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.
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.
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
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
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?
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...
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...
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?
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.
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.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).
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
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.
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
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...