Slashdot Mirror
A Devil Of A BSDCon
Well I just got back from BSDCon, and spent some time catching up with old friends, new core team members, and cool new products. The highlight of the event was the reception and dinner at the Monterey Bay State Aquarium, which in my opinion is a must-see. All five BSDs were represented this year: MacOS X, BSD/OS, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.
There were some really neat talks at BSDCon, three tracks in all: general, security, and development. The highlights of the security talks were Bill Fumerola's talk on DoS attacks and the new ipfw which uses compiled rulesets for better performance, Robert Watson's TrustedBSD presentation, and Mark Murray's explanation of the /dev/urandom work he has done with FreeBSD using Yarrow. In the development track, Greg Lehey and Jason Evans presented a paper on FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT's new SMP model.
The exhibit hall itself was small, lending to a larger focus on technical issues, but there were several exhibitors that caught my eye. One was RelexUS, a company with its roots in Russia. They make a relational database called Linter which I found extremely easy to use (though commercial, it was very robust) It also bills Linux and FreeBSD among its native support list, as well as almost every other OS under the sun. It supports ODBC, stored procedures, transactions, asynchronous replication, and a host of other features. Also, the EFF were there, and I finally got around to joining.
Thursday night we piled into a bus to head on over to the Monterey Bay State Aquarium for dinner, drinks, and dessert. We had to wear Daemon horns to get in and fun was had by all. The new core team wrapped up the conference on Friday afternoon, and everyone left and went into town, tired, hungry, but satisfied with this year's turnout.
More pictures can be found at Greg Sutter and Jim Mock's pages. More coverage can be found on BSD Today.
Oh look, there are a couple - here and here.
BlackNova Traders
If that's anyone's war, then I find it a bit pathetic.
Linux is probably chasing that goal more than any of the BSDs, but I don't think any of the core teams are or should be focusing on it.
The aim of FreeBSD is (more or less) to build a free, solid, stable, high performance server OS for commodity hardware.
The aim of NetBSD is to provide a free, stable, portable OS for all possible hardware.
The aim of OpenBSD is to provide a free, stable, secure OS for as much hardware as can be reasonably supported
The war is to keep providing features people need and support for the hardware they run, while still meeting and iimproving in the particular OS's stated aim. To that end, Windows is irrelvant.
When you decided that windows was the enemy, you sold out on the idea of producing quality software, and opted for a pissing competition with Microsoft.
--
Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.
They have been supported on FreeBSD for a LOOOOONG time. The 3.x's wcd driver had an icky way of supporting it. 4.x's acd driver handles it better.
(8-DCS)
Not all code in BSD was AT&T's code. After all, it was usually SysV which imported BSD code, not the other way around.
:-)
Though it would be tough finding 8 years code. Only in the most obscure utilities. "yes", maybe.
(8-DCS)
Brett Glass has a beef with you? Man, my sentiments...
(8-DCS)
Presumably you meant "...97% of the closed source Linux applications."
It's a Daemon, not a devil, dammit.
-dk-
is the seperation of the Linux and BSD communities. In a very real sense, arent we all in the same war? promotion of our platforms as a viable alternative to Windows. I think there needs to be a movement out there to promote the *nix environment in general, particulary in reference to OSS based os'es. Perhaps some more OSS expo's...... im sure theres Unix expo's of some sort, but how about one tailored to the open source revolution...not just linux or bsd specificially...
"sex on tv is bad, you might fall off..."
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
First off, the license is different.
The BSD kernel and Linux have different licenses, true. But the Perl on BSD and the Perl on Linux are the same. Ditto for Xfree86, gcc, less, OpenSSH, TCP/IP, lpr, emacs, ad infinitum.
For someone not working on the kernel or OS environment, the licensing is identical. From a user's perspective, one is 100% free and the other is 100% free.
The BSD license leaves version contrrol with UC-Berkley. Period.
Wrong. Go read the license. Go fork the project and create a new CVS tree on your own server if you wish. No one will sue. Version control remains with the FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD core teams for exactly the same reason that version control for Linux remains with Linus: it makes sense to have one official source.
Secondly, BSD is a more mature project than Linux, and that drives people apart. In the earlier days of Linux, and to a certain point even now, you can end up with copyright on a small chunk of the Linux kernel.
Yep. But its more than getting your name in the list of contributors. A new OS has opportunity for everyone to contribute. But with an old OS the opportunity is harder. You either need some grand vision of a radical change, or be content with the unglamorous tuning and tweaking.
But BSD is more than the kernel. There is also the userland OS environment. There's a lot of current work going on there, so you have the opportunity to get involved.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"Big Iron" is typically understood to refer to a mainframe. And no, a big ol' Sun box is not a mainframe, it's what used to be refered to as a "mini". Nowadays I guess it's just called a "big ol' Sun box".
Cray's UNICOS OS was adapted from SysV Unix... about 15 years after Unix was "born". So, no, Unix was not "born on big iron".
I guess you could say that a Cray was "big iron" even though it's not really a mainframe... but I did say "hardly ever".
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
The implication seems to be that VA Linux, of which OSDN (nee Andover.Net, long may it wave) is a part, would discourage discussion of the various BSDs, in order to push instead its own Linux-based systems. (Am I wrong with that summary?)
:)
... well, VA Linux sells some nice Linux boxes, even though a little pricey. I bet that none of them would have any trouble running any of the BSDs, since the hardware is pretty standard stuff (feel free to correct if that's wrong, I have never owned a VA machine to confirm). I bet they'd be happy to sell you a machine on which you can yourself install whatever OS you want. They don't sell BSD boxes now (or possibly ever, given the name), but I get the strong impression that Free software is great by them in general, not just some particular version of their modified RedHat distro.
:) but then, you can consider the source as much as you want.
However, the reality is a little different. I've met a few folks from VA Linux proper -- hard to avoid meeting some people from VA even if you don't work there, just by going to any Linux event;)-- but I doubt that anybody who doesn't work for Slashdot even has my phone number.
I have never (*ever*) been asked not to run a particular story by VA, and if I were, I would laugh at the suggestion. I also would never not run a story simply because it was possibly embarrassing to VA - why the heck should I? A tainted news source just doesn't make sense. I may have poor judgement at times, but I try not to compound it with other people's poor judgement!
Additionally, on the topic of BSD
Additionally, Open Magazine (on what, the 3rd issue now?) has a BSD section, and columns from BSD and networking maven Pat Lynch. Now Open only started after the purchase of Andover by VA -- does it sound like VA is really trying to stifle VA? Not to me
Truth is, we'd like to get a lot more submissions dealing with BSD -- right now (and for the past few years) Linux has generated a larger buzz because of its more (anarchic / robust, however you want to see it) dev. process. The BSDs are great and have their well-known emphases and strengths, but there isn't as much in the way of interesting wackiness. Maybe because they're already so mature, eh?
ok, so remember, I work for VA (indirectly), and you may choose the lump of salt you want to take with my words, but they are sincere.
timothy
Hmmm.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
There are several fundamental differences between BSD's and Linux.
:)
First off, the license is different. The BSD license leaves version contrrol with UC-Berkley. Period. You can also incorporate BSD code with closed-sourced projects. Linux is under the GPL, which leaves revision control to the programmers (though, with the kernel, the Final Word is given to Linus) and it mandates that if GPL code is put into a project, it must also be made GPL.
Secondly, BSD is a more mature project than Linux, and that drives people apart. In the earlier days of Linux, and to a certain point even now, you can end up with copyright on a small chunk of the Linux kernel. BSD is a lot harder to get in on, and even harder to inject fresh code in.
Third, while both projects have reputations for security, BSD takes the cake. People haven't hacked good BSD implementations, be it Free, Net, or BSDi. It takes less to lock down a BSD box than a Linux box, but I've been able to hold down a Linux box at a hacker con. (I also publicized the machine's IP in all the conference computer areas.)
Fourth, BSD has a reputation with big iron, whereas Linux is building it in right now. BSD is more stable in most instances than Linux.
Fifth, Linux has a cooler sounding name than BSD
I use both FreeBSD and Linux. So please, no flaimbait, huh?
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
The 'linux community' has a sub-set of voices who have money in Linux-centric stocks and have a vested interest in seeing 'linux succeed'. VA Research^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HLinux is an example of a voice that won't promote BSD unless they have to. Given money == volume, it is no wonder the BSD message is shouted over.
The voices are fine, it is what the voices *SAY*....$0 OSes/Open Source OSes == Linux (and only linux) that cause the problem.
Taking snippits from here these quotes are WHY there seems to be a division, because there *IS* a division.
The Institute has not yet seen fit to include the only companies which market products and services many in the Third World can actually afford, the Linux companies.
Now, anyone with 1/2 a clue or better knows that the ONLY companies that market products that are at a $0 cost option are NOT just Linux companies. There is BSD in the form of Darwin (the $0 option from Apple), FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.
So here is a 'linux voice' ignoring BSD, even thought the 'goal' of the voice is to help the 3rd world become aware of $0 options. Saying 'only linux' is being un-truthful.
Bruce P has a take on this, and I can understand his modivation:
Re: And BSD isn't affordable, nor corporate?
by Bruce Perens on Monday October 09, @03:31 AM BSD folks should be represented too. Hopefully, they can ask for representation in the same way the Linux folks are. Should the Linux folks fight their battles? I'd have no problem speaking out for them as a free software spokesperson. But I doubt that every Linux proponent should have to fight on the behalf of BSD.
Here is the source of a division.
If you are talking about 'open source alternatives to Micro$oft', then you should not be starting and ending with Linux. BSD is there, and you could always use HURD or even Minix. (if others have $0 options for personal/business use, please list em.) WRT HURD and Minix, there isn't alot of usefulness, so you are left with BSD.
When you talk about 'shrink-wrapped Linux binaries', do they even consider Solaris/SCO/BSD's Linux compatibility layer? If you don't think of BSD/SCO/Solaris, then you are adding to the division.
And, when someone approaches you and says: "Tell me about Linux", are they wanting to know about Linux, or are they "interested in knowing what they could run instead of Microsoft software" with Linux being the name on the tip of the tounge of the press.
(And Linus is in agreement with the POV that Choices to Microsoft should be varied.
That same attitude helps explain why Torvalds is so eager to counterbalance Microsoft's dominance. He wants computer users to have a choice among several operating systems, not just one from Microsoft. "I'm not rabid anti-Microsoft," he says. "But they make it so hard to compete.")
If *YOU* don't like the rift, what are you doing to bridge the gap? Do you say 'linux' as a shorthand for Open Source OS? When you ask vendors to create a 'linux binary', do you ask them to support BSD/SCO/Solaris with that linux binary?
And think about this:
Is it OK to go to a Windows technology roll-out to hand out Linux CD's, in the interest of letting ppl know about 'an option'?
Is it OK to go to a Linux Meeting and hand out BSD CD's, in the interest in expanding knowledge?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
True, but it's just a lousy mascot anyway. They should change their mascot to some sort of bird, such as an eagle. Their motto could be "this bird can fly". Take that, Penguin.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?