Slashdot Mirror

Lest the Slashdot community get too holier-than-thou when it comes to security, let us remember that GNU/Linux has had its share of security problems over the years.

Now, of course, GNU/Linux developers are generally faster than Microsoft when it comes to fixing security holes and they don't, as a rule, engage in the same coverups and spin control as the Microsoft's PR flaks, but the question remains, why are there so many bugs in the first place?

Other open source operating systems, such as FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD have had security problems, but not in such numbers as the various GNU/Linux distributions.

Rather than making fun of Microsoft for its own failings in the security realm, GNU/Linux users and developers could better spend their time improving the security of their OS of choice.

-Dom

FreeBSD does not have HOWTOs, we have documentation. :-)

Anyway, I do not know if it would be interesting for you, in particular to try FreeBSD. Some people like it better, some don't. It's a matter of taste.

For help, check out the official website for general information, the handbook for general documentation, the FAQ for frequently asked questions (including some installation problems) and the FreeBSD Diary for the most recommended beginner's site.

BTW, FreeBSD installation is generally known to be easy and painless. It can be done through the net by downloading just two floppy disk images, and there are mirror sites all over the world, and this list of mirror sites is shown to you during the installation. :-)

FreeBSD does not have HOWTOs, we have documentation. :-)

Anyway, I do not know if it would be interesting for you, in particular to try FreeBSD. Some people like it better, some don't. It's a matter of taste.

For help, check out the official website for general information, the handbook for general documentation, the FAQ for frequently asked questions (including some installation problems) and the FreeBSD Diary for the most recommended beginner's site.

BTW, FreeBSD installation is generally known to be easy and painless. It can be done through the net by downloading just two floppy disk images, and there are mirror sites all over the world, and this list of mirror sites is shown to you during the installation. :-)

FreeBSD does not have HOWTOs, we have documentation. :-)

Anyway, I do not know if it would be interesting for you, in particular to try FreeBSD. Some people like it better, some don't. It's a matter of taste.

For help, check out the official website for general information, the handbook for general documentation, the FAQ for frequently asked questions (including some installation problems) and the FreeBSD Diary for the most recommended beginner's site.

BTW, FreeBSD installation is generally known to be easy and painless. It can be done through the net by downloading just two floppy disk images, and there are mirror sites all over the world, and this list of mirror sites is shown to you during the installation. :-)

Here is the one I meant (HTML, PS, ASCII)

Here is the one I meant (HTML, PS, ASCII)

Here is the one I meant (HTML, PS, ASCII)

Here is the one I meant (HTML, PS, ASCII)

I can think of no single person more deserving of this award than Jordan K. Hubbard of Walnut Creek/The FreeBSD Project. He is the ongoing force behind FreeBSD advocacy and deserves any recognition he gets.

Jordan is always more than willing to mail out free promotional materials whenever you need them, for whatever circumstances you may have. His willingness to help anyone out with FreeBSD is at the very least commendable, and his loyalty to the Project sets him apart from others.

Jordan is my vote for Unsung Hero.


--

I can think of no single person more deserving of this award than Jordan K. Hubbard of Walnut Creek/The FreeBSD Project. He is the ongoing force behind FreeBSD advocacy and deserves any recognition he gets.

Jordan is always more than willing to mail out free promotional materials whenever you need them, for whatever circumstances you may have. His willingness to help anyone out with FreeBSD is at the very least commendable, and his loyalty to the Project sets him apart from others.

Jordan is my vote for Unsung Hero.


--

And members of the Linux camp have said the same thing about BSD.

Considering BSD will run BSD, Windows and Linux binaries, it either sucks the most because it runs the most binaries, or sucks the least, because no matter what OS binary you got, BSD has the ability to run it.

To see Netscape BSD, Linux and Windows at one time, go here.

Just looked at the screenshot - anyone
else notice that the KPanel reports the time to be 2:09 PM, but Opera reckons
it's 2:08 PM? Opera don't mention any time problems on their (admittedly small)
FAQ.

It seems I remember something about either address allocation having to be free, or the actual transit over the network...I'm not sure which, and I can't find any information on it right now, but I thought either way, it'd be of particular interest with regards to (and possibly opposition of) your idea of micropayments for bandwidth and such.

I'll try to find out some more info on this; anyone know much else about it?

I do, however, know for a fact that you're quite a bit more than wrong about the lack of services over the IPv6 network. They are plentiful, for the users and developers using the current testbed (aka the 6bone). DHIS is one of many free providers of IPv6 testing address allocation, Freenet6 is another. And there are numerous IPv6 capable sites, including FreeBSD's site, portions of Microsoft's site, NASA...

If you check out the main IPv6 sites, such as the 6bone, IPv6.org, IPv6Forum, and a whole lot of others, you'll find the network is quite extensive. Work is being done quite a bit, and it's more than just talk.

Oh, C software is very very vulnerable. Take a look at GNU software that has had problems.

Or a list of changes FreeBSD has made. (Note that about half of these are ported applications, not FreeBSD specific)

Or look here at some reasons why C is vulnerable to Y2k problems.

Just because it was written in C doesn't make it Y2k bugproof. Using time_t when possible is great, but the act of trying to make things human readable/parseable makes it harder.

Note too that most old Verisign keys expire on 12/31/99, people with old browsers should have fun on SSL sites. (Netscape allows 'Continue Anyway', IE won't allow you to)

Kevin

1. FreeBSD developers develop drivers for the things they use. The OS itself supports a very large number of devices. If you want a specific device added, all you have to do is find a developer willing to add it, send them your hardware, and get them technical docs from the manufacturer. Of course, if they have the device themselves, maybe that's all the encouragement they need.
2. FreeBSD will take patches from anyone. The problem is, most people don't know how to send them in - you can use the send-pr(1) interface at http://www.FreeBSD.org/send-pr.html. Of course, whether or not it gets accepted into the main source tree is what the discussion is for. The big misconception that I highly disagree with here is the fact that anyone can help out patching the system source. It's up to them to take the initiative to send mail the the appropriate mailing list, or to use send-pr(1).
3. Walnut Creek has had FreeBSD CD's sent out since 1993 or 1994, ever since FreeBSD 1.0. Whether it was as "easy to install" back then as it is now (and has been for several years), I don't know.
4. We have our own "representative" - Jordan K. Hubbard. He's just as energetic, helpful, and as much of a driving force for FreeBSD as Linus has been for Linux. And the FreeBSD community has obviously appreciated his efforts - there were a large number asking for his autograph at the closing ceremonies for the FreeBSDCon '99. And the other BSD's have their own representatives, most notably Theo de Raadt for OpenBSD and Alistair Crooks for NetBSD.

It's worth noting that the Pentium Pro/II/III have a 48-bit segmented addressing mode, allowing physical memory beyond 4GB. Nobody uses this yet, but it's in there.

Maybe FreeBSD makes use of it (from the FreeBSD handbook, maybe slightly out-of-date):

Unlike Linux, FreeBSD does NOT map all of physical memory into KVM. This means that FreeBSD can handle memory configurations up to 4G on 32 bit platforms. In fact, if the mmu were capable of it, FreeBSD could theoretically handle memory configurations up to 8TB on a 32 bit platform. However, since most 32 bit platforms are only capable of mapping 4GB of ram, this is a moot point.

But I don't know, if it really can do it with >4GB on x86. I'm more the NetBSD guy...

Aren't you forgetting an important part? The part at the end where the source code is shown, that Linus didn't actually make the change, just made a comment saying that it would be nice if he could.

That part showed up after that issue of KT came out; I don't know whether it showed up after I checked it earlier today or not (I'd assumed that issues of KT are invariant after publication, and I saw that issue before the note was added).

Some stuff in the FreeBSD archive indicates that they may have decided that the unlock optimization couldn't be done that way, either, although I'd have to plow through a ton of -current code and, perhaps, CVS logs to see exactly what they did do - see this message, for example, and this message.

(And, the hypothesis in, as I remember, one of the linux-kernel messages nonwithstanding, the FreeBSD folk do have P6 machines - some of Matt's timing experiments were, as I remember, done on a Pentium III.)

The comment in the code also suggests that it might be useful to have a way of building a kernel without the lock, if it truly can be removed on all but the early PPro's to which the comment refers.

Aren't you forgetting an important part? The part at the end where the source code is shown, that Linus didn't actually make the change, just made a comment saying that it would be nice if he could.

That part showed up after that issue of KT came out; I don't know whether it showed up after I checked it earlier today or not (I'd assumed that issues of KT are invariant after publication, and I saw that issue before the note was added).

Some stuff in the FreeBSD archive indicates that they may have decided that the unlock optimization couldn't be done that way, either, although I'd have to plow through a ton of -current code and, perhaps, CVS logs to see exactly what they did do - see this message, for example, and this message.

(And, the hypothesis in, as I remember, one of the linux-kernel messages nonwithstanding, the FreeBSD folk do have P6 machines - some of Matt's timing experiments were, as I remember, done on a Pentium III.)

The comment in the code also suggests that it might be useful to have a way of building a kernel without the lock, if it truly can be removed on all but the early PPro's to which the comment refers.

These are VERY irresponsible comments.

If you don't know that you CAN do a net install with *BSD, then I would say you're not terribly experienced with their installation process at all and you're not really in a possition to say whether or not they're harder to install.

As for FreeBSD being closed, that is also not from first hand experience, but from misinformation propogated on this and other forums.

Want to mess with the kernel? It's in /usr/src/sys. Want to discuss it? `echo "subscribe freebsd-hackers" | mail majordomo@freebsd.org` or check out comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc. Want to submit patches/additions? `/usr/bin/send-pr` or use the web interface at http://www.FreeBSD.org/send-pr.html


People will read your lies and believe them. Please be more cautious.

In two words: not true.

A "closed group" of people? Of two hundred people with DIRECT access to the repository? Hell, that's so not true that you can see the very proof in the message to which this one is a reply. It mentions the treatment that Matthew Dillon received. Yes, and, guess what, he is a committer too.

There is nothing "closed" about FreeBSD. It gets new committers all the time, often people whose involvement with FreeBSD is quite recent.

Do you think all these people from all these different countries have always known each other? That they all even get along with each other all the time? The very existence of some incompatibilities between some of these developers is a proof that the group is by no means closed.

But, ok, let me back this with facts. Me. I once submitted a keyboard layout and a patch to the ide driver long, but never did anything to actually catch any attention. Then, around mid december 1998, I got interested in the on-going work with the boot loader. I submitted some patches and within two months I was a committer.

I certainly never got rejected by anyone who knew more than me, and I never saw any signs of envy from anyone knowing less than me.

Sure, I had to submit patches. You can't become a developer if you don't develop, though. But FreeBSD WILL welcome anyone who is actually willing to do something. This might range from doing userland programming to kernel programming to third-party applications porting to documentation writing to bug fixing. And even if your contribution is not in enough volume to turn you into a committer, your contributions are still accepted (like my keyboard map once was).

Don't trust me. Check for yourself. The list of committers, minus the core team, who are also committers, and the additional contributors. Feel free to count them. Pretty closed group, eh? :-)

And that's not even the complete list...

Now, let me ask you a question... did you intentionally misrepresented the facts, or you just failed to do any research and mindless repeated FUD you read elsewhere?

In two words: not true.

A "closed group" of people? Of two hundred people with DIRECT access to the repository? Hell, that's so not true that you can see the very proof in the message to which this one is a reply. It mentions the treatment that Matthew Dillon received. Yes, and, guess what, he is a committer too.

There is nothing "closed" about FreeBSD. It gets new committers all the time, often people whose involvement with FreeBSD is quite recent.

Do you think all these people from all these different countries have always known each other? That they all even get along with each other all the time? The very existence of some incompatibilities between some of these developers is a proof that the group is by no means closed.

But, ok, let me back this with facts. Me. I once submitted a keyboard layout and a patch to the ide driver long, but never did anything to actually catch any attention. Then, around mid december 1998, I got interested in the on-going work with the boot loader. I submitted some patches and within two months I was a committer.

I certainly never got rejected by anyone who knew more than me, and I never saw any signs of envy from anyone knowing less than me.

Sure, I had to submit patches. You can't become a developer if you don't develop, though. But FreeBSD WILL welcome anyone who is actually willing to do something. This might range from doing userland programming to kernel programming to third-party applications porting to documentation writing to bug fixing. And even if your contribution is not in enough volume to turn you into a committer, your contributions are still accepted (like my keyboard map once was).

Don't trust me. Check for yourself. The list of committers, minus the core team, who are also committers, and the additional contributors. Feel free to count them. Pretty closed group, eh? :-)

And that's not even the complete list...

Now, let me ask you a question... did you intentionally misrepresented the facts, or you just failed to do any research and mindless repeated FUD you read elsewhere?

In two words: not true.

A "closed group" of people? Of two hundred people with DIRECT access to the repository? Hell, that's so not true that you can see the very proof in the message to which this one is a reply. It mentions the treatment that Matthew Dillon received. Yes, and, guess what, he is a committer too.

There is nothing "closed" about FreeBSD. It gets new committers all the time, often people whose involvement with FreeBSD is quite recent.

Do you think all these people from all these different countries have always known each other? That they all even get along with each other all the time? The very existence of some incompatibilities between some of these developers is a proof that the group is by no means closed.

But, ok, let me back this with facts. Me. I once submitted a keyboard layout and a patch to the ide driver long, but never did anything to actually catch any attention. Then, around mid december 1998, I got interested in the on-going work with the boot loader. I submitted some patches and within two months I was a committer.

I certainly never got rejected by anyone who knew more than me, and I never saw any signs of envy from anyone knowing less than me.

Sure, I had to submit patches. You can't become a developer if you don't develop, though. But FreeBSD WILL welcome anyone who is actually willing to do something. This might range from doing userland programming to kernel programming to third-party applications porting to documentation writing to bug fixing. And even if your contribution is not in enough volume to turn you into a committer, your contributions are still accepted (like my keyboard map once was).

Don't trust me. Check for yourself. The list of committers, minus the core team, who are also committers, and the additional contributors. Feel free to count them. Pretty closed group, eh? :-)

And that's not even the complete list...

Now, let me ask you a question... did you intentionally misrepresented the facts, or you just failed to do any research and mindless repeated FUD you read elsewhere?

After a fresh install of FreeBSD 3.4 I could mount my dos and ntfs partitions right away.

I think he's trying to imply that they may have adopted it now, but rejected it originally.

The CVS tree seems to imply that it may have been in FreeBSD at least as far back as 2.0, however; the comment from the initial checkin, with a date of Mon Sep 19 15:41:43 1994 UTC, says "Obtained from: NetBSD", so NetBSD may have had it even longer.

Free-BSD-newbies@FreeBSD.org*

FreeBSD-questions@FreeBSD.org*

-newbies is a discussion group for people new to FreeBSD, it's not intended for technical questions. Likewise, -questions is for technical questions, and not for discussions by new people. You WILL see a lot of "RTFM" on that list, and deservedly so...

Also, of course, check out the support page at FreeBSD.org for more help.

*=note: SlashDot is inapropriately parsing the extended info in the mailto's. You should be able to get the gist of it if you click on the mailto links. It should be addressed to majordomo@FreeBSD.org, and have the text subscribe FreeBSD-newbies or subscribe FreeBSD-questions

---------
Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?

Free-BSD-newbies@FreeBSD.org*

FreeBSD-questions@FreeBSD.org*

-newbies is a discussion group for people new to FreeBSD, it's not intended for technical questions. Likewise, -questions is for technical questions, and not for discussions by new people. You WILL see a lot of "RTFM" on that list, and deservedly so...

Also, of course, check out the support page at FreeBSD.org for more help.

*=note: SlashDot is inapropriately parsing the extended info in the mailto's. You should be able to get the gist of it if you click on the mailto links. It should be addressed to majordomo@FreeBSD.org, and have the text subscribe FreeBSD-newbies or subscribe FreeBSD-questions

---------
Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?

Free-BSD-newbies@FreeBSD.org*

FreeBSD-questions@FreeBSD.org*

-newbies is a discussion group for people new to FreeBSD, it's not intended for technical questions. Likewise, -questions is for technical questions, and not for discussions by new people. You WILL see a lot of "RTFM" on that list, and deservedly so...

Also, of course, check out the support page at FreeBSD.org for more help.

*=note: SlashDot is inapropriately parsing the extended info in the mailto's. You should be able to get the gist of it if you click on the mailto links. It should be addressed to majordomo@FreeBSD.org, and have the text subscribe FreeBSD-newbies or subscribe FreeBSD-questions

---------
Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?

Shrug. I could really care less if it's more popular or not. It works wonderfully for me, and at the time that I switched from Linux, it worked much better. Popularity be damned.

I've contributed a few ports to FreeBSD. I contribute in the little ways that I can because I believe in BSD and know that if no-one contributed at all, BSD would indeed die. (In the BSD-kernelled Debian threads, someone seemed to think that BSD was dying ``because of its license''. I would challenge that by asking them if ``not dying'' means ``growing to an unmanageable size''.) By the same token, if contributions to Linux stopped, Linux would die.

I believe in BSD because it works, and because the source code is open (though some seem to think that anything non-GPL'd is not ``open'' -- we need not rehash those arguments here.) I can do with it what I want.

The community spirit of BSD ensures -- without encumbrance of license -- that BSD will be around as long as there are still people working on it.

Shrug. I could really care less if it's more popular or not. It works wonderfully for me, and at the time that I switched from Linux, it worked much better. Popularity be damned.

I've contributed a few ports to FreeBSD. I contribute in the little ways that I can because I believe in BSD and know that if no-one contributed at all, BSD would indeed die. (In the BSD-kernelled Debian threads, someone seemed to think that BSD was dying ``because of its license''. I would challenge that by asking them if ``not dying'' means ``growing to an unmanageable size''.) By the same token, if contributions to Linux stopped, Linux would die.

I believe in BSD because it works, and because the source code is open (though some seem to think that anything non-GPL'd is not ``open'' -- we need not rehash those arguments here.) I can do with it what I want.

The community spirit of BSD ensures -- without encumbrance of license -- that BSD will be around as long as there are still people working on it.

This applies somewhat to users and to an extreme with developers. As a user, a question revealing that you don't know UNIX, not just *BSD, is enough to have you shouted out the door. As a developer, unless you're a 20 year BSD veteran, suggest an idea or ask where you can begin to help and you should be prepared to be stomped on. Hard and repeatedly. Largely by many of the project principals.

Review some of Matt Dillon's contributions to FreeBSD in the mailing lists. He's repeatedly helped to pull large portions of FreeBSD up to and even past their Linux equivalents. Then consider the rationale behind the community's treatment of him.

A similar type of treatment resulted in the split of NetBSD and OpenBSD. Again, reviewing their mailing list archives shows that this kind of childish animosity and cliquish cult behavior abounds.

To the contrary, it takes all of five minutes to find something to do for Linux and to find a mentor who will help you find your way to the in crowd the first few times you've got a core-level contribution to make. They give you the benefit of the doubt as a new contributor, reviewing and considering your contribution, not your credentials or your ability/willingness to pose as a BSD veteran long enough to be heard.

Frankly, it's surprising that this group exists outside of acedemia at all.

Ok I have bragging rights here and I intend to (ab)use them. I got a Palm V, a Got Root shirt, a Penguin polo shirt, 15 bucks for Borders (books n music, most likely oreilly), 5 for blockbuster (jackie chan flicks), and 145$ in cash, most likely going toward some dreamcast games and q3a linux, which I will install on freebsd 3.3-release http://www.freebsd.org/~3d/apps/games/ quake3 heres docs on it. I might be gettin a shweet GeForce card too to utterly kick MAJOR ARSE. JOO ALL FJEAR UNEEQ!

1) What is so terribly wrong with the GPL?

a) Quite a long license. :)
b) Doesn't share well with anyone but GPL.
c) Zealots (I know everyone has these, but I see more GPL zealots than even Windows)
d) More as an answer to number 4.

2) What is the MPL?

Mozilla Public License

3) What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

I can't compare the GPL and MPL since I have not read the MPL. I prefer the BSD license over the GPL.

4) What is 'immoral' about the GPL?(that just cracks me up, has it been molesting little children and puppies again?? Bad GPL! Down GPL!)

GPL is called the viral license or the hoarding license. Any software development based off of GPL code must be GPL'd. It makes all source it touches GPL'd. This feature is not bad in itself. What is morally bad is claiming that one is sharing the code with everyone by putting code under the GPL license. Unfortunately, this "sharing" is only within the GNU community.

One of the main reasons for the formation of the FSF (Free Software Foundation) was due to the proprietarization of UNIX. I now see that it is happening again with the GPL. I can view GPL code, but I am unable to freely use it in any other licensed code (i.e., BSD). To me, this looks and acts a lot like proprietary code, but it is claimed to be "free".

One last thought: the U.S. Government is always asking us to give up our rights to better protect us. The GPL is similar, but not exactly, to this. Do you want freedom or "freedom"?

Here is a good license to consider for truly sharing code with others: Freedom.

P.S. I used to be a big fan of the GPL until I really saw the truth behind it.

The Complete FreeBSD Manual which flat out contains everything you need or want to know about BSD

New FreeBSD Sub.with 3.4. This will not just get you the brand new 3.4 release for the super-low price of $24.95, but will enroll you in the FreeBSD subscription program, where you'll get a new version of the disc automatically at the discounted subscription rate.

For the subscription, they bill your credit card automatically when the new version ships (credit cards are the only payment method possible for our subscriptions). The normal shipping charge applies. You may cancel at any time, just write, call, fax, or email. FYI, there are approximately four releases of FreeBSD a year, so it'll cost you approximately $100/yr. But you're supporting great, freely available software development... and a kickass OS! :)

---------
Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?

Here's a few things you might be interested in:
Why Yahoo uses FreeBSD written by David Filo, co-founder of Yahoo
Booting Linux and FreeBSD using BootEasy
Booting Linux and FreeBSD using LILO
Linux+FreeBSD mini-HOWTO Excellent resource for installing and using FreeBSD and Linux on the same system

Here's a few things you might be interested in:
Why Yahoo uses FreeBSD written by David Filo, co-founder of Yahoo
Booting Linux and FreeBSD using BootEasy
Booting Linux and FreeBSD using LILO
Linux+FreeBSD mini-HOWTO Excellent resource for installing and using FreeBSD and Linux on the same system

I've actually found FreeBSD to have better documentation than Linux in the form of the FreeBSD Handbook, though that may be because there is only one FreeBSD and many Linux distributions with different configuration tools. The LDP is still and excellent resource.

What's wrong with PicoBSD? Isn't that what this is based on anyway?

Had to do a little searching to find out where it was, I had lost track. Was considering it for a while. I used FreeBSD on an old 486 w/small hard drive for a while (dial-on-demand Ethernet/PPP router, firewall, NAT). Now I've switched to OpenBSD for security reasons.

Here's that link to PicoBSD for those interested:
http://www.freebsd.org /~picobsd/picobsd/doc_router/README.en

Looks like the only benefits to this Gnat Box thing are added menus and easy-config stuff. Do you really want someone who needs menus and such admining your firewall??? Eep!

> SuSE is releasing tools to make their version of Linux more secure
> (ie hardening scripts and other tools.)

I disagree that the application of scripts can take an OS that has not been audited and turn it into one that is "secure".

IMO, you need to go back and look at every single interface to every single routine, you need to go back and look at every single call of functions that are known to be typically mis-used (e.g., gets() instead of fgets()) and either replace them or ensure that they're used safely, and you have to start incorporating the security-minded thought process in all the code that gets committed from that point on (so that a routine that has been secured doesn't get broken by a later commit). You also need to follow all this up with a system of checks and balances, so that if you happen to miss something at one stage in the process, it's likely to get caught at another stage.

It is my understanding that this is basically what happend with OpenBSD, and is the reason why they have *never* had a security breach in a piece of the core OS (e.g., something from /usr/src) that had been audited. The FreeBSD folks have likewise recently fired up the freebsd-audit project, which I have started to monitor, and hope to perhaps some day be able to contribute something useful to.


That said, there is Bastille Linux, which I understand hopes to become the OpenBSD of the Linux world. But it's based on Red Hat. It would seem to me that it would be much more natural to base it on a much more solid distribution (such as Debian). As such, my personal opinion is that they're starting two strikes down, and with both arms and one leg tied behind their back.


So, to mirror and expand upon the above question, are there any plans to create a security/crypto-oriented distribution based on Debian, or perhaps efforts to modify the Debian development methodology so that not only does all the core code get audited, but the audit process gets built into the development and commit process?

I mean, you can't say that all software patents are invalid because someone had already invented assembly language. Or that no mechanical devices can be patented because they all make use of the classical machines (lever, wheel, whatever, I forget, I'm a software guy).

raph's mention of Sprite seems to be getting close...the "main" system determines what and when the "remote" computers execute.
--

It cooperates with the X server.

I was able to make nice screenshots using good old xv on my FreeBSD system. Pulsar shows some fps (K6-300).

Two weeks huh? An install shouldn't be more than 20 minutes (if you have the CD) and no more than 2 hours (if you have a fast connection for an FTP install.)

What exactly is a "beta 3.3 kernel" anyway?

As for your claim regarding 3.2, here is the errata page for the 3.2-RELEASE. No mention made whatsoever regarding sysinstall. Please stop talking out of your ass.

From the sysinstall man page:

HISTORY
This version of sysinstall first appeared in FreeBSD 2.0.

Also from the man page:

BUGS
This utility is a prototype which lasted several years past its expiration date and is greatly in need of death.

It's far from perfect, but it's not the nightmare you say it is.

FreeBSD isn't to blame for your incompetence.

The only one that trashed your MBR was you.


Btw, The "Linux is only a kernel" line isn't an attack, it's a fact, one that some people forget, or don't realize from the start.

Debian GNU/BSD or Debian GNU/FreeBSD seems to be the likley name of such a product.

There was alot of worry over FreeBSD branching, but overall there seemed to be a positive reaction.

A good number of people like the idea of the .deb package under FreeBSD. just as alot would like to see the FreeBSD ports tree in a Linux Distro

A quick search of the FreeBSD mailing lists on the topic reveals some .

A few choice articles can bee seen below.
The seemng start of discusion: FreeLinux
A nice answer: RE: FreeLinux (Debian/GNU BSD)

Debian GNU/BSD or Debian GNU/FreeBSD seems to be the likley name of such a product.

There was alot of worry over FreeBSD branching, but overall there seemed to be a positive reaction.

A good number of people like the idea of the .deb package under FreeBSD. just as alot would like to see the FreeBSD ports tree in a Linux Distro

A quick search of the FreeBSD mailing lists on the topic reveals some .

A few choice articles can bee seen below.
The seemng start of discusion: FreeLinux
A nice answer: RE: FreeLinux (Debian/GNU BSD)

Debian GNU/BSD or Debian GNU/FreeBSD seems to be the likley name of such a product.

There was alot of worry over FreeBSD branching, but overall there seemed to be a positive reaction.

A good number of people like the idea of the .deb package under FreeBSD. just as alot would like to see the FreeBSD ports tree in a Linux Distro

A quick search of the FreeBSD mailing lists on the topic reveals some .

A few choice articles can bee seen below.
The seemng start of discusion: FreeLinux
A nice answer: RE: FreeLinux (Debian/GNU BSD)

Actually, it's not emulation in the sense of a virtual machine, but an alternative syscall interface to the kernel. See this for an excellent explanation of the process.

As for WP using more memory, are you sure you're not confusing it with this?

Actually, it's not emulation in the sense of a virtual machine, but an alternative syscall interface to the kernel. See this for an excellent explanation of the process.

As for WP using more memory, are you sure you're not confusing it with this?

You: What tactics? Telling the truth?
No, spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in an attempt to "prove" an opinion, and insulting me and whoever else disagrees with you. To wit:

You: I keep thinking you'll understand if I speak slowly, or something.
I'm not going to dignify that by replying in kind.

The words which you deemed an insult were in fact reflective of sentiments that were anything but.

You then continued to write:

Me: The GPL is designed to ensure that the source code for a piece of software remains available to everyone at all times. That is all. Nothing more, and nothing less.

You: Many licences do that, the LGPL, BSDL, and AL being amongst those.

Incorrect. The BSD license (AFAIK: reference) and the Artistic license both allow distribution of binary-only, modified versions of the original source code. This is not necessarily a bad thing, although some think it is. However, regardless of whether it is good or bad, both the BSDL and AL do not include the protections against "embrace and extend" and freeloading that the GPL does.

That really wasn't the thrust behind my comment. What I was trying to express was that if you put any of these OSI-style licences on a bit of code, then that code will always have that licence. You can't just take a bit of AL'd code (or whichever licence) and throw away the old licence and re-license it as you feel like. The originally licensed code stands, and it stands forever--or at least until the owner himself releases it under an alternate licence. That means that the original code is not going to "go away" or be "taken over". You can't do that with the original code. It's got a free licence on it, and that's that. The difference is that free licences other than the GPL allow you to license your own software that uses the original stuff in any way that you care to. Even if you do so, the original remains inviolate. Nothing can happen to it.

That's what I meant when I said that the other free licences make sure that the code "stays free". Surely you must see that they do this. But you're talking about something else: code that wasn't in the original. Yes, you're right, the other licences make no claims upon that code the way the GPL does. But this hardly changes the original code.

(Yes, some of that was redundant.)

Microsoft's old strategy of "embrace and extend"--which in fact is often "embrace, extend, and extinguish"--is going to be with us no matter what we do. Look at the whole MS-HTML fiasco. This was an open standard. That didn't stop Microsoft from using it to screw the world into reliance upon them through Microsoft-only extensions. Do you really think getting a copy of their exact code to handle this crud would make any difference? I don't think it would. I don't see that licensing could make any difference here. Even if you define in the standard that extensions would make the result no longer be standard [whatever], as for example, I have heard said about XML, I can't see this stopping the Microsoft juggernaut from attempting to give you a "better" version. They'd say, well sure, MS-ML isn't XML (or whatever), it's better, and it's fully compatible with simple XML (or whatever). Think about POSIX, again.

So I think your fears about "embrace and extend" are well-founded, but your apparent conclusion that the GPL would adequately address this issue, and do so in a way that other free licenses would not, seems incorrect.

You: It [the GPL] sneaks its viral fingers into code

This is FUD. There is nothing sneaky about the GPL. Indeed, many (myself included) think certain people are far too vocal about why the GPL should be the One True License. Calling the GPL "viral" is about the same as calling Perl an "unreadable" language. Both have an element of truth, and neither are fair.

It is worth pointing out that FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) is not the same as a lie. FUD must have some truth in it, or it is easily refuted as a lie. FUD exists in the margins of error that human language and understanding allow, and in areas of opinion and subjectivity.

They don't do that. Therefore, they don't mind that it tricks people. Hard to see how using "sneaky" is inappropriate there.

As for "viral", this, too, has a long tale behind it, and it was hardly I who first made the observation and coined the term. I don't care that the term should discomfit the FSF. There are clearly ways in which the term is descriptive of the action. Yes, it has a negative connotation. Yes, I intended to use a term with a negative connotation. I did so, quite simply, because to my mind the term fits. I did not do so to cause people to fear something they did not understand, nor to be uncertain about the reality of the matter, nor to doubt for some nebulous and amorphous reason the intentions of the parties involved.

But let's get back to the matter at hand. Does the GPL infect code you write? No.

What it does is prevent you from taking GPL code and including it in your own works.

Nevertheless, this prevention that hardly seems sporting, not does it? I can barely think of a potent disincentive to code reuse. And code reuse frees programmers from needlessly reinventing the wheel.

You still retain complete and total ownership of your code.

One can of course avoid this through linking. The FSF really hates this idea, and they routinely cluck enough about its legal viability that fair-minded people everywhere are uncertain about the true effects. But in the client-server days of RPC, CGI, DLLs, CORBA, OLE, COM, mobile agents, and other segmented forms of computation, it becomes increasingly obvious that the GPL cannot possibly be as infective/effective at reaching across those boundaries as the FSF wishes it were. That's how I made removed the virus from all GPL'd libraries and made them LGPL'd. Even Bruce Perens has confessed here in this forum that such separations are going to happen in the computing models we see today, and that the GPL does not address them. My recollection is that he called them "loopholes".

The restrictions come from the inability to distribute the other, GPL code. Your code is not affected!

The only problems arise from the copyright violation that would occur if you redistributed the GPL code in your own code, without credit and return.

In any event, that's not what the issue is. The issue is that the FSF feels that their code affects my code, that their licence on their code spreads to everything their code touches, meaning my code, and that this process continues in perpetuity, without regard to dilution or proportionality. It is this very complete silliness that they espouse which has engendered the notion of the GPL being an infectious virus. If you prefer another way of thinking about how silly it is, consider it as an application of digital homeopathy.

What is this credit and return business? Basically, the GPL is designed to help promote open source/free software/whatever, and to ensure that closed-source developers do not get a free ride. Again, all it "forces" anyone to do is keep the original code free.

Can you imagine how silly it would be if a book were published whose copyright included a restriction that the book could not be used by black people, or in a public library, or placed on the same shelf as a book by a different author? Imagine if a song were published under a restriction that it could not be played a station that also played a song by a competing musician, and that any other songs played by that station fell under the same restriction as the first song? Really, it's completely silly.

In an effort to keep open source going, the GPL prevents another company from using GPL'ed code to create a proprietary, sourceless product.

I think -- and this is strictly my personal opinion -- that it is reasonable that, if I am going to take the time and effort to create some software, that some other company should not get a free ride from me, or take my code and lock it up in their product.

According to the FSF, this is not free source, open software, or anything else you care to call it, because it's got anti-commercial restrictions. And then they tell you that their restrictions which bar anyone from using their software in what any businessman would be call a commercial sense (traditional fee-for-licence schemes) is not anti-commercial. Who but George Orwell could be so proud of the boldness of this spin job?

It would be more honest of the FSF to get out of the business of word games and related spin. But they are, fundamentally, a politico-economic foundation, not a technical one. They wish that all software were GPL'd, because they could thereby impose their morality upon others by the--what word do you want me to say here other than the completely honest "infective nature" or "viral nature"--perhaps "collateral damages", then--of the GPL.

I must confess that I have on a few occasions in the past, and doubtless several in the future, contemplated places where I would dearly delight in seeing the GPL installed and enforced. Oh, you do not know how sorely tempted I have been! One example is with Microsoft's operating systems products, because if they were court-ordered to slap the GPL on their OSes, that would be a likely end to their strategy of putatively "integrating" into the OS any application area that they care to monopolize.

But you know what? This is a personal weakness of mine, and I must overcome the urge. Tempting though it may sound, I must reject the temptation. I must. That's because it is fundamentally immoral to coerce others to behave in accord with your own sense of morality. It doesn't matter whether your morality happens to be the best around, or even the best there can ever be. Coercion is by its very nature by definition immoral. As with the paradox of having your cake and eating it too, morally you simply cannot enforce your own morality on others without sacrificing that very moral high ground which you would claim to occupy. Without free will, there can be no morality at all.

amazed that you had a 500k kernel? Well that's weird; with just about every option compiled into my kernel, and drivers for two ethernet cards, wd0, bpf, snp, atapi cd driver, keyboard, serial, parallel, floppy, IPFIREWALL, FFS, NFS, MFS, CD9660 is *only* 983k. This includes all drivers as they are in the kernel. I often build picoBSD disks which are here. I'm sure this exact same case applies to NetBSD as well.

You: What tactics? Telling the truth?

No, spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in an attempt to "prove" an opinion, and insulting me and whoever else disagrees with you. To wit:

You: I keep thinking you'll understand if I speak slowly, or something.

I'm not going to dignify that by replying in kind.

Me: The GPL is designed to ensure that the source code for a piece of software remains available to everyone at all times. That is all. Nothing more, and nothing less.

You: Many licences do that, the LGPL, BSDL, and AL being amongst those.

Incorrect. The BSD license (AFAIK: reference) and the Artistic license both allow distribution of binary-only, modified versions of the original source code. This is not necessarily a bad thing, although some think it is. However, regardless of whether it is good or bad, both the BSDL and AL do not include the protections against "embrace and extend" and freeloading that the GPL does.

You: It [the GPL] sneaks its viral fingers into code

This is FUD. There is nothing sneaky about the GPL. Indeed, many (myself included) think certain people are far too vocal about why the GPL should be the One True License. Calling the GPL "viral" is about the same as calling Perl an "unreadable" language. Both have an element of truth, and neither are fair.

It is worth pointing out that FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) is not the same as a lie. FUD must have some truth in it, or it is easily refuted as a lie. FUD exists in the margins of error that human language and understanding allow, and in areas of opinion and subjectivity.

But let's get back to the matter at hand. Does the GPL infect code you write? No. What it does is prevent you from taking GPL code and including it in your own works. There is a difference. You still retain complete and total ownership of your code. The restrictions come from the inability to distribute the other, GPL code. Your code is not affected! The only problems arise from the copyright violation that would occur if you redistributed the GPL code in your own code, without credit and return.

What is this credit and return business? Basically, the GPL is designed to help promote open source/free software/whatever, and to ensure that closed-source developers do not get a free ride. Again, all it "forces" anyone to do is keep the original code free.

In an effort to keep open source going, the GPL prevents another company from using GPL'ed code to create a propriatary, sourceless product. For example, Microsoft's Windows operating system includes the BSD FTP client, without source, with the copyright hidden deep inside the binary. With the GPL, this would not have been possible. Again, the good or bad value of this action is another matter entirely -- my point here is actions, not values.

I think -- and this is strictly my personal opinion -- that it is reasonable that, if I am going to take the time and effort to create some software, that some other company should not get a free ride from me, or take my code and lock it up in their product. Others do not agree. Fine by me. It is, after all, their choice. I am not going to insult them for wanting to make money from a product. But don't tell me how to license my work, either.

You: In other words, just because I might be wrong does not mean I am insincere.

Granted. If you sincerely believe speaking (or typing, for that matter) slowly will improve my understanding of the subject, by all means, do so.

You: As for my complaining about the BSD advertising stuff, you are making an assumption. And you would be wrong.

You are correct, I was making an assumption there. I apologize, and stand corrected.

Please make sure the openbsd people get it, too. Any idea how much difficulty it is to cross-port between the two? My guess is that it's trivial. Yes if that were true, you'd think we'd see more ports than we do.

Sure, it will be much more easier than porting from Linux. I just installed openssh on my box - the first FreeBSD port I ever saw, that fetches not some tarball somewhere but does an anonymous CVS checkout from OpenBSD.org's tree. Wow.

Indeed I feel great sympathy and admiration for the other BSD projects and would love to make it cross BSD. My problem is tracking the differences and testing.

Example:
In theory, I already put in OpenBSD and NetBSD support for another project I work on, the CD Index client. This was attempted by studying the man pages from these systems, that are available on the German FreeBSD web server. But I never tested it out so far, because I simply have no machine running OpenBSD or NetBSD or access to one.

Even if I had a second box running OpenBSD for example, I doubt somewhat, that I would follow development here as closely, as I would for FreeBSD. It is just a matter of personal preference and limited time resources.

So I believe the various projects should hold test accounts ready for volunteers from the other projects who are willing to test and adapt their stuff, but who are not willing or able to keep up a test system themselves. I would be very happy to get such a opportunity, as ported software seems better to me in the sense that it forces one to better program organization. Maybe one of the reasons why usually UNIX software is of good quality.