Slashdot Mirror
Ports System As A Strategy Against .NET?
proclus writes: "The FreeBSD ports system has been ported to Mac OSX, GNU/Linux, LinuxPPC, and OpenBSD. Check out this descriptive paper and roll your own ports-based distribution."
Besides an some informative description of the mechanics of the port system, the paper lays out the case for ports (free and readily available) as a good antidote for .Net and other subscription-based systems.
Passport is a unified authentication system, not a subscription-based service.
.Net, not really part of .Net.
You are thinking of Hailstorm.
Actually I'd say Hailstorm is possible because of
It does, although IIRC building dependencies for the source isn't really a stable feature yet. From the man page for apt-get:
However, that will only download/build/install the one source package. If one wants to install the packages required to satisfy the build dependencies for a given source package, the build-dep option should be used with apt-get.
I don't think that what MS is doing is "ignorant". It is money. ignorance != money.
For a company so evil, at least they're extending a hand, but according to some this is viewed as MS looking to stir up troubles in the open source community.
.net gains wide acceptable. If people view it as a Microsoft only solution, it won't gain that. Having it run on BSD will make people more secure in writing for .net because it isn't just a windows thing anymore.
Extend a hand? What do you think this is, diplomacy? Microsoft is doing what is in their best interest, and right now that is making use
It is sort of analogous to front page extentions. Sure, Microsoft ported their frontpage extentsions to Unix. Was it altruism? No! It was neccisary to gain acceptance.
So don't tell me "a company so evil" or "they're extending a hand" - Microsoft is not trying to be your best friend. They are not an a x-girlfriend after a difficult break up. Microsoft is another self-interested pragmatist and if it suits them they will port their software, but it is totaly unrealated to "extending a hand" or being "less evil".
Ben
Trith writes: The thing that makes Java WORA is the fact that the API goes with the language and the runtime enviroment. C# will be providing two of the three, the Runtime and the language.
.NET Common Language Infrastructure includes the .NET Framework Class Library. They have names like system.net and system.io whatever, so it feels a lot like Java's libraries.
You are misinformed.
Ben
What does this have to do with .NET; I assumed there would be some kind of intermediate code base or something. But all I see is an open platform.
.Net bytecode going to get compiled down for applications? Such large applications are suppose to be converted to native during the install. When are these BSD packages convered to native? Well, one can do it when one installs a program (one could also grab a pre-compiled binary for one's specific system if available, but one doesn't have to).
.net's bytecode is really rather analogous to the free software communities' use of source code. So in practice, this set of highly portable software depending on parts of FreeBSD as a "runtime" is a system that is offering many of the same benfits as the .net platform.
I suggest that "c" is functioning as the intermediate language. Following me on this one.
When is
What does distributing in the source code gain? The ability to check for security problems and to compile down to one's specific systems. What does distributing in the byte code get? The ability to check for security (by having a logical sandbox) and compile down to one's specific system.
So I suggest the use of
I suspect Timothy was meaning some simular.
Ben
The thing that makes Java WORA is the fact that the API goes with the language and the runtime enviroment. C# will be providing two of the three, the Runtime and the language. But seriously, how many C# apps will run on FreeBSD without that API?
:-)
Answer: Hellow World
-----
Most patches (not all) in a port are only there to get the package to build on a specific system. They would be totally useless elsewhere. And most have nothing to do with the code itself.
Case in point: net-snmp on FreeBSD-4.3. The majority of patches are to makefiles. The majority of the rest only updated the FreeBSD version macros. Actual code changes are rare, and are only for the purpose of getting the software to build.
You are not like all other developers. We all work in different ways. I develop on FreeBSD and Slackware. If a patch came in for HPUX, I wouldn't accept it. It would be pointless to do so. I cannot test it, and cannot maintain it. Unless it were an actual bug fix, I would ignore it. If the HPUX maintainer is willing to do the work I'm more than happy. I'll add him to my update mailing list along with a thank you note and a virtual beer.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
And with the official CDs, you get thousands of precompiled packages all ready to run with no download. It doesn't take a Kreskin to know that some people will grasp at any straw in an effort to bash someone else's OS.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
It's Darwin plus all the GNU stuff.
FreeBSD, from which Darwin was in part based, also contains all of the GNU stuff. I am assuming that GNU-Darwin is still using the Mach microkernel and the FreeBSD derived OS. Or have pieces of Darwin been replaced by their GNU equivalents?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Using the ports system we are building our distribution quickly, and since it's Darwin, we can introduce many OSX users to free software in the process.
:-)
I'm still not sure I get you. Perhaps all the Independence Day beer has gone to my head
I had assumed that Darwin was already a finished (although minimal) system. And coming from FreeBSD land, I had always envisioned the ports as being supplementary to the OS. Are you saying that GNU-Darwin is using the ports system to actually build the OS (as opposed to a buildworld)?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Sigh...
The GNU System (notice the capitalization) is an operating system specifically described by RMS in the GNU Manifesto. It does not describe any Linux based system. A lot of the user environment of Linux is indeed based on GNU software, but that is insufficient to make it GNU.
If Linus and friends had taken The GNU System and merely added the missing kernel, then yes, it should properly be referred to as a GNU based system. But that is not what happened.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
There are problems with the APSL. However it still meets every definition of Free Software. RMS might not think it is, but the definition he created says it is.
The APSL meets every point. I'm not saying it's the best license out there. Far from it. But the APSL does manage to squeak through the definitions set in place by RMS decades before the creation of the APSL.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
1. APSL requires reporting to Apple.
The four freedoms do not mention freedom from reporting modifications to the author.
2. APSL does not respect privacy
This is exactly the same as number 1. Again, the four freedoms do not mention freedom from reporting modifications to the author.
3. Apple has too much revocation power under APSL.
This flaw in the APSL was fixed. It had to be fixed before it could be officially Open Source. RMS even acknowledges that this problem is fixed.
The only thing left in the APSL that is problematic to RMS (and to me as well, by the way) is the prohibition against private modifications used commercially. But again, the Free Software definition does not mention the freedom from reporting modifications to the author.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I didn't say he approved it. He said that the first two of the three objections he had to the APSL have been fixed by Apple. He still has an objection remaining, and that is the requirement to disclose all modifications. You can find this information in the very first paragraph of the page you site.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I don't get this article at all. It's full of jargon, hyperbole and muddlethink. I'm sure there's a good idea buried in here somewhere, but I can't find it.
...the naive user will not have to face a daunting tangle of dependency.
These ports have tens of thousands of interconnections, called dependencies, which must be satisfied in order to build the applications.
No port has tens of thousands of dependencies. And since you only build one port at a time, there is no need to take into account the dependencies of any unrelated port.
Such a large and complex network of software dependencies...
It's not a complex network. It's a simple tree.
an uber-system has been superposed on the ports system
Time to go back to English class!
A) Give your users respect. They are not naive. B) Dependencies are not tangled.
Thus, the FreeBSD ports system, now as a cross-platform, globally distributed, cooperative development and distribution system could form a nexus of user freedom and empowerment.
It's nice to read that on the 4th of July, but what the fsck does it mean?!?
p.s. Why is he calling this version of Darwin "GNU-Darwin"? Is this a GNU project? Does he think that Darwin is really the GNU System?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Not at all! I said that every developer is different. By all means, do not do what I do!
However, I can offer one solution. If you are releasing net-snmp for use on FreeBSD, I can only assume that you test it on FreeBSD, and thus have a FreeBSD box somewhere to use. Why not become the port maintainer yourself?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Maybe if he realised that rpm and apt are completely different things he would have a better time?
.debs rarely go wrong, as some care is usually taken in creating them. The same cannot
apt uses rpm or preferably dpkg as a package management system. You use dpkg if something goes wrong on a debian system with packages.
Happily,
be said of any rpm based system I have ever used.
Did you know that Dr. Evil is the princess of Canada?
Yeah. Although he can't actually back that up with paper work.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Can't we just pay Dr. Evil six million dollars if he'll go away?
If BSD developers were out to gain anything of material value they wouldn't be writing free software in the first place. This argument by GNU advocates is weak in this regard. If you're all worried about someone selling your code and you not getting anything in return, why do you write it? It's about writing damned good code for your own personal use. Most projects start out of the needs of the original author. So some big scary company comes and gets a copy... so what? Original Author keeps writing his code as it suits him and (hopefully) anyone else who finds it useful.
WRT RedHat making money and OpenBSD and FreeBSD not.... *BSDs are software Projects, not software Companies. They're not OUT to make money. RedHat is. For that matter, Linux itself doesn't _make_ any money, and Linus didn't write it for that reason either. It got him a job and some nice free stock, but many companies who rely on the BSD projects hire full time BSD developers, so it works both ways.
I think it's time you reevaluated your goals. What do you want out of the software you write? The respect and admiration of your peers or a wad of cash?
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Boy, that sure was a whole lot of well spoken points. I can't help but think they were meant for some other topic.
I clearly wasn't suggesting or advocating writing open source software for free instead of writing commercial, closed source software for pay.
If you don't want to write free (in both senses) software, then don't - and you won't here me, or ANY BSD advocate slight you for it. But if you do write free software, don't bitch about the money it's not making you. That's _all_ I said.
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
My work is there, and it's still useful to anyone who used it in the first place. There's two scenarios here:
Life for me and my copy of My Software is unchanged. So what if Their Software doesn't work with My Software? In Scenario #1 They don't even exist. The only difference is that Thousands benefit from My Software, where only a few did before. The terms of My License may or may not require that I be acknowledged for it.
The Emphasis placed on your quoted text is my reponse to the bit about money. It (your argument) absolutely IS about money. (It's about something else too, which you either haven't realized or refuse to acknowledge - but I'll save it for later.) If it was money I was interested in I would have either made it closed source in the first place, or look, it's a BSD license, so I CAN!
I also assume that the incompatible software you're referring to is Kerberos. If this is the case then you misunderstand the Kerberos issue. Please search for my nick among the (now flattened) comments on this older /. story. (There is either a feature or a bug that is preventing me from linking to the specific ${cid}s. Probably related to the flattening.)
The bigger problem is that the BSD license selects for fragmentation rather than cohesiveness. Apple takes BSD, folds it into their OS, software developers write programs to work with Apple's BSD - none of it will run on your personal BSD. Your hard work was used to create a system that doesn't support your chosen OS. You are left out in the cold vis a vis software developers (no games or any other possibly desirous apps for you - just whatever you and your relatively few buddies can spin up in a weekend).
I think you're confused about a great many things regarding BSD and MacOS X. BSD hasn't been folded into MacOS. MacOS has been re-written on top of Darwin, which is Mach/FreeBSD. Any MacOS developers would be writing for MacOS. This means (IIRC) Carbon and Cocoa software, things which aren't possible on a vanilla BSD system anyway.
Darwin developers on the other hand, whether their dev OS is MacOS X or Darwin on PPC or x86 would be writing for the Unix OS that Darwin is. Any (non arch dependant) code would run with little modification (assuming it was OSS) on any *nix.
Me and my buddies were there before, and we'll be there after.
This may be perfectly fine for a few hardcore BSD users but it is NOT in the best interests of standards and general end-users.
Evil Mind Controlling Mega-Corps aside, how is the widespread use of my code not a benefit to others? As you say, they are subject to the whims of Evil Mega-Corp. They always will be whether I write BSD software or not. If this bit is an argument in favor of the GPL, I'm not seeing it. The sheep will use what the Evil Mega-Corp tells them they should use, be it _in spite_ of the GPL or _because_ of BSD.
I'm afraid I lost you on the next paragraph. Definate degradation detected.
M$ CAN and WILL embrace, extend, extinguish ANYONE who tries to compete against them, whether they are offereng some BSD variant or not. On the other hand, M$ cannot legally do this to linux. They cannot embrace and extend it, thus marginalizing it - if they tried, they would be de facto violating copyright law and would be liable.
Microsoft certainly could(we're talking possibility here, not probability) compete against and extinguish Linux. There's nothing illegal there. They can even embrace it. And they can even extend it. Only if they don't give those extensions back is it a violation of law. It's never going to happen of course, but for the purposes of this debate, it's not only _possible_, it's legal. I'm afraid you left yourself open with that "or not".
I really don't see how *BSD and its licensing is in any way an improvement on anything. It still allows monopolists like M$ to do business as usual whether they use BSD stuff or not.
The contradiction there is so strong it's almost painful. BSD and it's license allows monopolists to continue even if they don't use it? Come again?
Now for the something else. It's about control. That's it. It's not about money, though that's the first thing out of everyone's mouth. It's not even about Freedom (both kinds).
Is the GPL a good thing? Yes. Are Berkeley style licenses a good thing? Yes. Is one better than the other (The improvement you suggested)? Depends on the software.
Dramatic finale omitted.
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
I was directly responding to your assertion that the end user has to know how to fetch, configure, build and install software.
They do not. Not with *BSD Ports or Packages or any of the Linux package systems.
Whether just running 'make' is a significant difference over './configure && make install' isn't the point. It's that the user doesn't have to know how, which you claimed they did.
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
This is going to sound trollish, so let me apologize in advance.
.NET? I read the article and was even more confused. I see it has something to do with package dependancies, but that's about it.
I guess I'm not up-to-snuff in my BSDisms. What is this ports facility, and what does it have to do with
Can someone spare me a clue?
Yes, but my point is that people don't do that. (which is why something slightly more automatted is needed).
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
Don't get me wrong... The portst tree is an excellent thing (as are .deps, .rpms, ...). My only complaint is about local modifications to sources that have no reasons for being kept solely there. (note that there are cases where you would want to keep a patch away from the developers, like if you wanted to release the patch under the GPL and the original code was BSD based. Giving them the patch would destroy their licence).
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
By far, the worst distributor in this regcard is RedHat. I figured for years they were merely building the source and distributing the binaries as is. The first time I looked at the spec file I found around 4 patches I had never seen before and didn't even know some of the bugs existed. Well, I thought, I'll contact them and see whats up. "Sorry, I'll try to make sure patches get your way in the future". Of course, when I checked the source rpm for the next release I found yet more patches I'd never seen... Sigh... I don't have a solution to this problem, though an obvious one might be something along the lines of at least asking the maintainer if they wished to receive CVS messages or CVS patches on a regular basis from the ports trees, or to be added as a default contact for the external bug database for a given package (To solve the redhat problem, I'm forced to go search through their bug database occasionally). Don't get me wrong, I think distributing the source and binaries in an external "easy-to-use" fashion is a great thing. What I consider wrong is to not at least mention to the original developers that changes have been made. Sure, its legal and even goes along with the licence in most cases, but in the long run I would think it would save the ports maintainers a lot of conflict merging if they kept in touch with the package developers.
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
All the more power to them, however the community should focus on creating, and making things better, not trying to pick fights
...hasn't anyone ever thought that there are Windows programmers who develop things on their own, post them at sites like Tucows, and are actually happy with using Windows.
Hallowe'en Documents.
"Linux is like Communism"
"The GPL will steal all of your hard-earned IP."
"The GPL is like Pac-man."
"We're going to support FreeBSD but not Linux because the license is better...for developers. Really."
Who's the one picking a fight here?
Oh, I know there are people perfectly happy with using and developing on Windows. I don't wish to deny them that choice. The problem is, Microsoft wishes to deny me the choice to use anything else, by making sure Microsoft "standards" are more prevalent than any other "standards", real or perceived, and ensuring you can only take advantage of MS "standards" on MS platforms. Individual actions alone may not be "smoking guns," but the sum of their actions and behaviour towards any potential competitors and developers leads me to believe they wish to deny me and millions of others a choice we don't begrudge their customers.
That is wrong. I don't mind them innovating. I do mind them assimilating and trying to make sure the only way is the Microsoft way. I'm a consumer too, and I demand a choice of software and available tools, even if MS wishes to deny me one.
Call it paranoia, but that's the view from here.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Every time Dr. Evil announces that he is working on a new weapon, you folks always assume it is
going to be some orbiting death-ray, a volcano machine, or a bomb that will blow the earth into
little bits. You are always jumping to conclusions...
Maybe this time Dr. Evil is making a weapon that will fight crime and make our streets safe. Or
one that only works against crooked lawyers and politicians. But I repeat myself. Did you even
consider the possibility that Dr. Evil might be trying to be helpful this time? No, you didn't.
Frankly, if I were Dr. Evil, I would be pretty upset with this constant stereotyping. Maybe that
is the cause of his inner anger that causes him to do these things. You are to blame, not him...
A dingo ate my sig...
He he. I'm posting this from a Gentoo-RC5 box as we speak It really is pretty cool. Still needs a bit of polishing up, but when its ready, I can guarentee that this distro is going places! PS> It has i686 optimizations!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I used to agree with you, until I got into Debian. Apt truly rules! This isn't partisan (well, okay, it is, but it's for very good, objective reasons). The Debian Apt system is really, honestly, the best software-getter I've ever seen. In conjunction with the Debian Packaging Guidelines, which cover many very important rules for the creation of Debian packages (basically, that it should follow certain well-defined procedures regarding libraries, configuration requirements, file locations etc), Apt really spoils the sysadmin. It would be very painful for me to move to anything other than Debian now...
The problem is, Microsoft wishes to deny me the choice to use anything else, by making sure Microsoft "standards" are more prevalent than any other "standards", real or perceived, and ensuring
you can only take advantage of MS "standards" on MS platforms. Individual actions alone may not be
"smoking guns," but the sum of their actions and behaviour towards any potential competitors and
developers leads me to believe they wish to deny me and millions of others a choice we don't begrudge their customers.
That is wrong.
Think to yourself about what you've just summed up for the rest of those who would want to argue your points: Microsoft wishes to deny me the choice to use anything else Microsoft may wish to deny you a choice, if they decided today taht anything MS compatible HAD TO use ONLY MS based products you know what, they're only trying to deny you a choice, of which you could easily move away from Microsoft.
Doesn't that seem more logical than to always tread along the same thought of an evil corporation "assimilating" everything in site? Move away, go find another OS, show MS that by you using another OS they mean little to you. Isn't that sweeter justice than moaning and groaning about something out of your reach (MS' so called monopolization)?
By constantly playing into the same "MS is evil", "MS is assimilating", "MS must die", or any other form of thinking along those terms, you're no better than they are. However as someone who has moved away from their (MS') products, you can show that their is life aside from MS, and by contributing positively without all the name calling, finger pointing tactics, people will take a closer look to why others have move away from MS.
It's a nice project to have the FreeBSD ports universally available to other nix variant users, but the comment does little more than annoy. Instead of focusing such negative vibes, people should try to simmer down, and make positive moves under the nix community. Make standards, improve on existing ones, instead of waisting time with the childish games.
My two cents on it all
Want Root?
is the world where the user operates the distribution building tools, and we now have all of the components at hand, which are required to make this world real.
It's instances like this which will push MS over Unix in the end. " we now have all of the components at hand, which are required to make this world real. " For business that have been using MS based products for years, many have made money using Windows so why would they want to switch when people keep up with the name calling and finger pointing? (re: GPL arguments vs. MS and vice versa)For a company so evil, at least they're extending a hand, but according to some this is viewed as MS looking to stir up troubles in the open source community. Maybe so, but how is this comment any different from stirring up the same type of bias "What possible significance could
All the more power to them, however the community should focus on creating, and making things better, not trying to pick fights. I used FreeBSD at home and Open for my server, and have a laptop with W2K that hasn't been used in eons, and each serve their own purpose, bottom line. Comments and write ups so biased to little to sway my vote of confidence in any OS just because someone claims it to be so much better. No sirs I'll be the judge of that as will most others, so why waste time beating a dead horse. It's these same comments used against the open source community.
Everyone wants to jump in on the action, and post why they're better, and oh by the way here are 30,000 more free programs. Yes 30,000 more free programs, 30,000 more comments, and now the whole concept is lost isn't it. Meanwhile MS stands out because they focus. So please focus on making things better not worse with such biasedness
Want Root?
It does none of these, clearly. In that sense it is not a competitor to .NET at all. The article is misleading in that sense.
.NET.
It is more of a competitor to MS's vision of subscription-based services (e.g. Passport) and software leases. These form another part of
In fact the closeset analogy in MS-land is Windows update.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
There's nothing like reading about an application out there and wondering if its in the ports collection.
:)
I had never tried GAIM, and wasn't sure it was available for BSD. But wow.. there it was in the ports...
make
make install
Groovy. Now I have GAIM. I can really dig this whole PORTS thing.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
All ports are stable, there are no development versions of ports. This is possible since FreeBSD ports (unlike Debians apt) only cover add-ons to the operating system. The base operating system (including userland and kernel) is not built together of all little ports, but is one entity. The advantage is that any FreeBSD installation can expect to have at least a similar base everywhere (unlike Linux distros, that tend to be composed of zillions of small packages many of which are optional to install).
Trojan horses are no issue, since all source files are protected with an MD5 checksum (that is, the port includes the MD5 checksum of each source file, and checks them on downloading).
Further it encourages source instead of binary based distribution, still makes using the sources just as easy as using binary distributions for other package systems. The advantages of that are:
- Less chance for virii or trojan horses
- Often smaller files to be sent
- Updates to the package/port itself, not to the original application, only need tiny diffs to be sent.
Another plus (which it shared with debians apt) is automatic dependancies. A port that needs other ports/libraries will automatically get and install those as needed, you don't need to think about prerequisites as with rpm.FreeBSD is not a linux distro, not everyone can post changes into the system, only commiters.
;-)
Also, check out the manual pages.
Ports depends on someone figuring out how to compile various packages on new systems - no centralized point of authority (or, more importantly, blame).
At least with the FreeBSD ports it is very easy to find who has commited the port and get them to fix it or get help. It very much DOES have a central authority.
If you haven't checked it out, see what ports really is... who knows, you may like it
VANBO
from www.gentoo.org
"Gentoo Linux is a fast and modern, completely free x86-based Linux distribution with a clean and flexible design. Unlike other distros, Gentoo Linux has an advanced package management system called Portage. Portage is a true ports system in the tradition of BSD ports, but is Python-based and sports a number of advanced features including dependencies, fine-grained package management, "fake" (OpenBSD-style) installs, safe unmerging, system profiles, virtual packages, config file management, and more."
What's wrong with grabbing a source package and doing rpm --rebuild? Okay, that's two steps instead of one, but it's not that much of a big deal.
Well, first you have to FIND the package. Then you can download it. Then build it.
Ports and apt-get (Debian) use standard distro archives. You never need to FIND the package. This may seem like a little step improvement, but it leads to a HUGE increase in user-friendliness.
As for apt vs ports - both are great and both work well. Competition is good. One can expect each of them to pull other free unices up to their level in the next two years. And that is good for everyone.
Ports: suck source and dependent source down across the net, configure for your system, build, install.
Apt-get for Debian: suck binaries down across the net, resolve dependencies, install
All other distros: trying to catch up.
Ports is even a step more fine grained than apt-get, simply because it works with source, and incompatibilities are nearly impossible (the package will refuse to build instead).
The Ports system is great, sure beats the hell out of RPM and the like. But comparing Ports to .Net is an apples and oranges comparision. What does a source code retrieval/build system have to do with a multi-platform runtime engine for applications. Comparing Java and .Net is closer, but .Net will support (MS claims) fifty languages not one. All .Net really is, is a way to get COM on more platforms.
Wouldn't it be possible for the kernel developers to add Linux support for FreeBSD binaries if it hasn't been already and then just install the .NET tools under Linux?
Kidding aside, they are what I call 'the hard way to portability', and have managed to port hundreds of software packages on several Unix platform (and now they are slowly but constantly creeping on the 'enemy' platform, too ).
Pity that most developers are lazy(including myself) and wants more easier way to write portable software, like Java or other byte-compiled languages.
Ciao
----
FB
The vision of .NET doing all sorts of RPC with XML over HTTP as the protocol to access web services (e.g. obtaining the current headlines on slashdot, stock quotes, perform a translation, or some other interesting web service), the author of the original article may have been trying to say that having access to the multitude of Open Source applications out there makes web services redundant since you could just download an Open Source app to do what the web service does.
This is probably true for a subset of web services but things like a realtime flight tracker provided by the airline's website, UPS's package tracker, real time stock quotes, or other information that belongs to a company that you cannot directly access is where web services will shine and simply downloading Open Source apps or various screen scrapers won't cut it.
PS: I posted part of this comment in another thread.
--
On second thought there is one way one might consider that this competes with
--
Hello. Could one of you PLEASEPLEASEPLEASE explain to me what this is and how it goes against Microsoft's .NET? Thank you.
If you get a chance, could you explain:
-how does it make it easier for systems to communicate with each other? (soap stuff)
-how does this make it easier for people working in multiple langauges to integrate their stuff? (you know, people in vb inheriting classes from c++, people in delphi using source written in c#, etc)
-how does this make it easier to write ASP applications that don't care what browser you're using? (webforms)
Major thanks in advance
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
I don't know if ports is the answer, but the spirit of 'we don't have to do what MS does, we can do better' is a little weak on the free side sometimes.
.NET can be developed on the free side, then migrated over to WINdos, that would be a huge victory for freedom.
If a suitable competitor of
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
First off, MS never 'extends a hand' to anyone. They are merely offering a subset of the service so as to appear 'cross platform'.
Just like everything they do, it's all about 'embrace, extend, extinguish'. Whatever bones they throw to the free side, it will always lag behind, and be feature poor, compared to their flagship.
This attempt to take over the server side authentication process may succeed, but it may fail...just because companies don't want to be a slave to MS.
It's impossible to make the argument that MS has ever done anything to 'help' their users...but they continue to try and find ways to extract as much money as possible from their user's pocketbooks. Server side authentication and proprietary services will kill all competitors, and remove all choice...earning MS a fortune that will make their current trasure chest seem like a pittance. Do we want to pay for that?
When 'free software' beats the final criticism into the ground -- that it is difficult to install and expensive to administer and maintain -- MS could start to lose miserably.
Developers have got to start makeing their user schemas intuitive and logical, and that takes user testing...I think we are seeing a lot more of this, and it is on the increase.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Ports depends on someone figuring out how to compile various packages on new systems - no centralized point of authority (or, more importantly, blame). Furthermore, there's no equivalent of a device-independent language for writing new applications.
Are the moderators on crack today or is this your troll account that you then mod up from your normal account when you have mod points?
Don't be ridiculous. The centralized point of authority for the BSD ports system is the BSD ports team. In exactly the same way as the Debian developers (and bug-tracking system) are your first port of call for problems with Debian-packaged software. Of course you can't really sue them if something terrible happens, but you can't sue Microsoft either - check out your EULA.
As for there being no device-independent language for use with the ports system, what do you think Java is? Or, for that matter - Perl and the Bourne Shell, which are almost universal throughout the Unix world? Sure, Perl is interpreted (although it doesn't have to be) but even as an interepreted language it shifts very quickly. Don't forget things like the GTK+/Perl bindings too, so don't argue you can't write user-friendly GUI apps with it - you can.
What would be an interesting project though is a JIT compiler for Perl - it has everything going for it otherwise as another, Open Source alternative to C#, including huge ease of use advantages.
-Pat
What does this have to do with .NET; I assumed there would be some kind of intermediate code base or something. But all I see is an open platform.
It's nice that it runs on MacOS and a variety of unices, but where's the Windows version? The world does not revolve around unix anymore, and if you expect this to make even a small dent in .NET usage, then it HAS to run on Windows. If it doesn't
then you might as well quit now.
By the way, BSD didn't exist in a Free form until after Linux was already started.
:-)
Yes and no. It did exist in "free form", then it got attacked by AT&T (for trying to be "free") and was in limbo until the courts and coders pulled the last bits of AT&T code out and created 4.4BSD Lite. Had this useless exchange never happened, it's very unlikely that Linux would have existed at all. -At least according to interviews I've read of Linus, stating how he'd probably have just used FreeBSD for study way back when...if it hadn't been encombered.
On other notes...
BSD didn't invent TCP/IP, but it did give Unix it's first incarnation through the Berkeley Sockets interface. First VM in a Unix system was also BSD. Reliable signals, BSD again. Fast File System, BSD. Passing descriptors over UDP, BSD.
Not that SysV just stood there. Most all ideas from BSD have been adopted by SysV, as well as many the other way (shared memory, streams, etc).
A HUGE part of what all Unix is today is directly traced to BSD work. Work from Linux so far, hasn't shown really up anywhere else. Don't get me wrong, Linux is a great system...but innovative it isn't. Thankfully, one doesn't need to innovate to be useful. -Hell, if that was the case Unix itself would be long since dead.
My
Yes - Gnu/open group/AT&T/Xerox/Motorola/Trolltech/......../Alan Cox/Linus/Linux, or perhaps just Linux-PPC.
The linux kernel was developed with the use of gnu tools, but the "gnu" prefix to linux is a recent thing and not added by a developer of linux anyway.
I'd better get back to work using GNU/NT4 (the cygwin tools are the most commonly used user programs on this machine).
If you haven't tried the ports system, I highly recommend you do so. They're a VERY convenient way to install new software.
I KNOW I'm right. And if I'm not, I'm STILL right...
I'm sure I'm not the first person to ask this: "what's wrong with them?" Simply because they're run by Microsoft? Nice excuse, but, I usually need something a bit more substantial...