Slashdot Mirror

Netcraft says: The site www.sco.com is running Apache on Linux

At least they are indemnified.

And it runs Linux - Red hat to be precise.

I don't think he would have problems with it.

After all, his own website stallman.org used to run on FreeBSD many moons ago.

Huh? Orkut's Palace of Love?
Hmm what kind of social network are they running?

Trying to slashdot the Queen?

According to Netcraft: The site www.orkut.com is running Orkut's Palace of Love on Linux. Maybe they're using the Mono ASP.NET component.

Guess you can't count to at least 50: Click Here

If you would like to detail directly which of our systems allegedly violate your copyrights, and specifically which code on said systems allegedly violates said copyrights, we will be happy to do an internal audit to verify your claims. Once the results of said audit are complete, we will be more than willing discuss any pending licensing issues with you.

It's called Netcraft, and they're very big on knowing who runs what.

It's called Netcraft, and they're very big on knowing who runs what.

So when are they switching their webserver from apache and linux? Don't they know they're costing jobs in Redmond? F*ing hypocrites.

... Sure, Apache != GPL, but still... it's Free Software in both forms.

Oh, I get it now! "We don't like free software, except on our terms - i.e. when we're using it exclusively, it's O.K., but otherwise, get rid of it already!"

Geez. They must really, really want to be disliked...

I would not be too quick to point to Netcraft. Look at this Netcraft report and then try using nmap to determine the OS. Nmap reports OpenServer or similar.

SCO: we hate those damned linux users stealing profits from us! those damned terrorists! please US gov't, Help us fight terrorism!
But... SCO is a Linux user!
Too bad SCO, the fud is really getting boring now.
I cant WAIT to see the day when SCOX PLUMMETS. I will actually enjoy watching that.

Darl, you should sue this company as well, they are using linux for their website !!! And this company too!

Darl, you should sue this company as well, they are using linux for their website !!! And this company too!

Pssst, Darl.. Some 17 year old punk named Mike Rowe is running his website on Linux! You better file suit against him, too!

"If everyone used Linux instead of Windows, then the virus writers would write viruses for linux instead!"

If everyone repeats this refrain enough people may actually start to believe it, and that would be good in counteracting that old 'many eyes make all bugs shallow' phrase we keep hearing about open source.

Taken at face value the statement seems reasonable, but I'm a scientist and I like to hold theories up to the light of reality and see how they do. I know that testing theories annoys people because it makes them question their deepest held beliefs, but hey I'm an annoying guy anyway.

We could test the statement by finding an Open Source project that has much more market share than a closed source project, then compare the rates of exploit. Hmmmm... how about Apache vs. MS IIS?

According to Netcraft Apache has about 67% of the market and Microsoft's IIS has about 21% of the market. The often quoted FUD says that Apache is used by so many more people it must have many more exploits.

We can search the CERT website for the terms 'Apache' and 'Microsoft IIS' clicking on the boxes for :

Advisories

Incident Notes

Security Improvement Modules

Vulnerability Notes

'Apache' gives 180 results.

'Microsoft IIS' gives 830 results.

Wait! That means that just because something is used much more widely than another thing it does not result in more attacks! That proves the statement that if Linux were used more it would have more viruses is a false statement! It could be that open source actually does produce more secure code after all!

If Linux had 60% or 70% market share, there would probably be more viruses written for Linux than there are now. But, as we can see with the real world example of Apache and Microsoft IIS, the open source development model produces more secure software.

Sorry to step on that often quoted line about linux and viruses, but I like reality.

MikeRoweSoft.com is running Apache on FreeBSD.

Lawsuits are just one way to lower the number of Apache servers. ;)

Okay, fine. To quote more Netcraft results: Apache on Windows Struggling. Netcraft found a mere 16,000 sites running Apache on Win32 back in Feb, 2003. My point were merely that just because Apache runs 60+% of sites out there doesn't mean Apache runs on 60+% of machines out there.

Yes, he has only given us the best, most stable, FREE OS in the world.

Actually... BSD or FreeBSD is probably the most stable OS judging by Netcraft's Uptime records. (take that! all you "BSD is dead" trolls!)

OpenBSD is obviously the most secure OS in the world, having had only a single remote exploit in more than seven years. Seems like my WinXP machine at work can't go but seven days between "critical" security updates.

I'm writing this post from Moz 1.4.1 on SuSE 8.2 Pro, so that tells you what *my* favorite OS is, however, Linux certainly isn't the "best" OS in every measurable way.

2: Blaster.
The most popular platform, ran by the most people in the world, etc. is bound to have security holes that get exploited

Apache: 67% of web servers.
IIS: 21% of web servers.

Which web server has had CodeRed, CodeRed II, and nimbda worms wreaking havoc? Was it the most popular software or the Microsoft software?

if it is /.ed it has nothing to do with BSD, take a look at netcrafts listing of longest uptime and tell me what OS you see the most of

Don't forget that Netcraft's accounting of uptimes cannot detect uptimes beyond 497 days for older versions of Linux.

2: Blaster.
The most popular platform, ran by the most people in the world

If only there was an open-source project that was the most popular of its kind in the world, so we could compare apples-to-apples..

The other part, is assuming Linux has only stolen share from other UNIX vendors, Linux webservers would still account for fewer actual computers on the internet compared to Windows machines. Linux servers are also not always uniformly exploitable with the differences between compiler, libc, and kernel versions and patches. For Windows servers, you only have two or three flavors of Windows you need to worry about, and all you have to do is make one (legitimate) http request to find out which one. Linux/Apache sites will tell you which version of Apache is running, and maybe what distribution of Linux it's running on, but won't tell you what kernel version is running, what glibc is installed, what compiler was used. For that, you'd have to guess, so the list of possibly exploitable machines gets smaller.

I wish Netcraft would do a new machine survey, so we could put this one to rest, but I havne't seen one since June 2001.

According to a Netcraft report, 2/3 of the web now runs on Apache.
Granted, it could be Window/Apache, it's most likely Linux/Apache.

Well when Microsquish made the switch to akamai recently for their software update hosting they broke many users ability to update and gave no release on how to fix it. Yes sure, it was just an issue of changing the default url to httpS instead of http and accepting the new certificate, but how many joe blows are going to know that? And no, an obscure technet article referenced by a letter and a number does not count as a release, especially in a service as important as software update has become for M$.

Even if SUS works properly, what is the purpose of needing to reboot every system that is updated. Can't this be taken care of with minimal (3-6 seconds) downtime while a service resets?

We all know by it's very nature Linux is more secure than microsoft. The sheer number of vulnerabilities available is not neccessarily a good measure of the actual security of the system. The measure is properly the number of vulnerabilities successfully taken advantage of easily and massively.

Let me sound off for a second here on the major issues I personally have with MS:
CODERED
NIMDA
MIMAIL
BUGBEAR
KLEZ
NACHI
BLASTER

Good security practices, updating regularly and keeping up to date virus protection is an important part of stopping the above garbage from getting on your network. EVEN then, the affects of the above will still cause you downtime since your provider will have to scramble to deal with all the there-after DDoS.

The following is reason enough to be extra wary of any microsoft product security wise. Believe it or not, Nachi apparently SAVED M$ ass when it came to MS-Blaster. The number of source addresses scanning for 135 dropped by nearly 80% in these first weeks of 2004. AND there are STILL code red systems out there attaching to my Apache server occasionally. I sure don't see a massive SSH/Apache Code Red/Nimda style worm topping the bandwidth charts.

The duece you say, imagine that the web browser with 70% market share doesn't have a massive network-screeching-to-a-halt worm spreading with free reign?

Who cares anymore, it's been 8 years GNU/Linux+Apache+SSH has proven itself the most secure and reliable system for Web-Serving and MySQL+PHP is fast overtaking MsSQL+ASP as the most popular method of dynamic content distribution.

Once I start seeing massive changes to the netcraft survey, then I'll believe Microsoft has done enough to curb their Virus problems. The proof is in the puddin so to speak.

Daryl belongs in jail, like other extortionist and frauds. His "head on a platter" is a little to extreem a punishment.

BSD addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a BSD over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

I think you need to check your facts again. Did you just actually say "Cheaper"? Oh you make me laugh. (The "faster" and "stable" comments are even funnier.)

See NetCraft For proof of what is more stable.

Just because you're unable to comprehend how to utilize BSD, doesn't in any way lesser it's value, to anyone but you. All the same, if some Windows user tried to use Linux, and was completely lost, You'd just flame him and tell him to "get a clue" or "rtfm". The person who's too uneducated to utilize it, is the only one who's missing out.

There's more reasons than I can list, I've been running *BSD variants since 1993, and Linux (before any distributions existed) since 0.99. BSD is cleaner, the -core teams usually have brighter developers on them, FreeBSD ports are still number 1, the BSD layout is just far superior IMHO, (I usually tend to run slackware, which is the closest to BSD you can get in a Linux basically) my memory footprint is slightly over 3 MB on most of my servers, with a minimal set of services running, (obviously my mysql, apache, and such servers eat more due to the daemons tieing it up) and the list continues on.

Don't flame BSD because you can't figure it out.

Sounds like a personal problem.

-mpf

If you were trying to insult SkyOS as not being up to the task of hosting a site, I believe you inadvertently insulted Linux. I guess they are having bandwidth issues.
Regards,
Steve

Current Uptimes
I see lots of trolls posting NetCraft stats, so here's yet some more to entertain their lonely lives.

Dead you say? It must be so, look how long these machines have been up, it certainly time for something new.
Gander at which OS's dominate the list. This certainly doesn't mean anything, now does it?

For a dead guy, BSD sure has a lot of kick left in them. For those of you that're behind, plans are already being made for the 6.x branch of FreeBSD. That sure sounds like a dying OS, now doesn't it?

I've got no beef with Linux. I run Linux, and multiple BSDs, and have for over a decade. I've got a beef with trolls making false statements and any moderators that bump their post to informative.

*chuckle*

We're far from through.

-mpf

You must have nothing better to do then troll slashdot, which is fine. It's still more a waste of time then listening to a Captain and Tennille album.

Your link to the SysAdmin story is wonderfully entertaining, but you failed to realize those guys couldn't tune a FreeBSD, or any other *BSD box to save their life. FreeBSD ships with extremely small settings, and requires quite a bit of kernel tweaking via sysctl variables, and loader defaults (or recompile) for proper useage of memory, disk, and network performance on a high load, or high traffic system. (Such as SysAdmin is benchmarking in said test)

Quote from SysAdmin Magazine:
On FreeBSD: Append to /etc/sysctl (or you can use sysctl -w to add these):
kern.maxfiles=65536
kern.maxfilesperproc=32768

The above are their "kernel tweaks", which I must say, is short of absolute hilarity. (All the fbsd admins are probably laughing with me too at these meager attempts to "tweak", by SysAdmin Magazine. This is just short of attempting to put a band-aid over a gash the size of your fist, and expecting the bleeding to stop.)

If you publish technical benchmarks, and state that your company is knowledgable and competent (Which I seriously question here.) atleast have the common courtesy to have someone experienced enough to tweak the server (as any large institution/corp/etc would, or like me, have a default sysctl.conf/loader.rc specifically for large load servers) Anyone who's ever admin'd a server with 15,000+ concurrent connections knows, a default FreeBSD box will "fall over and die" without tweaking. (More specifically, you'll fill up your mbufs, or exhaust your sockets, long before smashing the kernel to death.) After tweaking, it will easily do it with minimal load (dependant upon which services, obviously) as my servers are living proof of, along with Yahoo, and many, many others. FreeBSD's default kernel values are at very low, "safe" values, which in many areas will lead to much slower, degraded performance from what it is capable. (TCP Window Scaling is extremely low out of the box for just one small, yet very important example, and you'll see further ahead, this will easily lead to deathly slow socket connections, and such.)

The theory for this is, it should lead to a much more stable overall machine, albeit I've never had any of my tweaked machines reboot.
Quote from SysAdmin article:
FreeBSD performance decreased somewhat when more than 1500 connections were added.

I don't doubt this, as default FreeBSD install will have very minimal settings for max connections, max allocated sockets, max files per process, low fd's, again, low tcp window scaling, and more which for brevity I'll exclude.
To say FreeBSD performs worse than Linux, and Solaris, AND, Win... Absolutely laughable. I'm sorry, I've been in the UNIX/Networking field (traversing more medias than I wish to list) for over 12 years, I've run the entire gambit, and still do, so I find that statement highly offensive, because it's plain wrong.

To Sys Admin Magazine: Learn how to tweak a FreeBSD kernel, then run the test. We as the readers have an obligation to expect absolute technical perfection from those publishing these types of articles. Apples to Oranges.

More NetCraft fodder:
Seven of the top nine sites run on FreeBSD. The exceptions are Datapipe, which is doing a fine job of promoting the reliability of Windows 2003, and German hosting company komplex.net which runs on Linux.
Posted by mhp at 08:54 AM UTC on Jan 11, 2004

Had you ever contemplated the fact that FreeBSD, nor any other *BSD's success does NOT rely on how many people use it? We really couldn't care less. We'd love more userbase, and more contributors, who wouldn't? The fact that we have less users than Windows, or Linux, or OS X, is totally irrelevant to us.

A proj

Also, all those SCO users are doctors who are stuck with Medical Manager (now WebMD) for billing. It was a turnkey (close to turkey) arrangement.

Losing JKH from -core was to say the least, unsavory, yet you think FreeBSD is dependant on 1 or 2 members of the -core team? I mean... come on, seriously? If FreeBSD is "dead" because of a 'decline in market share' or due to losing a member or two of the core team, you're just sadly mistaken. To play devil's advocate: Let's assume you're correct, and we lose half our user base. What a pity! /*sarcasm*/ Regardless, we'll continue to hack away, we really don't care - and our success is NOT measured by how many use our "Product." If that were the case around the board, Linux might as well be refered to as "dead", since Microsoft reigns supreme, still.
I quote:

Seven of the top nine sites run on FreeBSD. The exceptions are Datapipe, which is doing a fine job of promoting the reliability of Windows 2003, and German hosting company komplex.net which runs on Linux.

Posted by mhp at 08:54 AM UTC on Jan 11, 2004 in Hosting, Performance.
Reference: news.netcraft.com

FreeBSD seems to have been whooping ass in the hosting field for a while now according to NetCraft surveys. (Long before this article's 6 month window as well.)
.. I think I might know why *BSD trolling has seen a sharp increase in the last 6+ months or so, Hmm, gee..

This NetCraft article proves nothing about say, Linux vs. FreeBSD or FreeBSD vs. Win2k3, to me it says, FreeBSD isn't dying off, and if it is, it sure is a pain riddled, horrifcally slow death. (if less people are running FreeBSD, good, less morons to have to help , I'm sick of being asked how to update the locate database after all these years..)

Before you put words in JKH's mouth: See JKH's resignation
Why did Apple hire JKH? Not because he looks good in a push-up bra, I can promise you that.
If JKH thinks FreeBSD is no longer viable code, why does Apple continue to develop a branch off FreeBSD, and why is Panther based from FreeBSD 5.x? OS X Panther(features column)

FreeBSD isn't a "clique" of elites, we didn't all install FreeBSD because it's "Cool". So many Linux zealots have called FreeBSD users out, saying we're trying to "fit in." Which is ironic, since many of them installed it because their buddies said, "Oh l00k, itz 31337 d00d."

I've run Linux since kernel 0.99, there was a time I prefered Linux(0.99 - 2.0.34) over any BSD, those days are long passed. However, I DO NOT look down my nose at Linux users, and I certainly don't troll any Linux "forums", yet why is this occuring vice versa? It's unfortunate, the Linux community is also very plagued by the '14 year old zit-faced kids who just installed RedHat, and want to "hax teh g1bs0n."' (I've taken enough abuse from the Linux crowd, talking about "Fat, unwashed, Star Trek watching *BSD nerds" to justify that last comment.) Which is one reason I don't ever want them crossing over to the FreeBSD crowd, thus if we have less 'market share', in that respect it's a VERY GOOD THING(tm).

Many of my sysadmin friends run purely Linux based networks(server-side), and when I ask why they don't even try a *BSD, the common answer I've received is, "It's too hard." Which in turn makes me chuckle to myself because they're really missing out on something great. I don't make fun of them and/or their networks, nor try to say they're running an antiquated or conviluted system. (To say FreeBSD is either of these, is to deny the facts.) To each his own, and if they choose to live in ignorance, MORE POWER TO THEM, it's their prerogative.

We were around in 1992, and we'll continue to be, regardless what the slashdot trolls attentively (or not so attentively..) splurge in digital form.

-mpf

P.S. I wonder how long Yahoo!(tm) will run a dead operating system (FreeBSD) across it's server pools?
( Next time don't post out of date,

Disclaimer: I am not anti-Linux. However, here is why I like FreeBSD..

1) PORTS. FreeBSD could win on this point alone. The ports system is AWESOME. I have never used Linux, but I hear a lot of people bitch about RPMs and "dependency hell". FreeBSD has dependencies but the ports system tracks all that. Every file, every version, every port is noted. I can just go to a directory and type "make clean install" and everything will be downloaded, built to my tastes, along with all dependencies and their dependencies and built in the proper order, then registered in the database. Daily I sync my ports tree and see what's new. If I want it, I can upgrade it (along with dependencies) safely with one command. It just doesn't get better than this. Recently, FreeBSD pass the 10,000 ports mark. There's also a nice overview of the ports system at Arstechnica.

2) Stability. FreeBSD is notoriously stable. You can pick any Netcraft report (such as here, here, here, here, or here. ) for evidence of this.

3) Consolidation. There is only one "FreeBSD". If I have 5.2 and you have 5.2, we have the same OS. There is no one "Linux". In reality, Linux is a kernel, and when you add a userland then you have a distribution. FreeBSD is kernel + userland.

4) File organization. Linux seems to lay out its file hierarchy somewhat randomly, with no consistancy of where an installed executable binary might be placed or separation of base/user. FreeBSD has polished this and adheres rigidly to a formal structure. For example, I know my base system is under /usr/bin. When I install an app, I know it'll be beneath /usr/local/bin for console apps or /usr/X11R6/bin for X apps. Base config files are in /etc, while config files for stuff installed via ports is in /usr/local/etc.

5) Community. I find the FreeBSD community to be less fanatical and instead more disciplined and polite. I feel like I'm getting help from someone wearing a suit & tie (though I doubt they really are..:) ) instead of a "LINUX RULEZ!!!" kid.

6) Documentation. FreeBSD has EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION, which is helped by Reason #3. There are also a number of excellent books on FreeBSD, all of which in this list I own. Sure, there are a bazillion books on Linux, but FreeBSD doesn't need so many because there's just one FreeBSD, and once you get beyond the OS, the rest is specific to the application/server and is not OS-specific.

7) Performance. FreeBSD is notorious for performing well. In fact, sometimes applications under Linux-emulation (see #8) run better than on a native Linux box. FreeBSD's TCP/IP implementation is also well-known for being very fast.

8) Linux-emulation. Most stuff for Linux is available as open-source and can be compiled natively for FreeBSD (and is probably in the ports tree), but for the few binary-only things that aren't, FreeBSD can still run them. Some of the Linux stuff I run myself include RealPlayer, Acrobat Reader (although gpdf works well too), the Flash plugin (running in a native Firebird, btw), and maybe some other things I ca

Disclaimer: I am not anti-Linux. However, here is why I like FreeBSD..

1) PORTS. FreeBSD could win on this point alone. The ports system is AWESOME. I have never used Linux, but I hear a lot of people bitch about RPMs and "dependency hell". FreeBSD has dependencies but the ports system tracks all that. Every file, every version, every port is noted. I can just go to a directory and type "make clean install" and everything will be downloaded, built to my tastes, along with all dependencies and their dependencies and built in the proper order, then registered in the database. Daily I sync my ports tree and see what's new. If I want it, I can upgrade it (along with dependencies) safely with one command. It just doesn't get better than this. Recently, FreeBSD pass the 10,000 ports mark. There's also a nice overview of the ports system at Arstechnica.

2) Stability. FreeBSD is notoriously stable. You can pick any Netcraft report (such as here, here, here, here, or here. ) for evidence of this.

3) Consolidation. There is only one "FreeBSD". If I have 5.2 and you have 5.2, we have the same OS. There is no one "Linux". In reality, Linux is a kernel, and when you add a userland then you have a distribution. FreeBSD is kernel + userland.

4) File organization. Linux seems to lay out its file hierarchy somewhat randomly, with no consistancy of where an installed executable binary might be placed or separation of base/user. FreeBSD has polished this and adheres rigidly to a formal structure. For example, I know my base system is under /usr/bin. When I install an app, I know it'll be beneath /usr/local/bin for console apps or /usr/X11R6/bin for X apps. Base config files are in /etc, while config files for stuff installed via ports is in /usr/local/etc.

5) Community. I find the FreeBSD community to be less fanatical and instead more disciplined and polite. I feel like I'm getting help from someone wearing a suit & tie (though I doubt they really are..:) ) instead of a "LINUX RULEZ!!!" kid.

6) Documentation. FreeBSD has EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION, which is helped by Reason #3. There are also a number of excellent books on FreeBSD, all of which in this list I own. Sure, there are a bazillion books on Linux, but FreeBSD doesn't need so many because there's just one FreeBSD, and once you get beyond the OS, the rest is specific to the application/server and is not OS-specific.

7) Performance. FreeBSD is notorious for performing well. In fact, sometimes applications under Linux-emulation (see #8) run better than on a native Linux box. FreeBSD's TCP/IP implementation is also well-known for being very fast.

8) Linux-emulation. Most stuff for Linux is available as open-source and can be compiled natively for FreeBSD (and is probably in the ports tree), but for the few binary-only things that aren't, FreeBSD can still run them. Some of the Linux stuff I run myself include RealPlayer, Acrobat Reader (although gpdf works well too), the Flash plugin (running in a native Firebird, btw), and maybe some other things I ca

Disclaimer: I am not anti-Linux. However, here is why I like FreeBSD..

1) PORTS. FreeBSD could win on this point alone. The ports system is AWESOME. I have never used Linux, but I hear a lot of people bitch about RPMs and "dependency hell". FreeBSD has dependencies but the ports system tracks all that. Every file, every version, every port is noted. I can just go to a directory and type "make clean install" and everything will be downloaded, built to my tastes, along with all dependencies and their dependencies and built in the proper order, then registered in the database. Daily I sync my ports tree and see what's new. If I want it, I can upgrade it (along with dependencies) safely with one command. It just doesn't get better than this. Recently, FreeBSD pass the 10,000 ports mark. There's also a nice overview of the ports system at Arstechnica.

2) Stability. FreeBSD is notoriously stable. You can pick any Netcraft report (such as here, here, here, here, or here. ) for evidence of this.

3) Consolidation. There is only one "FreeBSD". If I have 5.2 and you have 5.2, we have the same OS. There is no one "Linux". In reality, Linux is a kernel, and when you add a userland then you have a distribution. FreeBSD is kernel + userland.

4) File organization. Linux seems to lay out its file hierarchy somewhat randomly, with no consistancy of where an installed executable binary might be placed or separation of base/user. FreeBSD has polished this and adheres rigidly to a formal structure. For example, I know my base system is under /usr/bin. When I install an app, I know it'll be beneath /usr/local/bin for console apps or /usr/X11R6/bin for X apps. Base config files are in /etc, while config files for stuff installed via ports is in /usr/local/etc.

5) Community. I find the FreeBSD community to be less fanatical and instead more disciplined and polite. I feel like I'm getting help from someone wearing a suit & tie (though I doubt they really are..:) ) instead of a "LINUX RULEZ!!!" kid.

6) Documentation. FreeBSD has EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION, which is helped by Reason #3. There are also a number of excellent books on FreeBSD, all of which in this list I own. Sure, there are a bazillion books on Linux, but FreeBSD doesn't need so many because there's just one FreeBSD, and once you get beyond the OS, the rest is specific to the application/server and is not OS-specific.

7) Performance. FreeBSD is notorious for performing well. In fact, sometimes applications under Linux-emulation (see #8) run better than on a native Linux box. FreeBSD's TCP/IP implementation is also well-known for being very fast.

8) Linux-emulation. Most stuff for Linux is available as open-source and can be compiled natively for FreeBSD (and is probably in the ports tree), but for the few binary-only things that aren't, FreeBSD can still run them. Some of the Linux stuff I run myself include RealPlayer, Acrobat Reader (although gpdf works well too), the Flash plugin (running in a native Firebird, btw), and maybe some other things I ca

Disclaimer: I am not anti-Linux. However, here is why I like FreeBSD..

1) PORTS. FreeBSD could win on this point alone. The ports system is AWESOME. I have never used Linux, but I hear a lot of people bitch about RPMs and "dependency hell". FreeBSD has dependencies but the ports system tracks all that. Every file, every version, every port is noted. I can just go to a directory and type "make clean install" and everything will be downloaded, built to my tastes, along with all dependencies and their dependencies and built in the proper order, then registered in the database. Daily I sync my ports tree and see what's new. If I want it, I can upgrade it (along with dependencies) safely with one command. It just doesn't get better than this. Recently, FreeBSD pass the 10,000 ports mark. There's also a nice overview of the ports system at Arstechnica.

2) Stability. FreeBSD is notoriously stable. You can pick any Netcraft report (such as here, here, here, here, or here. ) for evidence of this.

3) Consolidation. There is only one "FreeBSD". If I have 5.2 and you have 5.2, we have the same OS. There is no one "Linux". In reality, Linux is a kernel, and when you add a userland then you have a distribution. FreeBSD is kernel + userland.

4) File organization. Linux seems to lay out its file hierarchy somewhat randomly, with no consistancy of where an installed executable binary might be placed or separation of base/user. FreeBSD has polished this and adheres rigidly to a formal structure. For example, I know my base system is under /usr/bin. When I install an app, I know it'll be beneath /usr/local/bin for console apps or /usr/X11R6/bin for X apps. Base config files are in /etc, while config files for stuff installed via ports is in /usr/local/etc.

5) Community. I find the FreeBSD community to be less fanatical and instead more disciplined and polite. I feel like I'm getting help from someone wearing a suit & tie (though I doubt they really are..:) ) instead of a "LINUX RULEZ!!!" kid.

6) Documentation. FreeBSD has EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION, which is helped by Reason #3. There are also a number of excellent books on FreeBSD, all of which in this list I own. Sure, there are a bazillion books on Linux, but FreeBSD doesn't need so many because there's just one FreeBSD, and once you get beyond the OS, the rest is specific to the application/server and is not OS-specific.

7) Performance. FreeBSD is notorious for performing well. In fact, sometimes applications under Linux-emulation (see #8) run better than on a native Linux box. FreeBSD's TCP/IP implementation is also well-known for being very fast.

8) Linux-emulation. Most stuff for Linux is available as open-source and can be compiled natively for FreeBSD (and is probably in the ports tree), but for the few binary-only things that aren't, FreeBSD can still run them. Some of the Linux stuff I run myself include RealPlayer, Acrobat Reader (although gpdf works well too), the Flash plugin (running in a native Firebird, btw), and maybe some other things I ca

Disclaimer: I am not anti-Linux. However, here is why I like FreeBSD..

1) PORTS. FreeBSD could win on this point alone. The ports system is AWESOME. I have never used Linux, but I hear a lot of people bitch about RPMs and "dependency hell". FreeBSD has dependencies but the ports system tracks all that. Every file, every version, every port is noted. I can just go to a directory and type "make clean install" and everything will be downloaded, built to my tastes, along with all dependencies and their dependencies and built in the proper order, then registered in the database. Daily I sync my ports tree and see what's new. If I want it, I can upgrade it (along with dependencies) safely with one command. It just doesn't get better than this. Recently, FreeBSD pass the 10,000 ports mark. There's also a nice overview of the ports system at Arstechnica.

2) Stability. FreeBSD is notoriously stable. You can pick any Netcraft report (such as here, here, here, here, or here. ) for evidence of this.

3) Consolidation. There is only one "FreeBSD". If I have 5.2 and you have 5.2, we have the same OS. There is no one "Linux". In reality, Linux is a kernel, and when you add a userland then you have a distribution. FreeBSD is kernel + userland.

4) File organization. Linux seems to lay out its file hierarchy somewhat randomly, with no consistancy of where an installed executable binary might be placed or separation of base/user. FreeBSD has polished this and adheres rigidly to a formal structure. For example, I know my base system is under /usr/bin. When I install an app, I know it'll be beneath /usr/local/bin for console apps or /usr/X11R6/bin for X apps. Base config files are in /etc, while config files for stuff installed via ports is in /usr/local/etc.

5) Community. I find the FreeBSD community to be less fanatical and instead more disciplined and polite. I feel like I'm getting help from someone wearing a suit & tie (though I doubt they really are..:) ) instead of a "LINUX RULEZ!!!" kid.

6) Documentation. FreeBSD has EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION, which is helped by Reason #3. There are also a number of excellent books on FreeBSD, all of which in this list I own. Sure, there are a bazillion books on Linux, but FreeBSD doesn't need so many because there's just one FreeBSD, and once you get beyond the OS, the rest is specific to the application/server and is not OS-specific.

7) Performance. FreeBSD is notorious for performing well. In fact, sometimes applications under Linux-emulation (see #8) run better than on a native Linux box. FreeBSD's TCP/IP implementation is also well-known for being very fast.

8) Linux-emulation. Most stuff for Linux is available as open-source and can be compiled natively for FreeBSD (and is probably in the ports tree), but for the few binary-only things that aren't, FreeBSD can still run them. Some of the Linux stuff I run myself include RealPlayer, Acrobat Reader (although gpdf works well too), the Flash plugin (running in a native Firebird, btw), and maybe some other things I ca

Yahoo *still runs on it* :)

I would suspect that the vast majority of their servers already run Linux... Domino runs on Linux (and has for a while), and most of their webservers are likely to run Linux.

I would suspect that the vast majority of their servers already run Linux... Domino runs on Linux (and has for a while), and most of their webservers are likely to run Linux.

It puts a bit of a dampener on the "celebration" of Apache's otherwise successful year w.r.t. market share.

Try something reputable like Power Hoster. They reputably resell time on networks like surf.net and pop.net as "cheap isp". I've used them and they mostly work. I imagine tht they work about as well as MSN ever did and that this is how any mom and pop outfit will work. AOL's network does work better, but use of a windoze only dial up client and the murder of Netscape drove me away from them after 8 years of service.

Not that it would have helped them survive the slashdotting, they run linux. Well, when they were up and running that is....

Excuse me for still having some scepticism in my brain, but if I was running IBM, I would have already set as much of this up as feasible by the back door and then announce publically that I was going to do it on a quite short timeframe. Then when I succeed I can go to other companies "look, it's predictable and safe". Companies hate change, employees hate change, it's risky or just plain annoying so if you really want to get the huge organisations to take this sort of a change seriously, you are going to have to be able to provide serious evidence.

Leaving scepticism (which was fueled by a comment refering to a base desktop build which already exists in IBM) aside, this is so logical it's simple! If IBM transfer their own business over to IBM's own software across the board, then they have a constantly provable business environment which they can sell and support on their own hardware. They can return to selling one stop shops, but by basing the underlying systems (as far as they commit to) on Free software, they completely disarm the feeling of being forced to choose between evils, you can choose a potential evil and feel free to walk away (well you might be replacing lots of hardware if you completely drop them) with your system. IBM could effectively start getting end customers to foot the bill for Free software development by IBM and the more of that work they are doing, the more of the work they are likely to get. The rules (well the licenses of most software they would be likely to use) prevent a monopoly, but IBM's power is huge and hence it could attract business to a monopolistic level, at least until a new tiger appears which can take it on in the newly expanded market. IBM don't need software licensing revenue, IBM can exist for the rest of time on it's name provided they can provide people with dependable solutions (i.e. they can charge a profit margin others would dream of, just because it's IBM).

What dissappoints me is that this all makes me recall many moments while I worked for Corel International Linux Support when I tried making people see the benefits of eating our own dogfood. I truly felt (though I mattered squat) they should have moved the next (or following if already too late) version of their Office and Draw suites to QT (or gtk, I only really say qt as they had already committed to KDE on the desktop and had peeople working on it) and start consolidating on their work. They were deciding what system to buy for the Linux Support desk, and I asked why they didn't just adopt a free one! Moving over all their hosting to Linux was another issue and one that was more important in their minds (and judging by netcraft it seems they achieved something there I wasn't expecting anymore). It was interesting however to watch the various reactions from managers to administrators, support staff to developers when they realised they had a bit of a Free software zealot in their midst! I even managed to get in my digs at visiting big-wigs (something makes me think that isn't why Corel left the country though). Corel had an opportunity, but they didn't even try (in fact I wonder why they even bothered starting with Linux if they weren't going to go down this route).

IBM would have to be insane not to try this. Really it is a case of when they feel they should make the jump to best effect, and if IBM feel that now is the time to do it, you can be sure it is very doable (for them) because egg on the face here could cost IBM massively and for a long time. I can't help feel that this has been in the works ever since they lost out on OS/2 and if the MS V Linux "Get The Facts" can be taken as evidence that MS is scared, this should be taken as evidence that MS should be petrified! If IBM do follow through with this, the impact in having all the IBM employees worldwide proficient with GNU/Linux/X/??/?? would be significant apart from the developments you would be sure would be seen in each piece o

from the LKML

SCo's infringing files list thread (51 articles)

AIX has crappy code (ctype.h)

(end lkml)
this week SCO puts up or shuts up

Smking Crack (and running Linux

They left out one BIG fact. They use Linux.
Here is a link from Netcraft.

Scott

Open Source is like automobiles 100 years ago. Approximately a century ago, the horse-and-buggy industry saw that automobiles were being adopted by a much wider segment than merely a handful of hobbyists. The horse-and-buggy industry tried its best to pay legislators to pass restrictive laws, and used all sorts of FUD to scare people away from that thar new-fangled horseless carriage. Sound familiar ?

Open Source is no longer the province of a bunch of hobbyist geeks. It is becoming a commercial success. That has made it enemies, because it is a "disruptive technology" that is depriving established companies of profits. Indeed, it is threatening to destroy some old-line companies altogether. With their backs to the wall, those companies have no choice but to save themselves in the only way possible, i.e. by destroying Open Source.

The natural enemies of Open Source software are proprietary software companies. SCO's expensive Unix is being wiped off the map by linux. Microsoft is having relatively minor problems with Open Source competition at present, but the potential for disaster is there. They are losing not only OS profits to linux, but Office sales to Open Office. Look at Netcraft and note what's happened to their share of the web-server market since March 2002. Repeat that trend for Windows and Office, and MS is toast.

Open Source needs allies that are just as big and powerful as its enemies. The natural allies of Open Source are non-software companies, whose core products aren't threatened by free software, indeed, benefit from it.

Those of you old enough to remember IBM's anti-trust problems will find it amusing that one of the charges against IBM was that it gave away allegedly free software with their computers, and the proprietary software companies complained that they couldn't compete. IBM prospered in that environment before, and they can prosper in it again. IBM's hardware side sees Open Source as a chance to boost profits by not paying "Microsoft Tax" on every PC they sell. And as far as IBM's consulting arm is concerned, they don't care if they get paid to manage Windows, linux, OS/2, heck they'd even manage Commodore Vic-20's if you could make it worth their while.

Other potential allies are small/medium/large businesses that are now saving money thanks to Open Source, and face the prospect of those savings being legislated away from them.

This isn't merely a question of whether or not your city hall will give Open Source a fair chance. It's also a question of whether your national legislators will outlaw Open Source altogether. "Turn the other cheek" doesn't defend you against the schoolyard bully. You must get involved in the political process in your respective countries. Like it or not, Open Source supporters will have to get involved in politics in your respective countries. You will have to identify candidates who will allow Open Source to survive, and work for their election.

The Qube 3 and RaQ 550 Source code was released to the Cobalt Users Group of Japan under a BSD-link license.

Since their server is down, this is the google cache

Did you know that Cobalt has the biggest market share of on-line Linux servers after Redhat?