Help Net Security OS-FngrPrint article in PDF
Honeyd - Network Rhapsody for You
http://ojnk.sourceforge.net/stuff/iplog.readme
http://www.insecure.org/nmap/nmap-fingerprinting-a rticle.txt
IP Personality - Home
Kernel Options
p0f file listing
PhoneBoys FireWall-1 FAQs: Blocking queSO packets
s0ftpr0ject 2000 Fingerprint Fucker
Security Technologies
SourceForge.net: Project Info - SING
Sys-Security.com - Because Security is not Trivial
USENIX Technical Program - Abstract - Security Symposium - 2000

Can we wait until *after* the release before announcing it?

Naaaah. And the text of this article is wrong too, it should have been "FreeBSD 4.8 will released at March 24th, you can find it at your local mirrors."

click me

It wasn't until I setup a spam filtering mail relay for my home network using a FreeBSD server running Postfix and SpamAssassin, that it really hit home just how much spam I was getting on a daily basis. Postfix is using RBLs and header filtering criteria, and that kills a lot of the spam outright. That which passes Postfix is analyzed by SpamAssassin and flagged as spam in the subject line. My MUA filters my mail and moves flagged messages to a designated SPAM folder for review before I delete it (because I will never trust an automated process like this 100%). Now that my legitimate mail is nicely sorted from my junk mail, the percentage is staggeringly obvious. I get 4 to 5 times the amount of junk mail as legitimate mail, and that is with Postfix kicking a large portion of the inbound mail before it ever hits SpamAssassin! I don't have precise figures on how many Postfix kicks, but my mail log is flooded with Postfix reject messages. And you can add to that the fact that I firewall access to my mailserver from all of Latin America and Asia because of the high volume of spam and network attacks sourced from those regions.

Based on my guesstimation, I'd say that 90-95% of my inbound email is spam. And given the fact that bandwidth and CPU power keep getting faster, cheaper, and more available, I can only see the spam problem getting worse.

Here are some high-res screenshots taken from BSD:

on gnome
on kde


BSD is truly free and open.

A Brief History of FreeBSD
Contributed by Jordan Hubbard.

The first CDROM (and general net-wide) distribution was FreeBSD 1.0, released in December of 1993. This was based on the 4.3BSD-Lite (``Net/2'') tape from U.C. Berkeley, with many components also provided by 386BSD and the Free Software Foundation. It was a fairly reasonable success for a first offering, and we followed it with the highly successful FreeBSD 1.1 release in May of 1994.

Around this time, some rather unexpected storm clouds formed on the horizon as Novell and U.C. Berkeley settled their long-running lawsuit over the legal status of the Berkeley Net/2 tape. A condition of that settlement was U.C. Berkeley's concession that large parts of Net/2 were ``encumbered'' code and the property of Novell, who had in turn acquired it from AT&T some time previously. What Berkeley got in return was Novell's ``blessing'' that the 4.4BSD-Lite release, when it was finally released, would be declared unencumbered and all existing Net/2 users would be strongly encouraged to switch. This included FreeBSD, and the project was given until the end of July 1994 to stop shipping its own Net/2 based product. Under the terms of that agreement, the project was allowed one last release before the deadline, that release being FreeBSD 1.1.5.1.

FreeBSD then set about the arduous task of literally re-inventing itself from a completely new and rather incomplete set of 4.4BSD-Lite bits. The ``Lite'' releases were light in part because Berkeley's CSRG had removed large chunks of code required for actually constructing a bootable running system (due to various legal requirements) and the fact that the Intel port of 4.4 was highly incomplete. It took the project until November of 1994 to make this transition, at which point it released FreeBSD 2.0 to the net and on CDROM (in late December). Despite being still more than a little rough around the edges, the release was a significant success and was followed by the more robust and easier to install FreeBSD 2.0.5 release in June of 1995.

According to http://www.freebsd.org/java/dists/13.html, only 2-3 weeks ago did 1.3 pass all of Sun's compatability tests. We're still waiting for a solid 1.4 release on FreeBSD because of the nonsense requiring X, or at least Xvfb, to be running to support Java graphics calls - what was Sun thinking? Right, Java was originally designed by a bunch of 20-something kids at Sun that never had any experience in the real world doing languages...

NetBSD Handbook

OpenBSD FAQ

Hey, I once had the same idea (and I'm still on BSD until now), so here is a big clue: FreeBSD. This is a robust and fast OS, very well organized. It has a straightforward method for updating (you can *easily* compile the entire system by yourself) , also featuring an extremely easy-to-use and powerful ports system (the way you can install apps... it's much simpler than anything like apt-get or so). Also, on their site you can find a complete, up-to-date and freely available BOOK about using, administrating and getting the best of your system. Try it, I'm sure you would like!!!

Get the ISO (assuming you have an i386):
Only first CD is enough

On the Handbook, you find the installation instructions on the second chapter:
Here is the link

Okay, I think it's a good start... Note that if your box is not an i386 you still have options... just search their ftp site

Another thing, on their site, you can find two versions of the system: 4.7 and 5.0. The 4.7 is still the production release, so the link above is for 4.7. But if you want, you could also install 5.0, but be sure to read this before.

Good Luck!

Hey, I once had the same idea (and I'm still on BSD until now), so here is a big clue: FreeBSD. This is a robust and fast OS, very well organized. It has a straightforward method for updating (you can *easily* compile the entire system by yourself) , also featuring an extremely easy-to-use and powerful ports system (the way you can install apps... it's much simpler than anything like apt-get or so). Also, on their site you can find a complete, up-to-date and freely available BOOK about using, administrating and getting the best of your system. Try it, I'm sure you would like!!!

Get the ISO (assuming you have an i386):
Only first CD is enough

On the Handbook, you find the installation instructions on the second chapter:
Here is the link

Okay, I think it's a good start... Note that if your box is not an i386 you still have options... just search their ftp site

Another thing, on their site, you can find two versions of the system: 4.7 and 5.0. The 4.7 is still the production release, so the link above is for 4.7. But if you want, you could also install 5.0, but be sure to read this before.

Good Luck!

Hey, I once had the same idea (and I'm still on BSD until now), so here is a big clue: FreeBSD. This is a robust and fast OS, very well organized. It has a straightforward method for updating (you can *easily* compile the entire system by yourself) , also featuring an extremely easy-to-use and powerful ports system (the way you can install apps... it's much simpler than anything like apt-get or so). Also, on their site you can find a complete, up-to-date and freely available BOOK about using, administrating and getting the best of your system. Try it, I'm sure you would like!!!

Get the ISO (assuming you have an i386):
Only first CD is enough

On the Handbook, you find the installation instructions on the second chapter:
Here is the link

Okay, I think it's a good start... Note that if your box is not an i386 you still have options... just search their ftp site

Another thing, on their site, you can find two versions of the system: 4.7 and 5.0. The 4.7 is still the production release, so the link above is for 4.7. But if you want, you could also install 5.0, but be sure to read this before.

Good Luck!

Hey, I once had the same idea (and I'm still on BSD until now), so here is a big clue: FreeBSD. This is a robust and fast OS, very well organized. It has a straightforward method for updating (you can *easily* compile the entire system by yourself) , also featuring an extremely easy-to-use and powerful ports system (the way you can install apps... it's much simpler than anything like apt-get or so). Also, on their site you can find a complete, up-to-date and freely available BOOK about using, administrating and getting the best of your system. Try it, I'm sure you would like!!!

Get the ISO (assuming you have an i386):
Only first CD is enough

On the Handbook, you find the installation instructions on the second chapter:
Here is the link

Okay, I think it's a good start... Note that if your box is not an i386 you still have options... just search their ftp site

Another thing, on their site, you can find two versions of the system: 4.7 and 5.0. The 4.7 is still the production release, so the link above is for 4.7. But if you want, you could also install 5.0, but be sure to read this before.

Good Luck!

Hey, I once had the same idea (and I'm still on BSD until now), so here is a big clue: FreeBSD. This is a robust and fast OS, very well organized. It has a straightforward method for updating (you can *easily* compile the entire system by yourself) , also featuring an extremely easy-to-use and powerful ports system (the way you can install apps... it's much simpler than anything like apt-get or so). Also, on their site you can find a complete, up-to-date and freely available BOOK about using, administrating and getting the best of your system. Try it, I'm sure you would like!!!

Get the ISO (assuming you have an i386):
Only first CD is enough

On the Handbook, you find the installation instructions on the second chapter:
Here is the link

Okay, I think it's a good start... Note that if your box is not an i386 you still have options... just search their ftp site

Another thing, on their site, you can find two versions of the system: 4.7 and 5.0. The 4.7 is still the production release, so the link above is for 4.7. But if you want, you could also install 5.0, but be sure to read this before.

Good Luck!

Case A) Windows XP - you get letters from the BSA and eventually (implied) a visit from the Feds who will take everything whether you're guilty or not, after which the burden of proof is on you to prove you are not another dastardly mass market pirate organization

So perhaps you shouldn't break the law and install pirated software. And if you can't afford the license price for XP, install something else .

Apparently you make shit up. How do I know? Because FreeBSD is nothing in terms of ease of use if you have ever installed Solaris or (shudder)AIX. Sysinstall is a wonderfully easy to use yet powerful installer. It might seem strange at first since you can revisit any step when setting up the system( eg keep hitting esc to return to recycle steps where you left off) but its easy once you get the hang of it and is beneficial. The text mode scares alot of newbies. Aix is a great unix but its difficult to install if you have never done an AIX install before. You need to configure alot of things. Its made for hackers and senior level Unix administrators. No gui, no fancy installer, nothing. Just some IBM manuals to guide you through.

The FreeBSD manual that comes with any version of the boxed BSD set is one of the best books ever written besides Oriely's Unix Power Tools book. The version is free from freebsd's website. You can also get it at amazon.com under the title "The Complete FreeBSD" by Greg Lehey. No other linux or unix distro has such great documentation. If you need to learn Unix and not just how to click through an installer then FreeBSD is a great OS. Sysinstall also is a nice utility.

FreeBSD is one of the most stable operating systems ever written and is a better solution for servers then Linux due to its better i/o, vm, and award winning TCP/IP stack. Its so much easier and elegant to setup a firewall with FreeBSD then Linux. Linux's strength though is multiprocessor server farms and workstations because most distro's come with a dumbed down gui installers.

FreeBSD just works. I find it supperior quality and less prone to bugs then most Linux distro's. The testing done between releases is alot more then linux kernel or distro releases. You don't have a dictator deciding that its stable enough and releasing a patch every week like Linux. Its done( kernel and userspace) in releases when the core feels its ready.

Portage also isn't perfect. You may have to update scripts since upgrading some packages may require changes to /etc files. After you do an emerge their is always a script asking you to go to /etc to check if you want to make "x" changes to the following files....

With FreeBSD ports the port script takes care of this. Their is testing to make sure a port is stable before its listed on FreeBSD's website as a stable port. I can also do an emerge world with FreeBSD. Its make world.

RTM :) Specifically, dummynet is the part that does queueing.

I just need to find out how to do this with ipf instead of ipfw.

RTM :) Specifically, dummynet is the part that does queueing.

I just need to find out how to do this with ipf instead of ipfw.

RTM :) Specifically, dummynet is the part that does queueing.

I just need to find out how to do this with ipf instead of ipfw.

RTM :) Specifically, dummynet is the part that does queueing.

I just need to find out how to do this with ipf instead of ipfw.

I totally agree. I often go look at other os's man pages to see if maybe they have an example when the linux one doesn't. Freebsd, Netbsd ,Openbsd, and others

I totally agree. I often go look at other os's man pages to see if maybe they have an example when the linux one doesn't. Freebsd, Netbsd ,Openbsd, and others

There's a really good article on the FreeBSD Diary about install it.

Just so you know, you dont' have to rebuilt the entire source tree to fix this particular problem. You can do the following commands just to update sendmail (after updating the sources):

• cd /usr/src/lib/libsm
• make
• cd /usr/src/lib/libsmutil
• make
• cd /usr/src/usr.sbin/sendmail
• make
• make -f /etc/mail/Makefile stop
• make install
• make -f /etc/mail/Makefile start

The go back to those three directories and do a make clean to clean up all the files.

There's a chapter in the FreeBSD Handbook about this.

There's a really good article on the FreeBSD Diary about install it.

Just so you know, you dont' have to rebuilt the entire source tree to fix this particular problem. You can do the following commands just to update sendmail (after updating the sources):

• cd /usr/src/lib/libsm
• make
• cd /usr/src/lib/libsmutil
• make
• cd /usr/src/usr.sbin/sendmail
• make
• make -f /etc/mail/Makefile stop
• make install
• make -f /etc/mail/Makefile start

The go back to those three directories and do a make clean to clean up all the files.

There's a chapter in the FreeBSD Handbook about this.

However, it is a *BSD, and its marketshare is expanding, so this means all those *BSD is dying trolls should crawl back under the bridges they emerged from.

Proprietary UNIXes, however, are dying. Big time. Why pay for it when you can get in free?

Linux spends almost no money in R&D and Sun spends like 2 billion. Stop ripping their shit off and come up with your own stuff or Unix will die.

Sorry, but ... what the fuck? So free Unix-alikes are "ripping shit off" of Sun, now? I guess the fact that real talent contributes code to Linux doesn't excuse the fact that Linux is based around the "everything is a file" concept. So reading information in public Usenix papers is ripping off of Sun? Please. For example, the anticipatory i/o scheduler seems to be based on information that's been freely published. Not information hidden away under proprietary NDAs. Futexes and the O(1) scheduler are other examples of information that wasn't ripped-off shit. (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure about this.)

If Sun is spending two billion dollars in R&D and the linux people aren't, why hasn't Solaris managed to totally blow Linux out of the water? Oh wait, it does. On big (as in many processors) systems. It doesn't do as well on commodity hardware, but everybody knows Linux just doesn't scale well to 64-node machines these days. (People are working on it, but we're not there yet.) Even in the days of secure, portable, light reimplementations with wide hardware support, propietary Unix still has its niches. Besides, part of the appeal of Sun is a "total-package" deal - kind of like Apple.

Look, I appreciate that you might actually care about this, but if you don't give examples of what you're talking about you're going to look like you're talking out of your ass. Even on Slashdot. :3

Really haven't read any documentation have you? You already have cd burning software installed by default.

As other posters have pointed out, burncd is installed by default and is quite capable of writing any .iso files you want. Type man burncd for more info.

CDRecord is part of the ports tree (sysutils/cdrtools) and provides more complex CD-writing requests.

Or maybe you're installing FreeBSD. They make ISOs available for download. So do a bunch of other free OS projects.