Slashdot Mirror
Overview of the BSDs
zeekiorage writes "A good informative article about the various BSD OSs, their legacy, philosophy and importance on the ExtremeTech web site. Excerpt from the article: 'Nowadays, the term 'The BSDs' refers to the family of operating systems which were derived, to a greater or lesser extent, from BSD. The five best known BSDs are FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSD/OS, and Darwin (which serves as the foundation for Apple's MacOS X). But virtually all modern operating systems -- from Windows to BeOS to Linux -- rely on crucial BSD code to run.'"
"teh manham" is Hebrew for "uncut cock".
-a jew
BSD originally stood for Butt Sex Distro. Thus you had Free Butt Sex, Open Butt Sex, but then the Networked Butt Sex Distro led to the spread of AIDS - that is why BSD is dying.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now dropping 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 *BSDs have lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSDs 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's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSDs face a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSDs because *BSDs are dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSDs. As many of us are already aware, *BSDs continue to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSDs have steadily declined in market share. *BSDs are very sick and they're long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSDs are to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSDs continue to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save them at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSDs are dead.
Fact: *BSDs are dying
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.
To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.
To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.
To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the project to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were elected, we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.
Future
I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.
However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election, I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.
You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.
= Mike
--
It is official; Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now dropping 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 *BSDs have lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSDs are collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSDs face a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSDs because *BSDs are dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSDs. As many of us are already aware, *BSDs continue to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSDs have steadily declined in market share. *BSDs are very sick and they're long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSDs are to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSDs continue to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save them at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSDs are dead.
Fact: *BSDs are dying
I just heard the sad news on talk radio. Troubled OS family *BSD were all found dead in their shanty town squatter encampment on the edge of Lake Shasta. There were no further details. Truly a huge loss for OS dilletante-dabbler troll hobbyists.
I have never heard of a linux or netbsd system crashing. Have you?
http://saveie6.com/
- AIX is dying.
- AmigaOS is dying.
- BSD is dying.
- BeOS is dying.
- CPM is dying.
- DOS is dying.
- FreeBSD is dying.
- GNU Hurd is dying.
- HP-UX is dying.
- IRIX is dying.
- Inferno is dying.
- Linux is dying.
- LynxOS is dying.
- MINIX is dying.
- MacOS is dying.
- Mach is dying.
- MicroC/OS is dying.
- NachOS is dying.
- NeXT is dying.
- Nemesis is dying.
- NetBSD is dying.
- NetWare is dying.
- OS-400 is dying.
- OS-9 is dying.
- OS/2 is dying.
- Oberon is dying.
- OpenBSD is dying.
- Palm OS is dying.
- Plan 9 is dying.
- pSOS is dying.
- QNX is dying.
- RTEMS is dying.
- SCO is dying.
- Solaris is dying.
- SunOS is dying.
- TRON is dying.
- ThreadX is dying.
- TinyOS is dying.
- Unix is dying.
- VMS is dying.
- VxWorks is dying.
- Windows 2000 is dying.
- Windows 3.11 is dying.
- Windows 95 is dying.
- Windows 98 is dying.
- Windows CE is dying.
- Windows ME is dying.
- Windows NT is dying.
- Windows XP is dying.
The Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing defines an operating system as: "The low-level software which handles the interface to peripheral hardware, schedules tasks, allocates storage, and presents a default interface to the user when no application program is running. The OS may be split into a kernel which is always present and various system programs which use facilities provided by the kernel to perform higher-level house-keeping tasks, often acting as servers in a client-server relationship. Some would include a graphical user interface and window system as part of the OS, others would not."The operating system loader, BIOS, or other firmware required at boot time or when installing the operating system would generally not be considered part of the operating system, though this distinction is unclear in the case of a rommable operating system such as RISC OS. The facilities an operating system provides and its general design philosophy exert an extremely strong influence on programming style and on the technical cultures that grow up around the machines on which it runs.
The comp.os.research FAQ makes the following distinction between micro- and macrokernels:
"A recurrent topic of discussion in this newsgroup has been the comparison between microkernel (for example Mach and QNX) and `macrokernel' (traditional Unix) operating systems. The basic notion of a microkernel consists of devolving as much functionality as possible into processes rather than the kernel itself; different systems take different approaches to implementing this.
For example, some systems (such as Mach) leave device drivers in the kernel, and place higher-level services (such as file systems) outside; others (such as QNX) move device drivers outside of the kernel.
However, anecdotal evidence [93-03-03-07-56.52] suggests that the distinction between microkernel and monolithic architectures is becoming more blurred as time goes on, as the two advance. For example, most modern monolithic kernels now implement multiple threads of execution and fine-grained parallelism. Architecturally, this approach begins to appear similar to a microkernel with several kernel-space processes working from shared memory.
As an aside, people often complain that the Mach system can't be a `real' microkernel, because it is so large (at least, this is the argument most frequently cited). However, I have been told that automatically-generated code stubs contribute very significantly to the size of the kernel, and that some size reduction would be likely if MIG (the stub generator) produced better code. [Can someone from CMU comment on this?] As mentioned above, the leaving of device drivers in the kernel also contributes to Mach's size.
Debating microkernels versus monolithic kernels on the basis of kernel size misses the central, architectural point. In the same way as the point of a RISC processor is not to minimise the instruction count, but rather to make a different tradeoff between what is implemented in the processor instruction set and what is implemented in other ways, the microkernel architectural issue is to determine which services are implemented in the microkernel, and which services are implemented external to that microkernel. By making appropriate choices here, the goal is to enhance various OS attributes in a manner that might not be addressable with a monolithic kernel OS. System attributes such as performance, flexibility, realtime, etc. are all variables which are taken into account.
Review this story || Email Author: fireball
My Slut Girlfriend
Provided by: BDSM Library
My Slut Girlfriend
Chapter 1: In which our narrator meets his future girlfriend
My girlfriend is a slut. And I'm proud to say I made her that way.
I first met Kathy at work. She joined the company about a month ago and was
placed at the desk next to me. She wasn't part of my team and, although I cast
an admiring glance over her from time to time, I had little opportunity to speak
to her or get to know her. You may find that strange but my job is high
pressure and I have little time to do anything but work. Once work was over, we
tended to stick to our own teams where there were plenty of hot little honeys
whose pants I was desperate to get into, without worrying about Kathy.
Sure, she was attractive but to my mind nothing special. I can sum her up
briefly: 5 5, 25 years old, 120 lbs possibly more, blonde shoulder length hair,
blue eyes, cute nose, nice figure - 36C, 25, 34 - shapely legs. She always
dressed smartly - not too revealing, not too formal. She had a taste for skirts
that ended just above the knee and often wore tights or stockings. Sometimes
she tied her hair in a ponytail, most of the time she wore it down. What can I
say? She was a cute looking girl who you'd give a second glance in the street
but nothing more.
So what you're wanting to know is how I made her my girlfriend and how I made
her my slut. Well, it happened more or less simultaneously. One afternoon, we
were sitting working side by side, me as usual wrapped up in my job, watching
the computer screen intently. Suddenly, I felt something hot and scalding on my
right thigh.
"Jesus!" I shouted and jumped back out of my chair, knocking my papers onto the
floor. I looked to my right and realised that Kathy had knocked her coffee all
over my desk. She was looking at me, one hand half raised to her mouth.
"Oh God, " she said, "I am so, so sorry." With that, she knelt down on the
floor and began picking up my papers. To gather some of the papers, she lowered
herself onto her hands and knees and began scrabbling under my desk. I looked
down at her, noting the smooth curve of the tanned skin in the small of her back
as her shirt rode slightly up her spine and her curvaceous and tight little
buttocks. She crawled back out and still on all fours, looked up at me. Her
eyes were wide and I thought I detected something else there, a glint of
excitement in her eyes. "I am so, so sorry," she said again, this time very
slowly as if begging forgiveness... or punishment. She bit the side of her lip
with her tongue.
"It's ok," I said, then adding, "providing you have dinner with me tonight."
She lowered her eyes coyly and then looked back up at me, smiled and nodded her
approval.
I returned her smile and then, on a whim, wondering if I had read her expression
correctly, said sharply, "Now pick up those papers!"
I saw her expression change and watched as she continued to crawl on the floor,
picking up the papers. I noted with interest that Kathy stayed on her hands
and knees crawling at my feet when she could just as easily have gathered the
papers in another less submissive manner. I was intrigued. Once gathered,
still kneeling, she placed the papers on my desk and turned silently to me. I
smiled. She remained kneeling before me. "You can get up now," I said and she
rose and silently sat down at her desk.
I could tell from Kathy's demeanour and behaviour that she was a natural
submissive. As soon as I had exerted control over her, she had responded and,
more to the point, had naturally taken on a submissive posture and remained in
it until ordered otherwise. Her body language spoke volumes. I began to plan
the night.
Later that day, I sent Kathy an eMail. Given her obvious submissive nature, I
felt this to be more appropriate than telling her the arrangements face to face.
I felt she would respond better. The eMail read:
"Kathy. You will present yourself at [name removed] at 7:30 pm. You will wait
in the lounge bar until I arrive. You will be wearing a short black dress,
black top, black stockings and heels. You will wear black lace bra and panties.
Do you understand?"
I watched her carefully as she read the eMail. She began to blush and tremble
slightly. I received a simple response from Kathy by eMail: "Of course."
Kathy left at 4:30, I assumed to get ready. I looked at my watch. I still had
time to put a couple of hours in. I didn't intend getting to the restaurant
until 8:00 at the earliest.
Chapter 2: In which the parameters of the relationship are defined.
I arrived at the restaurant at around 8:30. I was pleased, but not surprised,
to see Kathy sitting at the bar, nursing a drink, and looking distinctly
uncomfortable. She was dressed as I had ordered and looked stunning. I sat
down on the barstool next to Kathy, ignoring her for the time being, and ordered
a drink. I noticed Kathy's drink was nearly empty but did not offer her one - I
wanted to see how she would react.
It was only after I had been served my drink that I turned to face her. Kathy
immediately lowered her eyes to avoid my gaze. I lifted her chin up with my
fingers so that she was looking into my eyes. I smiled as I saw the subservient
expression on her face - eager to please and yet nervous of what she might have
to do to please me.
Kathy had dressed well. She was wearing a tight knee black skirt that ended
just above the knees. Her legs were clad in sheer black stockings and she was
wearing black stilettos. She was also wearing a low cut black top that showed
off her cleavage to perfection. I smiled - this would be more fun than I
imagined. It was always more amusing to humiliate and abuse a good looking well
turned out woman than a slattern.
"Are you thirsty?" I asked her. She nodded. "Like another drink?" I enquired.
"Yes please," Kathy replied. Smiling, I removed an ice cube from my glass and
placed it on the bar. "There you are," I told her, "If you are thirsty, you may
have that - so long as you use only your mouth." This was the first test -
would Kathy obey me?
She looked at me, her cheeks blushing. But she bent over and picked up the ice
cube between her teeth and took it into her mouth. Nervously, she looked around
to see if anyone had noticed. I watched her intently as she sucked the ice
cube. Her cheeks still blossomed with her blushes and she lowered her eyes as I
stared at her. I noted with interest however that her nipples were clearly
erect and I wondered whether the blush still glowing on her pretty face was a
combination of embarrassment and the first signs of sexual excitement at her
treatment. Her reaction however was clear - Kathy was responding in a clearly
sexual manner to this minor humiliation. It was clear she was a true
submissive.
Now for the next test. "Hoist your skirt up your legs," I said to her quietly.
She looked at me for a moment, biting her bottom lip, pleading with her eyes not
to be made to this but simultaneously begging to be forced to do it. I stared
at her, saying nothing. Kathy moved her hands onto her lap and slowly dragged
the hem of her skirt up over her thighs, revealing more of her smooth stocking
clad legs. "Keep going, " I said. The blush on her cheeks deepened but she
obeyed, eventually hoisting the hem of the skirt up to reveal her stocking tops.
"Good," I said, placing one hand on her right thigh and sliding it under her
skirt. Kathy said nothing, although at my touch, I detected a slight tremble of
pleasure. I slid my hand up her silken thigh onto her crotch. The material in
the crotch of her panties was wet. I began to run my finger up and down the
middle of her panties, my finger tracing the line of her slit. I watched as
Kathy moaned quietly and closed her eyes. This girl was a real submissive slut
- I would have fun with this one.
"OK," I said, " We're going to have a question and answer session. I want you
to answer truthfully, fully and honestly. Understand?"
Kathy nodded. "Understand?" I repeated. "Yes," Kathy replied.
"First of all, there's one other thing you need to understand," I said, "You
will always refer to me as 'sir' or 'master'. Is that clear?"
"Yes sir, " Kathy replied, glancing to her right at the barman who, I noticed,
was spending a little too much time down our end of the bar. I guessed he had
seen and heard our exchanges so far and was intrigued as to what was going on.
So much the better, I thought, all the more humiliating for my little slave.
"Louder," I commanded. Kathy blushed again but obeyed. "Yes sir, " she
replied. I noted that the barman was now watching intently and appeared to have
been cleaning the same glass for some five minutes now.
"Good," I smiled, "Now tell me your full name."
"Kathy Manners," she replied.
"No," I said, "That is incorrect. You are my slut. Now, tell me again, who are
you?"
"I am your slut, sir," she replied. The barman's eyes were wide now and his
mouth was lolling open. Kathy had by now noticed the barman's interest and was
squirming nervously in her chair. Her humiliation was obvious but so was her
sexual excitement at being forced to do this. I wondered how far she would go.
"Excellent," I said, "But you are much more than just a slut. You are my dirty
slut. What are you?"
"I am your dirty slut, sir," Kathy replied, shifting uncomfortably on her stool.
"You are my dirty cum slut, aren't you?"
"Yes sir, I am your dirty cum slut." It was such a turn on to make such a
pretty and obviously well brought up woman speak such foul language and degrade
herself in such a way.
"Now put your hand in your panties and play with yourself, and tell me again
what you are." I could tell how humiliating this was for Kathy. At least one
person was aware of what was going on and it was likely that more people in the
bar had noted Kathy's behaviour. To now be forced to play with herself in
public must have been so degrading for Kathy. Nevertheless, I watched as Kathy
slid her right hand under her skirt and into her panties.
"What a slut!" I exclaimed, "Playing with yourself in public. Now I want you to
tell me again what you are."
"I'm your dirty cum slut, sir, " moaned Kathy as she continued to frig herself,
"I'm your dirty cum slut."
I let Kathy play with herself for about a minute until I could tell she was
approaching orgasm and then ordered her to stop and remove her hand from her
panties. She did as I ordered but she was clearly uncomfortable, wriggling her
ass on the stool in frustration. I then told her to lick her sticky fingers
which she did eagerly.
"You're getting a little hot, slut, " I told her, "You need to cool down." I
then ordered her to take a handful of ice from my glass and put it in her
panties. I watched as Kathy grabbed a handful of ice cubes and gingerly placed
them inside her panties. I saw her jump with the cold and laughed as a large
pool of ice water began to form on the stool and trickle onto the floor. To a
casual observer, it would look as if Kathy had peed herself.
By now, my cock was hard and, amusing though this treatment for Kathy was, if
this carried on much longer, I would cum in my pants - and what was the point of
that when I had a slut to cum on instead.
"Come on now, " I said to Kathy, standing up, "We're leaving. Pay the barman
for my drinks." Reluctantly, she stood, water trickling down her stocking-clad
legs, and motioned for the barman to approach. "Actually," I said, "Do you want
a drink before we go?" Kathy nodded, "Yes please, sir." I smiled and whispered
my instructions in her ear.
When the barman arrived, Kathy paid him for my drinks and then said, "Please may
I have a drink as well." "Of course, madam," he said, "What would you like?" I
saw Kathy blush deep red as she gave the barman her order, "I want you to take
that soda siphon and squirt it at my face until my master tells you to stop."
The barman looked at me and I nodded.
The barman eagerly took the soda siphon from the shelf and raised it to Kathy's
face. Kathy stood hands by her side, eyes screwed up awaiting the burst of
water. A jet of water blasted out of the siphon straight into Kathy's face,
splashing over her hair, down her chest soaking her dress. The barman looked at
me and I nodded at him to continue. The water poured over her, soaking her to
the skin. I allowed Kathy to be squirted until the siphon was empty.
The bar was deathly quiet. Kathy stood there, her head hanging in humiliation
as the water dripped off her onto the floor. She was completely and utterly
soaked, her hair matted against her face. Behind us, I heard a few chuckles
from the other patrons of the restaurant. Just to make sure Kathy was well and
truly soaked, I picked up the ice bucket and tipped it over her head. She
gasped as the ice water poured over her. Again she was silent as she stood
there, nipples erect, shivering, water dripping off her onto the floor.
I took Kathy's purse and emptied it onto the bar, passing all the money to the
barman. Then I motioned to Kathy and ordered her to follow a few paces behind
as I left. I deliberately walked very slowly out of the bar so that Kathy was
forced to make her way equally as slowly through the patrons, many of who were
now convulsed with laughter at her appearance.
I walked out into the parking lot to my car. Kathy followed, shivering from the
cold night air and the ice water all over her, her dress clinging to her body.
I told her to get into the car and keep quiet. The night was still young.
Review this story || Email Author: fireball
It is official; Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now dropping 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 *BSDs have lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSDs 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's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSDs face a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSDs because *BSDs are dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSDs. As many of us are already aware, *BSDs continue to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSDs have steadily declined in market share. *BSDs are very sick and they're long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSDs are to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSDs continue to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save them at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSDs are dead.
Fact: *BSDs are dying
...j00 just love teh manham cuz you whined "oh plz don't mod me as flamebait just cuz I hate BSD!!! Oh j00 mods r 0n cr4ck!!"
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is terminally ill and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
It is official; Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now dropping 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 *BSDs have lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSDs 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's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSDs face a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSDs because *BSDs are dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSDs. As many of us are already aware, *BSDs continue to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying. Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers. OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts. Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house. All major surveys show that *BSDs have steadily declined in market share. *BSDs are very sick and they're long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSDs are to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSDs continue to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save them at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSDs are dead. Fact: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will only be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
Why don't you go bash some acidhead radical hippies instead?!!
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.
To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.
To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.
To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the project to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were elected, we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.
Future
I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.
However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election, I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.
You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.
= Mike
--
MS doesn't have a problem with the BSD license, because it allows for incorporation into proprietary applications, like the TCPIP code in Windows.
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't make it true. The only BSD code in MS's TCP/IP stack is the header file.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
Uh-oh, she just got rooted.
*switches to BSD