Slashdot Mirror
August 2002 Daemon News Ezine Published
questionlp writes "The August 2002 Ezine has been published and is packed with articles and columns with topics ranging from behind-the-scenes look at VicFUG 2002, a report on the recent O'Reilly OSCON, one's adventure through Unix starting from Linux to FreeBSD, a HOWTO on backing up FreeBSD with tar and SMBFS, plus a look at some of the most popular web browsers (most of which are available in the BSD Ports collection)."
Don't point your readers to newsletters. Find the interesting articles and point to that.
Thank you.
I have been pwned because my
B;lkasdra asdfja aje ibanrapba graeog a aerogna aopregnaetb enapgregagbng a[gnre ergn gra!!!
The preceding makes slightly more sense than this article.
The newsletters are so boring!
:-)
I know this is gonna get me -1 flamebait, but at least I'm honest:
{{{
$ uname -rsm
FreeBSD 4.0-RELEASE i386
}}}
Hmmm, on retrospect, the Linux mags are boring too, and the Windoze ones are even worse.
I recommend everyone to pop over to MP3.com and download Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie's "Every OS Sucks", can you tell I listened to it this morning?
YAWIAR.
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
Not exactly BSD related, but I set up a server at work to do backups with smbtar on a linux machine. The problem is, that some users never informed me that they have 7+ gigs worth of crap sitting around in their directories that are backed up. So the tarball is over 7 gigs (according to ls), but as far as i know the file size limit is only 2 gigs. How does this work?
One comment in the Life After Redhat article stuck out. He loves FreeBSD and his systems are "upgraded once a week (all software)". Is this normal pratice? I still have SuSE 6.3 systems running.
Updating packages and update the system are two different things. A weekly portupgrade -a is one thing. A cvsup and rebuild of world weekly would be overkill.
However, it's so easy to do, I could see people doing it.
>One comment in the Life After Redhat article stuck
:)
>out. He loves FreeBSD and his systems are
>"upgraded once a week (all software)". Is this
>normal pratice? I still have SuSE 6.3 systems
>running.
"Normal practice" varies depending on who you're talking to.
On the networks I administrate, I have a strict policy of "no unjustified upgrades", which usually translates to applying only security patches and relevent bug fixes. It might include new versions of software if, and only if, we're rolling out an enhancement to our services that necessitates it.
Part of the reason for being so restrictive is because we do QA and testing after every upgrade, so all upgrades have an associated cost in admin time. It may seem overly paranoid, but we've caught a lot of subtle issues that would have otherwise effected service to our customers.
Matt
GNU/Linux is made by hairy-backed smelly dung-loving hippies. It will never be accepted beyond a small group of socialist homosexuals. For something better than *bsd, look towards win2k, with service pack 3.
1) It's development method is too formalised, it discourages people from just throwing a patch at things and becoming involved
ok, but there are benefits to this method.
2) BSD users are to the Unix world like how Mac users are towards Window users "Use my superior OS you inferior idiot"
hehe, and I have never heard a Linux weenie say the same about Windows and BSD
3) They're obsessed with the opposition, they mention Linux, constantly
Really? I would disagree.
4) The logo is aweful and unsuitable. "Oh boss, I'm just going to install this software with a devil on it.."
True! This hurts more then people think.
5) Linux isn't as bad as they try to say it is. If you want quality, get a quality distribution like Slackware and not a hashed together commercial distro.
Maybe not but my experience with FreeBSD has been so much more pleasant(spelling?) than working with Linux. Please note I use FreeBSD for server type stuff and basic X-Windows(vtwm). I don;t use it for music, games, etc..
I believe BSD isn't spreading more because of market hype than anything else. Which is fine.
I've always thought of this as a good thing. The core team makes decisions about the direction of the OS and I've always been happy to accept them and just get on with it. Whereas the last time I installed Linux I got side-tracked with a discussion on the relative merits of the umpteen filesystems Linux supports.
2) BSD users are to the Unix world like how Mac users are towards Window users "Use my superior OS you inferior idiot"
Amusingly I've always found it's Linux are most rabid about OS (and distro) superiority. So this must be a matter of perspective.3) They're obsessed with the opposition, they mention Linux, constantly
I'm not aware that I'm constantly talking about Linux. Yes I will refer to Linux when I describe BSD to someone who doesn't know what unix is. But Linux is seen as "the" free unix not "a" free unix, so one has to make the distinction as people think you're talking about "BSD Linux". Anyhow, what's wrong with talking about Linux? Linux is not as conservative as BSD. So Linux heads out in different direction on a whim. The Linux crowd will learn stuff which the BSD crowd can look at, evaluate, and (if it's worthwhile) mimic. Should the Linux crowd feel the need to not talk about BSD that they are missing out on a choice opportinity to pick up some free R&D.4) The logo is aweful and unsuitable. "Oh boss, I'm just going to install this software with a devil on it.."
The lil' beastie is not awful, he's cute. And classifying the OS based on the mascot? I could say Linux is unsuitable because the mascot is of a bird that can't even fly. But I'd be barking mad if I ever expected somone to believe me.
5) Linux isn't as bad as they try to say it is. If you want quality, get a quality distribution like Slackware and not a hashed together commercial distro.
You see. In a discussion on BSD you're talking distro superiority. Using BSD over Linux is exactly the same sort of decision as using Slackware over RedHat. It Unix, it's free, who cares?Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
I could just as easily turn that around, my friend:
1) Linux's development method is too liberal, usually allowing people to just throw whatever drivel they want into whatever they want (kernel excepted) with little to no regard for backward compatibility.
2) Linux users are to the UNIX world what Mac users were to the Windows world: "Use my superior OS you inferior idiot"
3) They're obsessed with the competition; they mention BSD, Microsoft, SCO OSes, and MacOS constantly. It's almost to the point where the only way some Linux users think they can promote Linux is by trashing the competition. I guess Linux users don't have enough faith in their OS to believe its qualities are sellable.
4) Their logo is lame as hell. "Oh, boss, I'm going to install this software with the penguin on it."
5) BSD isn't as bad as they try to say it is. It's stable, its package management facility is light years better than anything Linux can offer except for portage and MAYBE apt, it's largely what is running behind the only OS that can run native MS Office apps right along side UNIX apps (MacOS), blah blah blah. Linux folks must know at some level that BSD is good considering how much technology Linux "borrows" from BSD folks (kernel stuff, mostly). You can't run a native RealPlayer client on it, but if BS like that is your criteria for a good OS, use Windows and be done with it.
OpenBSD sucks. Theo de Raadt sucks. OpenSSH sucks too. No exploits in the default install for 48 hours! Time to move to NetBSD and Kerberos5.
So let's see... OpenBSD and OpenSSH have had a few exploits over the past few weeks. Linux et al have had... um, can somebody count them up for me? I don't have enough free time to do so.
BSD users are to the Unix world like how Mac users are towards Window users "Use my superior OS you inferior idiot"
Well, it IS a superior OS, but we don't want you inferior idiots anywhere near it.
Why isn't BSD spreading
Apple has it as their only OS, and Apple is looking BETTER than when they didn't have BSD as their OS.
It's development method is too formalised,
Ohhhh, a formal development method with source code control scares you Linus?
I'd rather have a formal public method, thank you very much.
The logo is aweful
When I see the daemon, I am full of awe.
Linux isn't as bad as they try to say it is.
SANS security reports mention Linux far more often than BSD. From looking at SANS, Linux *IS* worse than BSD.
I've found portupgrade so easy I use it once a day on my DevBox. Only takes 5mins unless something big needs upgrading. In doing this I've managed to fix several vunerabilities before I've even known they existed.
The only thing that stops me doing a build world more often than once a month is that mergemaster takes a little concentration.
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
Seriously, BSD doesn't need to be jealous of Linux, we've got Linux binary compatibility mode.
I use both myself (and Cygwin on my one box), but I'd say FreeBSD is my fav. The big thing for me is the install program. I absolutely hate those Bloatware ridden install programs that are becoming de reguleur in the Linux world: I shouldn't need 64 MB of RAM to take an OS off a CD and put it on a hard drive.
FreeBSD is, in fact, THE free Unix. Linux is a Unix clone. FreeBSD is based on Berkeley Unix, and is thus, a direct decendant of the original Unix source code, not a rewrite. Not that it matters much.
Yes, effecting service to your customers would be a disaster... You can do better without them ;)
And still no *BSD Is Dying post. He must have slept in or something. Or maybe they shut off net access at the asylum.
That is like saying Windows XP is a good OS because it isn't decended from Dos code.
It seems to be normal practice on Debian, probably because it's the best way to pick up the security patches.
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
True! This hurts more then people think.
Agreed. But there doesn't seem to be any chance to have it change, or maybe an alternative logo being commonly used beside the'devil'.
If there was, the *BSDs would in fact get more installations, even though it may seem hard to believe at first that something like a logo might influence peoples decisions - but it does, sometimes.
While it may be an advertisement, it's a free service and the entire e-zine is based on OSS ... so ... everyone who keeps with the "this is stupid post articles from them" and "BSD is dead" ... chill
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
I shouldn't need 64 MB of RAM to take an OS off a CD and put it on a hard drive
I definatly share your sentiments there. I've tried to salvage a few 486's at work thinking, yeah, I'll put linux on it and do something with it (as web server or whatever). Too bad for me, pretty much every distro blows up bacause there is insufficent ram (usually around 32 megs, which is a LOT).
Get winshit then you know why your os sucks you fucking linux magots
>FreeBSD is, in fact, THE free Unix. Linux is a
>Unix clone. FreeBSD is based on Berkeley Unix, and
>is thus, a direct decendant of the original Unix
>source code, not a rewrite. Not that it matters
>much.
It doesn't matter, and it's not really accurate. FreeBSD is based on the 4.4-lite codebase, which is the version that removed the last vestiges of copyrighted USL (Unix Systems Lab) code from the Net/2 codebase released by Berkeley's CSRG (Computer Systems Research Group) as part of a settlement agreement in the lawsuit USL pressed against the BSDI and UCB. So yes, FreeBSD *is* a rewrite.
And even that is somewhat irrelevent, since if you want to be pedantic about the term, UNIX is now a specification and operating systems which are certified to conform to that specification. None of the free Unixes have gone through the certification process, and thus are all "unix-like" and not UNIX.
Matt
(And just as one side note, even if none of the above was true, saying "FreeBSD is THE free Unix" doesn't make sense, since OpenBSD and NetBSD are also derived from the 386BSD codebase, and would therefore qualify under your definition.)
I've tried to salvage a few 486's at work thinking, yeah, I'll put linux on it and do something with it (as web server or whatever).
NetBSD, baby. My first home *nix box was a Quadra 700 running NetBSD - I used it for mail, web serving, and playing around with Samba, all on a 230 meg drive and 40 megs of RAM.
I'm playing around with FreeBSD right now, which is a little bloatier, but Net and OpenBSD are like quick little lizards next to the lumbering elephantine bulk of the average linux distro.
--saint
He's right, though. Customers may end up requesting things they don't really need. Sometimes it is better to educate them in how to use the tools that already exist than to install every little piece of software they all "need" at the time.
They pay us to administer their servers. I think we (administrators) do a better job if we keep the server stable and up than we would if we were just their lackeys.
Now that FreeBSD is getting more press, it's clear that leenucks has passed its prime is on the way down. Fortunately, once you're over the hill, you start to pick up speed.
"BSD ports"
:)
Uh. Ok, "ports" are what FreeBSD and OpenBSD call the third party package tree. NetBSD calls it pkgsrc (for package source). So please, don't assume that BSD (and I bet you usually mean *BSD in your slashdot lingo, like you would use "virii") uses "ports". Because BSD and *BSD means NetBSD too, and the word "port" means "architecture" in that operating systems. Yes, it's a seperate operating system to FreeBSD and OpenBSD, no matter how you like to look at it.
Posted for the soon to be popular organisation to ban generic BSD and *BSD references.
And don't forget with the current rate of holes/bugs found it seems that some upgrade has to be made. But maybe it's just me that so unlucky to run the ones most affected lately. hrmph. :)
my sig
I'll keep that in mind. I'm a user of FreeBSD myself, but I've never really even looked into the others. The main reason I was trying to install linux is that most of our network is already running Linux, so I figured I'd try to keep the network as homogeneous as possible. I have nothing against Linux, but there are quite a few things about it that rub me the wrong way.
Is this normal pratice?
It is for me. Remember though, this is an upgrade to installed ports, not to the whole system. Ports includes everything above the kernel and userland. In Linux terms, it would be everything that isn't installed during a minimal bare-bones install.
Approx once a week I cvsup the ports tree, check for updates to my installed packages, and generally upgrade everything. For this week, it turns out that I can update cups-base, gettext, kdebase, mozilla, netpbm and qt.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
1) It's development method is too formalised, it discourages people from just throwing a patch at things and becoming involved
How to get just throw a patch at the Linux kernel and get Linus to accept it: You don't. You must first prove your qualifications, earn your stripes, keep current on the kernel devel lists, start submitting worthwhile patches, and even then Linus still might reject them.
2) BSD users are to the Unix world like how Mac users are towards Window users "Use my superior OS you inferior idiot"
Throw a NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD user into a locked closet. Three hours later they may have a few bruises, but they will still be alive. Now throw a Mandrake, Gentoo and Debian user into the same closet. Three hours later two of them will be dead with a severly injured survivor.
3) They're obsessed with the opposition, they mention Linux, constantly
Linux users are also obsessed with the opposition, they mention Windows constantly. It wouldn't surprise me if they spontaneously decided to rename their OS to GNOTWindows. Oh, and all those "*BSD is Dying" posts are evidence of an unhealthy obsession by certain Linux users with reference to competing systems.
4) The logo is aweful and unsuitable. "Oh boss, I'm just going to install this software with a devil on it.."
Oh puh-leaze! Ooh ooh can't install KDE since it has a dragon mascot, and everyone knows the dragon is a metaphor for Satan! Ooh ooh can't install GNOME because it has a gnome's foot as a mascot and everyone knows that gnomes are fairies and fairies are associated with pagan religions!
5) Linux isn't as bad as they try to say it is. If you want quality, get a quality distribution like Slackware and not a hashed together commercial distro.
Certainly Linux is not as bad as "they" say it is. (whoever "they" is referring to). In general, Linux distributions are high quality systems. And Slackware is one of the highest qualities. But there is no law that says only one unix-like system can have quality.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
*BSD is deffinetly higher quality then Linux in terms of stability and no horrible package manager. The exception for me is Gentoo with its ports like portage of course. :-)
I know alot of *BSD users use Gentoo for java as well as testing their BSD apps on the linux platform. It seems to me all the good quality distro's are the hardest to use if you have no unix experience. I agree that RedHat and Suse are crap and buggy.
There seems to be a line between ease of use and quality. The only problem is you need to know unix to configure your desktop and highly customize your system under FreeBSD, Gentoo and Slackware. However what I have in return is a highly customized and non buggy system.
I was close to ditching the linux boat and head down to BSD and Windows land but I am glad I finally found a good quality linux distro.
http://saveie6.com/
>This is _exactly_ the mentality why people >aren't going over to BSD. I'm glad BSD exists, >all the 31331ist types go over and use it and >stop Linux from getting a bad name.
My god I call someone a weenie(which I don't consider a slam), and all of a sudden I am a arrogant 31331ist.
Little touchy eh?
Funny thing is I have no problems with Linux, FreeBSD justs seems to be a better fit for me(especially with my older computers(486's and 586's).
And who modded me as a troll?
lest we forget about LIFB: http://www.linuxisforbitches.com
[npc@temple:(22:40:09):/usr/src/sys/kern]
>uname -a
FreeBSD temple.replaced.org 4.6-STABLE FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE #0: Sat Jul 29 16:13:18 BST 2002 root@temple.replaced.org:/usr/src/sys/compile/tem
[npc@temple:(22:40:11):/usr/src/sys/kern]
>grep "UNIX System Lab" *
init_main.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
init_main.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_acct.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_acct.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_clock.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_clock.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_descrip.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_descrip.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_exit.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_exit.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_fork.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_fork.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_prot.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_prot.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_resource.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_resource.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_shutdown.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_shutdown.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_sig.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_sig.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_subr.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_subr.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_synch.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_synch.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_threads.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_threads.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_timeout.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
kern_timeout.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
subr_param.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
subr_param.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
subr_prf.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
subr_prf.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
sys_generic.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
sys_generic.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
tty.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
tty.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
tty_conf.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
tty_conf.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
vfs_lookup.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
vfs_lookup.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
vfs_subr.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
vfs_subr.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
vfs_syscalls.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
vfs_syscalls.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
vfs_vnops.c: * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
vfs_vnops.c: * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
[npc@temple:(22:40:34):/usr/src/sys/kern]
>
You were saying...?
>It seems to be normal practice on Debian, probably because it's the best way to pick up the security patches.
Security patches, yes. But syncing with the CVS with all the "latest" stuff? That would be crazy for a server, wouldn't it?
Do you do this with portupgrade? It's pretty sweet :-)
It was a joke about the misuse of "effect" rather than "affect". Why am I not surprised that you didn't get it?
Another 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 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.
Fact: *BSD is dying
> I've tried to salvage a few 486's at work [...] :-)
> pretty much every distro blows up bacause there
> is insufficent ram (usually around 32 megs,
> which is a LOT)
>
You really haven't tried very hard, have you? I got Linux running on 486's with as little as 8MB RAM (which seems to be the minimum these days).
Installing Slackware on a 486 with 32MB is absolutely no problem! It even runs X and Mozilla if you're very patient
I know this article was put up on /. yesterday, but I saw BSD and figured I still had a fighting change.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
It's really quite simple. You can lock into the RELEASE version of the OS and only get critical updates that way. If you edit your /etc/cvsupfile so that this this is set:
/etc/cvsupfile" you will pull down FreeBSD 4.6.1-RELEASE-p7 today not 4.6-STABLE.
*default tag=RELENG_4_6
when you run "cvsup
Most productions systems are safe to update once a week that way. You will eventually need to do a real update.
Nobody likes you.
Keep using Linux. You are such and idiot that you would wreck a *BSD box in a week.
People hate Linux because it's the cheap plastic replica of *BSD.
Personally I try to keep my entire system upgraded to -STABLE (rather than security-patches-only for -RELEASE or the bleeding edge of -CURRENT), and I manage to download all of the neccesary patches over a dialup modem. :-) Because I have a dialup modem I have to do it frequently though. I've never had any trouble from "cvsuping" yet, and it's so fast that like I said I do it over a 56K connection.
> It doesn't matter, and it's not really accurate.
It is accurate enough. If memory serves me right, only six files were removed from the codebase as part of a lawsuit settlement.
I'm a user of FreeBSD myself, but I've never really even looked into the others.
See, I'm in just the opposite situation. My first *nix was NetBSD, and I've been running it and Open on my network for a few years now. I just installed FreeBSD for the first time last week - I picked up a dual Celeron mainboard, and it's the only one of the BSDs with even rudimentary SMP support.
I have nothing against Linux, but there are quite a few things about it that rub me the wrong way.
I think the development differences between BSD and Linux really show. I've tried a lot of different linux distros on a lot of different architectures, and they always feel unpolished and slapped-together. BSDs always feel like a coherent whole.
I actually tried Red Hat and Mandrake on that dual Celeron before I decided on FreeBSD. The linux installs lasted about a day apiece before I got fed up with the OS.
--saint
Yup. I don't know how I could ever live without it.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
helicopter crash
dead flesh stinking charred flesh
freebsd death
Firstly - there is no *BSD. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and BSD/OS (to name a few) are all seperate projects with different ideas and goals.
Secondly - JKH hasn't quit FreeBSD, he left the core team but still works on FreeBSD as well as OSX.
Thirdly - OSX uses Darwin which is based on FreeBSD.
His use of "effecting" in his joke was correct, at least according to the dictionaries I have. So it wasn't a very good joke.
Some people do it to help debug and test the next release. Others are crazy about the latest new insignificant feature.
>npc@temple:(22:40:11):/usr/src/sys/kern]
>grep "UNIX System Lab" *
[snip]
>You were saying...?
And what percentage of the codebase is that? One percent? Even before 4.4lite, it's reported that 90-95% percent of the codebase was rewritten.
Let's say way back when I owned a Packard Bell. Some cool game comes out, so I get a new video card. Then I start running out of space, so I throw in a new hard drive. And then the phone company screws up and doubles voltage, frying my modem, so I replace that. And then I decide I want something faster, so I throw in a new motherboard, processor and memory. Then I want a DVD drive, but there's no room in the case, so I put move the whole thing to a new case.
Am I still running a Packard Bell because I happen to have kept the mouse and sound card from that machine?
If we're going to accept that logic, is Windows XP a BSD since it has Berkeley code in it?
Matt
>It is accurate enough. If memory serves me right,
>only six files were removed from the codebase as
>part of a lawsuit settlement.
And before that, 90-95% of the code base was rewritten. Which is why I said "the last" of the contested code.
Matt