Slashdot Mirror
Jordan Hubbard Resigns from FreeBSD Core
SteelX was one of many readers to cite this story in the Daily Daemon News which reports that "Jordan Hubbard is resigning from the FreeBSD core. Jordan is a founding member of the FreeBSD project." Note: According to this email, Hubbard is definitely not quitting FreeBSD; he's just changing the nature of his involvement with it.
You've done me nothing but right.
Thanks a million for all your hard work.
this sig intentionally left blank
- What is the "core team"?
- How long has JKH been on the core?
- Where does JKH currently work?
- Will JKH be replaced? Where on the net can you find procedures detailing this process?
- Do some research. How many people have been removed from the core? How many people have resigned from the core? What happens when a person quits the core team?
If you got a 50% or better, then you've read the article, did a google search, read some more, and likely have something to say that is not a rumor, falsehood, or a profound misunderstanding.I think it's actually good news for *BSD that Hubbard has quit core. Besides wasting his talents on administrative tasks, he obviously didn't like the squabbling anymore. Now someone with managerial enthusiasm can move into his core position, and Jordan can focus on what he does best for *BSD - contribute good code. A good deal all around.
It has to be the most long-lasting troll (that still receives a hefty number of responses) of all time. The sheer cunning and craftmanship that has gone into the piece of work is clearly the product of an unsung genius.
Is dying, BSD
Ugly Troll screams into night
Nobody listens
As Jordan Hubbard becomes more and more a MacOS X posession, I just imagine Hexley vs. Beastie in a Celebrity Deathmatch.
It is sort of sad to see something like that happen, though. One could assume it was inevitable, though I suppose that would be hard without knowing what exactly he does at Apple.
/Brian
here's a link to the /. story about Hubbard joining Apple . (not much of a read though...)
"If you want to give Linux a run for it's money, you can't just sit on your butt."
You've got it all wrong, these aren't businesses. It's not a competition. Nobody wants to see the other guy go under. It's all about cooperation.
I think the lack of BSD projects is best explained by the huge number of Linux projects. Linux is cool, it's flashy, it goes with your gucci shoes, baby. It excites the hell out of people, which is a really good thing. Lots and lots of projects get created.
FreeBSD, on the other hand, isn't so exciting. There's not a fire under anyone's ass to get things done, since things are working pretty well as is.
I could be wrong, and if I am (even just a little bit), I'm sure someone will by kind enough to point out how.
Oh, and if this was a troll, bravo. No offense or anything, it just kind of has that ring to it.
this sig intentionally left blank
Hexley is the Darwin mascot
Beastie is the FreeBSD mascot
That sort of depends on your definition of "cool software". If you mean by, software that is exclusive to FreeBSD, then probably there isn't much. Generally the vast majority of Open Source stuff that's worth anything (in MY opinion) works under FreeBSD, it's just that FreeBSD and every other BSD falls into the "other Unix type OS". Usually the only other drawback is that you have to wait a little while (week or so) for tweaking to get someone that releases something that compiles nicely under FreeBSD - or even better a package. With linux binary compatability there are even more things that you can run with a minimum of hassle.
You've got it all wrong, these aren't businesses. It's not a competition. Nobody wants to see the other guy go under. It's all about cooperation.
You've both got it wrong. We (I speak for all of us, and the other ussesses know who us is) don't care about Linux any more than to offer some compatability.
You guys go on and try to topple Windows. Maybe you will, maybe you won't. We're content to have a stable OS on the DT that can't be beaten when it comes to heavy volume servers.
I'm not trolling, but if you guys ever have to maintain a box (not just a developer's workstation, or a play machine at home)... a full on mission critical server, you will find yourself securely seated with me in the BSD camp.
That is, if you can convince the powers that be to let go of Sun for a minute or two.
Anyway, FreeBSD is going somewhere. It will keep going towards that somewhere, regardless of what you think, or who nVidia releases drivers for, or whatever. BSD's community has a different spirit and you won't understand it until you look into it.
It's not a competition. Agreed.
There isn't a huge number of linux projects (please read on before modding as troll).
There also isn't a huge number of BSD projects.
Actually, most of these projects... GNOME, KDE, etc... are pretty kernel/distribution independent. Remember, linux is only the kernel. Most of what you think of as linux, is GNU software. And it's all pretty portable, to a certain extent, even to windows (barf).
Linux and BSD don't compete for projects, they share them.
Slightly offtopic: What's with the "bsd is dying troll" variant that claims BSD lacks SMP? Will the next version claim that BSD has no keyboard support or shell prompt?
You are comparing the Operating System with Applications (except for the RedHat thing)
./configure-and-make-install it!
Gnome: application, works fine under FreeBSD
Mozilla: application, works fine under FreeBSD
The Gimp: application, works fine under FreeBSD.
No cool software for it.
What is it you are missing? Groupware? Last week I installed Evolution, without problems. Keep in mind, all these well-developed 'Linux' applications are actually well-developed 'Unix' applications and run under every Unix-like Operating System.
So, next time please consider: Linux (any distribution) is nothing more than Unix-like, *BSD (any flavour) is nothing more than Unix-like and *x (any commercial version) is nothing more than Unix-like. And they all are capable of running the same software, just
Edwin
bash$
If it wasn't for Jordan, FreeBSD would really be dead. Many of you don't remember because you weren't around but when jkh started working his ass off on FreeBSD it was a pile of stinking refuse. This was during the time of the rising linux kernel (around rev .99? or earlier?). Unix on peecees was not pretty and not in way reliable. I worked at one of the first small ISPs (this was when Gopher was king) and a coworker convinced us to migrate from linux to FreeBSD because of some really bad linux fs bugs at the time (INN+linux was asking for trouble).
We never looked back. Over the years I've built at least 50 servers based on FreeBSD and at least that many based on linux. I've found them both to be reliable and good enough for commercial use but thanks to jkh and his pragmatic views on an OS distribution FreeBSD has been the more "stable" OS over the years.
--- I do not moderate.
I'm not really sure I understand your question.
Gnome is not a Linux program. Mozilla is not a Linux program. Gimp is not a Linux program. They all run just fine under FreeBSD.
GCC, bash, XFree86, tar, Perl, Windowmaker, etc, etc, etc, aren't Linux programs either. They're all Open Source Unix programs that work just fine under just about every Unix OS there is.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Touche. I like yours better. Hell, I messed up the haiku too, as far as that goes.
All of the software you mentioned runs on FreeBSD.
Including Red Hat, if you use VMware.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
There is some truth to this, but for the most part
it's bogus. There's a lot to the Mac OS X kernel
that's not BSD at all. For example, the SMP stuff
is at the Mach layer, if I understand correctly.
Not to be mean, but please don't shoot your mouth
off like this, it's bad for everybody. It's ok to
speculate, but mark it as speculation.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
I don't know if you're reading this, but if you are,
I just want to say: thank you.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Don't you love it, when someone comes along and mod bombs 4 of your comments all at once?
With overrated, no less. Cheap shot. I think I'll write another haiku about it.
Crack smoke wafts through air
Humorless moderator
Why do you hate me?
1) MS was not that major a stockholder, about $100 million in non-voting, non-transferable, dividend bearing preferred stock in a company with a market cap of $7billion. 2) MS sold the stock at a huge profit not long after it became convertible to common stock at 4:1. 3) You can't steal control of BSD code. 4) PARC did not create most of the ideas you claim Apple stole from them. However, Apple did unsuccessfully try to make them proprietary.
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
He's probably gone over to work with those commie satanists
Ahh yeah... the beer of the gods. I take a case home with me on each trip to montana. its still better straight from the brewery in the 64 oz growlers though.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
I used to be a big Linux advocate, unfortuantely it seems that Linux has been becoming more and more unstable. The hundreds of different distributions of Linux all have their pros and cons, but there is no centralised package or ports system. Want a package for Linux ? Ok, cool - DEB, RPM? RPM? That's the most popular. But don't try using a Mandrake RPM or a SuSE RPM on RedHat.
Linux has given up its usefulness for graphical installers and Windowesque gimmicks. The code bloat is unbelievable. Unless you roll out your own distribution or use a minimalist distribution like Slackware, the default installs for RedHat, Mandrake, etc are huge, Windows-like monstrosities.
So what?, I hear you say. Linux is stable and secure. Wrong again. The Lion worm proved that Linux is not as secure as one might believe. The fact that VMs get changed in the middle of a stable release branch (2.4.x) shows bad organization.
It took Linux years to overcome its awful filesystem problems, and now journalling filesystems are available. But speedwise, compared to the FreeBSD FFS, they are slow and cumbersome, and have yet to prove as reliable. FFS Softlinks are a few generations ahead of any journalling filesystem on the market.
FreeBSD is far better organized, the ports and packages collections are better synced and more reliable, the system is more stable and easier to understand. The firewall included with FreeBSD has been proven and has a far better track record than ipchains or iptables, the latter having security problems in its first week or release, the former having no stately inspection and being a complete mess due to its shell-script bound layout.
But Linux has more software than FreeBSD!, scream the Linux die-hards. What they fail to realize is that 99% of Linux software runs under FreeBSD. I haven't encountered a Linux program that didn't run under FreeBSD. Sure, I've heard reports by trolls that certain software doesn't work, but all the software I've tried works, in fact, even faster than the native Linux versions in most cases. To the VMWare troll: Yes, VMWare does work under FreeBSD.
FreeBSD vs Linux is a debate that won't ever be settled, but people who have used both generally prefer FreeBSD for mission-critical tasks. Those who claim that FreeBSD performs worse than Linux either haven't used FreeBSD or are trolls.
I won't say that FreeBSD is the best Unix variant on the market, but the best open source Unix variant? Yes. Solaris is still tops, but in terms of Free (Open Source) systems, FreeBSD is probably the best all-rounder. NetBSD, OpenBSD and Linux all have their respective places, but overall, FreeBSD will probably take over most of the open source server market, at least in organizations with serious management.
Cedric Balthazar Rotherwood
Sun Certified Programmer for the Java Platform +
System Admin. for Solaris
Actually, that's not true any more. As with anything, the arrival of the masses lowers the quality. As Linux has got more popular, the number of poorly written Linux-specific applications has increased dramatically, and the portability of a lot of software has significantly decreased. Yes, a lot of it does still work, but there's plenty that doesn't. Interesting to note that all three applications you cited are portable at least in part thanks to the design and portability of gtk and gdk.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Jordan hubbard resigns. Sounds like the work of the devil to me.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Obviously what will happen now is that Jordan Hubbard will purchase a fleet of ships, give himself the rank of commodore and set up a mysterious 'BSD Organization' sailing around the globe.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I am not sure what you are getting at. Your argumentation (or lack of) is so fundamentally flawed it is hard to correct it.
There are a lot of people who started a project and developed it on Linux because that was what they had installed, the same goes for FreeBSD.
The Apache people started on BSD unixes, the PostgreSQL people on BSD as well. MySQL on Linux, etc etc.
And how many of these people do start side projects, but do not do any kernel work related to either FreeBSD or Linux?
Isn't a typical release of a Linux distribution not the same as a FreeBSD, NetBSD, or whatever other OS distribution? A new kernel containing fixes, enhancements, and new features combined with very recent userland utilities.
I also doubt you did proper research with regard to the rest of the items you mentioned:
- the cool software is the same as for the Linux community
- the development tools are the standard CVS, binutils, gcc, gdb
I won't even continue to comment on the rest, since you need to do some proper research before spreading FUD (which will than automagically be no FUD, or at least less).
Have a nice day.
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
No rumours.
ICC works on FreeBSD, which funnily is the Linux binary.
Furthermore I am at the moment revamping TenDRA in order to have an extra alternative. Takes time to get it up to par, but it is slowly coming about.
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
Not to mention there's a lot of synergy between both Apple and us BSD developers.
Robert Watson and his TrustedBSD project has even got commit access on the Darwin tree.
Scott Long and myself have for UDF some contact with some Apple people.
Just because it is not visible to the general public doesn't mean that it is not there.
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
There are NVidia drivers out there thanks to Matthew Dodd.
He was busy on the GL part when NVidia put him on the backburner due to the GF4 release being near.
I am sure that work has now resumed and it will only be a matter of time.
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
AFAIK most linux ports on FreeBSD install linux libraries and software from RedHat's RPM. Including glibc.
--
Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)
And I'm confident that FreeBSD shall prove this.
We FreeBSD users have always claimed that one of the big edges FreeBSD has over Linux, is that it is not a one man show. Linux will have a hard time and is in risk of fragmentation when Linus leaves Linux development. FreeBSD, much better organized, is not in such danger.
The first test when JKH stepped down as president and became a mere core member has been very succesful. Now is the next stage where the original 'leader' kind of leaves the project. Now FreeBSD can show that it is indestructible and not in any way dependant on a single person.
First, I can see no lack of enthusiasm, not from jkh, let alone the BSD commiters, developers or user base. The steadily growing mailing list subscriptions are only one of many indicators. If you had read jkh's letter you would not have missed that he is not stopping work on FreeBSD, on the contrary, without the managerial work as a core member he can actually contribute *more* code and knowing jkh I am sure he'll raise his voice on many issues concerning the BSDs in the future.
The rest of your article seems to miss the current state of affairs so much that Richard P Feynman would probably attribute it with the same line he used for crank theories -- "not even wrong". To be more specific:
"poor quality of development tools" -- you mean make(1), gcc(1), cvs(1) or what? Care to elaborate when they are actually the same tools any linux (or for that matter unix) hacker uses? Typing
$ cd /usr/src; cvs update; make world
for the first time and watching the complete system being built was one of the most beautiful experiences in my hacker life.
"Very little projects from the FreeBSD community": You apparently have a different understanding of what constitutes a Linux or FreeBSD project than I have. Linux being kernel-only, lets address kernel projects going on in FreeBSD:
- fine grained SMP locking
- fine-grained privileges (capabilities)
- Access Control Lists
- KAME Project, a free IPv6/IPsec stack for BSD
- Mandatory Access Control
- Soft Updates: Asynchronous Meta-data Protection in File Systems
And there's tons more for the userland, e.g. the POSIX 2001 = IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 comformance project (which I regard my baby to some extent). Have a look at http://www.de.freebsd.org/projects/index.html for an exhaustive list of projects."controlled development model"? In FreeBSD more than 300 committers have write access to the repository. How does that compare to Linus, the benevolent dictator over the linux kernel? Funny that arch linux hacker Alan Cox is also actively working on the FreeBSD kernel. He seems to have no fear of working for both camps, heck, he might even be working on the Hurd and other OSes. The FreeBSD people couldn't care less. We value everybody's technical expertise and that is exactly what makes our community a place to be. Come to think of it: instead of uttering FUD why not learn from each other about strengths and weaknesses? Why the NIH attitude?
I give you a half point on the "no companies involved" issue. To be frank, the Windriver episode was not something to be proud of. I have no real insights into what went on inside WRS, but if I had to guess, I'd attribute it to lack of real enthusiasm. Other companies in the meantime have taken the role Walnut Creek had in the past, notably http://www.freebsdservices.com/ and http://www.freebsdmall.com/ They seem to do so well that I got the FreeBSD 4.5 DVD for free (like all 300+ committers).
With all this combined enthusiasm I have absolutely no doubt that FreeBSD will continue to have a great future.
Regards,
Jens, who is proud being a part of it.
SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped)
People keep repeating this, but it just isn't true.
When people say or refer to "linux," they sometimes mean the kernel, and they sometimes mean the entire usable distribution. This includes the gnu utilities in all of the "working" distributions I know about save tomsrtbt (which, oddly, has started calling itself GNU/Linux). Important as those tools are, they're still a minority of what is thought of as "linux". X, sendmail, Perl, and others are larger than the GNU portion. A machine with just the Linux kernel and GNU software would be pretty close to useless for most purposes.
GNU software is significant--but it's hardly the bulk of what people mean by "linux"
>Will the next version claim that BSD has no keyboard support or shell prompt?
sure; it's supported keyboardless systems for years
hawk
BSD software is mostly hand-me-downs from other projects.
You need to get a clue and find out what BSD really is. BSD predates Linux and GNU. BSD is more Unix than most systems that can claim that trademark.
On the other hand, did you realize that the original (unofficial) logo for Linux was the platypus? That's because Linux was, and is, a patchwork of of "hand-me-downs from other projects". It's a kernel from one project, binutils and libc from another, daemons from a third, filesystems from others, etc. And glue from the distros to hold it all together.
On the third hand, FreeBSD is a complete integrated OS. Everything from the OS to the shell is one complete source tree. Some of the stuff is contributed, of course, like tcsh and gcc, but the vast majority of it is pure BSD software.
The point is that no major software emanates from FreeBSD - none.
FreeBSD does not claim or want to be a clearinghouse for every open source project under the sun. Neither does Linus Torvalds for that matter.
Your silly rant is puerile. You're like some kid shouting that your dad can beat my dad up. The actual fact is that every project that you mentioned as major contributors from every distro and freenix out there. Including FreeBSD. You would be surprised at how many Gnome and KDE developers use FreeBSD.
p.s. Redhat doesn't own GCC. The FSF owns GCC. Go look at the copyright.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Actually, that's 4.4BSD, which is most certainly not the same as FreeBSD 4.4. Apple says the FreeBSD part of Darwin is derived from FreeBSD 3.2.
Say hello to zMac.
You obviously haven't had a full growler of Moose Drool :-)
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
I got pissed because this broke BigBrother
You should use netsaint:
Category net
netsaint-0.0.7,1
Extremely powerful network monitoring system
Maintained by: blaz@si.FreeBSD.org
Requires: freetype2-2.0.9, gd-1.8.4_6, jpeg-6b_1, libgnugetopt-1.1, netsaint-plugins-1.2.9.4, png-1.2.2
Description : Sources : Changes : Download
I really hate Dan Patrick.
It doesn't EMULATE anything:
1) Most "Linux software" isn't "Linux software" but "Unix software" and compiles and runs on FreeBSD just fine.
2) FreeBSD has Linux BINARY support, so if the source isn't available (StarOffice, VMWare, etc) you can still run your choice of programs. It doesn't do this via "emulation" but by translating Linux syscalls into FreeBSD syscalls where everything is executed natively.
3) It would be _more_ accurate to say that FreeBSD emulates Linux as opposed to "emulating Linux software", but it's still wrong (See #2.)