Slashdot Mirror
``NetBSD Live!'' Boots Directly Into KDE2
jschauma writes: "A ``NetBSD Live!'' CD, which boots NetBSD/i386 1.5.2
directly from CDROM into KDE, including Koffice, has been made available. This exciting development may be the first step towards 'fancy' graphical installation CDs. Just grab one and carry it around with you, so you never have to boot any other OS! See the announcement on the NetBSD News page, more details are here."
Why on Earth would you want to carry a dead operating system with you? Wouldn't it start to stink up your pocket after a while?
handle virtual memory?
This reminds me of the Suse technique of not actually providing installation images but providing something they call the "Live-Evaluation" cd... What it does is run the OS, with a minimum of configuration, off the CD.. nice for testing an OS withour installing, but I have my reservations - for example, you can't use the CD drive, and the lack of installation images is a real pain for actually installing the distro. I must say, it's nice if NetBSD does this, but only if they also keep providing actual installation images.
-raph
One of the ISO images is for Atari!
It be official; Netcraft confirms, dig dis: *B-S-fuckin'-D be dyin'
One mo' cripplin' bombshell hit da damn alraidy belaiguered *B-S-fuckin'-D community when I-D-fuckin'-C confirmed dat *B-S-fuckin'-D market share has dropped yet again, now waaay down t' less dan some fracshun o' 1 puh'cent o' all serva's. Comin' on da heels o' some recent Netcraft survey which plain-like states dat *B-S-fuckin'-D has lost mo' market share, dis bullshit serves t' reinforce whut we've known all along. *B-S-fuckin'-D be collapsin' in complete disarray, as fittin'-like 'esemplified by abortin' wo'm food last [samag.com] in da recent Sys Admin comprehensive networkin' test.
Yo' ass duzn't need t' be some Kreskin [amdest.com] t' predict *Bsd's future. Da hand scratchin' be on da wall, dig dis: *B-S-fuckin'-D faces some blaik future. In fact dair won't be no future at all 4 *B-S-fuckin'-D becuz *B-S-fuckin'-D be dyin'. Shit be peekin' real damn way baaad 4 *B-S-fuckin'-D. As many o' us be alraidy aware, *B-S-fuckin'-D continues t' lose market share. Red ink flows likes some riva' o' blood.
Freebsd be da damn most endangered o' them all, havin' lost 93% o' its co' developuh's. Fuck dat shit. Da sudden an' unplaisant departures o' long time Freebsd developuh's Jordan Hubbard an' Mike Smit' only serve t'undersco' da damn point mo' clear-like. Dair kin no longa' be no doubt, dig dis: Freebsd be dyin'.
Let's keep t' da damn facts an' peek at da damn numba's.
Openbsd laida' Theo states dat dair be 7000 usa's o' Openbsd. How many usa's o' Netbsd be dair? Let's spot. Da numba' o' Openbsd versus Netbsd posts on Usenet be rough-like in ratio o' 5 t' 1. Therefo' dair be about 7000/5 = 1400 Netbsd usa's. B-S-fuckin'-D/O-S posts on Usenet be about half o' da damn volume o' Netbsd posts. Therefo' dair be about 700 usa's o' B-S-fuckin'-D/O-S. Some recent article put Freebsd at about 80 puh'cent o' da damn *B-S-fuckin'-D market. Therefo' dair be (down low, 7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Freebsd usa's. Dis be consistent wit' da damn numba' o' Freebsd Usenet posts. Amen!
Due t' da damn troubles o' Walnut Creek, abysmal sales an' so's on, Freebsd went out o' business an' wuz taken ova' by B-S-D-fuckin'-I who sell anotha' troubled O-S. Now B-S-D-fuckin'-I be also wo'm food, its corpse turned ova' t' yet anotha' charnel crib. All major surveys show dat *B-S-fuckin'-D has staidi-like declined in market share. *B-S-fuckin'-D be real damn sick an' its long term survival prospects be real damn dim. If *B-S-fuckin'-D be t' survive at all it will be among O-S dilettante dabbla's. *B-S-fuckin'-D continues t' decay. Nothin' short o' some miracle could save it at dis point in time. 4 all practical purposes, *B-S-fuckin'-D be wo'm food. 'S coo', bro.
Fact, dig dis: *B-S-fuckin'-D be dyin'
I hope high gas prices are depriving your children, you fucking dumbass.
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 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, 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 lng term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nthing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
I really doubt NetBSD runs on the Atari ST, since that Motorola 68000-based machine doesn't have an MMU (and thus, no memory protection). But it sure can run on the 68030-based Atari TT and the mighty Falcon. BTW, Linux runs on these, too! A special fork of CLinux (the Linux without MMU , aimed at embedded implementations) existed to allow it to run on the original ST line of machines, but has been discontinued. Too bad I'm far from being a kernel hacker :-(
:-))
Remember, people: Atari LIVES ! Now, if someone would just make a PowerPC extension for the Falcon, the life would finally have a meaning
Xenu brings order!
It was at 4:25am on the morning of June 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 :(
Can anyone who has a faster pipe verify this?
The release notes appear to be hastily translated from German -- there are a couple "ist"s (where there should be "is"s).
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Just wondering.
``This exciting development may be the first step towards 'fancy' graphical installation CDs.''
I don't know what exactly what is meant by ``'fancy''', but I think Linux has had graphical installation for ages. Not to mention Windows or MacOS... Or are they talking about NetBSD only here? Just a little confused...
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
It smells like something is dead.
Was this translated by an automatic translator ?
If this thing is on the net, post the URL !
The potential is huge.
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version1.0
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
Now, this would kick great deals of ass if it was:
A) On natively rewritable media &
B) On media better suited to random access than CD (Just try accessing large numbers of small files on different secontions of the CD... Your CD will be about as fast as a floppy.
As I've been saying religiously for some time now, if all new system were sold with PCMCIA front-mounted slots, we'd finally have a format that could completely replace floppies, put CDs back in their place, and make it super easy to add any hardware you might want in your system.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure, but why? Why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all knw *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personalities?
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 glom 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.