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)."
Slashdot's aim is to post news and information that it's readers can benefit from
/. editors is to generate as many page hits by posting stories that generate discussions. In geek parlance, this is called trolling.
I think you've misinterpreted what Slashdot is all about.
The aim of the
This "article" isn't even a real article. It's a newsletter from the BSD camp. Perhaps there is something interesting posted in the issue, but you'd never know it from reading the writeup which just gives a shotgun blast overview of the topics covered.
We don't get updated every time Dr. Dobbs releases a new issue. Why should Ezine be any different?
I have been pwned because my
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
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.
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.
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
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
>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.)
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.
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/
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.
linux-infatuated kiddies like yourself
Whoa whoa whoa. There's no need for name calling.
Let's not digress from the main point which is that this article is only news to those people who think it's news that the sun rises every day. If you think it's important that newsletters be announced every time they are published, that's fine. Just keep that crap off the main page.
I have been pwned because my
It doesn't make sense to filter out the entire BSD section because I think one story was a piece of shit. There are so many stories on the BSD back page that are much more interesting than this dreck that I find it hard to believe this article was ever accepted, much less to the main page.
If you continue to believe that a newsletter's release, monthly apparently, is newworthy, that's your perogative. I maintain that newsletter publications are not newsworthy, much less front page material.
I have been pwned because my
>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