Slashdot Mirror
How Qwest Runs Things
Brew Bird writes "Qwest explains how they handle the various issues that crop up being a large ISP/Backbone Provider.
They've got the presentations setup in a nice little website." It's very *BSD focused, since I believe that's mostly what Qwest runs but the presentations are interesting in the scaling issue - what do you do with that much data and that many machines?
I'm not joking. As soon as I see a PowerPoint slide, my eyes get heavy, and I get very drowsy. I can't help it. I think that it is a true Pavlovian response.
And they only offered MS-Windows tools and instructions for the latest update which they required for my DSL router.
How many of you that are posting even read the slides?
For one thing, someone posted the netcraft readings on qwest.com. The slides are all discussing qwest.net.
"The site www.qwest.net runs Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.8 OpenSSL/0.9.2b on FreeBSD"
The slides also clearly state that they run their DNS, email, and web servers on FreeBSD. Anything you may have heard from former Qwest employees may refer to pre-merger Qwest. The qwest.net that the slides discuss was previously uswest.net. Some of Qwest's presentations were done last year at BSDCon, only as uswest.net.
Finally, what do your difficulties with fiber optic circuits, customer service, or the time it takes to get your DSL line connected have to do with the OS running on the servers? With all the posts bitching about qwest, I have yet to see one that says "their mail servers, DNS servers, and/or web servers are unreliable," and since that's what the slides were discussing, I have to assume you just wanted something to complain about.
But I'm sure you'll ignore this post, just as you've ignored the slides themselves, so you can just go back to talking about how they should be using Linux instead.
As someone who would know, I can tell you that all of the Quest authentication/authorization/accounting software runs on Sun/Solaris boxes, and not FreeBSD.
They may run FreeBSD for some stuff, but you aren't going to scale for extremely high transaction rates on Intel/FreeBSD boxes.
No knock on FreeBSD (I run it myself), but just the way it is.
Don't forget that NetBSD is starting down the road to SMP now, too.
Also, NetBSD has had an improved VM system for some time now. I think it's the default on i386, but I can't say for certain.
-Dom
Yup, you're completely right about this. But if you know anything about the linux kernel in the 2.2+ (and later 2.4 series), that it is basicaly the BSD Networking Kernel. Luckly the BSD licence allows for this. So when you use your networking stuff, you're not truly running 100% linux made code, you're using some BSD Networking code.
It's also obvious according performance testing stuff of last year that FreeBSD way outperforms OpenBSD.
The only unix I run at home is an OpenBSD machine. I also have a single OpenBSD co-locate (personal server) at my work. Let me count the ways of the pain dealing with webserving on that thing.. PHP / MySQL problems, etc. It's not bad that because it's only a single machine, but if I had to run 50 of these things, I would switch to FreeBSD in a heart beat.
Your Study doesn't exist at all. Are you spreading Linux based FUD? Now here's a _real_ study from last year. Interesting, Linux get's blown out of the water in many tests and has a slight lead in static web pages.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I trust Warner Losh and the OpenBSD core developers over you.
With TUX and 2.4.0, you cant beat linux right now in static pages. What I would like to see is 2.2.18 NFSv3 mounted homedirs serving from apache vs. BSD.
-- dieman - Scott Dier
I spoke with a Qwest (then USWest) guy at the '99 O'Reilly Open Source conference. He gave a conference on Open Source Advocacy. He said that a lot of USWest's DNS servers were FreeBSD. He said they were also looking at some sendmail stuff on FreeBSD.
Just my anecdotal evidence.
I get my DSL from Qwest, but use another ISP. Here in Minneapolis, most ISPs (including Qwest) either don't let you or don't say anything about running servers. I went with Citilink, because they explicitly allowed DSL users to run servers. They've since merged with MNinter.net, to form Infinetivity, and now their site doesn't say anything about running servers, but I haven't had any problems.
One good note, I originally got DSL at 256Kb/s. This past summer, I noticed higher (almost double) download speeds. A couple weeks later, I got a letter saying they'd upgraded my line to 640Kb/s download (still 256Kb/s uploads), at no extra charge!
Ummm.... Let's see those photoshop benchmarks under linux. Oh wait. There aren't any. How does a fully decked out Linux machine fare against a fully decked out Sun machine when running Oracle? Linux might have won one benchmark, but the fastest OS title still isn't held by anyone one OS. It all depends on what you're using it for...
And, isn't TUX the kernel level webserver, if i'm not mistaken? So, on equally configured systems, the kernel managed to dish out 200 more pages than Win2000/IIS5, even though Win2000 also has the overhead of a full GUI as well?
Benchmarks are far from conclusive, especially when you point to one in particluar and proclaim the winner of that one the best overall.
Funny though, i think i just responded to a troll...
Ermmm... I've told Roadrunner's tech support staff that i run Linux. No problems with that whatsoever, they just won't provide tech support.
I ended up needing to install Win98 on my machine just so that they could actually be sure that everything was setup fine on my end, and that the issue indeed was that they hadn't updated the entry for my MAC address in their systems. But in the end,they couldn't care less what you run, according to my experience.
Same for my linksys router. They don't care. They'll only charge you more for additional computers if your extra computers are using their IP addresses.
The only time that you're required to run Windows or Mac is if you need their help setting your machine up.
My experience, at least.
It would seem to me that the linux ranks are filled with far many zealots. And so many of them are 10 times more vocal than the equivalent *BSD & MacOS "zealots" that they complain so bitterly about.
--Um... Lucas
(posting logged in. fuck karma.)
Of course, if you're stuck with an actively non-Windows-hostile ISP like Roadrunner or Ma Belle (that's Bellsouth for the non-Southern among us), I feel sorry for you... and wish you the best of luck finding a new ISP.
warp eight bot
geek by nature
Free Software by choice
distro bigotry is for losers
The installation problems are due to Qwest.Com, the telephone company. The discussion here is about Qwest.Net the ISP.
Are you claiming that no one can download the OpenBSD code? They are distrubted just as easily as linux is, the source is just as available. The way I see it- linux is trying to accomidate as much hardware, feature sets, and users as possible, while OpenBSD is going for a rock-solid server, not worrying about things like SMB, USB, and the like. Just my thoughts.
The majority of FreeBSD's Security Advisories for 2000 were for third party applications in the Ports Collection, and not part of FreeBSD at all.
Any one running those applications on any OS would have the same problem. The FreeBSD Project is just being responsible.
The advisories have a paragraph that makes this very clear.
Please stop your FUD.
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
The information in these presentations is specifically for the Qwest's ISP business, which was U.S. West before they were bought. They are 100% FreeBSD.
Your second-hand info regarding Solaris/Oracle may well be true for the rest of Qwest.
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
It's not a myth if Linux is only now catching up.
And good for Linux! It _is_ possible to speak well of one OS without speaking poorly of another.
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Their Select service (the cheap one) includes an Intel Pro/DSL 2100 modem: to the best of my knowlege, there is no way to get this beast to work with either FreeBSD or linux. You have to pay $150 extra for the Cisco external router to use FreeBSD. Doesn't sound too FreeBSD friendly to me, but I guess that I'm kind of biased by the fact that I have to pay $40/month to them and they won't make it possible for me to use my OS of choice with their (Intel basically says "they're qwest's" about the modems) hardware.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Unless it's a kernel issue there's no reason why they should have to reboot. One of the nice things about unix is that you can fix/replace/change parts of the system without affecting others. If they're going to update their popd why is that grounds for a reboot? Move the old binary, stick in the new and restart the daemon.
I find it strange that among a couple hundred comments only one AC mentions Qwest's well-established reputation as a spamhaus.
They host spammers and spamvertized websites. They won't remove their spammers no matter how much you complain.
Go be sure to patent it first. A good corporation steals things the right way.
War is necrophilia.
Not everybody has to contribute, not all cotributions are code. The nature of generosity is to give things away without expecting anything in return. You don't have to be generous or kind or pleasant (and you are not!) but that's cool to each his own.
Linux may not be groundbreaking (although some things in the open source world are IMHO) but it's nice and I like it and I use it and I'm grateful.
It's not freeloading to use things given to you with an open heart. It's why it's there.
I don't tell my plumber to work for free but if he volunteered to work for free I would not berate him or call him a communist. I have helped many people and may people have helped me in my life somehow it never occured to me to call those people communist, anarchists, or hypocrites. I usually said good things about them and thanked them profusely and usually said something like "if there is anything I can do for you please don't hesitate to ask".
I guess you and me are different in that way. You see someone committing an act of generosity and you lash out at them and call them names. Me I admire them and try to emulate them.
BTW. I charge my clients, wave the free software flag, use free software and write some inconsequencial code that I give away to anybody who asks for it. To me these are not contradictory actions. I don't see life in the same black and white terms that you do. I guess I am able to recognize subleties in the fabric of life, society and economy.
BTW communism is a political affliation. As far as I know it's an extreme minority of the US. The chances of a poster actually being a communist is pretty damned small. Like most people they are either republican, democrat or independent.
War is necrophilia.
Wow! They even give you a Usenet porn primer in their presentation on Law Enforcement on the internet! Their slides show various newsgroups including: alt.sex.masterbation.pictures.female.teen and alt.sex.bondage! http://www.users.qwest.net/~lawenforcement/LawEnfo rce1.pdf pages 18-21
Until Qwest disconnects Alan Ralsky and his spam front Telodigm) (you know, those spams you've been getting from spewspew.net dialups pumping www.gatheredsales.net, www.linkusnow.net and now www.speedquality.org), I don't have any fucking interest in how Qwest runs things.
Because the evidence about how Qwest runs things is in my inbox every goddamn morning.
Fuck Qwest.
And for those reading in nanae, until MAPS gets off its ass and RBLs the whole goddamn 216.144.192.0-216.144.223.255 Qwest/Telodigm netspace, hey, fuck MAPS too.
Connect the machines to a storage area network and store the data on GFS!!!
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
BSD trolls on action again,
Stop that lie allready
Warner Loosher is known FUDSTER
Compare the code, but I'll guess it would be too much to ask from an illerate BSD wimps
The changes between 4.1 and 4.2 were hardly affected by BSDi. It was the same 'ol, same 'ol- bugfixes, a couple new features, and general improvements.
You won't see much from the BSD/OS code that was released to FreeBSD developers until, maybe 5.0. SMPng is BSD/OS "inspired" but their design does vary significantly from BSD/OS's.
-bugg
Because it's the most used.
Yes I know that FreeBSD is great and all, but is it the only one being used for server usage?
Read above. OpenBSD is very reliable, stable, does just about everything FreeBSD does, and more secure than just about anything out there. But the question remains, why just FreeBSD?
More applications, has SMP, and a better VM system for starters.
WHen was the last time you heard some one speak of NetBSD or BSD/OS ...? .. exactly ....
Earlier today. Just because you don't see them on your computer at home doesn't mean its not out there. So I guess Tru64 or AIX are non-existant to you. But does it really matter which BSD is used? So please quit whining.
Neither is Solaris or Tru64. So whats your point troll?
Most operations are a Solaris/Oracle core. Yahoo! uses FreeBSD for its kr4d pure serving ability but for the number crunching they run Solaris.
Last year's BSDi/Walnut Creek merger affected FreeBSD immediately (as I'm sure other BSD users noticed between 4.1 and 4.2), but I'm not yet sure if BSDi's Internet Server OS has been affected.
The 4.1 -> 4.2 releases were just routine bugfixes, minor tweaks, etc. The average user won't reap any benefits of the merger until SMPng is completed. Ahhh threading!
Nothing of any magnitude in your comments. We all know x86 hardware is nasty, etc.
And maybe they don't have to ask questions on USENET. Don't judge these people by the Linux users, many of them have been Unix people, literally, since before many Linux users were born.
Excellent timing on the article, as I am getting ready to switch ISPs and was considering these guys. While it's great to know they use a real OS internally, that doesn't necessarily mean they are friendly to customers doing the same (Roadrunner certainly is not, for instance, proclaiming that using Linux is grounds for terminating a customer account according to one would-be customer of theirs I spoke with recently.)
Anyone have any experience using their service with *nix? I know that it's pretty easy to simply do it on your own, without letting the provider know, but I also really don't like doing that, I don't like supporting a provider that even tries to require their customers pay the MS tax.
I've read through their online information and seen nothing sinister, but I'm very interested in hearing from anyone that's using them now, or that was using them recently.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
If you had a good ISP, like visi.com for example, you'd know that there was scheduled maintanance today. The 30 minutes went to 90, imagine that.
USWest sucked big time, Qwest sucks the same but pretends to care. I still cannot get DSL in Eagan.
sopwath
I currently work in an environment where most things run on commercial Unix, so here's my perspective on that. First, there are many applications which are sim ply too demanding for the hardware on which Linux will run. Typically this mean s huge Oracle databases. But there are also many instances of people architecting around the 'big iron' just because it's available, rather than seriously asking what the best platform would be. The best example is web servers, which in my opinion should be Linux/FreeBSD on Intel. That combination yields the best bang for the buck. It's much better to load balance a bunch of Intel web servers than to try to build a huge 'high-availability' Sun or HP web server.
- OpenBSD is only secure "by default".
- FreeBSD can be made almost as secure -- with the right admin.
OpenBSD does provide a much better environment for creating secure systems, but its lack of SMP support and truly sad performance are obvious deterrents.All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
Also, the politics really are an issue... OpenBSD is completely controlled a by one person, a person with a long-standing reputation as being immature and not very personable. OpenBSD is a great OS, but I honestly can't say that it has a future. After every new release, I'm always amazed that Theo hasn't gotten mad at someone, fired all of the core developers, and run off in a huff.
OTOH, FreeBSD is controlled by several core development teams and committees. One developer couldn't destroy the project on a whim. I have confidence in its future stability.
(Also, this is bordering on flamebait, but I guarantee that OpenBSD wouldn't have its reputation for security if it had more users. OpenBSD can afford to be smug, because no one runs the fucking thing! On the flip side, while Red Hat really is crap, it's also the most-run Linux distro in this country, especially if you count th Mandrake users. Therefore, there's a much greater chance of its security being tested.)
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
IBM "supports" Linux, but you have to look deeper. They do release code, but since there's $0.00 ROI, it's just charity. The only place that Linux has in business is as a low-cost (ie free) system for running cheap IA hardware. Just look at Cobalt... they pay $0 for the software that runs their Qube, and since they're not a software company, they don't have to give anything back.
As a programmer and software developer, I have absolutely no problem with closed-source. I want to continue working making software (and making pretty good money), and Open Source has no place in that plan. Free Software will always remain free as in beer, because no businessman will pay for what he can get for free. (Or for less. Once again, CheapBytes profits more than anyone from OSS.) The GNU Manifesto gets really fuzzy in this area, alluding to the "programmer" occupation changing into a more janitorial role, making a living by installing and maintaining the software they write for free. Bullshit. I hope I never have to be a professional developer in that world.
And Raymond's propaganda is really, um, interesting. It would be a lot more effective if he weren't a rapid, flute-playing gun nut who lives on his VA and Red Hat stock options.
It's exactly Free Software/OSS zealot's aversion to making money from software that makes me suspicious of their socialist tendencies. UNIX would not exist without capitalism. Linux, the communist alternative which stole its entire arhcitecture from UNIX, hasn't yet proven itself to be any better.
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
Also, I used to be a BSD nut, so while I think it's cool to hear about its use at such large corporations, understand that 80% or more of it will be BSDi. In several areas FreeBSD technically out-performs BSDi's server products, but BSD has both a corporate reputation and a full-time, in-house support staff. Stories about BSD's success in the enterprise are not "news" and should not be considered good for Free Software.
Last year's BSDi/Walnut Creek merger affected FreeBSD immediately (as I'm sure other BSD users noticed between 4.1 and 4.2), but I'm not yet sure if BSDi's Internet Server OS has been affected.
One thing that many inexperienced Slashdotter's don't seem to know is that while BSD and GNU/Linux are great (even superior, in many cases) for small-medium Intel boxes, there is a point where you really do need the high-end hardware and industrial-strength UNIX that only IBM, Sun, HP, and others currently provide. And it's not just a matter of corporate bullshit... for instance, ask anyone who has ported "real" enterprise software from UNIX to GNU/Linux about the experience and I guarantee that the first they'll do is start bitching about GNU/Linux's lack of a real threading model and other deficiences.
I hope that IBM's support of Linux continues, because that is truly one company whose knowledge and experience can help Linux overcome these issues.
This is getting way offtopic, but I'm going to mention that I think a Linux kernel fork is inevitable within the next five years. One group, led by De Icazza and others, will concentrate on bringing Linux to the level of the Windows desktop. The other group, led by IBM, TurboLinux and other corporate interests will concentrate on bringing Linux to the level of UNIX as an enterprise OS running on non-trivial (ie non-IA) hardware.
And ten years from now, after the Linux communities have destroyed each other, BSD will still be running network hardware in machine rooms around the world. :-)
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
I never have mod access when I want it... Someone mod this guy up, he's making an excellent point.
from the good old stupid PowerPoint slides taht most companies use for presentations.
-DVK (FP? who cares!)
"The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
If you replace 3 boxes with one, how do you figure that the OS is better on saving power? How much more power would it use if you loaded BSD on the new box?
Capitalism is the be-all and end-all of economic systems and communism means that you're stupid.
Anything that is derived from capitalism is good, even if it's not.
Anything that is derived from communism is bad, even if it's not.
Working for freedom is zealotry.
Doing whatever it takes for money is not.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Yes I know that FreeBSD is great and all, but is it the only one being used for server usage?
What about OpenBSD? I use OpenBSD, and IMHO, its very similar to FreeBSD, if not better.
OpenBSD is very reliable, stable, does just about everything FreeBSD does, and more secure than just about anything out there. But the question remains, why just FreeBSD?
From my point of view, FreeBSD has the RedHat effect. In the world of Linux, when most talk about LInux, they really mean redhat. Same goes for the world of BSD. WHen was the last time you heard some one speak of NetBSD or BSD/OS ...? .. exactly ....
Its always sad, when one flavor of an OS takes the spot light, and the other which are almost as good are forgotten.
Hopefully, the rest of the BSD's will get the credit that they deserver too.
If service in your area is anything like mine, make sure to request an "external modem". This comes in the form of a Cisco 675 router. Also, be prepared to be on your own as far as setup and maintenance is concerned. I havn't been particularly impressed with support. (Surprise!) They shipped the manuals for a later version of the BIOS then what was installed on the router. When I asked for a upgrade I got a lot of blank stares.
Also, I sent Qwest the following security notice about Cisco routers that came out last month. Packet filtering doesn't seem to be included until this later version of the BIOS. As before, blank stares when I tried to get an upgrade. Looks like Cisco will offer free upgrades anyway... Just be prepared to be on your own for support.
Eric
Did you know that Linux 2.4's memory management is based on FreeBSD's?
I'd like to point out that their *BSD topography hasn't made them anymore co-ordinated. I am submitting this via 56k modem right now because of their screw ups. I had ISDN, working well with my Netgear ISDN router... until my lines *finally* DSL qualified. So I ordered DSL to replace my ISDN... First, they push the due date back 24 hours without telling me. I found out by calling for status on the original due date. Second, they set up the DSL line in their system, did not remove the ISDN line, and never activated the new DSL line in the outside box. Another day of delay. Third, they came out, disconnected the ISDN, hooked up the DSL to the box (and even ran it to my apartment, that was nice). But they hooked me into the wrong DSL cloud. Now it impacts my ability to telecommute to work. Last step so far, I am pending them changing me to the correct DSL cloud so I can *finally* have my DSL working... They say as late as next Friday, but my ISP pressured them into a possible Monday. Qwest, if you weren't the only DSL provider in town, you'd be out of business *so* fast. Qwest, can you reinburse me for the modem I had to buy as an interim solution? If my employer needs me to catch a plane to work, will you reimburse my employer?
This sig intentionally left blank.
However, I do believe their slide about 900+ day uptimes is slightly innacurate/out of date. Its pretty easy with good hardware to get either Linux or *BSD to stay up 900+ days, but I'm not sure why anyone would want to. Its very rare in a 2-3 year time period that a machine won't need to be brought down and updated due to some vulnerability. *BSD is not immune to vulnerabilities and neither is Linux. So keeping a machine up for 900+ days just seems rather foolish.
Until October 4, 2000, OpenBSD's Website read "Three years without a remote hole in the default install!" and "Two years without a local hole in the default install!" The second part was dropped on October 4th (5th, maybe) when a local hole was found in chpass. It still has been three years since the last remote hole in OpenBSD, which is fantastically impressive. OpenBSD (and all BSDs) is open souce. The reason that more security issues are found in Linux is that there are more security issues in Linux. OpenBSD has proven nearly impenetrable in its default install. It is amazing and the other BSDs are very secure as well. GNU/Linux is a great system, and many distros are pretty secure--certainly more secure than windoze, but Linux does not compare to BSD in terms of security, as far as i know. The Linux kernel generall is released more frequently, but OpenBSD is updated daily and currents can be obtained pretty easily. Distributions (the whole system) are generally not released more often than bianually, which is how often OpenBSD (the whole system) is released. OpenBSD was audited for security problems and is just that secure, it's not just that more people look through the Linux code.
Unfortunately that post is closed source, sorry.
Tru64 is there - The Compaq Alphaserver.
Solaris isn't there.
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
This can be nothing but good news for the BSD's. Knowledge of inferiority springs forth competition and improvement, and destroys complacency. Microsoft responded with Windows 2000. What will the BSD'ers respond with? Only time will tell.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
There is no
I am not sure I understand you. What about Apache which has 60% market share in the web? And the producers make money because Apache is used to promote their business.
FreeBSD is interesting in that it was originally developed by a school in the true spirit of altruism which I will agree is not suggicient in the marketplace. However, it does make a decent platform for some things.
I am not sure why you seem to think that open-source is unproven, when in fact it is, in the case of Apache, based upon tried and true marketing principles applicable to all market sectors. Of course companies like Red Hat may or may not have their business models properly designed but that is true of any business in any industry.
The idea that Qwest may be running FreeBSD is interesting, but take a look at Netcraft! Many other companies are doing the same. [comments concerning the reputation of Qwest omited]
Anyway I think that it is time that people realize that the economy has NOT fundamentally changed in the last hundred years, merely new stuff has been built upon the same foundation.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Only because most Linux companies have not remembered that support is rarely a profit-winning strategy. It adds no value. I think that soon, companies will discover that in order to be successful they have to ADD VALUE to the packaged product. THis comes through software and engineering-- helping companies tailor the software to their needs and then providing the support.
Open Souece should be the market of ADDING VALUE, and I predict that OEMs will soon approach Linux with this attitude.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I manage a bsdi server with over 120K users. Its the only low cost server solution i've ever seen maintain uptimes in a harsh (read hosting) environment for such a low cost. Their support is decent, not superb, but cheap as well. The software may be a bit archaic in terms of features, but it is rock fricken solid. The pc it runs on cost far less than the equivalent sun ultra (would have to be > 450) and the costs of the os.. BSDi all the way, until you can afford a solution, and support from a sun or higher end server line up. But you'll easily spend more than double for the same rig to do the same function.. i'm sold on them. hopefully with more mainstream support now (including java which is a little buggy right now). BSDi should certainly be considered king of the high-end unix server operating systems for the intel platform... ==sam== free nessus vulnerabilities scans = www.vulnerabilities.org (linux - switching to freebsd real soon due to os troubles)
===sam=== free nessus vulnerability scan = www.vulnerabilities.org
Having a closed source model is not inherently bad. In most cases, it is the only way to get the talent you need to create a truly top-quality product. While there are some brilliant people in the Linux community, there are a lot of programmer wannabes who have contributed unreliable, poorly engineered software that seems to become part of every distribution.
Another bogus argument that I hear is that there is a great value to having the source code to the products that your company relies on. One word: bullshit! Companies do not stay profitable by screwing around with open-source software packages. A company is a lot better off having a closed-source software product with vendor support.
Thank you for calling Acme Plumbing Supply. We are sorry, but there is no one to take your call right now because they are all modifying GNUventory, our inventory control software. Please leave you number at the sound of the beep and someone will get back to you -- after the next build.
Absurd.
I don't charge my clients for software development and then wave the free software flag around Slashdot. Many free software advocates are happy to earn a very comfortable living writing software, but they don't want to pay for the software that they rely on. Hypocrites.
Then there is the huge community of freeloaders, many of whom don't even program (is this you?). This is, by far, the largest and most vocal group within the free software movement. They don't write device drivers, applications, kernels, or anything. They just want to download the work of others and not pay for it. Why don't you tell your plumber, accountant, electrician, or mechanic that you want them to work for free?
Since when is free software an 'advancement'? It's not like it has some inherent technical advantage over commercial software. Linux is not capable of some revolutionary thing that can't be done with Solaris, QNX, or even Windows 2000. Comparing open-source software to alternative fuels and factory automation is idiotic. Open source software is not going to save the environment. It won't result in drastic increases in productivity. It's not some great stride forward. In the late '70s, the vast majority of personal computer software was open source and free. It was developed by hobbyists. Then an entire industry grew up that employed millions of people in high-paying jobs. Why should those tech workers push for something that may put them out of work just so that leeches like you can get your software for free?
Now to that same poster both FreeBSD and Linux suck when it comes to security as FreeBSD almost rivaled Microsoft in security advisories last year
Most of the FreeBSD advisories are related to *ports*, while most (all) M$ advisories are related to their *core* products (OS, Office, IE, IIS, etc).
You have more than 11 years, do you? I mean, you understand the difference?
Actually, I've been told conflicting stories about this. Several people told me that BSD a more "robust" operating system, but for networking, you can't beat Linux. But a lot of /. folks say the exact opposite. The fact that OpenBSD hasn't had a security breach for 3 years (until recently) is somewhat impressive, but, well, I see Linux as being released more frequently. If anyone can download the code at any point in time, it figures that security issues will occasionally creep up.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Is there any reason in particular that they use FreeBSD over say OpenBSD or NetBSD?
Dont get me wrong, I like FreeBSD, but I like OpenBSD too.
So whats the big deal with this? Yahoo and Hotmail has a FreeBSD farm and my company uses FreeBSD to accomodate 60million users without flaws. I read a post below with someone bitching about the use of Linux and how it compares to the BSD's.
Linux still has ways to go and its surprising to see the great efforts of Slashdot running Linux based machines but personally I wouldn't use it for super high end stuff with a volumnious amount of users since it has its pitfalls.
Now to that same poster both FreeBSD and Linux suck when it comes to security as FreeBSD almost rivaled Microsoft in security advisories last year, and although OpenBSD is my OS of choice it does not have the support in hardware for most mega corporations' needs.
Solaris is a different story altogether which no one mentions good old Sol here. Although it is a bit bloated with uneccessary binaries there is no comparison for any Linux or BSD based server running Oracle versus a Solaris machine running Oracle its like comparing apples and oranges.
Why the posting of a FreeBSD based article when all this time I thought Slashdot had reformed itself to a Microsoft/Linux/Stupid Scientifical story based site with semi-weekly postings of stupid movies and stupid anime, not to be overshadowed by an assinine arsenal of other stupid articles the world just won't need.
Home Sweet Home ya bastards
360 degrees of Karma