Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 4.6 Release Delayed
Dan writes "Bruce A. Mah from the FreeBSD Release Engineering team announced that due to some late-breaking issues, 4.6 will be released about a week later than originally planned."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Haven't you editors heard yet? BSD is dying! Get with the program and post another Linux 2.5 patch level increment announcement. Thank you!
Why bother.
Im note sure that I could live for that extra week without my lovely BSD... actually I can. NEXT!!
Wouldn't it be nice if all software releases were *only* a week late?
Click here or here.
A lot of companies prefer *BSD to avoid a lot of complications of the GPL.
He summed it up well.
Good to see how the quality of the release takes precedence over any deadlines. That's the way it should be. I'd rather have FreeBSD 4.6 a month late than have a buggy one now.
Granted, not all OS X users are hardcore UNIX hackers, but I think having Apple pushing a *BSD derivative is a great way to stir up some more interest in it.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
I'm sure that having a stable DHCP installation is going to be important to all the cable modem users out there running FreeBSD, so this is clearly A Good Thing.
Uhm, there's some little company, I think its called... Apple? :)
loply.com
Not exactly fair to claim this as embracing a free BSD base, as OSX is not free, portable, and open-source. This is like claiming MS-DOS is based on Unix because it has files and directories.
Click here or here.
Well, there goes my weekend. Leave it to Slashdot to be the bearer of bad news.
...oh wait...no FreeBSD? I thought they said no free LSD.
no more war!
And what Unix do you know? What, did you install Linux on an old computer one day and fancy yourself an expert? You probably would never have heard of Unix if it wasn't for Linus.
for FreeBSD? Miss a release date here and there, and before you know it, it's just another forgotten OS in the junk heap of history. Would anybody who doesn't read this site even notice?
No. OS X has a direct line of descent from BSD (mostly FreeBSD, some NetBSD), and this core - Darwin - IS available freely for download.
MSDOS has nothing to do with unix beyond a vague passing resemblence.
Please stop talking bollocks.
will it be LateBSD?
Me email iz skyewalkerluke at microsoft's free email service.
At least it's been ported to Mac OS X and Darwin. (http://dot.kde.org) Just not Debian.
You're on crack as usual. This is a *JOKE*. J-O-K-E. There was no need to waste your mod points on something that doesn't need to be moderated at all. Stupid jackasses.
Yes, MacOSX is based in part on BSDLite 4.4. Some libraries come from NetBSD, while most of he utilities stem from FreeBSD. BSD's contribution to MacOSX But MacOSX/Darwin is also based on Mach. Cheerfully adding to the confusion are various projects such as Fink, which aims to port a good deal of linux software to MacOSX. Occasionally, dumb flamewars will sprout up, with one side advocating FreeBSD style ports, etc., and the other advocating a more linux-like style. I guess it depends on what systems you've used before.
Well, right off the top of my head I can think of three that havn't been mentioned: Niksun NetVCR (a really sweet piece of kit), Juniper routers, and the Cybernet NetMAX. LOTS of people with embedded solutions that require a bit more oomph than your normal embedded OS can provide use FreeBSD. From a corporate point of view, the FreeBSD has a very favorable license and a conservative release schedule that helps insure a stable OS for your embedded project. Also, it doesn't hurt that the FreeBSD source tree is in CVS, and you can maintain a branch relativly painlessly without having your proprietary changes merged back in the main branch (although some companies merge their changes anyway, look at vinum).
I read the internet for the articles.
For all those fools in the world, I'v found FreeBSD the best OS, compared to linux, Windowz, solaris. Installed 4.5 couple of weeks ago, an it all run fine, without any problems. It does everything that I need it to do(DVD, netscape7, openoffice, java etc.....). Java even runs faster than on the native linux platform. So all you BSD developers out there, ignore those dick's who say bsd is dying, just stick it out and do what you do best. When I start my own company in a couple of years, I will be using the BSDs for all my machines. So don't let me down. I have big visions for the future of FreeBSD as a powerfull workstation OS. I'm hoping you guys can deliever.
It seems to me that what we have is a lack of nerds here. Everytime we see a FreeBSD topic, 50% of all posts are pure junk.
Now it seems to me that we mostly have wannabe nerds here. I'd say that if you truly are a geek, you would not be afraid to install another OS. In fact it would be something you would thing was fun. "Hey another OS/version, lets check it out just for the fun of it".
Personally I like to install all kind of OS, yes I even have tried to install M$ servers just to check them out, not that I would like to run one. Playing with all kinds of operating systems and making it run of strange hardware is fun to me.
But maybe the people truly into *BSD might not post here at all because all the responses to their posts most likely will be met with a useless reply.
It's not that I don't like Slashdot, but why are the view and posts so narrowminded? It seems to me that the topics that gets the most posts(besides from M$ bashing), are the ones where you can apply some kind of generic opinion and without any deep insight into the subject. But maybe this is how it always has been and it's just me who are wrong.
My question, again, is who?
Click here or here.
Suppose an operating system that isn't geek-chic announced that their OS was going to be a tiny bit late. Slash-dotters would be standing on their heads to be the first person that posts a "serves 'em right" message.
As much as I don't like M$ do you think that they delayed their OS's because they wanted to or that they didn't think they were stabel enough?
ports system hard to use?!
/usr/ports/type/program
... mind-bending work!
cd
make install
damn
shell choices? You have lost me there, since Linux and BSD use the same shells.
I honestly don't see how the installation program is difficult to use. I have heard many people complain about it, but it's not hard to use at all. Of course I haven't used any recent Linux installers (last Linux I used was Slackware 7) with all the dumbed-down GUI luvin', but I still fail to see how a straightforward ANSI menu system is confusing and difficult?!
Let's not even get into kernel compilations where FreeBSD wins hands down.
I mean, all you have to do is edit one single text file and then type "make buildkernel" and "make installkernel" and viola! No lilo or anything like that to deal with.
I do admit that the whole slice/partition thing baffles me a little bit, as I don't understand why someone would want multiple slices? Partitions are good enough for me when it comes to organizing a disk. Does anybody out there actually use multiple slices? If so, why (I'd honestly like to know!)
We can have all sorts of stories posted about the latest Linux kernel patch level, but when it comes to important matters of freedom... the Slashdot editors turn the other way ("Oooh! Puppies!"). Sorry for the OT, but this is for those interested in the fight to keep freedom in and censorship out of libraries...
* 2002-06-01 13:41:19 Courts Strike Down Law For Library Filters (yro,news) (rejected) According to this story over at the NewYork Times (free registration automatically generated for you), a "federal court panel struck down a law requiring libraries to filter the Internet for material harmful to minors yesterday, saying that the technology blocks so much unobjectionable material that it would violate the First Amendment rights of library patrons." I think we all know what a great win this is, especially if you've ever had a search struck down when doing research on breast cancer or the Holocaust (such nasty topics children should never be exposed to, appearantly).
Why bother.
Have you forgotten about Darwin? It's based on BSD. 4.4 BSD I beleive...
If BSD is dying, then XP and Mac OS X, both of which are either using parts, or mostly based on the BSD technology.
I can see Mr. Gates and Mr. Jobs quitely sobbing already.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Every FreeBSD release has been delayed by some amount of time, it's natural. The development process for this operating system doesn't rush it out the door in time for a deadline, nor does it draw clearcut lines in cases where doing so will damage its quality. This is the way development should be done in all cases, IMHO.
// -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ --
This is one of the many reasons why I prefer OpenBSD to FreeBSD. OpenBSD is ALWAYS due either December 1st or June 1st. Now, today would've been the official release date of OpenBSD 3.1, but it was officially released 2 weeks ago!! This is the only big project I can think of that does not delay its release. Linux 2.4 was late by a year, FreeBSD 4.5 was late by a couple of weeks, 4.6 will be late by at least one week, FreeBSD 5.0 was delayed by 14 months, etc. The thing with OpenBSD: they don't do revolutionnary released like Microsoft. Each new version contains many security and bug fuxes, new application, new hardwares code and a couple of new features (e.g: openssh, pf, pfauth). Maybe some other projects should take example, not only on OpenBSD's commitement for security, but also its commitement to respect release schedule.
Welcome to Slashdot.
I used to work at VERITAS Software. They routinely delayed release dates on products if quality wasn't good enough.
There is a problem with this, though. Customers made business plans based upon planned release dates. When those release dates slipped, the customer's plans were upset. This could leave them in awkward situations because they couldn't do certain things without features present in newer versions of the software. As a consequence, we always dreaded a slipping of the release date because it would provoke great annoyance from the customers.
Customers want it right and on-time. If they have to pick between those two, they will select to have it right, but will not be happy about it!
OpenBSD has good commercial support, due to the support of the hardware crypto folks.
Of course, being security companies, they don't talk much about it.
I love to see Slashdot post *BSD stories so I can see all the no talent, zero knowledge, bitter little Linux weenies crawl out from under their cold little rocks to bash something they know nothing about.
The fact that so many little zit facers seem to have so many opportunities to re-post the same cut'n'paste trolls assures me that the best free (truly free, unlike the GPLd crap) Unix out there will continue on long after the Linux kiddies have graduated high school and found jobs at Fry's and Compusa selling Windows 2006/Dummy Edition to the soccer moms where they can while away their smoke break to talk about the good old days when L1nukz r000led!!!11 or something like that.
I love you guys and I love Linux! Linux gives the kids a toy to play with and keeps you off the *BSD lists. I hope Slashdot stays around forever so you kids don't run around poluting the rest of the net. Slashdot is like AOL for Linux kids.
OpenBSD
Everyone, please note: BSD is not dying.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
It's not the log, it's the license, stupid.
A lot of the backbone routers are Junipers, which are based on FreeBSD. FreeBSD powers the internet.
both userland and kernel PPP caused kernel panics for me as soon as i tried to pass data. I don't know why, but I had to rebuild 4.5-RELEASE. I'm glad they're fixing some issues. I'm sure that's one of them. Everything else was working great though...atleast that i noticed.
Does anybody out there actually use multiple slices? If so, why (I'd honestly like to know!)
/, /usr (obvious), /var (to set a limit on ftp uploads and mail etc.), a swap patition and a second OS. Thats Five and could not be done without slices, this goes up to eight if you run -current as well (only one swap) and more still if you want to run Linux.
I use multiple (two) slices for running -Current and -Stable. N.B A normal IBM bios allows 4 partitions per disk, as I have a partition for
I thought the default kernel comes with the card interface installed; if so, then you'd only need to load a driver to support the model card you have. Perhaps I'm wrong.
That having been said, if you're using a free operating system and you can't be bothered to build a custom kernel, you should probably consider using something else. It's a do it yourself kind of thing.
I saw this the other day - and was about to submit it. But then I figured - who cares? It's just one week. This is a BSD section thing at best - certainly not front page.
espo
If you don't like BSD, why would you bother to post endless html pastes of the End Of BSD over and over as an anonymous coward. Unless you were either:
a) a Microsoft PR cronie
b) a disgruntled Linux user with free time
c) someone without a clue
d) all of the above
I'd rather have my OS update later rather than buggy and earlier.
Sheesh. Trolls.
You are only popular on the Internet.
You're a real newbie. Are you as new to FreeBSD are you are to Slashdot??
I believe the Nokia/Checkpoint platform is BSD based...
If you don't have the bandwidth to download Darwin and look at it, you could always get a CD version from Daemonnews, that BSD only site.
The current version of Darwin/OS X borrows heavily from FreeBSD 3.2, the next major upgrade to OS X (this summer) will implement changes made to FreeBSD 4.4.
Here's a great look at how Apple bolted BSD and Mach together, since you sounded curious - probably not what you would expect.
Blah, blah blah. BSD should delay 4.6 until the include a native Java 1.4 in my eyes. I love FreeBSD's and OpenBSD's philosophy when it comes to installing packages by default and the fact that there are very few security holes compared to linux. I really wish there was a linux distro that followed their ideaology.
BSD distros make great server side solutions because of the great security settings that come by DEFAULT installation. But for workstation usage and my daily development, I need a native JVM.
What is this "release" you refer to? I just make buildworld whenever I feel like it.
Compaq sells hardware to Yahoo, which is a
FreeBSD shop.
The Nokia Firewall-1 implementation is based on
a modified FreeBSD.
IBM's InterJet router-toaster is based on FreeBSD.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BS 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 shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
- It's even more simple:
- cd
/usr/src
- wget http://www.site.org/folder/software-vX.tar.gz
- tar -zxvf software
- cd software-vX
- ./configure
- make
- make install
- /usr/local/bin/software --help
Did I miss anything?The small chance that a Linux box has more [than BSD] from-a-vendor security holes is easily compensated by the chance that having one OS platform on all desktops, workgroup servers and routers leave more free time to find and fix such holes.
Internet is not only backbones. It's also about web java-based web servers. Here is the area where Linux powers the internet.
Apple has a BSD solution. It's called OS X.
The myth of BSDL is based on a assumption that commercial users will contribute back. Let's face it: Apple has build Mac OS X based on BSD. Mac OS X supports USB and FireWire hardware. Where is USB or 1394 in any BSD?
From the other point, BSDL does not just allow commercial usage - it forces to it. Give me any example of BSDL software developed without sponsors. And compare your list with the list of software developed under GPL.
It is official; Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent 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 fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] 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, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
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 yet 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 dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Any lack pf super high-level automation is not a disadvantage, it's traditional systems administration.
What BSD?
There is Linux kernel. There is a set of GNU software. And they are the same in all Linux distributions. Linux vendors just add something they think may improve OS. But all skills I've got working with one Linux will be re-used on the other Linux on, let's say, 90%. That include kernel and core utils.
There is FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and that ... Darwin. Each has own different behaviour on different hardware. From a pont of skills reused, I feel like working with similar, but still different operating systems. That includes both kernel and utils.
So, what BSD we are talking about? There is no such thing as BSD - there several different operating systems haveing same three capital letters in their names: FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD. And that ... Darwin (has Darwin lost BSD abbreviation with any purpose?) All different. And all dying.
Does it mean that we will see USB and FireWire support in FreeBSD anytime soon?
There are a plethora of searches that yield perfectly acceptable results (if done right) that censoring software will filter. Search google for "breast cancer" with NetNanny or some other stupid filter, and it will block everything.
Get a clue. It's up to the people, even children, to decide what they do and do not want to look at. Parents should never bitch about kids looking at "objectional material". It's their own damn faults if they failed to instill their morals in their children.
Why bother.
Not that this changes the argument about commercial contributions back to the OS, but to provide a non-rhetorical answer to what I presume was a rhetorical question:
The kernel support for USB is typically in sys/dev/usb in the source tree. (That's where it is on my FreeBSD 3.4 system; no, that's not a typo for "FreeBSD 4.3".) There may also be user-mode daemons or library routines there as well.
Here's a FreeBSD FireWire implementation under development; the most recent tarball came out 2002-05-30. I don't know what projects, if any, exist for NetBSD or OpenBSD.
The myth of BSDL is based on a assumption that commercial users will contribute back.
No. That's what the GPL is about, about getting contributions back. Some call it blackmail, others freedom. I call it an opinion and a license.
The BSD license basically says: here it is, do what you like with it but don't complain if you break it rather help getting it fixed.
From the other point, BSDL does not just allow commercial usage - it forces to it.
Err? You mean like BSD code in the linux kernel or what?
Give me any example of BSDL software developed without sponsors.
Almost all ports most of which are probably not GNU. Oh, you thought something like apache would be GNU? It's not, it has its own very BSDish license. And then fBSD has its own C compiler and the like. In fact the minimum install can give you a userland that has no GNU at all.
And ince you start talking about added packages/ports, well that's not all GNU, and if it is the BSD crowd doesnt care. As long as it works it's fine with me.
Don't know about FireWire, but I'd be surprised if its not there on the OS that is the basis of MacOS X. OTOH, I have no FireWire kit, and don't see any reason why I should in the forseable future.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
helicopter crash
dead flesh stinking charred flesh
freebsd death
There is also the need to operate on hardware that can't run Windows, and does not support DOS partitioning.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
By "ports" do you mean "stuff in the {Free,Net,Open}BSD ports collections"? If so, have you surveyed, for example, all ~7000 FreeBSD ports to see what licenses they have, and determined that most of them are not GPLed (much less that most of them use the BSDL)?
If by "fBSD" you mean "FreeBSD", it doesn't have its own C compiler - or linker, or assembler; it uses GCC, GLD, and GAS. Take a look at /usr/src/gnu.
The following is by !me:
There once was a troll found on slashdot
Whose posts made him seem like a crackpot
Something's wrong with his head
Screaming BSD's dead
Thanks to Darwin it's just hit the jackpot
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
I am a professor and I find the death of *BSD intriguing. Can I do the autopsy?? It was just a matter of time, I remember thinking *BSD will die as early as in 1994.
I guess we can wait a week. We've got 200 restaurants to install with FreeBSD touchscreen Point of Sale in the next 7 months. I sure hope that the touchscreen code in Xfree86 4.2 is fixed. It was working fine in Xfree86 4.1, the version used in FreeBSD 4.5 but it somehow was broken in Xfree86 4.2. Boy, it sure was a pleasure to remove all the touchscreen code from our point of sale software knowing that from now on we can rely on getting it from X Windows. Now, if they can just keep us supplied with those gorgeous Mini-ITX Via motherboards. Slap one inside the back of an LCD; it sure makes a hell of a touchscreen X server, not to mention a hell of a touchscreen application client. The more X does the smaller or app code gets...
I can prove that BSD has died - noone wants' to use it, noone besides few sysadmins, who should write historical article, rather than sysadmin scripts).
In an article posted yesterday, it was covered.
It was at 4:25am on the morning of April 15th 2002 that, after many failed attempts to resuscitate the dying OS, *BSD finally passed away. While *BSD has been in it's death throes for many months now and it's death has been foreseen for many years, this is still a very sad moment, a great loss for OS dilettante dabblers and *BSD lovers the world over. Though *BSD has passed away, it will surely be fondly remembered for years to come by users, developers, and trolls alike. Even if you didn't enjoy using *BSD, there's no denying it's contributions to popular OS culture. Truly a Berkeley icon. It will be missed :(
"stuff in the {Free,Net,Open}BSD ports collections" is BSD licensed, the "stuff" in the tarballs most often isnt.
"FreeBSD", it doesn't have its own C compiler
My kernel compiles with cc not gcc. FreeBSD has a "make" and a "gmake". The base system compiles with its own compiler. For ports it depends.
If by that assertion you mean that the changes to the ported applications are BSD-licensed, then, even if true, it's not a very interesting assertion - the applications in question are still GPLed.
On BSD, cc is gcc:
Two names, same program.
So? That's make, not the compiler.
Which, as noted, is the GNU C Compiler, even if the command name used to invoke it is cc, not gcc.
Is it snappier than Gentoo Linux ;)
Might be not; sure about that ?
Try b o t h !
You could name a binary windowsxp but that doesn't mean it really is though. gcc is used for compatibility for all the code writers that just make assumptions like you have been. If a scipt looks for a particular file and doesn't find it then it will quit. It saves us from having to edit a lot of source files just do they can compile.
Oh wait, they are doing just fine. I guess they aren't dead after all. Must be someone who doesn't know what they are talking about when they said BSD was dead.
Try this test out. Hammer the daylights out of a Linux box and a FreeBSD (Open/Net) box and see which one seems dead. The BSD box will continue to respond while you can't do anything with the Linux one til the traffic dies and maybe not even then. The Linux box seems to be in a coma and you will need the paddles(hard reset) to revive it.
Smells dead to me.
freshmeat.net can tell you about all sorts of BSDL projects. If you weren't busy on /. being a schmuck you would know that.
As always there is a lot of speculation and very little knowledge in these posts.
BSD
Above the Mach layer, the BSD layer provides "OS personality" APIs and services. The BSD layer is based on the BSD kernel, primarily FreeBSD. The BSD component provides
file systems
networking (except for the hardware device level)
UNIX security model
syscall support
the BSD process model, including process IDs and signals
FreeBSD kernel APIs
many of the POSIX APIs
Pthreads (POSIX threads implementation)
The BSD component is described in more detail in the chapter BSD Overview".
So there pbtpbtpbtpbt.
I'm quite aware that there are plenty of BSDLed projects; I'm just noting that the C compiler that comes with BSD isn't one of them.
But if you weren't busy on Slashdot being yet another worthless stupid brainless monkey, and actually had a brain to use and bothered using it, you could have figured that out.
Correct. Just because BSD happens to have cc as one of the names for the GNU C Compiler doesn't mean that it's some compiler other than GCC. As you will discover if you actually bother looking at the source that generates the C compiler on BSD, it is GCC.
You are incorrect in your mistaken belief that I've been making some assumption that the C compiler on a system is called gcc; my makefiles use $(CC).
Why DID *BSD fail so bad??? Why did it have to go to GRAVE? Was it the pisshead developers who later went to Apple? ..who later got some cash and laughed at those stupid *BSD (l)users? Why am I stomping the head of that daemon mascot with my army boots? Why will I beat every *bsd luser is see?
I arrange *BSD funerals!! You are all welcome to this PARTY!!!
Most of you people who read and post to Slashdot
are so full of shit that you probably can't see
beyond a foot in front of yourselves. You think
that because you're the first shithead on your
block to post "BSD is dying" that somehow, that
makes you more special that the next random
shithead in line.
The truth is, not ONE of you assholes knows even
remotely what you're talking about. You fucking
zealots. You fucking fucking zealots.
So go on, keep starting stupid useless
baseless groundless "BSD is dying" threads,
and keep ignoring the REAL progress that's
happening day-in day-out in each of the BSD
camps. I wish I knew you all personally so
that I could take a knife to each of your
throats and dig out your fucking intestines and
feed them to my dog. Fucking assholes.
[Put THIS in your Slashdot filters and smoke it]
Most of you people who read and post to Slashdot
are so f-u-ll of sh-t that you probably can't see
beyond a foot in front of yourselves. You think
that because you're the first sh-ith-ead on your
block to post "BSD is dying" that somehow, that
makes you more special that the next random
sh-ithead in line.
The truth is, not ONE of you as-sholes knows even
remotely what you're talking about. You f-u-c-k-ing
zealots. You f-u-c-k-ing f-u-c-k-ing zealots.
So go on, keep starting stupid useless
baseless groundless "BSD is dying" threads,
and keep ignoring the REAL progress that's
happening day-in day-out in each of the BSD
camps. I wish I knew you all personally so
that I could take a knife to each of your
throats and dig out your f-u-c-king intestines and
feed them to my dog. F-u-c-k-ing a-s-s-holes.
...regardless of who makes them or the software that makes them usable.
An OS simply enables you to do something with the computer... it is a means - not an end.
Obviously some OS's will be better suited for a particular task.
Rather than waste your time flaming someone because they use a BSD variant (or waste your time by responding to such a post) go out and get yourself a girlfriend or hit the damn gym once in a while.
I keep an open mind and followed my own advice, now I can install virtually any OS on any system, configure it correctly, and have a hottie rockin' chick that buys me "LinuxuniL" and little devil wearing sneakers kinds of shirts from ThinkGeek.
Yeah I work in a M$ shop now programming MFC and ATL... but so what? It is amazing what 90K a year will make one do... They could wip out DOS 4.0 and I'd say "yes sir, whatever you say!"
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Wasabi Systems has made a viable capitalist business out of supporting people who are using embedded NetBSD in various devices.