Slashdot Mirror


NetBSD 1.6 Released

BSD Forums writes "The NetBSD Project is pleased to announce that release 1.6 of the NetBSD operating system is now available. NetBSD is widely known as the most portable operating system in the world. It currently supports fifty two different system architectures, all from a single source tree, and is always being ported to more. The NetBSD 1.6 release contains complete binary releases for thirty nine different system architectures. The thirteen remaining are not fully supported at this time and are thus not part of the binary distribution." hubertf adds some important notes: "Many of the FTP Mirrors are now carrying the NetBSD 1.6 distribution. Please try to use the NetBSD FTP Mirror Site closest to you. ... Czech, German, French, Japanese, Polish, Portugese , Russian, Spanish and Swedish language translations of the NetBSD 1.6 release announcement are available." The NetBSD packages collection now includes over 3000 pieces of software, including KDE3, OpenOffice and many more of the usual suspects.

199 comments

  1. What is NetBSD? by DrLudicrous · · Score: 1

    How does NetBSD relate to Linux?

    1. Re:What is NetBSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't relate to Linux... And that's a good thing (for NetBSD : )

    2. Re:What is NetBSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a better thing for Linux, as *BSD is known to be dying.

    3. Re:What is NetBSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would love to migrate to netbsd, i love it so much :(

      but unfortunately im not allowed to until a transparent cryptographic filesystem is supported ( i know about CFS, but its terrible ) im stuck with linux using the encrypted loop device until then :(

      if any netbsd developers are reading this, PLEASE!!!

    4. Re:What is NetBSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We will get to it after we finish our massive homosexual orgy.
      The NetBSD Core Group
    5. Re:What is NetBSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of FreeBSD's mega-committers is working on GEOM, a framework for disk transactions below the file system level. Supposedly it will make cryptography-protected file systems easier to implement. Hopefully the folks at NetBSD are following his work.

    6. Re:What is NetBSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please supply references supporting your claims.

    7. Re:What is NetBSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is like saying provide references the sky is blue. It is widely known.

    8. Re:What is NetBSD? by BokLM · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha... Why do you want BSD to die ??

    9. Re:What is NetBSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "widely known" should mean that there is an abundance of references out there, and still you do not manage to supply a single one...

    10. Re:What is NetBSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is the sky blue?
      http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Gener al/Blue Sky/blue_sky.html

      Proof that *BSD is dying:
      ?

    11. Re:What is NetBSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BSD is better than leenewx. It's what leenewx wants to be, but keeps getting it wrong. leenewx is just a copy of OS ideas that have been around for a long time and for which free BSD source is already available and runs better than leenewx too.

    12. Re:What is NetBSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kreskin.

    13. Re:What is NetBSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=reference

    14. Re:What is NetBSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NetBSD is an operating system similar to UNIX. It is written by a cabal of homosexuals, and it is used by a scattered few who are afraid of the GPL. It spends a lot of time pretending it is Linux, but it isn't, and that is why NetBSD is dying.

  2. Front page? by Dahan · · Score: 2

    Man, I was about to make a post (to the NetBSD foundation board election results story) wondering if 1.6 would make the front page or not... I guess it did, which is nice for a change.

    1. Re:Front page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? New linux kernel versions end up on the front page!

    2. Re:Front page? by cscx · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yeah, just look at these major changes:

      Changelog for sysctl(8):

      * sysctl.c: changed ++j to j++ [Brian Pane]

      * sysctl.c: changed ++i to ++joe in honor of myself [Joe Orton]

      * sysctl.c: fuck you guys, ++i is better [Justin Erenkrantz]

      * sysctl.c: changed i += 1 to i++ for better performance [Graham Leggett]

      * sysctl.c: changed i = i + 1 to i += 1 [Ian Holsman]

    3. Re:Front page? by Dahan · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I was seeing a whole slew of Linux development kernel announcements on the front page (Linux 2.5.17 is out! Linux 2.5.18 is out! Linux 2.5.18-ac7 is out! Linux 2.5.18-ac7pl2 is out! Linux 2.5.18-ac7pl2r2.7182818 is out!), so I wanted to see if a NetBSD development kernel would make it to the front page. It didn't, of course.

    4. Re:Front page? by Strog · · Score: 1

      I got it to it straight from the main page. It is posted on the front even if it is in the BSD section.

    5. Re:Front page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget the previous post. I thought he meant THIS article. DUH

  3. bsd by sheol · · Score: 0, Troll

    hah. i have linux 7.3. these people are behind the times!

    1. Re:bsd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have been on slashdot long enough to know that that comment are even less funny than the "can you imagine a beowulf cluster of those", the "hot grits", the "natalie portmans", and the "tsk, I just installed version X-1".

      FOAD.

      ps, just in case you haven't seen it before, look here

    2. Re:bsd by Zakabog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Really? Linux 7.3? Did a wormhole open up somewhere in space and spit out a copy of Linux 7.3? Will people PLEASE stop reffering to Redhat (or mandrake, if there is a 7.3) 7.3 as "Linux 7.3"!!!! I'm in #linuxhelp on efnet alot, helping people, and it's driving me nuts that half the people think they have Linux .

      The kernel version is the version of Linux you have, 7.3 is your distro version, things like this make me hate redhat, sure it introduces people to linux but it's mostly the wrong people. Also, you don't seriously belive that because this number is 1.6 and you have redhat 7.3 that redhat 7.3 is newer, do you? I really hope you were joking but then again some people are trully clueless. Anyway, if you don't belive me get into a shell and type less /proc/version it should say something like Linux version 2.4.whatever. Dunno what redhat comes with.

    3. Re:bsd by alan_d_post · · Score: 3, Funny

      I believe you have been trolled . . . .

      It is time to take a deep breath, relax, and install NetBSD.

    4. Re:bsd by dattaway · · Score: 2

      But he does convey the biggest problem when people ask for help. They fail to realize unix systems are very modular and newbies give amazing detailed lists of irrelevant information. Like what does the kernel have to do with the mailing system?

    5. Re:bsd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ps, just in case you haven't seen it before, look here [goatse.cx]

      ..and I get a 404. Yes, I've seen 404's before :-P

      What, is it supposed to be some kind of gross picture or something? Better luck next time, you tosser.

    6. Re:bsd by Ventilator · · Score: 1

      I've met different Newbies than yours are.
      Most of the time, all I get is "My Linux does not work" or "I want a Webserver"... *sigh*

      --
      --- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization.
    7. Re:bsd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you mention you are in #linuxhelp on efnet a lot ? You mean, should we respect you for that very fact ? Rolling on the floor !

      Nope, if you idle there, you're probably _kicking_and_being_lame_ a lot more than being really usefull.

      Plus, dude, you dont even understand sarcasms and irony, therefore, you're looking just ridiculous.

  4. first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first post?

    1. Re:first? by DrLudicrous · · Score: 1

      Nope, not even close.

    2. Re:first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you, some kind of a dumbass? Why would you reply to a failed first post? :-\ Newbies...

  5. I r dumb :-/ by Zakabog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was just wondering, what's the difference between OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD? I have FreeBSD on one computer (just wanted to learn a new OS and I already have linux on a bunch of my computers). When I picked which BSD I wanted I just figured I'd go with FreeBSD since I hear about it alot. Now I'm beginning to wonder, what's the difference (really, I don't have a clue.) Sorry that this is a bit off topic I just don't want to be kicked from some #bsd channels for asking such a stupid question.

    1. Re:I r dumb :-/ by sc00p18 · · Score: 1

      Well, you already run freebsd, so you know what that's like. OpenBSD focuses on being secure. ("One remote hole in the default install, in nearly 6 years!") NetBSD is famous for being so portable ("Of course it runs NetBSD.") FreeBSD's tagline is "The power to serve," so I guess it makes a good server OS. Personally I tend to think of FreeBSD as focusing on x86, and having an outstanding ports collection.

    2. Re:I r dumb :-/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OpenBSD strives for security, and despite som recent flaws it IS damn
      secure compared to other OS's. There are also many security mechanisms
      not found in the other BSDs(or linux for that matter, yet)

      FreeBSD tries to be userfriendly (not in the sense of beeing the desktop OS for your mom), it has pretty decent hardware support, and alot of ports(easy installable software).

      NetBSD is portable, support for your favourite arcitecture are very likely. As well as it is seems to be used for testing/researching new ideas, many of the good innovations comes from NetBSD.
      (hint, linux kernel hackers should - and probably have read the "Design and implementation of UVM" - http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/kernel/uvm.htm l)

    3. Re:I r dumb :-/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suggest you visit the following web pages and
      read the contents:

      www.freebsd.org

      www.netbsd.org

      www.openbsd.org

      (not necessarily in that order)

    4. Re:I r dumb :-/ by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      The differences are a lot less significant than they used to be.

      FreeBSD was originally designed to be the most feature rich, but limited to x86 architecture.

      OpenBSD was designed to be the most secure, but with less features.

      NetBSD was designed to run on every obscure architecture you can think of (dreamcasts, javastations, blenders)

      Nowadays though, it means less and less.

      OpenBSD is still by default the most secure, but if you know what you're doing any of the three is very secure.

      FreeBSD still has the most ports, but binary compatiblity is now more or less a reality amongst them (and they can run 99% of Linux apps as well).

      NetBSD still works on the most platforms, but even FreeBSD (with its 386BSD roots) works (or soon will) on most common platforms.

      I personally use FreeBSD for servers (more options) and NetBSD for clients (easier to configure).

    5. Re:I r dumb :-/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commodore 64 - no remote holes in the default installation in nearly 21 years.

    6. Re:I r dumb :-/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for all 25 sun4c users out there who desire top performance (I am one), NetBSD is the way to go!

      http://search.luky.org/linux-kernel.2001/msg2202 5. html

    7. Re:I r dumb :-/ by Arandir · · Score: 2

      I was just wondering, what's the difference between OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD?

      Why is this question posted every time a BSD story makes it to the front page? Inquiring minds want to know...

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    8. Re:I r dumb :-/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just wondering, what's the different between Redhat, Mandrake, SuSE, Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, Yellow Dog, LFS, United, Open, Turbo, Corel, Lindows, and Lycoris Linux?

    9. Re:I r dumb :-/ by cyberdog6 · · Score: 1
      OpenBSD is for a secure gateway.

      NetBSD is for an easy(for Unix) to configure desktop.

      FreeBSD is for a powerful server.

      MacOSX is if you want all of these things, and still want to run apps you can buy in a store or ones you may actually have heard of. If you need to run Office(the real one), Photoshop, Dreamweaver, the list goes on, and still use all the Linux and BSD software you want to run. Hope that clears it up:-)

      --
      Evil is the money of all root....
    10. Re:I r dumb :-/ by KC7GR · · Score: 2

      No, you're not dumb. Just curious. Curious is a Good Thing.

      Although all the *BSD's are based on the same branch of the Unix tree (Berkeley Systems Design, as you may already know), the difference between NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD is, at least to my eyes, in the orientation of the particular system involved.

      To clarify: NetBSD's orientation has always been to be runnable on as many different hardware architectures as possible, and to be a solid, general-purpose OS for servers and development. So, if your goal is to set up a free *nix OS on, say, a MicroVAX or older NEC RISC machine, NetBSD would be a good choice.

      FreeBSD has always been oriented towards the PC platform, hardware-wise, and also seems to be among the more user-friendly of the BSD family. If you're just starting out with BSD, and you don't want to learn the ins and outs of non-PC hardware, FreeBSD is a good choice that will grow with you as you gain (programming) skills.

      OpenBSD has always had one, single, simple focus: Security. Its aim is to be secure right out of the box. Default installations are locked down tight, port and service-wise, until you actually go in and enable what you want to enable. OpenBSD's other strength is that it is rapidly gaining on NetBSD where being able to run on many different hardware platforms is concerned.

      If you're setting up a machine to be a firewall/router, or a -very- secure server, OpenBSD will do the trick.

      Hope that helps. Keep the peace(es).

      --

      Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

      Blue Feather Technologies

    11. Re:I r dumb :-/ by The+Finn · · Score: 1
      OpenBSD's other strength is that it is rapidly gaining on NetBSD where being able to run on many different hardware platforms is concerned.

      Considering OpenBSD and NetBSD are closely related, there's plenty of cross-pollination between the two. NetBSD may have hpcmips, but OpenBSD has mvme88k. it really is a shame both sides couldn't come to some kind of agreement and make up for past behavior, but until then, the CVS trees on both sides are world-readable. :)

      --
      NetBSD: the cathedral vs the bizzare.
  6. Have the init scripts been fixed yet? by NaCh0 · · Score: 0, Troll

    One of the worst parts about BSD are the init scripts. They need to get with the times and adopt service based SysV style init scripts. Theres nothing easier than an /etc/init.d/service start and stop.

    1. Re:Have the init scripts been fixed yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean like this?

      http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/rc/#a3

    2. Re:Have the init scripts been fixed yet? by alan_d_post · · Score: 1

      Um, NetBSD has had nice init scripts at least since 1.5 (almost two years ago). When was the last time you used it?

      e.g. /etc/rc.d/postfix reload

    3. Re:Have the init scripts been fixed yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      With NetBSD 1.5 was introduced a new init system, allowing dynamic ordering of startup and shutdown scripts.

      You can also use /etc/rc.d/script (start|stop).

      IMHO, Luke Mewburn's rc.d system (imported in FreeBSD-CURRENT recently, it will be the default init system for 5.0) is even superior to the old SysV system, which uses a static ordering and offers no dependancy handling.

    4. Re:Have the init scripts been fixed yet? by flynn_nrg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please, take your time to study how the NetBSD rc system works. It has all the advantages of sysV style init scritps, but none of the disadvantages. Let's say I install apache via the pkgsrc system. Now all I have to do is add apache=YES in my /etc/rc.conf file and the system will automagically start apache at boot time. Of course I can start or stop it manually should I have the need to do so with a simple /etc/rc.d/apache [start|stop]

      FWIW, FreeBSD 5.0 will feature this same system, Gordon Tetlow and others are working on a port of NetBSD's script system to FreeBSD.

    5. Re:Have the init scripts been fixed yet? by dirtyhippie · · Score: 1

      Ugh. How nasty. Different files all doing different things, with no connection amongst them. Nothing more fun than having 95-99 all in order and needing to insert an important function before 97 but after 96. What's wrong with just putting it in a single file?

      Not to criticize linux and others that take this approach, but there is something to be said for the simplicity of the /etc/rc* approach.

      On BSD (as on linux):
      apachectl start/stop/restart/graceful works.
      ndc start/stop/reload/restart works.]
      etc, etc.

      Why you need a script to wrap around that (that you have to type /etc/rc.d/ before) is beyond me.

      Peace,
      DH

    6. Re:Have the init scripts been fixed yet? by Captain+Pedantic · · Score: 1

      If you have S96first and S97third, and you need to to install second somewhere, you can call it either S96second or S97second, and it will run when you want it to. This 96 97 comparison thing doesn't stop at the numbers, the whole file name is compared.

      Ok, so apachectl and ndc have been written. Is there an equivalent for each and every service that you might want to run? If there is, then why do you have to have to wrap a script around them in order to run them at boot? If not, how is the junior admin going to know the correct way to stop or start something? Well, they could read the script, but wouldn't a quick nose around /etc/init.d be quicker?

      To be honest typing an /etc/init.d (or more accurately /eTABinTAB) is a lot less hassle than to install a new service (or take it away) in the middle of your bootscript. Can you test your boot scripts without rebooting? What happens if there is a problem halfway through and the script craps out?

      --

      None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
    7. Re:Have the init scripts been fixed yet? by dirtyhippie · · Score: 1

      Ummm, if you have a junior admin who doesn't know how to HUP a process (or for that matter, read a man page), may gods of luck bless you a thousand times over, because you will surely need it.

    8. Re:Have the init scripts been fixed yet? by abs0 · · Score: 1
      > Different files all doing different things, with
      > no connection amongst them. Nothing more fun than
      > having 95-99 all in order and needing to insert an
      > important function before 97 but after 96.

      Agreed, using numbers to order startsup scripts is clumsy and awkward at best, which is why NetBSD's startup scripts use a cleaner method: rc manpage

  7. Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NetBSD is the one without any ported desktop applications

    OpenBSD is the one that can't do SMP.

    FreeBSD is the one Mac users and fags (usually one in the same) flock to.

    Pass it along.

    1. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XFree86 4.2 and KDE 3 runs on all BSD's.

      Furthermore: the difference between the BSD's is mainly their focus. NetBSD is focused on portability, OpenBSD on security and FreeBSD is the easiest one, which keeps track on Desktop and performance.

      Linux isn't all that.

      Greetz,
      Lethalis

    2. Re:Easy answer by Ventilator · · Score: 2, Informative

      For Intels, FreeBSD is probably the best choice, speaking of performance.

      NetBSD is cool because it runs on almost anything with a decent CPU inside (Sparc, Toaster, Mower...) I plan on using it for my NAT/FW on an almost obsolete SparcStation 5 and for a SSH-only Mailmachine on an even obsoleter (but still cute) Sparc IPX.

      Speaking of OpenBSD I still believe that a reasonable admin can achieve as much a secure system with Free- and NetBSD or a Linux as he could with OpenBSD.

      Mostly, the choice is of your BSD is rather ideological than technical. As is with choosing a Linux Distribution. (For example, I quite like Slackware because of it's BSDish approach to Linux.)

      --
      --- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization.
    3. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Each BSD is focused on one thing and sucks at everything else.

      BSD's aren't all that.

      Each one has conspicously missing features.

      I mean BSDs might have been better than Linux in like 1996 or something...

      But now if you go on about how BSD rocks and Linux sucks, you're only showing either your outdated knowledge or lack of understanding about OSes.

      If you took the best features from each of the _binary incompatable_ BSDs and merged them all together it MIGHT be able to match Linux.

      If you're to stupid to realize all the many places where Linux has utterly surpassed BSD then just keep on using BSD, Linux doesn't need dumb asses like you anyways.

    4. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're to stupid to realize all the many places where Linux has utterly surpassed BSD then just keep on using BSD, Linux doesn't need dumb asses like you anyways.

      "to stupid", huh?

      Linux doesn't need evangelists like you

    5. Re:Easy answer by mbadolato · · Score: 2

      How nice of you to make blanket statements of how BSD sucks and Linux is better, without providing one single point to support that!

      Just because you have an opinion, doesn't mean you're right.

    6. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as they can only attack the grammar then you know the arguement is valid.

    7. Re:Easy answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of performance, NetBSD is as good as FreeBSD on x86, or better. NetBSD focuses on clean system design and proper solutions, which pays dividents also in less bloat and faster kernel operation.

  8. Let's Roll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  9. Ignorant question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    OK, I could Google for this, but could someone with wisdom enlighten me with a summary or some well chosen links ...

    How does NetBSD compare with Linux in terms of:

    • Everyday use - ie command line syntax, configuration...
    • What it's good for - in particular, is it good for desktop use(since it runs KDE)?
    • Advantages and disadvantages
    1. Re:Ignorant question by rplacd · · Score: 1
      Everyday use - ie command line syntax, configuration...

      similar enough not to matter. i mean, you get bash, grep, etc in both.



      What it's good for - in particular, is it good for desktop use(since it runs KDE)?

      it's a general purpose unixy os, like linux. good for the same stuff, including desktop foo.



      Advantages and disadvantages

      depend entirely on your requirements.



      i don't have any links. try them both out and decide for yourself.
    2. Re:Ignorant question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      BSD flavours tend to use various GNU tools, and GNU/Linux distros similarly have a lot of BSD utilities, so the differences aren't large. If you install the Bash shell, you'll find a very familiar working environment, with just some differences in the filesystem layout and admin tasks that need to be studied.

      As for desktop use, it's probably not going to give you anything over Linux on a soopa-doopah Pentium 4 512M monster. NetBSD's goal is portability and simplicity -- a small, solid and useful OS for all sorts of different machines. All platform ports are built from the same tree, so NetBSD on your ancient Atari Falcon will behave virtually identically to it running on a goliath Sun box.

      Contrast this to Linux, where a lot of non-i386 ports tend to be maintained as patches from the main tree, and use different distros etc.

      Give NetBSD a whirl. It's not fancy but it's very reliable and easy to understand. You'll learn more about UNIX in general.

  10. YHBT YHL HAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  11. 52 ports are nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but when will NetBSD be ported to the special configuration of Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Linux servers, as illustrated by http://goatse.cx/?

  12. "Supported" systems by 00_NOP · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not wanting to start a religious war and all that... but although NetBSD lists the Dreamcast as supported. the support is pretty poor: no sound, no lightgun, no rumblepak, no mouse, no X windows, no vmu. All of these are supported in LinuxDC.

    1. Re:"Supported" systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool... I like that tripped out Tux logo on the homepage.

    2. Re:"Supported" systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There's a reason for this; once NetBSD hackers learn how to boot, Linux developers are able to swoop in, look at the bootstrap code, and use it as documentation to port Linux in. A GPL developer can't become 'tainted' from a glance at BSD code, but most BSD developers would rather not tempt fate and the FSF.

      Thus, the support from Linux doesn't get rolled back into the pioneering system, and it languishes until the new discoveries are documented enough outside of source that some enterprising soul says, "Damn, Linux has had this support for years, and we still don't?," does a Google, finds the spec in human language, and submits their own implementation.

      This is not to lambaste either license, but to point out that the disparity is the root of the problem. Give props to NetBSD for getting you booting!

    3. Re:"Supported" systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    4. Re:"Supported" systems by ghack · · Score: 1

      Not wanting to start a religious war and all that... but although NetBSD lists the Dreamcast as supported. the support is pretty poor: no sound, no lightgun, no rumblepak, no mouse, no X windows, no vmu. All of these are supported in LinuxDC

      Bear in mind, netbsd has a LOT fewer developers than linux. Also bear in mind that some people don't like the GPL, and therefore choose not to use linux.

      Don't get me wrong...I don't mind the GPL, and I use linux on some machines. I just prefer netbsd, and I'd rather run an X-Less, Mouse-Less NetBSD than a nice linux install. This is what most NetBSD users have in common: were crazy hardcore!

    5. Re:"Supported" systems by Walterk · · Score: 1

      That's strange, I prefer a nice NetBSD install over a nice linux install. Much more reliable, has solid NFS code, and is generally more stable and doesn't suffer from odd glitches I've seen using linux on my main workstation. My other workstation, a laptop, runs NetBSD (only IrDA doesn't work), with a nice X interface, a couple of mice, and KDE and whatnot.

      Although I must agree: I'm odd. I choose BSD license over GPL. I choose NetBSD over linux. I choose innovation by a stable collection of hardcore developers over strange coders from all over the globe trying to get their code into an overhyped OS.

    6. Re:"Supported" systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bear in mind, netbsd has a LOT fewer developers than linux.

      Errr...Number of active Linux kernel hackers on DC: 1

      So, are we to take it *nobody* is hacking BSD on the Dreamcast?

    7. Re:"Supported" systems by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      When something is supported in NetBSD, it generally means it's part of the one big source tree that all of NetBSD runs on (almost always). Since Linux is just a kernal, and people toss in whatever userland, etc. that they want, every 'distribution' of Linux is really a separate fork. Everybody runs the same userland on all those different hardware architectures of NetBSD. That means everybody on the NetBSD team is working on essentially the same project.

      There is One 'distribution' of NetBSD, and the base install is built out of the same set of source for all architectures. Many people view that as a good thing. I don't run it on old Macintoshes any longer, just Intel and Sparc, but the seamless way configs can move from machine to machine all running the same userland code (and building packages from the same /user/pkgsrc tree) is really nice.

    8. Re:"Supported" systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DC demo community had software running on the DC long before Linux or NetBSD. In fact, Linux was booting on the DC before NetBSD was, so not even is NetBSD not first, it wasn't second either...

    9. Re:"Supported" systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I choose NetBSD because Linux is too mainstream for me. I switched to FreeBSD, but it got too mainstream too. If by some miracle, NetBSD gets popular, I'll have to seek my life affirmation through Atheos or NewOS or maybe I'll convert to an Amiga nut."

      -- babelfish.

  13. Re:BSD has been dying for a long time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You wanna rumble fucka?

    Think you COOL? Think you can take the Snakes? Just try us. Meet us at the empty lot out by Pier 4-A, you know where. Look for my flathead '32 Ford.

    I'm bringin' THA BOYS: Crunch, Slappy, JoMoFo, Big Eddie, Emaciated Eddie, Stupid, Drooly, Joey No-Pain, Tommy "I CRUSH YOU TESTICLES" Scungilli, Rutherford the Spade, and Ajax.

    We got pipes, we got chains, we got zip-guns. You go ahead, bring your whole crew: you don't stand a fuckin' chance. Better for you you don't show up at all.

  14. Re:BSD has been dying for a long time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BSD is already dead.

    It is among the undead.

  15. Mod -1, Lazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lame cut and paste. At least put some effort into it, and add the links.

  16. NetBSD for learning and producing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet. NetBSD has proven to be a great production and research plataform. I've got many servers running it withouth glitches, and it also serves as the plataform for a industrial automation project I'm working on. It's really a nice system for the professional and student who want to control and known his system. Go for it!

  17. About time by Elflord1999 · · Score: 1

    I've been sitting waiting for the FreeBSD Sparc port for way too long. Not this is not a Sparc-64 or UltraSparc. I have about a metric ton of SparcStation 5 machines that desperately need release from the old old version of NetBSD that runs on them. If 1.6 is good enough, it's quite possible I can release the anger I have over FreeBSD and not join the Dark Side. Whew.

    1. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do yourself a favour and install OpenBSD

      Runs like a charm on the Sparc 5's and 10's

    2. Re:About time by rplacd · · Score: 1

      i think you've been waiting for the wrong thing. right from the beginning, freebsd's sparc port effort has aimed for the sparc4u, not the older architectures.

    3. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didn't you run -CURRENT in the meantime?

    4. Re:About time by Elflord1999 · · Score: 1

      Ah well, I guess NetBSD is looking even better then. Live and learn.

    5. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you followed the freebsd-sparc@freebsd.org mailing list? The sparc port seems to be progressing at a rather brisk pace. Sitting around and whining instead of contributing doesn't help anyone.

    6. Re:About time by iNiTiUM · · Score: 1

      NetBSD loves the Sparc 32-bit stuff (Except the SS1000 and SC2000). I'm currently running it at home on a SparcStation Voyager and am lookin forward to the PCMCIA + Sparc support in 1.6 (802.11 anyone?). At work i run it on a SparcStation 20 with a 150mhz HyperSPARC. Its mainly used for testing scsi gear and SBus cards. About my only bitch is that it doesn't support the sound in either of them. Appearantly Sun used an audio chip for the audio AND the onboard ISDN in both of these machines (a la windodem). Oh yeah, i'm also running it on my laptop but am considering switching it back to linux for better wardriving^W802.11 support :)

      --
      When encryption is outlawed, ou++1!@(93j++js-d9298yIUH(*Y24JKB!~
    7. Re:About time by dadragon · · Score: 1

      Runs like a charm on the Sparc 5's and 10's

      That's because de Raadt is the former maintainer of NetBSD's Sparc port. He's now the leader of the OpenBSD project.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
  18. Re:BSD has been dying for a long time... by maunleon · · Score: 1

    Yeah yeah, and somehow it managed not to be dead, with all the dying it's been doing.

    Also, I guess I would qualify OS X as a *BSD, no? It doesn't seem to be dying. :)

  19. The 'real' easy answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    NetBSD is the one without any ported desktop applications

    OpenBSD is the one that can't do SMP.

    FreeBSD is the one Mac users and fags (usually one in the same) flock to.


    Heh. NetBSD actually has a surprising number of ports- or 'packages,' as they call both make skeletons for source builds and binary tarballs; I just installed NetBSD (and upgraded today, whee) for my own sick reasons, and was surprised to discover how much software was available; the 'pkgsrc' tree works not only on every NetBSD architecture, but Solaris and Darwin as well- rather surprising, coming from FreeBSD. It also has sane update/upgrade targets, something FreeBSD's only just copied with portupgrade.

    The nice thing is that NetBSD installs package files to /usr/pkg, or a configurable path (/usr/local/pkg would really make more sense), freeing up /usr/local/bin and the like for sysadmin tweaking. FreeBSD users will know what a mess /usr/local/bin becomes with a reasonable load of software, and how annoying it'd be to install a homebuilt binary there and forget about it.

    NetBSD also tends to attract features from all-comers, meaning it gets some nifty stuff- USB support, new filesystems, various RAID features first. It also means NetBSD users end up risking stability with these first. ;)

    As OpenBSD was forked from NetBSD, neither have SMP just yet. OpenBSD is "the one you install if you want a reasonable guarantee of security for the first hours of configuration." Now that all BSD distros have adopted some of the basic tenets of the OpenBSD mindset- turning off unnecessary services in the base install- it's less of an issue, but even with the recent OpenSSH holes, there's something to be said for the audited kernel and userland. OpenBSD is what you run on your router/NAT/VPN-service box, don't bother with it as a desktop unless you Need To Be L33t. (It does make a good learner's system, given its relative adherence to simplicity, but that's supposed to be NetBSD's department, and it probably would be less painful.)

    FreeBSD is 'the one everyone uses.' It's a descendent of 386BSD, the first post-AT&T-lawsuit project to take a stab at a free BSD distribution. (NetBSD followed shortly, and the release of new sources brought both to the same underpinnings.) Today, it's a mishmash of features from the other two, but while NetBSD's goal is "Run on Everything, Try out Everything," and OpenBSD's is "Secure by Default," FreeBSD tries (with varying success) to be a sort of stable and predictable platform for the average user. Given the 386BSD history, x86 has always been the platform of choice, and the kernel features some tweaks in that direction which the other BSDs may have missed. It's the One That Supports SMP, and The One That Will Support SMP Much Better with the upcoming release of 5.0.

    Each BSD works on a different development cycle, and each's kernel evolves with the distribution, rather than separately. NetBSD goes on a two-year cycle, if I understand correctly, with each release branch frozen immediately (barring security patches, which can occasionally inspire point releases, as seen with 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3); OpenBSD sticks to a release every 6 months- 3.0 was just 'what happened after 2.9.' FreeBSD forks on major version numbers, running an evolving -STABLE branch (4.0, 4.1 .. 4.7, 4-STABLE) with features getting rolled back and forth between those trees and the development sources; major architectural changes are saved for version jumps, as seen in the huge improvements between 3.x and 4.x, and the introduction of KSE and SMPng for 5.x)

    Darwin is the bastard child maintained by Apple, using a Mach kernel, FreeBSD userland, NetBSD pkgsrc, and whatever else is deemed to best suit OS X. It's 'fun' for a certain class of developer, but the mention of Mach should prove it's best left to the insane. If you'd want Darwin, you may as well buy a Mac and enjoy the benefits of the Quartz graphics system.

    1. Re:The 'real' easy answer. by flynn_nrg · · Score: 2, Informative
      Blockquoth parent:
      As OpenBSD was forked from NetBSD, neither have SMP just yet.

      christine: {2} sysctl hw
      hw.machine = i386
      hw.model = Intel Pentium III (Katmai) (686-class)
      hw.ncpu = 2
      christine: {3} uname -srn
      NetBSD christine 1.6

    2. Re:The 'real' easy answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it doesn't make a big difference without fine grained locking so what's the point.

      BSD is dying !

    3. Re:The 'real' easy answer. by Fweeky · · Score: 3, Informative
      FreeBSD users will know what a mess /usr/local/bin becomes with a reasonable load of software, and how annoying it'd be to install a homebuilt binary there and forget about it.

      echo "LOCALBASE = /usr/pkg" >>/etc/make.conf

      Just be prepared to uncover the odd LOCALBASE cleanliness bug.
    4. Re:The 'real' easy answer. by jschauma · · Score: 2

      the 'pkgsrc' tree works not only on every NetBSD architecture, but Solaris and Darwin as well

      pkgsrc also works beautifully on Linux, making it possible to break package-manager-hell for those who must run linux. Shweet.
      --

      -- "Tradition is the illusion of permanence."
    5. Re:The 'real' easy answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darwin is the bastard child maintained by Apple, using a Mach kernel, FreeBSD userland, NetBSD pkgsrc, and whatever else is deemed to best suit OS X. It's 'fun' for a certain class of developer, but the mention of Mach should prove it's best left to the insane. If you'd want Darwin, you may as well buy a Mac and enjoy the benefits

      Read the rest of this comment...

      If you click on you can actually read only one more line: "of the Quartz graphics system.". Wouldn't be better to just write the final line? ;)

      chrix

  20. BSD guy needs help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I am a BSD user and yesterday I went to the doctor, and I learned that I am HIV positive. Now I know that this doesn't mean that I have AIDS but I'm really scared and I don't know what to do. How am I supposed to tell my parents? And do I have to go around to everyone I've ever sleeped with and tell them that they might have HIV? And what about my bf, I don't know how I could ever tell him and I can't stand to think that I might have given him this diesese. How can you look someone in the face and tell them that you might have given them something that would eventually kill them?

    Someone please help. I feel like I'm all alone here and I just don't know what to do. Maybe I would be better off just saving myself all the suffering that is coming...

    1. Re:BSD guy needs help by rplacd · · Score: 1
      Someone please help. I feel like I'm all alone here and I just don't know what to do. Maybe I would be better off just saving myself all the suffering that is coming...


      whatever you do -- linux isn't the answer.
    2. Re:BSD guy needs help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot is dying. Check out daemonnews.org

  21. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Score:1, Informative

  22. Ponderances by Kredal · · Score: 1

    It runs on Playstation 2 and Dreamcast... when will it run on the X-Box? (:

    Oh ya, and can you make a beowulf cluster of NetBSD boxes?

    --
    Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    1. Re:Ponderances by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can technically make a beowulf cluster out of anything that supports openssh that you can compile the pieces of your program for.

      A simple beowulf cluster is just a shell script that does some sshing to each client and compiling and running the job to be run, combine that with another trivial script to scp files over, and that's it.

      clusterrun.sh:
      ssh cluster@192.168.0.1 $1
      ssh cluster@192.168.0.2 $1 ...
      ssh cluster@192.168.0.n $1

      clustercopy.sh
      scp $1 cluster@192.168.0.1:$2
      scp $1 cluster@192.168.0.2:$2 ...
      scp $1 cluster@192.168.0.n:$2

      $ ./clustercopy.sh mysource.c '/home/cluster/work'
      $ ./clusterrun.sh 'gcc /home/cluster/work/mysource.c'
      $ ./clusterrun.sh '/home/cluster/work/a.out'

      Anyway, that's all there is to it.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  23. Chances are, you're an idiot... by Komrade+S. · · Score: 1

    Oh no! It's dead! Sky is falling and so forth... Shut up.

    --

    s200.org - visit it (me), love it (me).

  24. Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm. Did I miss something big?

    There's no mention of new SMP in the INSTALL document... but yes, it seems to be in there.

    Of course, I was just trying to summarize the best use for each BSD, and I hope we can agree that FreeBSD SMPng (coming in 5.x) will blow away all things previous; the new NetBSD support sounds equivalent to what FreeBSD's had going for years (if only on x86), though it's certainly much better than nothing.

    1. Re:Huh. by Dahan · · Score: 2

      Actually, SMP on i386 is still on a CVS branch--if you download the released 1.6, it'll only use one of the processors. However, 1.6 does support SMP on some architectures, such as alpha, vax, and sparc. And PowerMacs will have SMP support in the next release.

    2. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is SMP for ross hypersparcs in sparcs.

  25. Moron... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The comment was obviously sarcastic trollism.

  26. Re:*BSD is dying by rplacd · · Score: 1

    man, that troll's old. can't you even come up with new material?

  27. It's spelled PORTUGUESE! by eggstasy · · Score: 2, Informative

    I am one, and I hate seeing that mistake over and over again. If you can, please correct that.
    Thank you.

    1. Re:It's spelled PORTUGUESE! by Dehumanizer · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm Portuguese too. XFree86 had that mistake in xf86cfg for years. :(

      --
      The Tlog - a technology blog
    2. Re:It's spelled PORTUGUESE! by hubertf · · Score: 2

      Fixed! :)
      (The change will be on the web site within an hour)

      - Hubert

    3. Re:It's spelled PORTUGUESE! by eggstasy · · Score: 1

      Hey thanks! :D

  28. lost in the noise by g4dget · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The *BSD kernels may be a little more reliable and simple, and the Linux kernel may support more drivers, but it seems to me the differences are pretty much lost in the noise.

    I think Jobs had the right idea when he picked Mach as the basis for NeXTStep: he wanted a kernel that looked like UNIX from the outside but that was much more componentized than the UNIX kernels of the time, or BSD/Linux today. I don't know whether Mach/Darwin is the best choice for that, but in general, I think it's where open source needs to go.

    After all, we don't recompile Bash or dynamically load libraries into Bash every time someone comes out with a new command line program. We shouldn't have to do that either for a new file system type, networking protocol, or driver. And expending much time on a BSD/Linux rivalry isn't going to address such issues.

    1. Re:lost in the noise by psamuels · · Score: 1
      After all, we don't recompile Bash or dynamically load libraries into Bash every time someone comes out with a new command line program.

      No, but you could, if you needed it to be a shell builtin for performance or other reasons.

      We shouldn't have to do that either for a new file system type, networking protocol, or driver.

      You still have to write and compile something - why not a kernel module?

      Kernel modules, in Linux and other Unix variants, has greatly decreased the need for a message-passing kernel architecture. You get the modularity without the performance hit or the design weirdness to work around the performance hit.

      Not that OS X is actually a microkernel OS! It's more like MkLinux or User-Mode Linux, in that one kernel is running on top of another but basically only using the host kernel for access to the hardware.

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
    2. Re:lost in the noise by lemkebeth · · Score: 1

      Close but, no cigar.

      xnu (the Darwin kernel) has both the BSD and modified Mach 3.0 compiled into one file and running in the same memory space.

      xnu is a hybrid kernel that keeps some of the advantages of microkernels (easy porting, etc.) but, has some of the advantages of a monolithic kernel (speed, etc.)

      xnu itself is pretty fast but, OS X's display server etc. (high level stuff) aren't as much but, are getting there.

    3. Re:lost in the noise by g4dget · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No, but you could, if you needed it to be a shell builtin for performance or other reasons.

      Indeed. When I do need the performance, it would be nice to be able to load modules dynamically. But for something like IPsec, PPP, UFS, ISO9660, CMOS, etc., I don't need the performance; maybe you do on your big server, but I don't, on my little laptop. As for "other reasons", there shouldn't be any reason other than performance to load something dynamically.

      You still have to write and compile something - why not a kernel module?

      Because, empirically, kernel modules seem to end up being very dependent on kernel versions; if they weren't, distributions like Debian wouldn't ship with different collections of most kernel modules for each kernel, they would ship with one kernel module per package for each function/driver, without much of a notion of a "kernel version".

      Another reason is that one bug in one kernel modules brings down the whole thing. That's unnecessary and makes driver development a huge pain.

      Not that OS X is actually a microkernel OS!

      I made no claims about what it is or even whether it is a good architecture. What I claimed was that Jobs correctly identified a problem and tried to address it as best as possible with the software available at the time.

      And I think he actually succeeded much more than Linux did in this particular regard: kernel extensions on OS X work much better than on Linux.

      (Jobs also correctly identified the problem with C/C++ GUI toolkits and his solution, Objective-C with DisplayPostscript, probably also was the best technical compromise at the time, but I think that choice hasn't turned out as well as his choice for kernel--OpenStep and Cocoa ended up with most of the same problems as other GUI toolkits.)

    4. Re:lost in the noise by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Because, empirically, kernel modules seem to end up being very dependent on kernel versions; if they weren't, distributions like Debian wouldn't ship with different collections of most kernel modules for each kernel, they would ship with one kernel module per package for each function/driver, without much of a notion of a "kernel version".
      >>>>>>
      That's more attributable to the fact that Linus doesn't want to freeze the driver API rather than any fault of the design. BeOS (and Windows!) both use dynamically loaded drivers into kernel space, and they work just fine (Windows' other design weirdness aside).

      Another reason is that one bug in one kernel modules brings down the whole thing. That's unnecessary and makes driver development a huge pain.
      >>>>>>>>
      Umm, the same thing happens with most OSs. If it works for a 64-proc Solaris box, it sure as hell is good enough for my laptop! Given that OS X runs everything in kernel space, it isn't immune to this either.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    5. Re:lost in the noise by be-fan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, Darwin is about half as fast as Linux on the same hardware for basic kernel operations (mmap, open, etc). And its subsystems (especially the VM) aren't anything to brag about in comparison to their counterparts in FreeBSD and NetBSD.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    6. Re:lost in the noise by lemkebeth · · Score: 1

      Which version?

      Link please.

    7. Re:lost in the noise by be-fan · · Score: 2

      1.3.7 I wouldn't expect newer versions to be dramatically faster, most of the changes (read the changelogs) occured in userspace (Quartz and whatnot).

      http://clustermonkey.org/~laz/pbook/rob.lmbench. tx t

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    8. Re:lost in the noise by g4dget · · Score: 2
      That's more attributable to the fact that Linus doesn't want to freeze the driver API rather than any fault of the design.

      If, after 10 years of hacking, it's not possible to provide a basic set of APIs for drivers, file systems, and other common kernel components, then the design is at fault. If not anything else, the Linux kernel could have two sets of APIs: stable and experimental. Other kernel architectures, involving message passing, RPC, or objects, also force people to think about this rather than keep changing things around haphazardly.

      Umm, the same thing happens with most OSs.

      I don't know what "most" means, but there are certainly many ways of avoiding that problem. For example, if you write the kernel in something other than assembly or C/C++, it gets much harder to crash the kernel accidentally. If you build a message passing kernel, you can transparently move drivers in and out of kernel address space, trading off performance and safety as needed. It's only monolithic kernels written in an unsafe language that are this sensitive.

      Don't get me wrong: Linux has been a reliable workhorse for many years, and the functionality in it is wonderful. But I think these issues are really becoming the biggest obstacle to its more widespread adoption and use on the desktop, and it's only going to get worse. If people don't seriously start thinking about addressing this now, some other kernel will take over in a few years, and that would mean more hassle for everybody. There are many ways of fixing it (see above), but first the patient has to admit that there is a problem, and I don't see that happening yet.

    9. Re:lost in the noise by be-fan · · Score: 2

      If, after 10 years of hacking, it's not possible to provide a basic set of APIs for drivers, file systems, and other common kernel components, then the design is at fault. If not anything else, the Linux kernel could have two sets of APIs: stable and experimental. Other kernel architectures, involving message passing, RPC, or objects, also force people to think about this rather than keep changing things around haphazardly.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
      Before you go faulting the design of the kernel, I'd ask you, what do you know that everyone hacking on the kernel doesn't. Face it, hardware changes, the goals of the OS change. Even now, if the driver API were frozen, it might be (for example) unsuitable for the NUMA machines that Linux is trying to target. Keeping the driver API fluid allows developers to fix stuff as needed, instead of being a slave to backwards compatibility. One thing an open source kernel gains over a closed-source one is more freedom with interfaces. GCC can keep breaking binary compatibility (and hence keep improving the ABI) because people can just recompile their software. Closed source OSs can't do that, and there is no reason for Linux to try to emulate that undesireable behavior.
      Umm, the same thing happens with most OSs.

      I don't know what "most" means, but there are certainly many ways of avoiding that problem. For example, if you write the kernel in something other than assembly or C/C++,
      >>>>>>>>
      You've immediatly lost all credibility right there. In the real world, people don't use sissy languages like Scheme to do OS programming. Its ASM and C, live with it.

      it gets much harder to crash the kernel accidentally.
      >>>>
      And you lose all semblence of performance.

      If you build a message passing kernel, you can transparently move drivers in and out of kernel address space, trading off performance and safety as needed.
      >>>>>
      If you're drivers are bothering you that much, you've got a problem. I've used some pretty flaky drivers in the past (NVIDIA's early kernel drivers) and I have yet to crash the kernel due to a driver problem. This is a dead horse. People long ago figured out that existing architectures were just not designed for microkernel systems, and that the saftey of a message passing interface did not justify the overhead required to give drivers access to the hardware. Even OS-X realized this, and put the whole kernel back in kernel-space, and replaced messaging with procedure calls.

      It's only monolithic kernels written in an unsafe language that are this sensitive.
      >>>>>>>>>
      Which is basically all of them. And they are that way for a reason. Besides, the fact that you use the word monolithic identifies you as a throwback to the 1990's. There are no monolithic kernels anymore, they're all modular. They don't have the safety of microkernels, but have all the advantage of seperating out components, and that's always been the real win.

      Don't get me wrong: Linux has been a reliable workhorse for many years, and the functionality in it is wonderful. But I think these issues are really becoming the biggest obstacle to its more widespread adoption and use on the desktop, and it's only going to get worse.
      >>>>>>>>>
      People don't go, "I don't use Linux because its not a microkernel written in Scheme," people say "I don't use Linux because it doesn't have the software I need." I mean what problem exactly are you trying to solve? Instability? Come on, not even MS claims that Linux is unstable. How about ease of use? Nope. As long as you're using an easy distro like Redhat or Mandrake, driver updates are a simple urpmi kernel-2.4.XX away. These days, there is very little mainstream hardware not supported in the stock kernel. On my Inspiron 8200 laptop, for example, every single gadget I have, from my USB mouse to my Pocket PC to my QuickCam is supported in the stock kernel. There is simply no reason to install outside drivers. And because there is no reason to do that, it makes no sense to limit the kernel developers just so the 3 people that distribute seperate drivers can have a stable ABI.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    10. Re:lost in the noise by g4dget · · Score: 2
      Before you go faulting the design of the kernel, I'd ask you, what do you know that everyone hacking on the kernel doesn't. Face it, hardware changes, the goals of the OS change.

      Microsoft, Apple, Amiga, and BeOS manage to make it work. It's only Linux that, in practice, seems to require kernel recompilation for many installations and distributions.

      In the real world, people don't use sissy [...]

      Look, I'm speaking as a user. I don't care about your (mis-)conceptions about software engineering or systems programming, I'm not suggesting any specific solutions for Linux. I'm telling you: the Linux kernel is my biggest headache in maintaining Linux desktops and servers. All the other stuff is handled wonderfully by the standard packaging and configuration systems.

      On my Inspiron 8200 laptop, for example, every single gadget I have, [...]

      Yes, the rallying cry of a software developer who doesn't care about users: "I like the way it works". And that's fine. If the Linux kernel developers don't want to fix that, that's their choice, that's the way open source works. But if they want continue to see widespread usage by others, I predict they need to fix this, because a kernel without this deficiency (from the point of many users) will come along sooner or later.

      Example: IPsec. Not included in the standard kernel. In order to get it working, I'll have to patch, configure, and recompile kernels for half a dozen different machines. For handhelds running Linux, this will be even more of a chore.

      And because there is no reason to do that, it makes no sense to limit the kernel developers just so the 3 people that distribute seperate drivers can have a stable ABI.

      Yes, and that is one of the problems: rather than fixing the kernel, kernel developers just stick more and more drivers into the kernel source tree.

      People don't go, "I don't use Linux because its not a microkernel written in Scheme," people say "I don't use Linux because it doesn't have the software I need."

      I agree 100%. And the software they need that isn't working is the drivers and other kernel modules they need to get their hardware working and communicate with the rest of the world.

    11. Re:lost in the noise by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Example: IPsec. Not included in the standard kernel. In order to get it working, I'll have to patch, configure, and recompile kernels for half a dozen different machines. For handhelds running Linux, this will be even more of a chore.
      >>>>>>
      If you need IPsec, then you can certainly recompile your kernel. The thing is that external stuff like IPsec is entirely analagous to external stuff in Windows. For example, Windows prior to Win98 SE didn't come with any NAT capability. Installing an add-on like raspppoe took a good bit of work. IPsec isn't a part of the standard Linux installation. Thus, it is to be expected that installing it takes some extra work.

      Yes, and that is one of the problems: rather than fixing the kernel, kernel developers just stick more and more drivers into the kernel source tree.
      >>>>>>>>>>
      There is no problem to fix. If the kernel developers wanted a standard ABI, they could have done it long ago. But they didn't for a reason. PC hardware changes too quickly for that to be feasible. Look at Windows and how long it takes them to support advances to PC hardware. Why? Because they have to be very careful that any changes they make don't break old binary drivers. Both Linux and Windows were designed at a time when drivers needed to know nothing about power management or ACPI or hotplugging. Now, drivers need to know these things. To support this, Windows has all sorts of strange interfaces (writing Windows drivers is a lot harder than writing UNIX drivers. I/O request packets and whatnot are a bitch). Linux has had to break interfaces, but the end result is much cleaner and more managable. As for adding more drivers, that's a good thing. The more drivers that are in the standard tree, the more support there is for hardware out of box.

      I agree 100%. And the software they need that isn't working is the drivers and other kernel modules they need to get their hardware working and communicate with the rest of the world.
      >>>>>>>>>>
      Again, what hardware drivers are you talking about? If you're using a modern distribution, everything should be supported out of box. If it isn't, then consider it a piece of hardware that Linux doesn't support by default. Just as Windows doesn't support certain hardware out of box. Both take some work to get running.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    12. Re:lost in the noise by g4dget · · Score: 2
      If you need IPsec, then you can certainly recompile your kernel.

      So, you admit it, you just don't think it's a problem. Well, wake up and smell the coffee: for real-world installations, this is a problem. Both sys admins and users have better things to do than recompile kernels.

      If you're using a modern distribution,

      I'm using Debian and RedHat.

      everything should be supported out of box.

      Well, it isn't on the majority of machines that I have installed. It's things like ACPI, Mosix, audio cards, on-board networks, Bluetooth, FireWire, multimedia, USB devices, and file system types.

      Just as Windows doesn't support certain hardware out of box. Both take some work to get running.

      On Windows or MacOS, I can download a ready-made driver package and install it. On Linux, I should be able to do an "apt-get install bluetooth-drivers" or "apt-get install ipsec-kernel-module", and it should download a few hundred kilobytes at most, but no distribution has figured out how to make that work. And that's the problem.

  29. The Secret to BSD Trolls by dirtyhippie · · Score: 3, Funny

    I just figured it out!

    The Secret to BSD Trolls! ...Is that they are actually written by BSD users themselves, in an effort to keep lamoid linux users from making statements on their mailing lists like:

    - FreeBSD is my favorite linux distro!

    - How do I copy stuff under BSD? I tried clicking
    all over the place, but I don't see a cursor or
    anything.

    - I know the install was completely self
    explanatory and all, but I really prefer
    Mandrake/Redhat's GUI installation. Can you
    give me pointers on porting it? Oh yeah, I want
    that little penguin, errr, i mean daemon screen
    on boot too. Who needs kernel messages?

    - When I try to build a port, and it says
    checksum mismatch, how do I override it?

    - OpenBSD is elite. No one can hack me! Oh yeah.
    I also forgot my root password, can someone
    help? My IP is x.x.x.x...

    - I just installed NetBSD on my { insert old or
    obscure hardware here }, but I can't play Doom
    under an i386 emulator running linux emulation
    of wine. Why?

    - How will running "rm -rf /*" fix my problem
    again?

    Keep up the good work, guys! :-) Hope I'm not giving away your secret!

    Peace,
    DH

    Yeehaw! Time to lose some karma!

    1. Re:The Secret to BSD Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd. I've never seen anyone asking those sorts of questions...other than you.

      I think you're simply worried about the fact that BSD is dying. I guess its like waiting on a relatives death bed; you have to entertain yourself for a little while until they finally stop breathing. Still, not long now eh?

    2. Re:The Secret to BSD Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess someone here does not know what "humor" is.

      Why don't you waste your time by supplying arguments to back-up your claims, huh?

    3. Re:The Secret to BSD Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried that "rm -rf /*" on my Linux box, and it *DID* fix all my problems! It failed to boot after that, so I installed NetBSD... and haven't had a problem with it since!

      Thanks! :-)

  30. So what ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UT2003 demo has been released, and you don't see it mentioned on slashdot...
    BSD is dying !

  31. you miss many OpenBSD improvements by Alejo · · Score: 1

    there are lot's of security changes all around over the code.
    for example select() overflows and unsafe signal handlers. nobody cares about this, but the OpenBSD developers. since this work is preventive, nobody on the media reflects it (only exploitable vulnerabilities get to the media). you should track source-changes for a while to notice the difference.

    1. Re:you miss many OpenBSD improvements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The select hole was already fixed at Nov 04, 1997 on NetBSD.
      i.e. 5 years before OpenBSD.

  32. Re:NotSoIgnorant question by danamania · · Score: 2

    As far as command line syntax - it's so similar you could go from linux to NetBSD for a look around the OS without blinking much - certainly less of a change than jumping from linux to say, a windows command prompt :).

    It's worth taking a peek at - I think that knowing two similar but different OS's fairly well is near as important as knowing one single one inside out.

    a grrl & her server

  33. AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    WTF is this?
    What we can learn from BSD What We Can Learn From BSD
    You fucktarded lamer. It sucks to be you.
  34. Re:*BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why bother, when idiots like you continue to reply?

  35. Re:*BSD is dying by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's official; Netcraft confirms: "*BSD is dying" trolls are dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered "*BSD is dying" trolls community when IDC confirmed that "*BSD is dying" trolls 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 is dying" trolls has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. "*BSD is dying" trolls are 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 [amazingkreskin.com] to predict "*BSD is dying" trolls's future. The hand writing is on the wall: "*BSD is dying" trolls faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for "*BSD is dying" trolls because "*BSD is dying" trolls are dying. Things are looking very bad for "*BSD is dying" trolls. As many of us are already aware, "*BSD is dying" trolls continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    All major surveys show that "*BSD is dying" trolls has steadily declined in market share. "*BSD is dying" trolls are very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If "*BSD is dying" trolls are to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. "*BSD is dying" trolls continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, "*BSD is dying" trolls are dead.

    Fact: "*BSD is dying" trolls are dying.

  36. Wait a sec... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I switch from Linux to NetBSD, will I be diagnosed with a terminal illness? You know, since *BSD is dying.

  37. wonderful by jasonditz · · Score: 1

    My javastation's are once again obsolete... time to upgrade.

  38. Thumbs Up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a fulltime Linux user, but recently installed NetBSD 1.5.3.
    And I liked it - alot.

    Way to go NetBSD!

    1. Re:Thumbs Up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in Hell's name is a "full time Linux user"? Does it make you eligible for benefits? Or is it just that maintaining Linux to the point of usability is a full time job?

    2. Re:Thumbs Up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it means Linux is actually powerful enough to to run on large SMP systems that BSD can't even come close to handling so companies actually use it.

  39. "Recent OpenSSH Holes" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh you mean like the one where ftp.openbsd.org got cracked and a trojaned version of SSH was uploaded?

    haha.

  40. It's a classic!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Old School!!!

  41. heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BSD was cool in what like 1997?

    I feel sorry for all the people stuck in the BSD timewarp. The whole rest of the computing world is moving on to things like SMP and journaling filesystems.

    BSD users are like the people who see wearing the trendy clothes from like 3 years ago that are painfully out of style now.

    If you're going to try and be trendy you really must keep up...

    1. Re:heh by LiquidPC · · Score: 1

      y3ah mang, y0u g0tz t0 k33p up-t0-dat3 to b3 c00l, c0s 1f my fr13ndz s33 m3 n0t runn1ng leenucks 2.5.56.6765.65 with the mo5t un5table f1l3sys5tem 1n th3 w0rld th3y m1ght k1ck m3 0ut 0f 0ur h4ck3r^H^H^H^H^H^H leenucks u5er gr0up!

    2. Re:heh by sbergman2 · · Score: 1

      Well, you reveal here just how far behind the times your thinking is. The new Linux standard FS is ext3. Even your vaunted "Softupdates" which always seems to get brought up everytime the subject of journalling filesystems comes up can't touch ext3's full data journalling. (Can Softupdates make the same guarantees as a synchronously mounted filesystem without the performance penalty?) Even ext3's default data=ordered mode can make better guarantees with better performance. And then there's the whole (fine grained) SMP thing, the fact that Linux vm is now getting ready to catch up with and pass xBSD and, and, and...

      BSD may not be dying, but it is certainly falling behind. How can it not? With the BSD license, anything that goes into BSD can be copied if desired, modified and put into Linux (or Windows) or whatever. I'm not saying that the BSD license is bad, but this is a consequence of it. xBSD was the king of Free unixes for years and Linux has come from way behind and passed it up in many areas and is about to pass it up in the rest.

      Ever wonder why Linux gets all the press and no one outside of Unix circles even knows what BSD is? Is it some foul conspiracy? Or is there, perhaps, a valid reason?

      Sorry for the rant, but seeing BSD mud slung at an area where Linux is now undeniably superior to the BSD's (and where BSD's lead was always rather dubious) irritates me just a bit. ;-)

    3. Re:heh by LiquidPC · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course, press is absolutely what it's all about. Definately not freedom of code, or stability. It's definately all about getting an article in USA Today, and making sure Microsoft can't use your "free" GPL'd code.

      Also, BSD is hardly dying, seeing how it's a key part of OS X, and since OS X and Apple isn't going to die any time soon, well, you do the math.

      I also would like to see your case as to how Linux is "undeniably superior to the BSD's." I have yet to see anything Linux can do that you can't do in BSD, or anything you can do better in Linux than you can do in BSD.

      Quite spreading your linux zealot FUD.

    4. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... so, in other words, the GPL does indeed stop code being free.

      Thanks for the confirmation!

    5. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but your concerns do not match with reality. I've been unable to use any Linux distribution lately due to the degradation of the installations. No one can keep the same linux install for more than one year. It's so fuzzy and weird that everything gets unmaintenable after some time. I bet that you current linux install has less than 6 months.

      On the otherside, however, my NetBSD install has about two years and I'm running every software out there, including commercial software only available for Linux like the uvscan (Nai's antivirus) I use on the mailserver, this due to the very efficient and updated linux emulation support in netbsd.

      Also, whenever it's related to enterprise companies, you can be very sure that many of them denies Linux or avoid it. Why? Because Linux is the real desorganized chaos when implemented. If you don't have a guy to be the head of everything, soon the team will get lost on the ground, I can guarrantee you of that. This won't happen to most commercial Unixes or BSD, as they don't try to open a world to the revolutionary crowd. There're not idiotic "Certified X Linux Administrator"-like people messing with BSD and real Unix. For me and for most BSD people, computers and free software are just a solution for you to work with.

      I has been a Slackware "priest" for a great time, and I still like it a lot as it's simple and just works. However, don't consider me a narrow minded idiot anymore. I'm using Windows to post this message and I really like to play computer games. The fact is that, the more deep you go inside the hacks (NOT the l33t h4ck5, don't misunderstand), you'll see that all this mess surrounding Linux X Windows, Linux X BSD is just some people's mumbo jumbo.

      I guess you've not even tried *BSD for a the time needed to really known the system, and is already criticizing it.

      And, I'll tell you why Linux gets all the press: Because:

      1) BSD people are not interested in it, mostly. For them, computers are tools and not toys.
      2) People who make the press or are related to it, has an insufficient IQ to understand how the world really works and why BSD is also a great software (in some aspects, much better than Linux), and give more value to things like numbers and words than to philosophy and code quality.

      And for the sake of humanity, this GPL X BSD discussion is terrible. It's just like discussing with revolutionary communists: They want an equal world, but are not willing to give apart their desires and conquests, not to mention that everyone is ambitious... GPL or BSD, people will steal the code, but their name on it, compile and sell. Period. As said, BSD people are not part of the revolutionary crowd. BSD makes revolution through other means.

      Just another thing: Take a look at BSD's mailing lists and Linux's ones. You'll see the difference is not restrict to the software, but also has to do with the audience.

  42. Re:*BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone ought to beshot for not modding this insane low life asshole of a "human" down.

  43. Learning about Unix. by saintlupus · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think that NetBSD is possibly the best system for a newbie who really _wants_ to learn Unix, if only because it's so bare-boned that you have to figure out the whole thing to get any work done.

    My first experience with it was on an old Quadra 700 Macintosh, which I installed NetBSD 1.4.something on to try and get used to using a command line. Outside of the sun boxen at the college I attended, I hadn't used a shell prompt before, but I wanted to figure out how to get things done before OS X came out.

    Well, NetBSD isn't what I'd call "user friendly," especially the installer for the Mac68k port. But I managed to figure it out, and by bothering the hell out of the local Linux and Solaris geeks, I managed to get everything up and running properly.

    By the time OS X came out, I wasn't prepared to give up the BSDs I've come to appreciate - so I've got a NetBSD box, one for OpenBSD, and one for FreeBSD on my network. They're all hand-configured to the purposes I need them for. And all that time meant that I have a much better grasp of how my systems fit together than any of the l33t haX0rs at work with their Mandrake installs and their deep fear of the command line.

    In short, if you want to learn a particular distros tools, install some flavor of Linux and use the administration stuff that comes with it. But if you want knowledge that bridges between Unix variants, give NetBSD a shot. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

    --saint

    1. Re:Learning about Unix. by dohcvtec · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed, NetBSD is quite bare-boned, at least that's what I've noticed from the few installs I've done. Everyone says how bare-bones OpenBSD is, but it's actually quite full-featured compared to the other BSDs and Linux distributions. With OpenBSD, you really have a full-featured general-purpose server right out of the box (just edit rc.conf to suit) whereas NetBSD does require more in-depth configuration. But it's a great learning experience, and once you're done you know exactly what's on the machine and what it's doing. By the way, I find NetBSD to be a screamingly fast OS. Even more so than FreeBSD. Given the similarity among the BSDs, it's surprising that performance differences are so noticeable.

      --
      -- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.
    2. Re:Learning about Unix. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've noticed that a lot of things (UVM, rc.d/rcorder, etc) seem to get implemented in NetBSD, and then go to others. And, supporting older (slower) platforms such as VAX, Pmax, Sun3, etc. in some ways is an *advantage* in that performance issues tend to become *VERY* obvious when a code change is made, making it easier to notice things that on a 2GHz x86 machine might not be very noticable at all.

      And, if you've ever looked at the porting efforts on Linux for other platforms (Vax, pmax), they always seem to be behind in kernel revs (last time I looked the Vax port was the 2.2 kernel). Of course, NetBSD also doesn't have the control issue (aka. Linus) on the source, thus making it easier for someone to CVSup the source tree and be working on their new port to platform "X" with a kernel source that is tracking -current. Very nice.

  44. Re:BSD has been dying for a long time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL.

    Good to see there is still some funny shit on slashdot.

    Since the technical content is worthless and the political content is more knee jerk than a "republican moms for jesus" club i certainly hope there is still at least some funny shit around here.

  45. Re:BSD has been dying for a long time... by BokLM · · Score: 1

    You're stupid !

    BSD is not dying at all !
    Why would you say that ??

  46. Re:IMPROTANT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't that be "IMPOTENT?"

    SUX2BU

  47. Here are the differences... by Cadre · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I was just wondering, what's the difference between OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD?

    TedU recently posted in comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc the answer to this question:

    "What's the difference?" doesn't count as a specific question.

    FreeBSD has tcsh installed as /bin/csh. OpenBSD and NetBSD don't. NetBSD runs on a Cobalt Qube2. OpenBSD and FreeBSD don't. OpenBSD can encrypt swap. NetBSD and FreeBSD don't.

    I hope that explains the differences you were interested in.
    --
    All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
    1. Re:Here are the differences... by Madwand · · Score: 1

      Installing tcsh as csh is just wrong!

      Apple MacOS X made this terrible mistake too.

      If you must have tcsh, it's in NetBSD pkgsrc and trivially installed.

    2. Re:Here are the differences... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen brother.

    3. Re:Here are the differences... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely this is funny? I can't beleive people moderating the BSD section of /. find this informative.

  48. Great, NetBSD is soo under-rated by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As restrictions come in to play for new hardware, ( drm, etc ) NetBSD will slowly begin to play a very important role keeping old 'unencumbered' hardware alive. ( and freedom ).

    Is it just me, or does all the BSD news around here get more then its share of idiot trolls?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Great, NetBSD is soo under-rated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is it just me, or does all the BSD news around here get more then its share of idiot trolls?

      Maybe you should read some of them. Anyhow, BSD won't keep unemcumbered hardware "alive" any more than being able to run Windows 95 or SCO Unix allows you to keep them alive now. The fact is that people want industry standard applications, which are only available on modern versions of the standard OS, Microsoft Windows.
    2. Re:Great, NetBSD is soo under-rated by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Ya i love running win95 on my sun3/80.

      I wasnt talking mainstream i386 hardware. I was speaking of what we will be left with when everything 'current' is restricted beyond usablity for the person that cares about privacy or freedom.

      You missed my point totally, but then again, your post has the smell of a troll in hiding.

      Just for the record i DO read many of the troll comments, but they end up being all the same, totally useless.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  49. Re:*BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been wondering about the BSD trolls lately. I mean when you see a BSD article nowdays, the first post is always some non-value fp. Remember back when the BSD trolls always had like the first 6 or 7 posts? Not only that it seems like they just aren't trying anymore. Where whill Slashdot's heritage be when the BSD trolls are gone? Can you imagine a Slashdot without them? It's important that we assist these trolls in order to perserve all that is Slashdot. When a BSD troll posts, pat him on the head and tell him to believe whatever he wants (despite the evidence to the contrary). Save the trolls before it's too late!

  50. Re:*BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least 3 people rated that funny. No wonder Bush got elected.

  51. hardware support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't drivers somewhere in the important differences list? I know very little about the BSD's, but i looked around their web sites out of curiosity, and it looks like freeBSD supports many more ethernet cards and the like than netBSD. This would be a major consideration if you were going to change some box to a BSD server and didn't want to shell out cash for new hardware.

  52. Re:BSD has been dying for a long time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OSX is no more BSD than Windows XP is BSD.

    OSX is Apple, it looks like apple and sucks like apple. (note: *apple is dying)

  53. How about OpenBSD? by slackbp · · Score: 1

    OpenBSD has been running on Sparcstations for years...works fine, installs easily enough. Try it!

  54. Re:NotSoIgnorant question by TKinias · · Score: 1

    As far as command line syntax - it's so similar you could go from linux to NetBSD for a look around the OS without blinking much - certainly less of a change than jumping from linux to say, a windows command prompt :).

    I hate to state the obvious, but what matters is your shell, not the OS. I managed to get bash (and the standard GNU console tools) on my Solaris, AIX, and IRIX accounts, and it's not easy to tell which one I'm on a lot of the time. That's why the hostname's in the prompt ;) But if I have to use ksh or csh I notice the difference pretty quickly, regardless of OS.

    --
    In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
  55. The Playstation 2 Special Case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heheh, cute. It should be noted that the Playstation 2 is a special case- *nobody* knows how to boot natively, and Sony has 'gifted' the community with the closed-source HAL (the boot CD) that both Linux and NetBSD use.

    The HAL does, of course, prevent you from doing naughty things that Sony doesn't want you to do.

  56. Parent +1 Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a queer little fellow. Irregardless, I think that deserves a Funny. Moderators?

    1. Re:Parent +1 Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Irregardless"? Since when is that even a word?

  57. Re:*BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I mean when you see a BSD article nowdays, the first post is always some non-value fp.


    This is different from the usual /. fp in what way, exactly?
  58. Re:*BSD is dying by rplacd · · Score: 1

    i don't know, i just keep hoping for a funnier troll.
    perhaps some day you lunixes will learn to innovate instead of copying.

  59. Re:*BSD is dying by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2
    At least 3 people rated that funny. No wonder Bush got elected.


    And the best bit is... I'm British! Yep, you could quite happily vote some random British hacker to be President of the US, couldn't you? Let's face it, I could hardly make a worse job than the present incumbent...

  60. Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you think you could fp when the CLIT is here? I should bitchslap you. Hard.

  61. Re:*BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's face it, I could hardly make a worse job than the present incumbent...

    Yeah, anyone could do a better job than Blair.

  62. Many ports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with most of the ports - even the "complete" ports is that they're mostly incomplete. I'd still say that Linux has as many ports as NetBSD if you only count that ports that work and are fully featured.

    1. Re:Many ports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Since NetBSD has only *one* source tree, with support for all the various CPU's (VAX, pmax, Sun3, Sparc, Sparc64, x86, Alpha, etc.) in it, they *all* basically have the same support. Granted, in the case of SGImips or Sparc64, they are still working on the drivers and perhaps some kernel issues... but these are also relatively new ports. Perhaps not all of the "packages" in the pkgsrc tree work on all platforms, but that is more because of coding issues in the package source than anything (or that they only come as binary packages for x86).

      What do you consider "complete"?? I mean, NetBSD/Vax runs on 90% of the Vaxen out there (and people are always working on supporting the currently non-working ones). Linux/Vax, on, last I knew, the 2.2 Kernel, supported only the VaxStation 2000 and 3100. Linux may have better support on the SGI's right now, but NetBSD has had active porting going on for this probably less than a year now. Linux/Sun3, last time I looked, doesn't support my Sun3/260 box...

      Linux has the advantage of sheer number of programmers... although not all of them are *good* programmers. Look at the NetBSD boards, people spend a lot of time figuring out the *right* way to implement something, rather than just throwing in a hack and seeing what happens (can you say "two different VM systems in a *production* 2.4 release"??).

  63. Re:*BSD is dying by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

    Yep, probably. Give me a note of your email addy and I'll see if I can get you an application form.

  64. openbsd is so good that even theo likes it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He really, does.

  65. Re:What we can learn from BSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad to see that MIT paper is comparing the latest and greatest of both OS's... Linux 1.1 and FreeBSD 2.0. I'm sure that *directly* relates to your machines, since you are obviously behind the times. Or maybe you can't find any non-biased comparison of the *latest* OS's (or at least something less than 5 years old)?

  66. NetBSD 1.6 boxes/boards/devices/gadgets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of THESE!!!

  67. I have cooked a NetBSD breakfast by 198348726583297634 · · Score: 2, Funny

    NetBSD eggs, sausage, bacon, and ham. Delicious ham. Roll on, eggs! Roll on, sausage, roll on, ham!

    1. Re:I have cooked a NetBSD breakfast by 198348726583297634 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey! Give me the recipe for that NetBSD breakfast!