Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 4.3 Released
jesseraf was one of the first to write, and now that the release is official we can post this. Release notes are available, or find the nearest mirror.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
So what makes it 1337 then? It's SMP support sucks ass, it has problems with NFS and Solaris NFS servers, it's usability is like Linux's was back in 1995, it isn't massively cross-platform, it doesn't support many devices.
It's just "different" and "obscure", two reasons for any script kiddie to install it and feel superior to their Windows and Linux using brethren.
Well, I've used some several Unices in my time, including OSI/Digital Unix/Tru64, Solaris on Sparc, Solaris x86 (blech!), Linux, and I've also given FreeBSD several test spins, (I won't mention running XENIX and early releases of QNX right from floppy) and the only one I consider really relevant in the modern world is Linux. You FreeBSD zealots can enjoy your "superiority".
Muahaha!
Run that, then cd to /usr/src, and do a make buildworld. That will run. Then when that is done, drop into single user mode, do a make installworld. Do a mergemaster. Recompile the kernel, and then reboot. It's pretty painless. Follow the instructions and it's easy.
Linux is great - for Solaris to poop on!
FreeBSD appears to be doing everything better than linux. "Companies like IBM, SGI, and HP" - have _already_ contributed to BSD - you just didn't read about it because this was 10 years ago when "open source" wasn't the uber-buzzword.
Here's to hoping that lightning.net restores connectivity to ftp.freesoftware.come soon.
--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
Oh i agree there ... but if you don't have the resources to do the actual compile .. (or the time) ... the binary update is a reasonable alternative
and when one man says "stop fighting among yourselves and focus on the real enemy" they all didn't remember their real enemy, the Romans.
What have the Romans ever done for us?
Romani Ite Domum..
Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)
Solaris irrelevant? Heheheh, I'm sorry, I'm a Linux user and all but that has got to be the most uninformed statement I've heard in a long time.
You've never even seen a real data center have you?
Same cut and paste job as always. Fucking get a fucking life. Blah Blah Blah. Same stupid ESTIMATION as fact.
stupid troll, linux is not that freaking great, get over it
Huh? I just compiled 4.0.3 on FreeBSD-4.3, no problems.
Freshmeat does PROGRAMS, this is an new release of an OS. There is a difference. No one complains when a new Linux kernel comes out and its posted here. This is a big deal to those of us who run FreeBSD, more so then a stupid mir story.
nope, that is an old kernel, it has the new 4.3 kernel :)
Connecting to ftp.freebsd.org...
usw3.freebsd.org FTP server (Version DG-4.1.73 983302105) ready.
Sorry, but there are too many users logged into this machine now.
The maximum limit is 550 while we're on temporary hardware
(ftp.freesoftware.com is off the net for now).
I just have to say that I have been installing Slackware for the last six years. Over all of that time the install program hasn't changed once... many people like simple setup programs...
Well, the manual would tell them about "make kernel", presumably. Also about editing /etc/make.conf.
--
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
It comes with both.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
By flooding the world with good GPL'd software, proprietary software can be eradicated, if copyright law is respected / enforced.
Then I seriously hope that the average GPL coder gets a clue about programming anyway.
Basic nits: endian assumptions, failure to cast properly, shadowing declarations, malloc()/free() idiosyncracies, failure to grok basic computer architecture.
Sorry to come off as a snob, but thus far all my ex-colleagues, colleagues and friends [even those using Linux] agreed that everything happening on the GPL and Linux side of things are more and more hacks, whilst BSD introduced pragmatically better source code due to the developer's experience. Needless to say most of them adopted BSD systems to get programming done.
Now, having said that, I do know a bunch of great Linux and GPL coders who I admire a lot for their understanding and clue-level.
Another general nit, thus far I have not seen any open source project which made me go ``Whoah'' as to its revolutionary scale of innovation. We see that open source is trying to duplicate existing applications a manyfold, but no real innovations are happening. I think I'll bow to Apple for being at least a bit innovative in this way.
Also, aside from that, given that we are still living in a world dominated by commercial interest, the chances of GPL reforming the world are less than 0.01 %. If you are serious about everything being non-proprietary, free and open, start by reforming the world first not to depend on economics.
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
How does Red Hat fail on remote upgrade support? It's *nix...you just run "ssh" and upgrade it! Or you could use the point-and-drool approach and use something like up2date...
Anonymous Coward said:
Well, I've used some several Unices in my time, including OSI/Digital Unix/Tru64, Solaris on Sparc, Solaris x86 (blech!), Linux, and I've also given FreeBSD several test spins, (I won't mention running XENIX and early releases of QNX right from floppy) and the only one I consider really relevant in the modern world is Linux.
cpeterso
Why the hatred? I'm not sure. But consider that you can divide the world into two personality types. One type doesn't care what choices you make as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. The other type is deeply offended if you don't make the same choices that they did.
In the latter camp fall the Amiga users of old, and the Linux users of today. The fact that someone else isn't using Linux just pisses them off. They can halfway tolerate Windows users, since they assume it's only out of ignorance. But users of any other Unix or unix-like OS make them seeth with rage.
Of course, those linuxoids are nowhere near as spiteful as the gnuoids, who get their panties in a bind everytime they thing about the fact that the number free software package out there, bar none, is released under the Apache License and not the Glorious Public License.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
From the changelog:
ipfw(8) has a new feature ("me") that allows for packet matching on
interfaces with dynamically-changing IP addresses.
Neo says "Whoa".
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
Yeah, BSD lets you slap resource (CPU/memory) limits on users by putting them into various (limited) logon classes. As much as I love BSD though, I refuse to believe that Linux doesnt have a similar feature.
> The truth is I don't know how things are now, but I do know that as time goes by Linux will pull ahead in these areas because it is where most people are putting their attention.
Thats just because all you read is slashdot.
Maybe I'm overtired, but this seems like a damn good idea.
"come off crisp and play up to the cynic
clean and schooled right down to the minute"
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
Its usually a good idea to rebuild the kernel after an upgrade too...and a merge of config files. There's a great script on FreeBSDDiary.org that I use to simplify the build process.
/usr/src/sys/i386/conf
../../compile/KERNNAME
Well, of course.. but the original poster was just talking about building the source tree. The kernel is just as easy, too:
cd
config KERNNAME
cd
make depend
make
make install
If you want documentation for the kernel, just check out LINT.
FYI, for 2.2.x, you just have to put `nocheck' among the fs options in /etc/fstab.
Is there room for a runner-up among products that compete based on open standards?
NetBSD and OpenBSD both have niches that are theirs, namely portability and security. FreeBSD on the other hand aims to be a full featured Unix just like Linux does. So the question is, what does FreeBSD do better than Linux? Is it faster, more stable, better under high loads?
The truth is I don't know how things are now, but I do know that as time goes by Linux will pull ahead in these areas because it is where most people are putting their attention. Companies like IBM, SGI, HP, etc. are all working on Linux, making it better. The pace of development will only increase as Linux further penetrates various markets.
I hope there is room for FreeBSD in spite of this, if only because it will offer a different way of doing things and help avoid intellectual inbreeding.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
*cough* TCP/IP *cough*
(I would say that was a joke, but the war will probably happen anyway....)
I wasn't sure that kernel 2.4.x really had these improvemets on i386. This should make a big difference for people using cheap 50Gb+ disks.
//Pingo
--- Linux or FreeBSD, it's like blondes or brunettes. I like both. ---
We have 2 popular Linux releases and now the also popular FreeBSD release within one single week.
This must be a busy week for the routers around the world. I believe there are some ISP's facing severe bandwith problems.
FreeBSD has it's advantages, such as its filesystem that fsck's much faster than Linux and it has no 2GB filesize limit. The filesize limit is around 4-8 TB.
//Pingo
--- Linux or FreeBSD, it's like blondes or brunettes. I like both. ---
So far, it looks like these sites have it (the i386 ISO):
-ftp11.freebsd.org
From what I've heard, they've been having connectivity problems :)
Thanks for the info. It'll help a lot of newbies. If anyone does have an ISO available for ftp, can they post the address?
Its usually a good idea to rebuild the kernel after an upgrade too...and a merge of config files. There's a great script on FreeBSDDiary.org that I use to simplify the build process.
Check out http://www.freebsddiary.org/makeworld-script.html
Actually, I don't love FreeBSD either. However, if you want a REALLY great server, try OpenBSD. It's secure. You can get it running in less than 100M. It's fast. It doesn't come with all kinds of bullshit software you'll never use like linux does. It's Minimum install is REALLY a minimum install.
The basic OpenBSD install is around half the size of the basic Linux install. All the software you want is available to install, it just doesn't shove it down your throat like linux does with it's 10 CLI text editors in the minimum install.
I've tried RedHat, Debian, Mandrake, Suse, TurboLinux, Corel Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Solaris 8. The one one who's default install I haven't hated is OpenBSD. The only one that's never given me any trouble installing packages is OpenBSD. The only one that I feel comfortable leaving as my server OS is OpenBSD. The only one that can take me from booting off the CD to fully installed and configured in 25 minutes is OpenBSD. It's got the most simple, wonderful installer ever made. Anyway, just ranting...
Justin Dubs
It's not funny! In fact, I wonder how Slashdot isn't /.ed! Do you guys have a BIG F-A-T pipe which others don't?
Or is it just linux which keeps it cruising?
People will do tomorrow what they did today because that is what they did yesterday.
>>DSL sucks and is unstable/unusable at any promised speed I'm writing this using a 768k ADSL connection. Next month, I will be changing the connection I use at the ISP I own to DSL, only keeping T1's for the phone lines.
Dive Gear
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
this is not a linux only site!!!!!
"Caffeine is not an option. Caffeine is a way of life."
Slackware doesnt shove anything down your throat that you don't want there (doh!)
>Recently released numbers from IDC System Software Research show that "Linux growth in server OS share has been flat for two quarters, and Unix and Novell continue to fall.
- 00 4-06-PS-SM
Well according to:
http://eltoday.com/article.php3?ltsn=2001-04-23
...IDC are now predicting huge revenues for Linux. No mention of BSD in there, I'm sorry to say.
This was the FIRST page I loaded up on shiny new, finally customized and online (with PPPoe) FreeBSD 4.2 system. Somebody's got it in for me, I swear.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
I looked on the mirror sites listing - it lists one mirror site and there is nothing appearing in the 4.3-Release directory. Was someone a bit premature in posting this to /.?
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
It was switched to a different machine, because the usual ftp.freebsd.org is hosted by lightning who have a fucked network.
People here bash BSD for not being Linux. BSD'ers bash Linux for not being BSD. But both have started out as the same thing, an open sourced UNIX derivitive or clone. Linux is the clone, BSD the derivitive. This reminds me of MOnty Pythons Life of Brian, with the various Judean schism groups, all fighting with each other, and when one man says "stop fighting among yourselves and focus on the real enemy" they all didn't remember their real enemy, the Romans. Our real enemy folks are people that don't know better than to choose Windows. It doesn't matter weither you win them over with Mac OS X, Linux, BSD, ATheOS, QNX, Amiga, MultiOS, TOS/GEM, or what have you, that is a victory for all of you because it hurts the Microsoft dominance. Sure, the cross-city rivalry between BSD and Linux is there, it should be there. But it should be friendly rivalry, making jokes in pubs afterhours or a friendly game of "who can install the fastest" at the local college campus installfests. For, in the end, there is more alike between us than unalike.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Is it possible to upgrade my 4.2 BSD installation? Or do I have to wipe it? I surely hope not!
The upgrade guide speaks of not using my current version of sysinstall; pray tell, how does one get a newer version w/o upgrading in the first place?!?
you are forgetting. *BSD users dont need to post to usenet as much. their OS just works.
hmmm...by the looks of the modding, your post is dying...
i put your momma in a "giant spin lock" last night...page 64 in the Kama Sutra
uh...how would FreeBSD go out of business? its an open source operating system under an evel less restrictive license then the GPL.
Do you REALLY believe the GPL offers 'protection'?
If so, the virgin webplayer had linux on a DOC (disk on Chip). Yet, no source was ever made aviable. In fact, the license shipped with the box forbid reverse engineering.
Can you explain the virgin GPL issue, if your belifs are correct?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Here is someone who spent some time on the issue.
link
Bruce Perens, the man who got his nose all bent outta shape over Corel's violation had the reaction of "so what". But given the strong tie of Bruce to the embedded linux end of things....the only defender of the GPL is RMS. Everyone else is looking out for thier pocketbook.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
well its called 'unstable' because it is the development branch and there may be issues. in my experience even the unstable version is very very stable... moreso than SuSE or Red Hat distributions... I'm not much of a FreeBSD user, I installed it once and have a few FreeBSD cd's laying around the house, even set it up as a firewall once. I like it, but for the most part I like my debian unstable. Never crashes, occasionally something breaks but its usually fixed within days, and all I need is to run apt-get to fix the errors. I never could figure out how the whole "ports" thing worked though... maybe I was a little too impatient to spend the five minutes required to figure it out. *shrugs*
.
I don't have to hit the web looking for the magic string to apt-get :) :)
Well, I never have... when I need something I just "apt-cache search " for what I need. Just got to use a bit of logic... Before I figured out the beauty and wonder of apt-cache, I would simply put a couple keywords in the search box at freshmeat.net, and it would come up with a package name. That's cheating I know but it worked.
Anywho, I will be experimenting with FreeBSD very soon, probably as soon as I can get access to a box with broadband and a burner to burn the ISO. I am looking forward to playing around with the ports feature now that I got a working idea of how it works. I will probably never give up my Debian, but thats the beauty of having alot of spare hdd's lying around. I don't have to.
.
As an end user why is the licence important? Both the GPL and BSD licence give you, the end user, the same rights to use the software.
If you were modifying or enhancing the software then the licence is of concern... but seeing as less than 1% of people who use the BSDs or Linux would change and distribute code this point is moot.
I've done dozens of installs and haven't hit the problems you describe.
Did you notify the admins of the mirrors that have problems so they can fix things?
I bet if I were doing a Linux install from a site that was currently mirroring the software from their upstream I'd end up with problems also!
I know that in FreeBSD its quick and painless to put a X MB memory limit on a shell account.
You can also limit the number of processes etc that a user can have. Quick and easy.
Jeremy
In Linux front, RedHat fails on remote upgrade requirement. While Debian can cover upgrade pretty nicely, their package collection is smaller (at least on the application that I've needed) than FreeBSD ports and unless you want to be running unstable, your applications might be pretty old (its relative term, but ...). As an example, there was quite long delay before Debian's testing upgraded their GNOME packages from 1.0.55 to newer.
With remote upgrades I mean upgrade from RH5.2 to
RH6.2 or RH6.2 to RH7.0 without any kind of physical access (i.e. console) to the machine.
When 5.0 comes out, things might get interesting, but we'll see how things go when that happens.
- In the east there is a shark which is larger than all other fish. It changes into a bird whose wings are like clouds filling the sky. When this bird moves across the land, it brings a message from IDC. This message it drops into the midst of the programmers, like a seagull making its mark upon the beach. Then the bird mounts on the wind and, with the blue sky at its back, returns home.
You seem to be stuck at the "average programmer" level. My sincere hopes that you grow out of it.The novice programmer stares in wonder at the bird, for he understands it not. The average programmer dreads the coming of the bird, for he fears its message. The master programmer continues to work at his terminal, for he does not know that the bird has come and gone.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
That's funny, under 4.2 with an M$ Intellimouse I was getting the same when switching to X, fixed by enabling moused. I didn't configure my mouse with sysinstall initially, doing so enabled moused and it's beed perfect for weeks.
chris@xanadu:~$ whatis /.
/.: nothing appropriate.
These are perhaps the most spurious statistics I've seen since the US 'election'. There is absolutely no basis for your assumption that there is a simple correlation between Usenet posts and users. Furthermore, extrapolating from the 80% figure would only be valid if you were working from the same data as Theo was (assuming his data was valid of course). Far from facing facts and looking at numbers, you are making both up to fit your argument. Also, declaring an OS as dead when it is clearly being updated at a very regular pace and runs the busiest web-servers in the World (Yahoo and mp3.com) is a strange definition of 'dead'. Instead of posting bollocks try installing it for yourself and maybe even use it to calculate valid statistics.
A-fscking-right. OpenBSD's installer is by far the simplest, when my mail/dns server died at work, it took all of 30 minutes from inserting the 2.8 CD to having my system back up and running again. Its a no bull install.
that's funny. I've been running it for several months on an SMP system. no problems yet.
Be ot or bot ne ot, taht is the nestquoi.
and the worst thing is all the wasted bandwidth with people downloading iso images, despite the fact that freebsd comes with a cvsup config file for updating your system in /usr/share/examples/cvsup/stable-supfile
/ handbook/cutting-edge.html
and the handbook says how to upgrade from sources http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO_8859-1/books
i ask myself why people download 650mb iso images when it takes 5mb or so to upgrade your sources and about 3 hours to compile a new system on a fairly modern machine.
Hrmmm... wasn't there a story a while back saying that TCP/IP would time-out on links like this?
If so, I see no reasonable alternatives in this situation other than using carrier pigeons...
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
wtf are you talking about, ryan? as the other person who replied already pointed out -> you seem to have some sort of problem with the fact that *BSD-OS are stable as hell.
To be honest, I don't see that much penis-comparison going on in this thread. But your right, there is some, and the 'I'm geekier than you' trap is not a helpful one to fall into. However, it is useful to seek the differences between OSes so we can tell which is the best one to use in particular circumstances, or to identify advantages of one that can be implemented in another.
:)
For me, the latter is most important, i.e. Linux picking up the advantages of the *BSDs, because I can't support a non-GPL system with a clear conscience and right now that means I must run Linux. Not that there's anything wrong with Linux, but some choice would be nice, which is why I'm happy the Hurd is being actively developed
as I'm not a developer, my main concern is having access to a free (beer) *nix OS that can run on pc hardware.
It's not just developers who benefit from Free (as in speech) software; specifically, viral Free software, like GPL'ed softare, benefits users, because viral Free software promotes real open standards, i.e. freedom from proprietary 'intellectual property'. The BSD license and it's like do not seem to do this, witness Kerberos amongst others.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
I am yet to see real evidence of this GPL violation, I will be trying a web search later on using unobvious search terms provided by another anonymous coward, however.
I never argued that the violation didn't matter, just that it is not at all clear to me that there was time for any action to take place between (alleged) infringement and withdrawal.
At least that's what my girlfriend tells me.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
None of which refutes my argument, expressed elsewhere in this subthread, that BSD-style licenses, like the MIT license, are a bad thing, because they allow appropriation of code. Indeed it supports it.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
In the absence of artificial laws protecting "intellectual property", yes, the world would be as you describe it.
And yes, that would be better for society.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
That was quite entertaining, where's the (para)quote from?
Or is it your own original composition?
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Hehe nice try troll.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
No.
The product was only available for a very brief period, so it is not clear to me whether there was even enough time for a legal case to be prepared against it, and for the relevant court procedures to take place.
I have been unable to find any informative content related to this, either from the original posters link, or from a google search. I would be delighted if you would furnish me with the source of your own special knowledge.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
In other words, I see no reason why you and I cannot coexist in a world where we are not compelled to share the software/poetry/diaries we create.
Absolutely.
The GPL does not compel anyone to share anything.
However, if you do share something under the GPL, it provides legal (copyright) protection to the recipient, that they can share it too, under the same conditions.
If the state "did not disallow one to do anything, such as create software for her/his own purposes, that does not actively harm someone else.", then there would be no need for the GPL. However, the state currently provides artifical copyright protection, which prevents me from sharing proprietary software. The sharing of that software does not hurt anyone, because software has a zero marginal cost of distribution.
In the absence of artificial copyright protection, there would be no incentive for companies to release proprietary software, because the advantages of sharing code (feedback) would outweigh the costs of enforcing copy protection devices (which can always be circumvented).
The GPL is an attempt to create the idyll of shared code (i.e. knowledge) in a world where greed inspires lawmakers to enforce appropriation of knowledge.
I am sure that you are right (though I do not know who you are) that you and I could happily co-exist in the world you describe; unfortunately this is not that world.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
The Kerberos thing was a problem with the protocol specification, and had absolutely nothing to do with any software license whatsoever.
Profoundly vague of you.
Microsoft embraced and extended the protocol, and almost definitely the code (why not, when it's there for the taking?). Thanks to their proprietary business model, aided and abetted by freely available code licensed under BSD-like licenses, free software currently has no easy legal way to be to compatible.
You must understand that I am taking a long term view. In the long term, producing code under a BSD-style license may encourage vendors to adopt 'standards' but it allows them to extend and appropriate them too. In other words, it encourages the Microsoft business model.
Code released under viral Free-software licenses is different. True, traditional software houses won't base products upon it initially. But if enough good viral-free software is produced and used, then businesses lose the option. They either compete against the software head on, or build upon it and release more viral-free software. If they compete against it, they are at a disadvantage compared to those who work with it, because they can't build on the freely available work. If they work with it, they can't appropriate it, and the user wins. Code released under BSD-style licenses just slows this process down.
The prevalence of TCP/IP has less to do with no-strings free implementations and more to do with a large pre-existing infrastructure developed by the defence and research communities, and that it works very well, if we ignore security.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
To be honest, I don't see that much penis-comparison going on in this thread.
Of course, now I've switched to viewing posts at 0 and -1, I see what you mean...
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Without thinking too hard:
DNS: GSS-TSIG
HTML: Netscape and IE proprietary tags
There are no examples (that I know of) of the GPL protecting us from intellectual appropriation because all the fscking academics and the ISC keep releasing stuff under stupid "business friendly" licenses.
Screw business friendly, how about user friendly.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
I haven't heard about that, so I can't explain it.
Any links?
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Communism doesn't work! Just ask all the bankrupt "Linux companies"
:)
Hehehe....
Most amusing
Of course, those who want to make money from Free software will have to find some way to make money from it which actually works; this has nothing to do with communism, otherwise the 'companies' wouldn't exist...
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
And you're tiny little closed minded brain doesn't see beyond the end of your nose.
I'm not talking about stopping companies breaking standards today. I'm talking about making it impossible to break standards tomorrow.
By flooding the world with good GPL'd software, proprietary software can be eradicated, if copyright law is respected / enforced.
By flooding the world with BSD-style licensed software, you just give the proprietary companies a higher stage to stand on, even if copyright law is respected / enforced.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Huh? DNS and HTML were not my examples.
Did you read my post?
Had MS used the BSD DNS code, they could have changed it to whatever they damn well liked, in fact they probably did.
Had they used GPL'd code, everything they added would be GPL, and everyone could have been compatible.
Of course, they are not about to use GPL code, but the point is, in the long run, the more code available under the GPL license, the less we get proprietary shit shoved down our throats.
Sorry for swearing.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
I don't drive!
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Right, thanks for that, do you have an example where the offending product has not been withdrawn from market?
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Viral Free software, like GPL'ed softare, benefits users, because viral Free software promotes real open standards, i.e. freedom from proprietary 'intellectual property'. The BSD license and it's like do not seem to do this, witness Kerberos amongst others.
As an end user, I am concerned not only with the short term "Can I use this software", but also with the long term "What is the software world going to look like in 5 to 10 years time?"
The GPL has a stronger effect on the long term outlook, due to it's persistent nature.
In fact, a developer has less interest in the GPL because the developer is more likely to want to appropriate the code. A user cannot benefit from appropriation of the code. A developer can, because then he/she gets to control it exclusively.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
...is the nice release notes.
I've never used FreeBSD or any other BSD, primarily because I prefer the viral GPL.
But I do wish Linux came with release notes like these (link in the story), rather than Linus's "it's better"....
OK that's a slight exaggeration but the BSD release notes seem more clear, better organised, more comprehensive and more informative.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Just the fact that YOU don't like hearing is all.
Not at all, I am, even at this late stage of exposure, considerably amused by the animosity displayed towards me by numerous anonymous cowards, in lieu of intelligent debate.
I will try your search soon; I can, however, think of no reason I would have had to add the search term 'boundless' to my query.
Thanks!
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Supporting "old Sun workstations" is contradictory to FreeBSD's raison d'etre, which is to provide free Unix optimized for the most commonly used architecture. Since FreeBSD's founding that has been 386-style. If there's a mass migration of hardware used, theoretically FreeBSD would follow. But supporting random hardware isn't a goal, so "going nowhere" isn't a problem. Supporting everything is NetBSD's job, with OpenBSD doing what it can (limited by available developers and hardware access.)
The Tao of Programming: http://www.softpanorama.org/Bulletin/Humor/tao_of_ programming.shtml
Yes, I never thought I should say this, but the national phone company really delivers this time. heh They have a local mirror from which I download with 150 kilobytes pr. second. :-)
I have been thinking about when it would come, I have just installed a new server at work with 4.2 and I was wondering if I should have waited a week. Oh well, time to practice ye olde upgrade routine. heh
--------
Hah! MacOS X? Yes I know it has a nice GUI, but what for people who either don't like no gfx (as me) or who just want to run routers (any *BSD or Linux), firewalls (I'd recommend OpenBSD) or servers (Linux' Samba sometimes works, *BSD I had no experience).
I, for example, dont want no steenking new "Clicki-clicki-coloured" UI but an OS which simply does run. And at the moment I'm using Linux (no distribution but hand-made), Win for gamez, DOS for SNES emu and will get OpenBSD 2.9 in the hope it is usable and administrable for me.
Every *BSD has its special features, e.g. NetBSD its portability. Always code has been exchanged between these OSes, and some developers even of the Linux side share their code which every else one gets GPL'ed with the *BSD developers (I think of "drivers").
So please stop flaming "BSD is dead", "$OTHER_OS rocks" etc. and remain democratic. I use several OSes and still am content with MS-DOS 3.30A of 1988 which I got with my first computer (at the age of 8). And, I sometimes still code in GW-BASIC. I expect some flame about this, but why put working stuff into the rubbish bin? Some people even still use COBOL in business. It seems as it has even survived Y2K, Y2.001K etc. crisis - so what?
If any energy put on flaming against *BSD or making religious war of UN*X flavours were put into making every of the opensourced OSes better, we prolly even had a Win32 API in the (Linux, *BSD, *IX, *UX) kernels. As well as *BSD can run native Linux programmes.
Just my 0.02 €
--
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
You make a wrong deduction. You quote Walnut Creek etc.'s problems and deduce to the other *BSDs as well.
There are more, as
- Darwin, supported by Apple
- NetBSD, which runs on platforms no other OS ever will reach without peeking at it
- OpenBSD, with a team auditing the code line-by-line, which also has its features
No, *BSD is not dead, because not all 100% of the computers in the world are run by people who cain't use them without mouse.And finally, if this ever will become true (earliest after my death) Windoze will be ruling. Because of their marketing strategy, and their GUI isn't that bad (note I dont speak of XP).
--
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
Anyway, assuming your kernel is configured already, the commands are:
make buildworld
make buildkernel
make installworld
make installkernel
mergemaster
And then you reboot.
Actually, why does Linux have so many required Makefile targets for this? Why does one need at all to invoke separate targets for kernel and modules?
Another objection to the Linux approach: the commands you give above don't set up a lilo boot option in case the new kernel is bad, right? (I could have this wrong, but I don't remember it being the case.) With BSD, this is not an issue-- the bootloader can load *any* kernel you have in your file system; there's no need for making entries as in lilo.
The only serious objection I can imagine is that it's easier to configure the Linux kernel, since there are graphical tools to do it, while with BSD, you need to edit a config file. If you're serious about Unix, however, this is not a serious objection. Anyway, the Linux kernel configuration frontends throw *tons* of options at you, which you need to provide an answer for. It can be confusing. In BSD, there are plenty of reasonable defaults in the build, so you need to specify less stuff to get a reasonable system. E.g., the module options for Linux-- it's not obvious which is the right thing to pick. In BSD, if you say nothing, you'll get precisely the reasonable thing, which allows you to use 3rd party modules easily.
Oh, if you never read a handbook on installing the kernel, where did you get all those commands from>
The ports thing works like this: you've got your source directory tree full of directories, one for each software application or utility. In each directory you've got a Makefile. If you don't yet have all the source files to make your app, you just do a make anyway, and the Makefile has all the stuff inside needed to tell make to go out and ftp the source files down to your machine and then is simply carries on and builds the app after the ftp download finishes. It is really slick. You don't even have to go look for the source files yourself, it already knows where to get them.
And speech is only free if you are willing to give your life defending it... The FREE price tag on GNU/BSD is significantly less costly than speech itself.
And I'm ignoring the fact that the long term cost of ownership for UNIX OSes is far cheaper than anything M$ has produced.
Don't you mean Real bastardized Unix? Besides, ever since it came out, BSD was proclaimed as far better than AT+T's code.
Umm, I think you posted to the wrong thread... If not I don't know what the hell you are talking about...
This is something I think many people have been waiting for:
pkg_update(1), a utility to update installed packages and update their dependencies, has been added.
:)
You can't do that with FreeBSD! You have to drop down to single user mode to finish the upgrade.
Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement. --Red Hot Chili Peppers, Californication
Read the damn post he said Solaris x86!
Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement. --Red Hot Chili Peppers, Californication
Recently released numbers from IDC System Software Research show that "Linux growth in server OS share has been flat for two quarters, and Unix and Novell continue to fall.
.Net," said Miller. "Linux is not leading anything, it
is simply providing a 'free' operating system."
... from positions of strength,
with major customers and investors in both companies. We have substantial cash reserves,
and this move will only accelerate our profitability within the year," said LaDuke.
"Meanwhile, Microsoft continues to grow at a faster pace than the rest of the industry and faster than any other server OS."
IDC manager Al Gillen would not confirm Miller's analysis.
"We're just finalizing our report for Linux right now, and haven't released those numbers to the press or the public so I can't comment on specifics. But I can tell you that according to our preliminary forecast, Linux is moving along nicely. It is certainly not fading away," Gillen said.
Miller asserted that the "industry vision" centers around Web-based services, which allow software and data to be delivered over networks instead of having to be installed or stored on user's computers. And "Microsoft is leading the charge with
Miller also believes that Linux has hidden costs, something he believes is particularly true in the embedded device market, where developers need to get their products to the market fast. "Using Linux does not help the developer deliver their product faster," Miller said. "In fact, it can actually take longer due to platform development work that would not be necessary with a platform like CE."
Fred Salloum, director of marketing at Applied Data Systems, said that there are tradeoffs in all operating systems.
"In the case of Linux, the barriers to entry are less monetary and more experiential," said Salloum, who added that many of Applied Data Systems' Linux-oriented customers who are seeking rapid production of applications products are either well versed in Linux, or have access to Linux experts.
"While the Linux community is presently building this support structure, many baseline applications are still undergoing development. In this context, the existing support structure of CE is quite beneficial to those who are not so Linux-oriented and are trying to develop their applications quickly," Salloum said.
Miller also said there is already definite evidence of Microsoft's predicted slowdown in the Linux marketplace, with "Corel getting out of Linux, (and) VA Linux not meeting the expectations. "For a so-called exploding market, this should not happen. Sales of actual products are relatively flat.
"And the pending merger of LinuxCare with TurboLinux is nothing more than a consolidation to try and salvage each other's businesses."
David LaDuke, vice president of marketing at LinuxCare, disputes those charges, but said he was "glad to see that the deal registered on Microsoft's public radar. That speaks volumes."
"Both LinuxCare and TurboLinux are heading into the acquisition
"We firmly believe that our combined resources will help to take open-source software deep into the enterprise, to places where Windows isn't even on the short list."
Aside from all that Stormix, Easel, Slackware, Indera (linux based) all gone... Bye bye...
Which version of BSD did you see on the chopping block within the past *ENTER_TIME_FRAME_HERE*?
Aside from that how many BSD versus Linux based advisories do you see? What was that I didn't hear you quite clearly? And after looking at Netcraft's highest uptimes, I sadly had to bow my head to see there was not one Linux based OS there. In fact there were more BSD's than any, how ironic is that?
do you fear us?
360 degrees of Karma
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but support for hardware architectures besides Alpha and Intel seems to be going nowhere, especially Sparc. This is very disappointing to someone like me who might like to use FreeBSD on old Sun workstations, though OpenBSD and NetBSD are still there.
Also, LFS is on it's way. NetBSD has resumed development, and a journaling file system should soon be available across most BSD systems - assuming development continues. If it doesn't, something like ReiserFS might have to be imported.
-- I'll cut you up so bad, you'll wish I'd never cut you up so bad!
One of the biggest problems that FreeBSD has is the fact that their installtion, etc. is sloppy. Going out to 2 of the mirror sites this morning, you are confronted with directory not found, empty directories, recursive links that lead nowhere, etc. Hardly the thing that I can take to my management and state that this OS is ever so much better than M$. It is, but this sort of stuff just shoots it in the genitals before it has the chance.
Sex is heriditary, if your parents didn't have it chances are good you won't either.
Yeah! Time for downloading more of beastiality...whoops, I mean Beastie. :p
Just about every other OS has adopted the BSD stack. Linus 'didn't like it' so a kludge was cobbled together to use instead.
So every other OS on the net interoperates. When bugs are found, the fixes can ripple through them all. Linux has it's own unique peculiar bugs.
I agree, it probably shouldn't be called a code fork. It's an architecture fork at a higher abstraction layer than source code.
BTW, I grepped the kernel source, and didn't see the email address of 'anonymous coward' in there anywhere....
Yes it does.
Linux has the 'Arbitrary Linus Process.' It decides on any day at random what it likes, and those particular features get incorporated into the Linux kernel.
Such blunders as the Linux fork of the TCP/IP stack are the end result.
You wouldn't like CVS. All sorts of people you don't know are involved in CVS-driven projects. They're scary people. Stick to an OS based on 'Enlightened Despotism.'
If it was good enough in the dark ages, it's good enough for Linux.
Slackware and NetBSD are all I use anymore. Mostly NetBSD, because I like being able to grab the whole distfiles repository, store it local on my home subnet that's only connected to the 'net by a slow modem connection. I can go to town, building binaries out of the /usr/pkgsrc directory to run on my i386, sparc, and Mac68k boxes.
Slackware is good for those cases where I want one independent machine up and running fast for some purpose, and don't want to build most of userland from source.
I haven't installed a freenix (Slack or NetBSD) raw off a CD-ROM in years. NFS installs rule.
Oh, I will admit that I boot NetBSD Sparc installs off a CD-ROM, but that's just because floppy drives are old, dried up, and defective on a lot of old Sparcstations from years of zero use.
An HP-UX binary license is $999. And you can order the actual software on a Media Kit for another $400. I think the ANSI C Compiler is about $2000.
Expensive enough?
Good point... ;-)
Maybe I'm just too lazy to RTFM
I don't wanna start another Torvalds/Tannenbaum-Debate. ;-)
But at this moment I'm asking myself if there could be any advantages for BSD as a server OS in comparison to a debian linux-system
Since I run a small router/firewall to connect my LAN to the Internet and provide ssh-accounts for my tech-friends I'd really like to know if there is possibly better security at kernel-level in BSD than in Linux.
Folx, don't leave me hanging here cause my people try to abuse their shell-accounts for fun
For example allocate they allocate high amounts of memory through a C-prog causing the router to get so slow that my only possibilty is to hit the reset button to gain back control...
Hey Mod the parent up!!
It might speed up my download
m0e,
if you feel that way about my stinky fish - please stop licking it -
i like the smell of fish - i didnt think you would be so cruel -
i thought you liked my stinky fish too -
"Mmmm...I love it when you fondel my m0estache, Lu" -m0e
I just finished installing 4.2 and was testing it by logging into Slashdot. Pardon me while I start downloading again.
No it doesn't. Go to MacNN and see how many Mac users find it quite different. Not all of them dislike it. Many like the changes. Many do not. Look at the threads on making the Finder more "Mac like", or even for running the old OS9 Finder. Look at Apple's own movies of how different OSX is. Or head back to MacNN and watch them bitch about how much worse the Dock is then the application bar.
Now I like OSX, but I'm not a Mac user. I'm a Unix geek. I bought a Mac to run OSX, and I can tell you it feels totally different, to the point that OS9 apps that run under Classic "emulation" are jarring.
I'll admit they mostly don't. A few complain about not being able to change all the files and stuff. Many complain about the slowness, which I assume has something to do with it being run on top of Unix and not retuned enough. Well that, and Objective C's late binding :-)
Most just don't care for the new finder and look n' feel, and yeah that has nothing to do with Unix.
Changes since 4.2 are at:
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.3R/notes.html
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
ISP problems to be exact. They had to get a whole new server anddrop it somewhere else and update the DNS. This timed with the release of 4.3 has made things hairy. From what I can tell everything is back up now though.
this space for rent
That isn't really a troll. Solaris on x86 is an afterthought by Sun. Hardware support is light, and ide is horrible. Plus it expects SMP all the time. Solaris x86 was created to get peopleto use solaris and work into their hardware which is what they really want to sell. Another nice thing, when many vendors say they support solaris they mean only SPARC.
this space for rent
Not at all. It's you that are being pig-headed. I was clear enough: the kerberos problem with Microsoft was a result of a problem with the protocol, not a problem with the license.
Microsoft embraced and extended the protocol,
Correct. More to the point, they used a loophole in the protocol so what they wrote is technically Kerberos but as a matter of fact result in incompatibilities between computers running their implementation and computers running others.
and almost definitely the code (why not, when it's there for the taking?).
So you think they used the code, eh? Well, FYI, they didn't.
Thanks to their proprietary business model,
Well, a true sentence. You are improving.
aided and abetted by freely available code licensed under BSD-like licenses,
Huh? In what way? Explain. And, more to the point, explain exactly what would have happened differently if Kerberos had only been available as GPL code. Remember: they wrote their own implementation.
free software currently has no easy legal way to be to compatible.
Protocol design. Either you forbid any extensions, or people can screw up. And they can screw up even if extensions are forbidden. As a matter of fact, they can screw up even without extending anything (hello 3Com Home Connect Dual Speed!).
On the other hand, they could use a proprietary, non-documented protocol, which they could extend to keep things incompatible as they see fit (hello AOL!), or even patent the whole protocol. See real world examples.
You must understand that I am taking a long term view. In the long term, producing code under a BSD-style license may encourage vendors to adopt 'standards' but it allows them to extend and appropriate them too.
Corporations can extend any standard, no matter the license of existing source code implementing it. The license is utterly irrelevant.
In other words, it encourages the Microsoft business model.
Yeah, you are right. If they simply did not adopt the standard at all, they wouldn't extend/appropriate it.
Of course, unless the standard became popular. In which case they would simply write their own version of whatever it is and extend/appropriate it the same way, and then kill off the competition with marketing and market share. Just like they do nowadays.
Code released under viral Free-software licenses is different. True, traditional software houses won't base products upon it initially.
s/initially/ever/
Unless it's a stand-alone product, in which case the virus is irrelevant.
But if enough good viral-free software is produced and used, then businesses lose the option. They either compete against the software head on, or build upon it and release more viral-free software.
Go on...
If they compete against it, they are at a disadvantage compared to those who work with it, because they can't build on the freely available work.
Yeah, right, like anyone does.
Code reusability is a myth. Libraries, yes. Simple-minded routines here and there, skeletons for things like drivers. Beyond that, which is no real advantage, code isn't reused.
But the real problem with this line of thought is pretty simple: it assumes the best code wins. When did that ever happen? Get real.
If they work with it, they can't appropriate it, and the user wins. Code released under BSD-style licenses just slows this process down.
Excellent analysis. Of course, the premises are flawed, but if they were true, then you would be right.
The prevalence of TCP/IP has less to do with no-strings free implementations and more to do with a large pre-existing infrastructure developed by the defence and research communities, and that it works very well, if we ignore security.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure. I wonder how did we run Bitnet, the research community network, so long without a TCP/IP stack. And I look at all the other very extensive networks and wonder what happened to them. I look at the world-wide X.25 and wonder where did it go.
And I look back and all I can recall is how the only wan protocol I could run on my PC/XT was TCP/IP.
(8-DCS)
You seem misinformed. The Kerberos thing was a problem with the protocol specification, and had absolutely nothing to do with any software license whatsoever.
On the other hand, BSD code promotes standards because vendors actually use them. You _won't_ see Microsoft use GPL code in their mainstream products. Ever. Period.
That's why TPC/IP is everywhere, for example. There were many networking protocols in the 80s, but only one which had a free implementation available without strings so every OS maker under the sun added it to their operating systems.
(8-DCS)
Funny that while you criticize FreeBSD's NFS, you seem to have forgotten that Linux NFS is broken beyond hope.
(8-DCS)
>Meanwhile, FreeBSD suffers from old, stodgy code written by core Unix developers with >1980's-style development practices. Sorry, but the art and science of software >engineering have improved vastly, and Linux developers are *NOT* afraid of saying, >"Okay, our implementation of xyz is flawed, let's throw it away and do it again". So >Linuxleapfrogs FreeBSD and will continue to do so.
Uh, ok, let me see if I can feed the troll here. I can count some of the things that have experienced major retrofits in the recent past:
3.0 series - implementation of SMP (not so good)
port to the Alpha architecture
complete overhaul of SCSI layer to move to cam (ftp.freesoftware.com would be nowhere near as good without this)
introduction of vinum software/hardware RAID
4.0 series - major rewrite of virtual memory by Matt Dillon (not the movie star, and I believe his work was helpful to reworking linux vm as well)
IPV6 support - all new code written by the
USB support, stable a few months before linux
move to pcm audio drivers as the default drivers for sound cards, replacing the old OSS code (which still is available for compatibility)
integration of IPfilter as an alternative to ipfw
implementation of pthreads - licq and friends wouldn't even compile in the pre 3.4 era
DRI kernel modules - can be tough to get working (voodoo 3+ w/ xf 4), but it's there if you've got the time
5.0 series - SMPng in progress (should put FreeBSD back in competitive smp territory on a par with linux 2.4 hopefully)
libh project to modularize the install process (allow X and text installers) and break the system into smaller packages
openpackages - use the same build scripts for all BSDs (not really 5.0 but still a work in progress)
ongoing work on porting FreeBSD to sparc, powerpc, and arm
kqueues - which look like a good alternative to poll() and select(), though I have no experience with them
So I don't know what the heck you're talking about. Sure, Linux tends to move things into the stable branch more quickly than BSD and there are a lot more releases, but we get along just fine. From what I've heard, the FreeBSD kernel is a bit more elegant than the Linux kernel because code is less likely to be included unless it meets the committers' standards.
Linux development moves at a breakneck pace, FreeBSD is more conservative. What does that tell us? Absolutely nothing.
This is a bit of a flame, but some of the reasons that there haven't been as drastic of changes in BSD as Linux is that some systems have been high quality from the get-go. They drew on well-tested mature code (BSD Lite) that had already had a lot of the bugs worked out.
How many times has the Linux TCP/IP stack been reworked, like 4? The only place where I can see a halfway coherent argument is in the filesystem. It would be nice to see a journaling filesystem that would give better metadata performance than FFS + softupdates, but all the implementations are under the GPL. As it is FFS does fairly well and is more reboot tolerant than ext2 and until recently had Linux beat for large (> 2gig) files.
FreeBSD puts out a quality, coherent system that is stable and performs quite well on uniprocessor systems (and soon SMP). So long as they keep doing that, I'll be a devoted FreeBSD (and Debian) user.
I had the same problem with the mouse and got around it by not using moused. Instead, just use the raw device in X and set your device to /dev/psm0 (or whatever) and Protocol to Auto.
AFAIK, this was fixed by 4.2 anyway. I don't use moused as I find little need the mouse in the console. Terminals in X or straight keyboard for the servers suits me just fine.
Hmmm...
/etc/exports:
/mnt
contents of
# This is the NFS server at home
/usr/local/export (ro)
/home (rw)
#end contents
killall -HUP rpc.nfsd rpc.mountd
From another Linux machine:
mount server:/usr/local/export
works fine. How is that broken beyond hope?
(No, I wouldn't expect to use it in a data center. I'm perfectly happy using it at home to share files and serve up my home directories. But it's not "broken beyond hope" IMHO.)
Oh, great!
4.3BSD has been out for over 14 years now and you finished upgrading today...
I found the nearest mirror, but all I see is myself!
It was a good thing. MIT wrote code to support their infrastructure. Because of the MIT License, corporations were able to expand and adapt that system to build systems for their network. As a result, we have other Kerberos networks, and Kerberos is used.
Had MIT put it under the GPL, there would be no Kerberos. Without the ability to get machines supporting Kerberos, MIT would have scrapped the project. If they couldn't run Athena off Kerberos, no reason to have developers there.
Their is the theoretical notion that Sun would have GPL'd Solaris to support Kerberos. Fat chance. The companies will ignore GPL'd code, while BSD code creates standards and growth that benefits real users.
The GPL theoretically benefits users. The BSD actually does.
Alex
Kerberos is under the MIT License. It was developed as part of a research project. It was released for a good reason, they let the OS Vendors port it to their systems.
MIT WAS NOT going to handle the Solaris, Ultrix, HP-UX, and Irix (all Athena systems in time) ports, and they needed it to all play nicely. As MIT had a HUGE Unix system, vendors played nice to get the sales, which both got a large Unix installation and their system in front of MIT students.
Kerberos was developed to provide a secure environment for MIT Computing. Lots of University research is government funded. Tax-payer research financed should be available for EVERYBODY, not just those that you consider "worthy." Sorry, Microsoft and its investors pay their share of taxes (and probably more than most of us do), and they should be able to reap the rewards of the tax-payer research, just as the Free Software/Open Source crowd do.
MIT Released Kerberos because they built it for their needs, MIT IS and MIT LCS are not business trying to maximize profits, releasing it furthered their needs, and releasing it bettered mankind.
MS extended Kerberos using a portion designed for vendor extensions. They did this for backwards compatibility for their systems.
Their older domain system was proprietary, this one is too. So what that they used Kerberos code. None of YOU wrote Kerberos, why should you have a say how it was used. MIT's research project turned platform is benefiting Microsoft customers, who happen to be people. MIT's licensing choice benefitted a class of people that all of you trolls would like hung out to dry.
Know your history, TCP/IP did get chosen because of the BSD availability and as a result, it ran on all the machines of the era. DARPA used it because Berkeley wrote it, released it, and Berkeley's version of the OS ran on the prevalent machines, so the Unix OS and TCP/IP became big.
Alex
You never know, he could be doing a network install ... from Pluto.
--
News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
FreeBSD is also available via anonymous FTP from mirror sites in the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria, ... Thailand, Elbonia, the Ukraine and the United Kingdom, among others.
Makes it easier for Dilbert to get his FreeBSD when he's working on site.
You must be new to slashdot. Here we don't just make things up... Perhaps you'd like to try again... Don't worry, you'll get the hang of clicking the pretty buttons before too long.
All lies!
1. DSL sucks and is unstable/unusable at any promised speed
2. Who gives a flying rats ass about how pretty the installer is? (Maybe winblows users...)
3. SMP is working great.
At the risk of being immodest, I thought my response was a clever and funny parody of the original post. As to the moderation of "informative", the moderator was replying in kind -- with humor. If you can't chuckle, turn off your computer, go outside, get some fresh air, and don't come back in until your sphinctor contractions stop.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Slashdot readers stated that there are 7000 nearly identical posts of your anti-BSD spam. How many people actually believe it? Let's see. The number of intelligent Slashdot posts versus your anti-BSD spam is roughly in ratio of 500 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000*500 = 3,500,000 Slashdot users who are annoyed by your idiotic spam. A recent article put your spam at about 80 percent on the nonsense scale. Therefore there are many thousands of Slashdot readers who know that you are full of crap. This is consistent with the number of Slashdot posts stating so.
Due to the trouble you have thinking, abysmal IQ test scores and so on, you will be lucky to go out into the business world and land a job at McDonalds.
All major surveys show that your anti-BSD spam has steadily gotten more annoying. You are very sick and your long term survival prospects are very dim -- especially if your identity becomes known. If you are to survive at all it will be among other idiots, trolls, and the mentally ill. Interest in your anti-BSD spam continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could revive it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, you are completely brain dead.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Slashdot readers stated that there are 7000 nearly identical posts of your anti-BSD spam. How many people actually believe it? Let's see. The number of intelligent Slashdot posts versus your anti-BSD spam is roughly in ratio of 500 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000*500 = 3,500,000 Slashdot users who are annoyed by your idiotic spam. A recent article put your spam at about 80 percent on the nonsense scale. Therefore there are many thousands of Slashdot readers who know that you are full of crap. This is consistent with the number of Slashdot posts stating so.
Due to the trouble you have thinking, abysmal IQ test scores and so on, you will be lucky to go out into the business world and land a job at McDonalds.
All major surveys show that your anti-BSD spam has steadily gotten more annoying. You are very sick and your long term survival prospects are very dim -- especially if your identity becomes known. If you are to survive at all it will be among other idiots, trolls, and the mentally ill. Interest in your anti-BSD spam continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could revive it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, you are completely brain dead.
On March 24th, BSD accomplished what Linux has been promising for years now. They put the power of Unix into a desktop system and made it available to the masses.
The launch of Mac OS X is turning Apple into the largest distributor of Unix, and more specifically BSD Unix. Now anyone with a desire to run Unix can purchase it for about the same cost as a Microsoft operating system. For the regular user, it looks and acts just like a MacOS user would expect. However, all the features that make it Unix are easily tapped into by the developers and power users who want to take the OS to its limits.
Now, BSD is poised to take over another segment the Linux crowd has been vying for -- the embedded market. Embedded Linux has been a hot topic of late, as new companies are trying to get into the market space.
However, the business-unfriendly GPL has played a key role in keeping Linux from being adopted by major players in the embedded arena. Especially in embedded systems, retailers don't want to be forced to make their code changes available. When you have to heavily adapt the software to work with your hardware and internal systems, the viral GPL can make keeping your code safe impossible. Instead they have chosen the more intellectual-property-friendly BSD license to protect their business interests, while leveraging the Open Source community.
Wind River, already an international player in the embedded systems market, announced today the purchase of BSD/OS from BSDi (not the company, just the rights to the software). The remainder of what was BSDi will be spun off into a hardware company called iXsystems. Inc. The new company will sell high-end server machines pre-loaded with BSD/OS and FreeBSD.
As part of the deal, Wind River has hired Jordan Hubbard to become their principal technologist for FreeBSD. Jordan is one of founders of FreeBSD and has been the chief PR representative for the project. According to Jordan, FreeBSD will remain unchanged; however, Wind River promises expanded funding for the project -- the primary thing that has been holding it back.
However, the license isn't the only reason BSD was chosen. Wind River executives said there were three reasons. First, that BSD has unparalleled technology. Second, that they love the way the open source BSD is organized compared to the disarray of the multitude of Linux Distributions. And third, the BSD license is very business friendly. It allows customers to build applications without losing intellectual property.
It also allows Wind River to build a seamless solution, combining all of its internal software properties to meet customer needs. When asked why it chose BSD over the other options, the company replied, "Frankly there was no contest."
Wind River will continue to market BSD/OS and leverage FreeBSD as a means of accelerating development and innovation. With Jordan Hubbard on board, they will be able to utilize the 2.5 million users and developers of FreeBSD.
With Wind River targeting the embedded market, and Apple putting BSD on Desktop, BSD's future looks really bright.
Linus who? That cartoon character from Charlie Brown?
360 degrees of Karma
FreeBSD ritalin 4.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.1-RELEASE #0: root@ritalin.deficiency.org:/usr/src/sys/compile/L UCIFER i386
/kernel: psmintr: out of sync (0040 != 0000). /kernel: psmintr: out of sync (00c0 != 0000). /kernel: psmintr: out of sync (0080 != 0000).
Good to know its out, however I hoped they fixed their moused issues
Apr 20 10:56:20
Apr 20 17:25:30
Apr 21 23:45:42
Aside from the nitpicking, why isn't this section updated a bit more, there are some good articles regarding the BSD's being posted at sites like DaemonNews, Deadly.org, etc.
p.s. to the moron who always post those moronic "BSD is dying... I think you should take a look at how many Linux distros, and Linux based customers went under these past few months before you troll
MTV's True Life (unabashed)
360 degrees of Karma
I'll acknowledge the different licensing models, but as I'm not a developer, my main concern is having access to a free (beer) *nix OS that can run on pc hardware. I've used FreeBSD, Redhat, and Debian. Correct me if I'm I'm wrong, but has anybody else noticed they are all *nix based, and therefore *similar*? Why the hell do people have this urge to seperate themselves into distict camps and fight over who is more 1337? It's a frickin computer, people! Not a religious war.
I use windows for some things, linux for others, *BSD for another, and if I have the time, inclination, or disk space, some other *fringe* OS that grabs my fancy.
I like to geek out with different OSes. If someone can provide me a flame-free explanation of why it is that geeks have to whip out their dicks over what OS they use, I'd love to hear it.
This post coming to you from MSIE on Win2k, routed through RH Linux, my other box is FreeBSD, and if I had another box, it would probably run on hamsters. Cheers
We have to things to thank for for the Release Notes.
First, we use a source management tool (namely CVS), so all changes made to the source code are documented at the time they are made. This makes it much easier to keep track of what they are.
Second, Bruce A. Mah, who volunteered for the generally tedious but very important job of actually reading the commit logs and then keeping the Release Notes up to date for both -current and -stable branches.
Let me take this opportunity to thank him for it.
(8-DCS)
I never could figure out how the whole "ports" thing worked though... maybe I was a little too impatient to spend the five minutes required to figure it out. *shrugs*
/usr/ports/path/to/port/
/usr/ports/irc/bitchx/)
# cd
(say
# make && make install
(then you wait: code is donloaded, compiled, installed)
That's it. Dependent packages are installed automatically. There are commands to remove packages, etc. Until 4.3 there wasn't a pkg_update command, but all you had to do was delete the old version (1 command) and re-install.
To use the ports tree in this way you need to devote some disk space (70MB or so?) to the makefiles, so the system knows what to go fetch and compile. Typically you keep the ports tree updated on your system via cvs.
I prefer the FreeBSD method to Debian (which I tinker with) for 2 reasons.
1. There is a while direcory tree of software for me to browse. I don't have to hit the web looking for the magic string to apt-get.
2. I learned it first.
I've noticed a recent trend towards trashing FreeBSD's SMP because of "the giant spinlock." What people don't realize is that one large spinlock can be a viable method of locking for the purposes of threading (that is, multiprocessing). It would seem that someone who has a moderate clue about threading and writing SMP-capable operating systems has commented on this, and feels it's bogus, and one or more of the general breed of "BSD is ubersux" trolls has gotten a hold of this and thinks it's the ultimate death knell for FreeBSD/smp. Obviously, you don't really know much about locking at all. It should at least be pointed out that no matter how many locks you have, it is more important to keep the system OUT of a locked state as much as possible, and FreeBSD does this well enough. It's not as if the system is constantly locked and able to use only one CPU. Most processing occurs in userland, far away from kernel locks, so it doesn't tend to matter all that much.
Now, granted, using one spinlock isn't necessarily the best way to do things, at least not in an OS. However, it's not the worst either. Combined with the fact that it allowed fairly rapid updating and deployment of FreeBSD/SMP, I think the choice to use that 'giant spinlock' was valid. It allowed SMP code that by all accounts worked better at least than the 2.0 Linux kernel's (if not 2.2 as well) to be deployed until a better solution could be created. A better solution will be deployed in FreeBSD 5.0 with the introduction of SMPng. I do not doubt that the 2.4 Linux kernel does a better job at SMP than FreeBSD (release/stable) does, but I think it's worth noting that Linux's SMP has been now five or six years in the making to get to this point, and that the Linux and FreeBSD development and advancement models are significantly different. Where Linux takes gradual steps, FreeBSD (and BSDs in general) tend to take large leaps. That's just a difference in implementation timing.
Furthermore, it's perfectly reasonable to expect two open-source systems to leapfrog each other in terms of capability as ideas and code move from one to the other, and it's really not something to gloat over. What one does better today, the other will do better tomorrow. It doesn't really matter.
To those of you babbling on and on about 'the giant spinlock', you might want to go do some research into the theory, and practice, of implementing locks in threaded systems. Until then, shut up, please.
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
"question = (to) ? be : !be;" --Shakespeare
...that I _REALLY_ hate slashdot...
Crusing along at several hundred k a second.. all of a sudden it starts slowly dropping.. down to double digits.. then single digits.. After trying to reconnect a few times I give up and check slashdot.. only to realize.. grumble.. I guess I won't be getting FBSD anytime tonight!
whoa dude...you have to get a faster CD-ROM drive or something...6 years is a hell of a long time for a Slackware install. i have an old quad-speed lying around here somewhere...i'll send it to you if you want. even off floppies, Slackware shouldn't take more than an hour or two.