Slashdot Mirror
Workingmac.com Interview With Jordan Hubbard
LiquidPC writes: "workingmac.com has an interview
with Jordan Hubbard (one of the founders of the FreeBSD project, and
currently works for Apple on development of OS X). Questions range from
'How do open-source operating systems compare to closed-source operating systems?' to
'What does the future hold for FreeBSD?'" It's a quick interview, but a good read. Interesting that to talk about the Mac OS now is to talk about UNIX.
* Most units sold
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
I dropped two points, but that was as a result of starting a DB flamefest and getting -1 Offtopic and -1 Troll. Like you're about to. And me again in all probability.
But, like the man says, not that I give a shit.
Pretty shite interview BTW. I take it the submissions queue got toasted along with a load of other stuff then?
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
'How do open-source operating systems compare to closed-source operating systems'
look at windows market share vs. linux market share.. look at microsoft stock price vs. linux's stock price.
the future of freebsd? I hear it's dying
The Slashdot Effect: A new for
Maybe it was something you said?
Either that or it was just another result of a shockwave emitted by the collision between mac happy users and the unix tao of old. I suspect the DB wipeout to be just as much a victim of this as your karma. May OS-X live long and shake the foundations of computerdom for many years to come.
What I really want to know is how he wrote so many books about absolutely nothing at all. If someone were to come up with run-length plot encoding, you'd probably get at least a 1000:1 compression ratio on most of them.
Oh, wait. Wrong Hubbard.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
I should read the article, but c'mon the guy worked heavily with FreeBSD and open source. I'm sure hes gonna say open source and freeBSD sucks........
One of my favorites. Do you know Year of tha Boomerang?
FreeBSD 3.2? Why not the 4.x series?
Now that's new. Cut-n-paste BSD trolling under your own account name. And not one, but three opportunities for enterprising moderators to push this guy's base posting level down to about -3 Dumbfuck.
pN: What is your history with the FreeBSD project?
Jordan: I started it along with three other folks back in 1992. It's grown quite a bit since then and so have most of us as well (too much sitting).
How come geeks either seem to be really large (as in above example) or anorexic and needing a lot more calories? Is it just that some don't get enough exercise because they're distracted by coding, while others don't get enough food because they're distracted by coding?
aahh..... nothing like negative karma...
I need to get a life...
A little while back when rumours that the complete source of Windows 2k had made it 'into the wild', many open source developers were faced with the daunting proposition of keeping an eye out to avoid any Microsoft-originated source code.
Since he works for Apple, I have to wonder if Hubbard is not 'contaminating' any Open Source code he puts his fingers on.
The arguement goes as so... The way I understand it, Hubbard is working on Darwin, Apple's 'open source' OS. Darwin is equivalent to FreeBSD with a command shell. X and your choice of window managers can be installed on top of it, but it won't be OSX. Now, presumably, Hubbard must be exposed to a *lot* of proprietary code in order to best optimize Darwin to run the OSX user interface. Does this invalidate his open source efforts? Does he have a special contract with Apple so that any OSS can be released under (I'm assuming) the BSD license? Does Hubbard safeguard himelf from seeing any non-OSS code while at work?
It's possible, but somehow I doubt it. Anyone else know?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
"The developer has to have a personal interest in the features in question..."
When you have people personally motivated to help support a peice of software I feel you get a superior product. Some mindless drone ordered to sit in front of a terminal to code a peice of software that he has no relation to is going to feel less motivtated to do a good job. So what if OSS has numerically less people developing for it then commercial sofware, at least it's poeple who actually care about the software and it's success. Think about it.
I posted to
you would know that it's because it takes a good length of time to get something as large as an OS ready. They wanted a nice stable, proven code-base to work from and so they picked a certain snapshot of FreeBSD and used it. That way you don't have to work out the nightmare of continuing to upgrade and merge old code with new code (which I get to do at work, wheeee). When Apple decided to go with OS X, FreeBSD 4.0 was likely in alpha stability.
OSX did not pop out overnight (or even in the last 6 months). You've seen how 'fast' Mozilla has come along, no?
Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
This interview just scratches the surface. Let's see if we can get Jordan to answer questions on /. I'm sure that would be much more interesting.
FreeBSD is not UNIX. UNIX is a brand of systems including Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, Tru64, UnixWare and several other products. See the Open Group for more details.
FreeBSD is based upon 4.4BSD-lite, the last CSRG release, which contained no AT&T code. There is no common codebase. And, even if there were a common codebase, BSD systems are no longer considered UNIX. So FreeBSD can't even be called a UNIX-workalike; GNU/Linux fits that description better.
But we can't expect Timothy to understand this. He's still recovering from Code Red II, which I understand affected every single unlicensed copy of Windows 2000 that OSDN/Bendover/VA Itsux/Cocksmackers is running. And that's a lot of unlicensed copies! (Hint, hint, lurking astroturfers...)
--
I like to watch.
First of all, Mac OS X uses the BSD Mach Microkernel (developed by Rick Rashid.. now VP of research for MS) instead of the a traditional monolithic UNIX kernel! It has a lot of the GNU and BSD tools included with it, but after all, GNU's not UNIX!
Not to sound rude, but clueless mac evangelists should check their facts!
Funny, I thought I might have heard a consumate parasite mutter something critical about another OS.
how the hell is this +3 interesting? it deserves a -1 flamebait or -1 troll. It is time for slashdot to get a new moderation system
Lots of Flamebait, a nice assortment of Offtopic, and Troll that can't be beat. Thanks people. The racism is a nice touch too! I'm very pleased with your wonderful work tonight. THANK YOU!
Thanks for the advice you cum guzzling, cock munching, infant fucker.
FreeBSD.
cpeterso
Damn, you would figure you guys would read a bit more before you post ( but heck, this IS slashdot ).
Part of his duties, besides being involved in dariwn, are to keep working on FreeBSD.
Why you ask?
Because apple is source syncing many parts of Darwin with FreeBSD and there's soon to be a move to start syncing it with the 4.x branch.
Besides, that was the numero uno premise jkh had before he went to work at apple. According to his emails to the freebsd mailing lists, we wanted to assure everyone that his role in freebsd would not be compromised by his work at apple. If anything, freebsd is gonna get more benefits out ot it.
PowerPC port anyone?
"FreeBSD... because a pc is a terrible thing to waste."
Yet another crippling bombshell hit beleaguered Sysadmin Magazine readers when last month the DEA confirmed that they account for nearly all this nation's LSD consumption. Coming on the heels of the latest High Times survey which revealed none of them know which end of a joint to light, this news confirms the truth the rest of us know: Sysadmin Mag readers are frying.
How many tabs of acid does that work out to? Let's take a look at the numbers:
In 1999, 39.9 percent of adult males arrested were found to have traces of pot in their systems. How does this relate to the number of dosers? Well it allows me to pull the ratio of 5 to 1 out of my butt. So lets say that 7.9 percent of arrest-prone lowlifes are licking lysergic acid-laced Mickey Mouse stamps. With their judgement thusly impaired, they are prone to believe in system speed test done by so-called sysadmins who don't even bother to tune an operating system after installing it.
Sysadmin Magazine readers face a hazy future, albeit one populated by dancing pink elephants and other distracting hallucinations. The rest of us can only pity these poor souls.
It's interesting that Pair Networks is asking the questions... they have about 300 FreeBSD servers, and have been hosting web sites since January 1996.
:-)
Didn't expect many OS X questions
he writes quite a bit of code still..
... hehe
One of the things he's currently working on is the rewrite of sys install into something that is humanly understandable
Plus he's very involved in packaging it all together.. after all, he is the "release engineer" also..
Hey, don't feel bad. Since the DB shit, I now an a moderator with 3,456 points left which expire 9/22/01. (Which is why you're now a troll) W00t!
"There was a great disturbance in the F0Rc3, like a million trolling script kiddies cried out at once, and then realized they had to get lives..."
I saw the Slashdot headline:
Workingmac.com Interview With Jordan Hubbard
as:
Mac's working With L. Ron Hubbard
I think we can all be thankful that the second title is not real!
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
OS X has run for branding and has been accepted.
||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.
what a boring interview.. nothing of substance in there at all.. ah well.
If you actually bothered to ever learn any Spanish, you would know that estar is always used with past participles, not ser. Qué idiota eres! Chupa mi vérega.
I agree with you on #freebsd on efnet, those people suck major ass!! #freebsd on undernet is ok except two gaylords, JunkMale and Lax( Lazarus).
#freebsdhelp on undernet is the best! You can't go judging an OS cause #channel-os-name on efnet sucks, just as bad as #windows*.*, #Mac/#Apple*.* and #linux unless you're saying the same for Linux/Windows/Mac ppl too which includes you too.
That's efnet for you! I'm a BSD guy myself, and matter of fact women come after me, I don't have to go looking. But we don't need to go there.
PS: Ever meet a Windows/Linux guy? By day (Mr. Bill Gates is my God!) By Night, I'm a Linux hoe, just another follower as the rest.
Get the picture now?
as the question was stupid.
Why when I close my eyelids can't I see? (Score:3 interesting)
Because you see out of your eyes. (Score:4 insightfull)
+1 funny!!
Sniff Sniff, smells like a combination of Windows & Linux to me. Now I know where you mom got it from.
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * /\\ /\o :t // \\\ --__ \\ :e /a /\ | C ____)/\ (_____> |_/t /\| C_____)| (___> / \s // _/ /\ e /__/ | g /|| \| o /\ \| a /|| \|t /\__/\___/||s /||||e
gg
o
a||\||a
t|`.||
s`||\||s
e \|
x \\/ _--~~~--__| \|x
* \\_-~~-_\|*
g\_\_.--------.______\| |g
o\\______// _ __ _ (_(__> \ |o
a\ . C ___) ______ (_(____> |
t
s/
e| ( _C_____)\______/
x|\ |__ \\_________// (__/| x
*| \\____) `---- --'| *
g| \____\
o |
a ||
t |/
s |/
e |/
x ||||||x
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *
Any relationship to the father of all clams?
If this comment is a true thought....
May god help us all....
http://www.angryshirts.com
And can you believe they asked if OS X and FreeBSD would merge? Come on now...Although I'd sure like to see an open source Quartz!
You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
Read this....
i s/ch01_03.htm ]
i s/figs/puis_0101.gif ]
[ http://www.metatronpress.com/mrd/OB/networking/pu
see this diagram...
[ http://www.metatronpress.com/mrd/OB/networking/pu
Arghhh
OK, here's a weird, wacky idea.
I think the Feds should fund the development of an operating system and office suite. The software would be released to the public, including source code.
Sounds crazy at first, yes. But bear with me.
My reasoning is this: simply put, an OS and office suite is IMPORTANT. Damn important, like roads, and telephone service. Like those other infrastructure elements, it makes sense to have some kind of government supported offering. We already rely on Federally-funded roads... the Post Office gets Fed subsidies and tax breaks... Why not get some support for them from the gov't for the computers on our desks?
The idea is not to give the government control of OS technology though... the goal is to give US something WE can use, for nothing more than a couple bucks each in taxes. GovOS would give people a way to write a paper for school, or look at the web without being FORCED into buying an OS from some other big company. It would be an ideal solution for basic gov't employees -- those people who do nothing but prepare documents and send email all day.
Of course, we would ALWAYS have the choice to go with MS or Apple or whoever, but GovOS would be ideal for poor people, or for schools that otherwise would have to lay out a fortune in OS licenses.
The GovOS should be made compatible with as much hardware as possible. Its office suite should be made as inter-operable as possible with all the current document standards. Businesses that want to do work with the government would be required to submit files in GovOS-compatible format.
Before y'all flip out, this really isn't any different that the current Free Software philosophy that permeates this site. I'm just saying, let's go a step further and throw some tax money at the problem. How much could it *possibly* cost to start with Linux or FreeBSD, and create a dirt-easy-to-install OS and office suite? A few hundred million? Like, the price of a few warplanes? It's nothin'. We're paying for far less useful things already. And the gov't pays Microsoft alone a hell of a lot in license fees. Imagine what could be developed if a small fraction of that money was used to hire decent programmers?
GovOS isn't about restricting freedom. It's about increasing it, by providing a tax-funded public domain desktop computing infrastructure. OS plus office suite, with some well-paid professional developers behind it, in the public domain... It sounds good to me.
I know a lot of you are going to say, "we don't need GovOS. We have Mandrake and Debian." To that I say those are fine products, but they *clearly* have not passed the ease-of-use test the mainstream demands. So let's throw a bomber's worth of money at one of them and produce something that anyone can install and use -- and rob Microsoft of a ton of money in the process.
Apple didn't fork from FreeBSD 6 months ago as you might like to believe. Apple inherited OpenStep, the basis for OS X, from NeXT in 1997. It was probably NeXT that worked FreeBSD into the OS X tree 5-6 years ago.
I don't have a BSD timeline in front of me, but 3.2 may very well have been a recent release when NeXT started working on it in the mid-90s.
-an apple coward
you're pretty small...
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD
community when last month IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for
less than a fraction of 1 prcent of all servers. Coming on the heels of
the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more
market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along.
*BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by
failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin
comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a
Kreskin to predict
*BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak
future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because
*BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many
of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink
flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader
Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD
are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet
is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400
NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of
NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent
article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore
there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with
the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut
Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was
taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead,
its corpse turned over to another charnel house.
All major surveys
show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick
and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to
survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues
to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in
time. For ll practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
*BSDis dying
Ok, i'm biting on a troll, but.. um... OS X is the most popular BSD ever, selling like hotcakes and all that. It's growing, foo.
--hongpong.com
Yeah, well considering the fact that the largest unix distro (OS X) is BSD based I don't think you say it is that dead...
i'm working on some good trolling and crapflooding material so stay tuned
Wow! You are so enlightened. Not! Let's disperse some of your misconceptions: 1. Usenet posts != number of users of the OS Why could you even come to this conlusion? This is like counting the number of flies at a picinic and assuming that the counted number represented the entire population 2. FreeBSD is NOT owned by Walnut Creek. WC simply was the largest distributer of FreeBSD untill they were acquired by BSDI. While FreeBSD and BSD/OS are close cousins, BSDI doesn't own FreeBSD either. Or NetBSD or OpenBSD for that matter. If *BSD is dead then how is it that I am still able to track CURRENT on FreeBSD or OpenBSD? I know you can't answer this so why don't you do us all a favor and go take a personality test and become a scientologist
If you're gonna fight, get outta here
You ain't no better than the bouncers
becomes
If you come to fight, get outta here
You ain't no better than the bouncers
doing all i can. maybe someone should put up the b-side?
what's 2+2 ?
and that's a pretty big difference when it comes to how one copes with problem analysis and recovery when you hit something the operating system does not handle well or at all.
However, I have yet to see a single sysadmin tweak the source of a Linux or BSD kernel because they found a bug or performance bottleneck. I mean really, who expects the average sysadmin to go in and fix a kernel if something breaks. No, they submit bug reports and hope someone else fixes it soon. Just like in closed source.
Not to disparage open source software, but to think the average maintainer is going to dive in and fix things when he notices a problem is stretching things a bit. The people who actually can fix things in the code generally are not sysadmins.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
*yawn*
(notice the lack of capitalization, denoting a lack of effort)
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shround over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
Which one are you?
Don't Know That Darwin Is Unix.
care to back that up with some fact? there are ALOT of Solaris boxes out there.
Apple did $19 million in sales of Mac OS X the first weekend it was out. Assuming everyone in that number paid the full $129 price, you get about 150,000 right out of the gate. This doesn't take into account all the beta testers (100,000 in all) that got a $30 discount. Then you tally the developers, educators, and Apple specialists that get it for substanially less or free outright (this revenue might not even been counted in the $19m since it's through special channels).
Then add in that every machine Apple ships now comes with Mac OS X, and that they shipped 827,000 machines last quarter (which ended June 30). And they've certainly sold some copies of OS X off the shelf in the last 5 months. And none of that counts burned copies of Mac OS X or Darwin users.
I suspect it's a relatively big number, probably over 1 million at this point. I'm guessing that it will be at least 2 million year's end. And note that all of this happens despite the fact Apple has run zero TV or magazine advertisements for Mac OS X at this point. They are certainly holding off on marketing campaign until at least until 10.1, and very likely until Office 10 comes out (sometime this fall). I'm not clear on whether the measurement for largest Unix vendor is the number of units sold in a particular period of time (which I suspect Apple is kicking ass on), or the total installed base.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
> If it runs Apache, it is Unix.
Windows runs Apache.
With OS X being the only user-friendly unix-based OS out there, in a few years we may be talking about the death of Linux too.....
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
You might, however, call MacOS X "UNIX compatible", "mostly POSIX compliant", or "an operating system with a UNIX personality".
okay, now i'm even happier with the new revision of the slash code. on this story, which could be considered both a BSD story and an Apple story, but was posted as the latter, there was a link under the headline to indicate it would also come up as a BSD story on slashdot.org/bsd/
flexible, finally, and way cool. especially with fuzzy topics like this one.
...when you consider that most unix installations have nothing to do with "use" in the sense of personal computer interactive operation. They're used for DB, web and other transactional and client/server computing as well as providing the operational guidance for other non-computer based interaction systems (traffic lights). By this standard, a non-trivial percentage of the world may be a "unix user" in some fashion or other.
I'd also add that commercial UNIX licenses are far different from end-user personal computer licenses. A single commerical UNIX installation may have a many hundreds or thousands of user licenses attached to it. Is one installation with a 1000 client licenses a single sale or 1001 sales? A better sales comparison would add up processor and client licenses together or use dollars spent.
Either way, Apple is only trying to mislead their way out of last place in the computer industry.
That's the Air Force for you. No regular PT... and what the hell is that cycle ergometry thing anyway? Do you guys even count as a branch of the military anymore or do you fall under the postal service? I do like the new logo though. It look's like something off of Starship Troopers.
So let me post a question to all of you: do you really think apple has done it, they've presented Unix in a way that makes it pretty, nice, easy, and usable by the masses, including those who don't know where the "any" key is on a keyboard? If anybody could do it, it's apple. I miss 7.5.5 though, I really do. Maybe I'm just too old school.
~ now you know
Just asking a simple question.
You said:
3 2/
"Who gives a shit about branding? This is Slashdot, man. If you can run Unix apps on it with just a few tweaks then it is Unix. If it runs Apache, it is Unix. "
You couldn't be more wrong if you were paid to be. I think this sums it up:
http://httpd.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win
So, in effect, you're wrongfully stating that Windows is a UNIX. Which is akin to calling a McDonalds hamburger a Porterhouse Steak.
What made you so bitter? Linux and Windows installs?
#freebsd on efnet is *NOT* a help channel. and asking questions will generally get you banned. why? because there are other channels for this.
-cough- #freebsdhelp -cough-
BSD users suck? ever been in #linux on efnet?
-snicker-
As to your various other claims there is no "BSD Mach Microkernel" though MacOS X is based on a derivative of the Mach microkernel originally developed at CMU (I know - those three letter school acronyms all sound alike..)
Mach's " Principal Investigator " was Rick Rashid, with Avadis "Avie" Tevanian who was " principal designer and engineer of the Mach operating system. BTW Avie Tevanian left CMU to continue the development of Mach at Next and is now Sr. VP of SW Engineering at Apple.
First of all I'm neither clueless nor a Mac evangelist, second off... Just where is your "second of all?I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
GovOS isn't about restricting freedom. It's about increasing it, by providing a tax-funded public domain desktop computing infrastructure. OS plus office suite, with some well-paid professional developers behind it, in the public domain... It sounds good to me.
As if we don't already have enough government waste. If Microsoft needs something like 7000 employees (source: here) to build an OS and Office suite, I can't imagine what the government would need. We'd probably have a Department of Operating Systems and a congressional Operating Systems committee.
No thanks, I'd much rather take a one-time hit of $600 for an OS and office suite than take another income tax hike so that some poor folks can have theirs for free. That, by the way, is the problem with excessive government. Those of us with higher incomes usually end up saddling most of the burden to provide services that are mostly utilized by those with lower incomes.
Was Pinnochio a real little boy before the incident with the large sea creature?
Are you the same person in all respects, that you were when you were 5? (For those of you who ARE 5, well, you get the point.)
Just remember the old maxim:" the enemy of my enemy is my friend." All this infighting is like volunteering for a circular firing squad, while a certain company is readying the release of XP and .NET and laying plans for buying the internet.
OK, maybe that last part is hyperbole, but you get the point. Why not spend your energies developing what's needed for the platform of your choice, but keep an eye on cooperating with other Unices. Otherwise, the concept of "open source=sharing" seems to be infected with the same proprietary instincts as the corporate world.
Some mindless drone randomly hacking at code for a hobby, regardless of his motivation, isn't going to write great code either.
Sure 90% of commercial software is crap. I think, however, it is probably more because 90% of everything is crap, than because commercial entities hire mindless drones. It is as senseless to attribute to all commercial software the traits of its weakest contributors as it is to attribute to all open source software the attributes of its greatest exponents.
I have seen the worst code contributed as open source, stuff I would fire people for if it were submitted as paid work product. I have likewise seen excellent code produced commercially, and of course, vice versa on both counts.
The ideal is to be motivated BOTH for love of the making and for personal incentives. I count myself lucky that I've never worked at anything for a living I didn't love. But a lot of that has to do with only picking the projects on which you love to work, and doing so without regard to the money. My theory has been that the money will take care of itself if you focus on excellence and passion in your work. But that doesn't mean that sucking the money out of the work makes it better.
I think we can all be thankful that we're not you!
I've searched the Open Group website and also their UNIX® site, and I can't find anything about Mac OS X being certified. I can't find any references to Darwin. Where is this certification referenced?
I've still got the arm band that came with the single.
Find free books.
Office 10 looks fucking beautiful. Is that really Microsoft?!
computers are global
if you do get your USGovOS, I hope it's more like your FedEx than your health system
have you thought that geeks may be less interested in appearance and more interested in knowledge, mental fitness and thinking?
those who put their physicality as their first priority spend more time exercising
those who put their mentality as their first priority do not
which is why a lot of women prefer a geek with something interesting in his head rather than a himbo flexing his muscles without a thought in his
7.5.5 was nice, but I prefer having OSX and a 30 GIG HD
but those shirts are pretty cool
is L. Ron Hubbard's mother too
RPM based FreeBSD?!
.tgz files with a couple of data files can't do?
muwahahahaha! I'm glad you've already been tagged "troll" so I didn't have to. OTOH, we could use a new moderation class, "-1, mandrake-hugging-biggot-assed-moron".
Have you ever actually looked at the FreeBSD package system? What exactly does RPM offer that
Please crawl back under your bridge.
Only the Gui and it's programs are closed.
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer