Slashdot Mirror
USENIX Reports
bruce writes: "O'Reilly has just put up a page with conference reports from USENIX. The BSD BoF session sounds like it was pretty interesting, lots of info there." Yes, "*BSD is Dying" posts are up 75%, thank you very much.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Yep, there's an increase of anti-bsd stuff, just as MS swing their anti-GPL campaign into overdrive - and a key part of their strategy is probably to attempt a "divide-and-conquer" approach between the BSD and GPL camps. I'd say that the sudden increase in overblown trolls is a direct result of this. Worryingly, there's also a group of very earnest .NET fans, preaching the MS party line as if they'd been to a scientologist "improvement" course or something, but for MS stufff...
remember that BSD users are still rabid and
/. crew in letting it keep geting posted. VA doesn't grok that being a 'linux' only company, while saying you are 'Open Source' isn't going to fly. Or, perhaps now they do after looking at thier stock pice.
intolerant. In fact most power *users* of any following are. It's part of the reason that there are 3 *BSDs.
Given there are over 180 Linux versions, then using your statement, there are MORE rabid Linux users. All pushing 'thier' version.
The 'BSD is dying' gal doesn't help, nor does the
I think the statement that Windows 2000 can handle as much or more traffic then any other server just because the MS sites are some of the highest traffic isn't that accurate.
We don't know how many servers it's taking to power all that do we? There might be twice as many Windows 2000 boxes driving that load as there driving Yahoo.
(Yahoo is second to MS according the Media Matrix - http://www.mediametrix.com/data/thetop.jsp)
I'll admit that Windows 2000 is better than Windows NT 4 - However it's not nearly as stable as Linux or a BSD in my experiance.
So what if there are 7 "anti-bsd posts" ??
Statistics folks, statistics !
75% is an impressive number, but remember that after your second installation of any OS you have done 100% as many as the day before !! (assuming you won't do them both on the same day)2 C3AF4F2snlbxq'|dc
--
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb15CB32EF3AF9C0E5D727
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
You must be hanging with the wrong kind of people.
The Linux users' group in Portland, OR many years ago renamed itself to the ``Portland Linux/UNIX Group", & the mailing list has carried threads about other flavors of UNIX like Solaris, AIX as well as *BSD since then. (We don't get as many posts about *BSD because, I guess, there are older, more established lists that can answer those kinds of questions faster.
And my ISP has ran on FreeBSD for the last few years -- & if I had a problem with his choice of UNIX flavor, I wouldn't still be using my shell account there on a regular basis.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Indeed, it may be speculated that MS _need_ the server-side .NET on BSD, because Win2000 sure isn't up to the amount of traffic MS's own .NET servers will be able to take :-) - chances are, they'll use BSD servers identifying themselves as win2000 (they've done it before...)
Windows 2000 can handle as much or more traffic than any other server. Microsoft.com, one of the most trafficked sites, is Windows 2000. Unfortunately there are lots of clueless newbies out there who fuxxor the system up significantly and then claim that "Windows 2000 sucks!", but you learn to filter that out.
It's already screwed up - C# itself might be "standardised", but without the full implementation of the .NET APIs it won't be very useful
To port the .Net Framework would be a massive bitch because that Framework largely relies upon the underpinnings of the Windows platform (which is why the framework hasn't been submitted to any universal authority). For example OLEDB, MSMQ, security ACLs, etc. I am very impressed at how amazingly comprehensive the .Net Framework is, and it might shut-up the anti-Win32 wankers out there (bah who am I kidding? Those wankers haven't bothered with facts since day one, so they'll still be going strong).
I think that its still important to remember that there are Linux users that are not Linux zealots.
I will say that I am a big Linux supporter, but the reason that I am a big Linux supporter is because Linux has been around for a long time, it is a PC UNIX-like O/S that has enabled me to not see BSODS for a really long time. It has also helped me understand the O/S's that run on high performance computers and thus get better jobs when I had gotten out of school.
I had gone to work for a company after school that used FreeBSD on its build servers, building large data warehouses for web publishing. I programmed for/administered these machines. I like FreeBSD a lot.
I now teach people how to be Solaris admins (in an official, Sun supported way). I like Solaris a lot. Some of the things that Sun Hardware and Solaris does on things like their Starfire machines is out of this world.
The virtual server that I run my web site on (okay there isn't anything to the website, but I've written some cgi's that run on the webserver) is BSDI. I've had an account there for over two years now and the system has gone down once for any noticable amount of time. That's cool.
Now here I am a Solaris instructor, liking Solaris a lot, but not considering myself a SunOS zealot. I just happen to know a lot about it. I still run Linux on my desktop (past 6 years), as I said first because I was sick of BSODs, but now because linux has better device support than any of the other PC based forms of UNIX (and because I'm sick of BSODs). I don't run Linux on my desktop because I want it to take over the world, I run Linux because it runs well. If I ran a local server I would probably run something like FreeBSD, but for now I have no need for that. I run Linux because I want relatively good device support on an O/S that is somewhat similar to what I have to work with every day in my classes and that doesn't crash so often. Typically my system only goes down now when I have to move locations or when I have to upgrade the kernel.
I'm not a linux zealot, I'm not a UNIX zealot, but I refuse to run Windows.
---
"Everybody knows the moon's made of cheese."
"Everybody knows the moon's made of cheese," Wallace.
Saying that "wine doesn't run on PowerPC" is close to the truth, but little informed. The wine application would be useless on the PowerPC platform, because wine was written to emulate the Win32 API, not the x86 CPU. Therefore if you were to build wine on PowerPC, it wouldn't do anything useful because you probably don't have any Win32 software compiled for PowerPC laying around. However, winelib (the core of wine) *can* be used to port Win32 software to the PowerPC platform. You would compile winelib on PowerPC, then compile your Win32 app on PowerPC. You've ported with a minimum of effort. This is what the original poster was suggesting. That MS could use winelib to port their Win32 .NET platform to UNIX like platforms without rewriting everything.
.NET GUI API to BSD would give them almost no leverage in porting to OS X. In order to port to OS X, they'd still have to do a *lot* of work to port the winelib GUI code to the Cocoa API.
The point that OS X doesn't use X Windows is totally valid. Porting the
It's already screwed up - C# itself might be "standardised", but without the full implementation of the .NET APIs it won't be very useful. And the forthcoming BSD-platform release will not include any client-side GUI support - MS is keeeping that bound to GDI on the windows platform, initially (they may be using Corel's wine-expertise to later bring client-side to BSD and thereby mac os x).
.NET on BSD, because Win2000 sure isn't up to the amount of traffic MS's own .NET servers will be able to take :-) - chances are, they'll use BSD servers identifying themselves as win2000 (they've done it before...)
Indeed, it may be speculated that MS _need_ the server-side
So MS's plan seems to be Windows on the client, BSD on the server for real reliability, and Win2000 on the server for the real suckers...
See the discussions on this article for more details.
Remember, microsoft-man speak with forked tongue...
Choice of masters is not freedom.
But really how much did Apple do here?
You answered the question yourself:
"and built a new GUI with some nifty features"
A new GUI with nifty features is NOT a trivial undertaking. After all, how long have people been trying to do this for UNIX? Decades. Did any of them match OS X? Nope.
NO PLANS TO PORT OS X TO x86 HARDWARE!
Actually Darwin, the UNIX bit of OS X does run on x86.
Apple took BSD and built a new GUI with some nifty features to make the Mac community accept it. Don't get me wrong I love BSD and I think that OS X will be good for it. But really how much did Apple do here?
BSD is a major part of Mac OS X, but it's not like Apple took FreeBSD and slapped a GUI on top of it. In Mac OS X, BSD provides:
- The process model (PID, signals)
- Unix security model (users, permissions)
- posix threads
- BSD sockets
- unix tools and libraries
Apple created:
- Quartz: window server, graphics library, 2D rendering, printing system
- Cocoa: incredible object-oriented development environment
- NetInfo (open source): Mac OS X's distributed auto-configuring network services system
- OpenGL implementation
- Java implementation
- QuickTime - used for all kinds of graphics stuff
- Carbon: APIs that Mac toolbox apps can be ported to to take advantage of modern OS features (represents a HUGE amount of work on Apple's part)
- Classic: An environment that allows the vast majority of exist Mac applications to run on Mac OS X
- All the system-level and user-level glue that allows all this stuff to work seamlessly together for the masses
Mac OS X's kernel is a modified version of Mach 3.0.
- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
fast boot so you can crash sooner
Hrm. FreeBSD has always booted much faster for me than any version of Windows I've ever run. Man, 4.0-RELEASE was just damn snappy booting.
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
To everyone behind censoring proxies: sux to be you.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Want Root?
Many more BSD users are less vocal about their beliefs; it also seems to me that those who tend to say "linux sucks" have been "on the BSD bandwagon" for a lesser amount of time and want to separate themselves from their Linux past. It's really no different than the Freudian defense mechanism of reaction formation.
To conclude, if you're going to judge BSD users on the vocal ones, you're going to judge them all on Brett Glass et. al. That's not fair. We're all pretty vocal if you ask us about BSD, but most of us don't have a desire to shove BSD down the throats of others. If you want a real impression of BSD users, base it on productive discussion on BSD mailing lists (sure they get out of hand sometimes.. nobody is perfect) and NOT slashdot, linux news sites, or even IRC.
-bugg
There are zealots everywhere -- hell, I know people who go absolutely rabid if you get coffee from Starbucks instead of Seattles Best -- but sometimes it just seems the Linux users could learn a thing or two about tolerance from their *BSD cousins.
I think that was the best statistic.... shows the insecurity of the Linux folks..... and ofcource, what else do they have to compare thems selves to? Yeah.... In their minds they be competeing with bsd folks, yet the bsd folks tends to ignor them and simply do code. But serriously BSD folks dont' hate anything,nor compete, we just love unix.... WE don't hate windows... hate is such a negative things to do.... dwell on possitive stuff. ;-)
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
Search for: "Linux sucks":
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,320. Search took 0.62 seconds.
Search for: "BSD sucks":
Results 1 - 10 of about 32. Search took 0.11 seconds.
I rest my case.
Jordan Bettis
``Wherever you go, there's another stupid sigfile quote.''I see where you're coming from. I do think Open Source will eventually wipe out the business value of day-to-day software (if it hasn't already).
Folks, here's the thing: if you're going to create a software startup, here's where I think your profits are going to come from in the future:
-games
-vertical-market applications
-consulting
Linux is just fine for any of those settings.
/Brian
(I think that puts it rather nicely; a touch of irony as trollbait, y'know...)
The vast majority of Linux and BSD zealots are either idiots or doing a massively effective job of trying to look like it. This is the same sort of reason that I respect politicians like John McCain and Jim Jeffords -- principles are all well and good, but they aren't going to get things done when an agreement has to be reached.
The fact is that the BSD people are sharing because they feel like sharing, and the GPL people are sharing to make a point. I side more with the GPL people myself (mostly because I don't want my own code abused) but I really have no problem with either side.
The technical issues involved are not at issue here, are they, really (except when dealing with Windows)? Okay, Linux is obnoxiously ad hoc in places. Okay, *BSD so far lacks SMP support (except in Darwin/MacOS X). Neither one fits an OS guru's idea of "purity" (again, except for Darwin/X and xMach). The fact is that technical arguments are as bad as political arguments for being vague -- a little PR can turn any stupid design into a feature with enough mindbending (witness Apple's proud declaration of the early 90s that they didn't like DMA, or old-line DOS zealots talking about being able to replace memory managers as if there wasn't actually a need to do so).
I don't think the zealots are getting us anywhere. RMS has essentially shot his mouth off into irrelevance; ESR (though I don't consider him a zealot, really) is close to doing the same thing. Theo De Raadt puts out an excellent OS, but he's fast becoming a laughingstock for his attitude. Meanwhile we've got companies like Apple and Sun who are in fact contributing back and instead of praising them for getting a start and politley encouraging them to get in step with the community they're serving, the zealots rip into them for biting the hands that feed them.
(Let me let you in on something: of course they've got an agenda. It's called making money. Shut up, take what they'll let you take, and tell them (not us) what else you want. Enough pressure, they will listen.)
The fact is that I support both Linux and BSD, and it's not just because I'm Mac/Unix bytesexual. At the end of the day, these two sides will be the survivors when everything else has gone to hell, simply because they're the only ones guaranteed to still be out there in a form that someone can pick up and run with ten, twenty, fifty years down the road.
One rant from a rabid middle-of-the-roader,
/Brian
now to reply to the real post:
- Points of Intrist in the BoF Post:
- "Mac OS X has the power and openness of Unix, with the simplicity and friendliness of a Mac"
- What went to WindRiver:... FreeBSD-related work
- OpenBSD received a DARPA grant to continue the security work its been doing.
- OpenBSD Received a legal threat from OpenSSH.com, demanding that they change the OpenBSD name, which they refused (good for you!)
- FreeBSD: [Jordan Hubbard] Mentioned he was working on speeding up the boot process...hey, that'd be nice!
- AMD and Intel step up FreeBSD efforts
- Microsoft renounces evil, switches to FreeBSD
- NO PLANS TO PORT OS X TO x86 HARDWARE!
- OS X: Fully integrated JDK 1.3
- OS X: Key productivity applications (MS Office...)
one last thing.... if you haven't read/used any O'Reilly books, then your really missing out.Apple took BSD and built a new GUI with some nifty features to make the Mac community accept it. Don't get me wrong I love BSD and I think that OS X will be good for it. But really how much did Apple do here?
And yet again there is the shadey sound of Windriver playing with words about FreeBSD. It isn't possible for them to OWN FreeBSD, but watch them overstepping their bounds guys.
Still trying to get at Mitnicks encrypted data (read porn) eh big bro?
Because you know that the goals of Open Source software projects are purely evil... they were planning on trying to sell back the name and then dominate the world muuuaaahhahahahahahah hah ha ha ha ah ahhh ahhha ah....
yeah I seem to recall the boot being a little slow when I last booted a month ago... of course Microsoft has already got the golden pair... fast boot so you can crash sooner.
I really hope this leads to them competing on who can donate the most money to Open Source.
I seem to recall Hotmail switching from BSD to 2k (so thats why my email got so much slower and less predictable)
Damn, I guess I won't be doing the OS-X benchmarking then.
woohoo... I am a java programmer, and while some many people around here hate java support of it will promote Open Source
I wonder if StarOffice will come bundled for a little of taste of Microsofts own medicine (but IE MUST come preinstalled)
"Peace, Love, Linux" -Leo Laporte, TSS
Remove *your pants* to send me email.
I have one word for you: BULL
When I was writing my book, Linux IP Stacks Commentary for Coriolis, I took pre-publication copies of the book to the THINK conference and let people there paw through them. Let me summarize the reactions I got, by "class":
Admitted Windows Fanatics (AWFs): "I don't understand any of this. Where is the Visual Basic?"
Macintosh Evangalists: well, they didn't say anything -- they were too busy reading and in most cases taking notes. One of them got violent when someone tried to pry the spiral-bound book out of his hands. Fortunately I was able to satisfy the curiosity of the newcomer with another copy that I had held back for just such an eventuality.
Sun advocates: "Hey, this doesn't look anything like the W. Richard Stevens books." (The pre-publication proofs didn't have the dedication in the front, so at that time no one was aware that we authors had a double dedication: To Jon Postel, Primary Mover and Shaker, and to W. Richard Stevens, the guy "who illustrated TCP/IP" for all of us.)
BSD mavans: "Hey, why are you writing this crap about Linux? BSD is way cooler [I refuse to spell this last word the way the BSDfolk tend to say it] and needs more press!" When I point out that the Stevens books already document the NET3 implementation, which I understood to be the core of the BSD stack, they replied "well, we need more bookshelf space devoted to BSD."
There were other, less-easily catagorized responses, which is why this doesn't add up to 100. :)
"We just love UNIX"? Then why is the ONLY hate mail I've received about the book (aside from regular demands to write a second edition covering the 2.4.0 stack) come from *BSD folk? Why does the only mail that contains the word "traitor" come from people who profess allegiance to the Little Red Devil? NOT ONE MEMBER of the fruit group, not one member of the Gremlins-for-Gates parade, not one member of the three-letter-word SUN fans, not one member of the Amiga/BeOS niche-dwellers have written a discouraging word.
(And the really, really funny postscript to all this: I'm bring up a NetBSD box here for some consulting work, because the client insists on it. No rationale based on fact. I'm not kicking, mind you, because NetBSD will do the job.)
I fail to see how responding to something that was in the article can be off-topic. Would the coward that modded the parent down explain to me why he/she chose to do so?
- Dan I.