Slashdot Mirror
Interview With The FreeBSD Core Team
Gentu writes "OSNews features an ultra interesting and in-depth interview with three members of FreeBSD's Core team (Wes Peters, Greg Lehey and M. Warner Losh) and also a major FreeBSD developer (Scott Long). They discuss issues from the Java port to corporate backing, the Linux competition, the 5.x branch and how it stacks up against the other Unices, UFS2, the possible XFree86 fork, SCO and its Unix IP situation, even... re-unification of the BSDs."
Well done Freebsd guys and thanks! :)
Go calculate something
Talk about 'last words'!
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Wow, I had no idea it was dying. You must be some sort of Creskin!
Currently, BSD is missing three things that linux has. The first is a unified API. In Linux, the API is unified - there are a few distinct ways of interacting with things. (alsa and oss as far as sound, for example. However, with BSD and other unixes, this does not exist. Another thing BSD is missing is a proper video display. The video display code in the Linux kernel is far better than BSD's. The last thing BSD lacks is name recognition - everyone's heard of Linux.
It is, the interview was really a seance
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
What a surprise-- a well-written, usefull, and interesting article by Eugenia. Have pigs indeed spouted wings?
Here's a good analysis of the various BSDs from last september. It gives a great background on the BSDs and it'll help explain why the BSDs should be re-united (or not.)
Why do I h8 apple?
Award winning support ? they give awards for $666 an hour support ?
"mike wins this years award for holding a customer for 13 hours just to get his win 2003 look like win XP !!"
With BSD, or most any other Unix system including Linux distributions, you get a time-tested and proven base upon which all the system's services rest. You get a well-understood system upon which hundreds of thousands of people have built upon, and millions of people have hands-on experience using. You get not only an operating system, but a thoroughly proven model for maintainability, ease of administration, and security.
Windows 2003 Server is a new and unproven offering from a company whose past successes in marketing have been dwarfed in the public eye by the harms due to their failings (see, e.g., Nimda, SQL Sapphire Worm). Nobody has years or even months of experience on Windows 2003 Server, and its frequently accurate technical documentation cannot match the depth of understanding which Unix professionals bring with their platform.
You could choose Windows 2003 Server, and your staff might be able to make it work for you. But what will you do in two years? BSD, Linux, and the rest of the Unix heritage will still be going strong -- but if history is any guide to the future, Microsoft will be running ads touting Windows 2005 Server, a new and equally unproven platform, and telling you that 2003 Server is a piece of unstable trash. What kind of a future is that for your business?
linux has cute geeks too.
http://150.101.112.216/temp/geektwins.jpg
No, Microsoft wins hands down your back pocket, searching for your wallet.
Windows 2003 hasn't even been widely deployed yet and every MS product whore is proclaiming it the Holy Grail of IT. Get real, Windows (just the operating system) has a shameful security and reliability record compared to FreeBSD (the operating system and included applications.)
And last time I checked, Windows includes no support whatsoever. You're left to forge around for answers on the Internet, just like with *BSD and Linux. If you want Fortune 500 support, you have to pay for it.
Unfortunately, *BSD runs best on single-processor desktop systems.
Why does someone make this comment in every FreeBSD story? Give us a break, already! If you don't like FreeBSD, that's fine. Just don't read the story.
FreeBSD is a great OS, if you get to know it. There's a lot of documentation available, and I thought I'd just share with you my experiences with FreeBSD.
Which version to install.
4.x or 5.0? 4.x is the stable series and 5.x is in development. It suffers of what's been called a chicken and egg problem described here. Think of 5.x as Linux 2.5 series. 5.1 when released(scheduled for release in june)to will be the start of the new stable branch. If you want stability choose 4.x. Bleeding edge? 5.0.
You can download the ISO's from here:
You generally only need to download the first ISO
Installation:
The installer is text based, but dont let it scare you off. The partition layout is a little different than what you may be used to but it's all described in the FreeBSD handbook here
The installation will leave you off with a pretty basic system and you're ready to install:
Ports
Ports is a very powerfull way of installing new programs and manage installed programs. You almost never run into dependency hell. A very powerfull tool to help manage ports is portupgrade. A short introduction is available here and to ports in general here
Documentation.
FreeBSD requires some time to get to know but the FreeBSD Handbook, provides a great introduction to FreeBSD. Sites also worth a visit is Freshports.org to keep you updated about new ports, and BSD dev center
If you give FreeBSD an honest try it will pay off. Most of the applications avalible for Linux also compiles on FreeBSD, and in general I find it more easy to find documentation, thus making it more easy to maintain.
...or, in reading through this, does Greg 'groggy' Lehey come off as a bit of a prick?
Please excuse my ignorance, but why would I choose FreeBSD over OpenBSD? OpenBSD is more stable and secure. Why take the extreme step of using a *BSD distro if you're not goning to with the most secure one. If you value ease of use, why not go with some advanced flavor of Linux or even *GASP* the latest version of Win2K Server.
mod down. jesus.
The simple answer:
Yes.
I completely agree. That Greg guy has a terrible attitude, he is rude, and doesn't have his facts right on many stuff. Including the java issue.
And he is publishing a book?? Now that I know who wrote it, I won't be buying it.
What the HELL are you talking about?
Heck, even jdk1.4 is in the ports, and even native!
They're porting FreeBSD to Java? Wow, that's impressive. What OS do they run the JVM on?
The FreeBSD Core Team is dying ;-).
-- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
http://home.no.net/lewser/haha/ChangingSubject.jpg
no that's the point, haven't you heard ? you don't have to be Kreskin...
http://www.osnews.com/printer.php?news_id=3415
Surely you mean "useful" with only one "l" and spRouted (not spouted) wings. English is Eugenia's second language, she seems to be doing well enough to get her point across.
Unless English is your second language too, I'd say people in glasses houses ought not throw stones.
freeBSD vs. Linux - Which has better games ? also, how much does the non-free bsd cost, and where can i get it ?
http://saveie6.com/
Copied verbatim from the story on OSNews. Original URL: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3415
1. What is the status of the Java 1.4.x port to FreeBSD? How has its absence impacted FreeBSD's market penetration? (Editor's Note: Java patchset 3 for BSD was just released)
Chuck, the FreeBSD mascot Scott Long: Several months ago the FreeBSD Foundation funded a contract to bring Java 1.4.1 to FreeBSD. Unfortunately, the process of gaining certification from Sun is quite lengthy, and the money available for the contract ran out before it was complete. Still, the work that was done is quite impressive. Most users have reported that it is relatively bug-free for common applications like tomcat, and some have also reported that it is measurably faster than the Linux version. It is even in production use by a very large internet portal company. The FreeBSD Foundation is currently working to raise funds to complete the contract and have it certified by Sun.
Wes Peters: The current status has been answered well by Scott Long.
As for the market penetration, the only possible answer is "we don't know," at least partly because we don't have a marketing department. I know of a few embedded development firms who use FreeBSD and Java successfully, but cannot comment on how they use it or on their performance needs, etc. I and a number of other developers are very much looking forward to being able to distribute Java 1.4.x in binary, but in the meantime the source distribution works well.
Developments in FreeBSD 5.x may have a strong positive effect on the performance of Java threads once we have time to sort out the interactions between the JVM and the new threading capabilities found in FreeBSD 5, but this work will be completed after the 5.1 release.
Greg 'groggy' Lehey: It's interesting that this is your first question: I would have considered it relatively uninteresting.
M. Warner Losh: I find this answer a little rude.
Greg 'groggy' Lehey: Scott has described the status. As others have said, it's difficult to assess the impact, but I would suspect that Sun's current licensing strategy would have more of an effect on the use of Java under FreeBSD: it's a real pain just getting the software. Possibly Linux users are more accustomed to jumping through hoops to get software installed, but FreeBSD users expect to be able to type 'make install' and have things done automatically. Sun's licensing conditions make this impossible.
2. A few years ago, companies like WindRiver/BSDi were helping out the FreeBSD project in many ways, including PR, handling relationships with other companies regarding drivers, etc. Now that the FreeBSD project is completely autonomous, how do you handle these issues? PR, tech specs for drivers that might require NDAs (e.g. an ATi/nVidia relationship) etc...
Scott Long: The loss of corporate backing from BSDi has slowed FreeBSD down without a doubt. Without a central focus point anymore, FreeBSD has relied on a more distributed set of backers. This includes NAI Labs, Yahoo!, The Weather Channel, and Apple, among others. They have provided employment for key developers, helped coordinate NDA deals with other companies, and donated server space and bandwidth to the project. Our experience with PR issues is also growing over time and we hope to make a good PR splash with the 5.1 release.
Wes Peters: Scott also answered this quite well. I want to note that FreeBSD was not ever a "division of" BSDi, or Wind River, nor was it ever a product of either of those companies. It is inaccurate to say that FreeBSD is *now* completely autonomous; it always was. I hope your article reflects this point.
BSDi (and Walnut Creek CD-ROM before it) were quite helpful to the FreeBSD Project in many ways; it's not clear (to me) that Wind River ever helped in any meaningful way.
Greg 'groggy' Lehey: This is an interesting perception. We never felt more or less autonomous. Yes, different groups have supported us; before WindRiver it
Well said!
:).
I'm not a huge proponent of the BSDs, but even I'd rather be running one of them rather than Windows. I've had the discussion with a BSD-zealot friend of mine whether Linux or BSD is better, and all we could come up with is that both are much better than Windows
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Java works fine, I've been using 1.3.1 native (not linux) on FreeBSD for a while.
I wish I could find this webpage again. (Google's not responding and I'm too busy to wait.) Anyhow, some guy had a great quote which IMHO accurately summed things up as far as free operating systems go. Went something like (in random order)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
If you really need Java on really free OS, which protects your installation/update efforts then you go for Gentoo and you get the best features from the best systems: free (both in beer and in speach), Portage (superior to FreeBSD's ports), Java (the most stable, the fastest VM, the least deps problems, Ant support in Portage, etc etc).
Less is more !
This interview is dying :)
Less is more !
You should have mentioned there was a "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" plot spoiler in that article. (sigh)
Apple uses it, therefore it must be a dying niche technology.
Advantages? Simple: Cost, reliability, ease of maintenance. Saying you get "nothing" almost makes me think this is a troll, but oh well, I'll bite...
;)
FreeBSD is free. All that software in the ports tree is free. Together, you can accomplish just about anything you might want to with a server. And the software cose for supporting 10,000 users is the same as 10 users: $0.
I've paid MS's outragous per-incident support costs, and I'm not overly impressed. There's two problems with this model: first of all, it's obviously more expensive. But additionally, even though most camps have the "free" option of what is out there on the 'net, knowledge that was only obtained after shelling out lots of money isn't eagerly shared. While with FreeBSD, the support is typically free to begin with, so answers on the 'net are abundant and new answers freely given. Even though Windows might be more popular than FreeBSD, I find it easier to get the answers I need to my technical FreeBSD questions than Windows. And without spending a penny.
Put that into your TCO pipe and smoke it
(On a side note, if you're so corporate that your PHBs can't sleep without knowing they can pay for support, there ARE companies that will take your cash for FreeBSD support. But I've never found it necessary to use them.)
The Debian guys are porting NetBSD (for x86 and alpha) and FreeBSD (for x86) for use with their existing Deiban system. Since both these are in their early stages the pages contain not much detailed information.
Any comments or enlightening information would be great.
A couple of more specific questions:
Thank you.
GrimReality
2003-04-28 21:01:19 UTC (2003-04-28 17:01:19 EDT)
Vhat a country!
That's why everyone knows, *BSD is dying!
They should look into using the LGPL license, which allows library to be linked without releasing the source code. But just use the BSD license, or the MS EULA, which means you can also collect information about the users' computer.
Not for everything. Windows beats Unix if you want to run Photoshop. :) I was talking specifically about server systems, where reliability and understandability of the system is crucial. I think the Unix edge is not merely the Unix architecture, but also the history and deep understanding which Unix professionals bring. It just isn't possible for a culture to have that kind of deep understanding of a system that has just been released -- no matter how featureful it may be.
To be snarky about it: On Unix systems, novices know they have no idea what is going on, and experts know that they know what is going on. On Windows systems, novices think they know what is going on, and experts know that they do not know what is going on. That may make Windows experts more Socratic ("Socrates is wisest, because he knows that he knows nothing") -- but I would not want my enterprise database dependent upon Socrates.
Yup. And what did you have to do to get it running?
The problem lies in that you have to download manually a bunch of files and patches, put them in certain places, and then it will install.
Oh well, I don't user java for much anyways.
Enjoy!
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
But did you get the shirt?
does Greg 'groggy' Lehey come off as a bit of a prick?
I've had many interactions with groggy, and he has been nothing but very professional and helpful.
comon'
I have friends who have installed it.... I refuse to put it on my box due to Java's nasty licensing
Would someone care to tell this guy he's an idiot? No? Oh, because that's what Linux zealots tell me. But I'm not a kernel hacker. Apparently, any bug that causes instability in Linux is, um, my fault, and I'm probably doing something stupid. Because Linux is perfect. It has no bugs and it's much more stable than my W2K boxes (server and pro) which get rebooted on principle every month or so. Unlike the Debian one, which eventually gets unusable after a few days and has to be rebooted. So it must be me.
So go ahead, tell him the problem is between the keyboard and the chair.
Any takers?
... huge make install nightmare.
/usr/ports/java/jdk13. /usr/ports/distfiles. /usr/ports/distfiles.
Huh?
Steps for native JAVA on FreeBSD:
1) cd
2) Execute make.
3) Download patch file from URL make provided into
4) Execute make.
5) Download source from URL make provided into
6) Execute 'make install'.
It is a little troublesome but still quite easy.
Just because your friends at the furry conventions tell you that you're "funny" doesn't actually mean that you really are funny. In particular, if you need to point out when you're being "funny", then what you said probably isn't a big yuk inducer.
Now please go back to your anime pr0n and rub one out to a tentacle-filled orgy scene.
Have you skipped the linux bootstrap install, or does it do that for you automatically now?
I skipped it; I forgot it was there.
:(
At the present time, I am fighting with RH9 to get the IBM JDK to run without core dumping.
Ugh, ignorance is not bliss. Any version of Unix going to be better than any version of Windows for a server application no matter how many commericals they make telling you otherwise.
For the millionth time... for two similarly powered boxes, Unix will outperform Windows up, down, left, right, sideways, forwards, and backwards. Test it yourself and see the light. Many Unix's are free and run on the same hardware as your Windows box. The proof is in the pudding that Windows is an inferior server OS for everything but corporate desktops.
I recommend OSX :-/
MacOS X runs Photoshop. I suppose you could take the literal route and claim that MacOS X isn't Unix(tm), but the context was a comparison between Linux, *BSD and Windows.
And no, I don't take seriously claims that Windows Photoshop is better than OS X Photoshop, and yes, I've tried both.
:)
BTW, I needed to set LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 due to the new threading model in RH9.
Are these members the same ones who travelled to the core of the Earth? Amazing.
"...more debug options are turned on by default. We tried to clear most of them for the release, but maybe one or two snuchk through"
Yeah I hate when those bugs sneahk through!! It's a bit like spell-checking articles really.
This OS is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-OPERATING SYSTEM!!
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Windows beats Unix if you want to run Photoshop. :)
;)
I see you've never heard of MacOSX
That's why it's the only thing I haven't updated from my RH8 workstation and laptop. The server hasn't told me that it needs an upgrade so I haven't bothered it.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
Back when I used to be called the Sun God (SunOS sysadmin 1989-1993), BSD/386 hadn't yet split, and Linux was in its infancy. A few years later, it was about time I get Unix onto my various Intel systems.
The question was, Linux or FreeBSD?
Today, the answer is a resounding both (FreeBSD runs perimeter firewall and fileservers, Linux runs my desktops), but back then, FreeBSD was the obvious answer.
Why? Because it was the most like good old SunOS 4.1 you could get on an Intel chip. That's a good thing? Fuck yeah! Before Sun abandoned beloved Berkeley Unix for the nightmare that was, is, and will forever be System-V, they had an OS on a platform of choice. Not just choice, but prime (and I don't mean Pr1me, either, god help us).
SunOS gave us a shockingly stable platform on the Motorola 68030 and SPARC chips. It provided some of the most stable TCP/IP around at the time. C-News (remember C-news?) rocked on it. C-News didn't have a prayer an the new-fangled AIX that we got to evaluate.
Graphics? Fuck yes. I/O bandwidth? Fuck yes. xbattle at 1am after closing the terminal room? Fuck yes.
And even then, it had lightweight processes, secure RPC, a super-clean dev interface, and other experimental features that we take for granted today.
Solaris arrived shortly on the seen, I changed jobs, and SunOS is just a memory for most of us grizzled Sun Gods now. But you can still see a lot of SunOS in FreeBSD. I even remember when the -a option appeared in ifconfig on SunOS. It appeared in FreeBSD very shortly, too.
Once the sources are downloaded -- and it is Sun's stupidity, that requires you to click-through the license before downloading, it is as simple as:
To install on multiple machines, you can follow up with After which, it only a matter of on each of your systems...BTW, I'm using the 1.4.1 -- it is certainly quite stable.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Linux is a kernel FreeBSD is an entire operating system
It may not be important to you if you're running your "server" from your parents basement, but for most businesses, uptime is crucial. Company time lost because the server is down or updating means money down the drain.
Take a look at the records for server uptime on netcraft.com and note the number of computers running FreeBSD vs. the ones running Windows.
Now think about this: with a Windows server, you can't have both good uptime and security. Trust me on this one: if you run a Windows server connected to the internet, you will need to patch it approximately once a week(that is, unless you want to get h4x0r3d). Each patch you install will require a reboot. Now its true BSD/Linux/Unix servers require patching as well(albeit far less frequently). However, unless it's a kernel patch(generally security flaws are found in userland services like email, web, etc), you don't have to reboot.
And how secure can a system possibly be when you have to reboot it because of a bug in something totally unrelated to the kernel? The whole thing smells of bad system design from the ground up.
Another thing: SERVERS DON'T NEED GUI's! How is a GUI going to make your firewall or web server or email server better? Answer: it isn't. It will only consume more resources, taking away from the job a server needs to do. Then again, judging from the question you posed, perhaps the GUI is necessary. Good thing, because on a Windows server, you can't turn it off.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
This is such an important point! It's so easy to get tempted into playing feature-chase, especially when just about all IT-centric publications push this aspect in every publication, every ad, and every "news brief"^h^h^h^hpress release.
But advanced features are often worse than useless: not only do we have problems with bugs and leaky abstractions, but we have a whole army of professionsals to re-train, in the vain hope that THIS time, it will be different.
Notice that Microsoft's biggest problem these days is that it sold Windows NT/98 too well. Yes, that combination was technically inferior, but it was fairly simple, and once the bugs were worked out (3-4 years later...) IT departments finally got a hanlde on it. So, do they want to give up this comfort zone for a new slew of untested systems, and then aNOTHER new slew right after that? Heck no!!
This is exactly where FreeBSD has greater strength than any other OS, period. There are no sudden jumps in features, users don't have to re-learn everything 3 years later, and in fact FreeBSD 2.x, 3.x, and 4.x machines can easily be handled together, sharing almost identical configuration scripts, filesystem layout, etc...
(Notice that the parent comment in this thread looks like it was written by a Microsoft marketing executive? Hmm.... nah, it couldn't be.)
On Unix systems, novices know they have no idea what is going on, and experts know that they know what is going on. On Windows systems, novices think they know what is going on, and experts know that they do not know what is going on.
True, true, how true. Have you ever seen a Unix user mess up the system by thinking they were smarter than the sysadmin? I sure haven't. But I've seen plenty of Windows systems messed up, and entire networks taken down, because most Windows users think they know everything.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Linux runs on lots of things that can't
run NetBSD. Problem is, the Linux world
counts ports by CPU arch, while NetBSD
inflates their numbers by counting more
or less by how many distinct boot disks
are needed.
Off the top of my head: Linux supports
the S/390 (32-bit) and zSeries (64-bit)
mainframes. Linux supports the Power-based
AS/400 and newer. Linux can handle several
types of CPU without an MMU, including
ColdFire and the original 68000. NetBSD
doesn't run on any of that.
On 680x0, Linux is really there, with lots
of sub-arch "ports". (Mac, Amiga, Atari...)
Lots of NetBSD ports involve running the
OS in 32-bit mode on 64-bit hardware. Ouch.
My applications for linux fb, of course not X!
I much prefer the typical BSD ports install senario...
/usr/ports/net/gaim ;-)
cd
make install clean
Then I go away for a while, then come back to see that GNOME and KDE have been entirely downloaded and installed, and it's just finally starting to compile GAIM...
Posted by an OpenBSD-er
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
1) They only have to distribute the source to the people they have distributed the binary too, and only then if the person who has recieved a binary requests it. There is nothing to stop the recipients of the source code from redistributing it under the terms of the GPL.
2) Yes. Is it ethical? Probably not, but thats not the question.
Linux sucks far worse than BSD.
Just ask Google:
BSD sucks 28,400 results.
Linux sucks 228,000 results.
It is quite clear that the users have spoken: Linux Sucks! Long Live BSD!
Here's my wish list?
It would have tweak/tiny micro-kernel like QNX 6, and efficient like QNX 4,
which would really be tiny and verified for security by the OpenBSD team.
All the drivers would have their own 'thread' deamon program that are compiled separetely and independant from the damn kernel, only sends message to it for hardware stuff.
It would be blazing fast and tweaked, scale well from single to 64 CPU SMP.
It would have a very efficient file system which has encrypted rotating partition like http://www.rubberhose.org/ support journaling and 64-bit exabyte system.
It would use Mac OS X directory nomination instead of /usr /var /tmp /home /bin
Have a file system which has link inside archives, have an extended file system.
readme.txt -> /home/joe/archive.tgz/gzip/tar/bak/readme.txt
where archive.tgz is an tarball!
Or better with ace or rar or even on a directory:
that's with a ln -s link, of course you could do that directly if you insist.
pico /home/joe/packed.rar/rar/bak/newfile.txt
It would be beautiful and easy to use, something between the no brainer installer and configuration of Mac OS X, the usability of Windows 2000 for some parts, the configurability of KDE without the 'unsorted' side-effects.
All your bash,csh,ksh,tcsh,awk,m4,makefile script language (man I hate those) would be turn into nice strict commented readable Perl.
Anything would have an installer in graphic mode and ANSI console mode. For those who knows usability course: accept, default install, next, next, next, click, next, finish. Done.
For ANSI mode, give me a something like PPM for UNIX programs that resolve all dependancy, download all packages, install them, compile them, tweak them, configure them, it works when it's done, with something like.
ppm> install everything [y]? y
Oh yeah, we have rpm and apt-get if it works!
Installing it should be as easy as Windows98, QNX or Knoppix, you boot the damn machine put the CD in, press enter, select a partition,
[maybe have Partition Magic right there]
wait.... REBOOT. Everything works perfectly. No damn configuration all auto-detected.
The installer should be standardized, you want to copy an application, you tar cvfz /Application/SomeGame/
that's it, not 2000 files in 2000 directory
with dependancy all over the place.
It should be easy as drag and drop.
One way? have a configuration file links:
/etc/registry.conf being a file let say
/etc/registry.conf/part1 -> /Application/SomeGame1/registry.addon.conf
/etc/registry.conf/part2 -> /Application/SomeGame2/registry.addon.conf
Uninstalling? Kill the link.
Have CVS on every file of the file system.
Every application has it's own username/password and doesn't need root to be installed and cannot inflict damage.
Complete USB and Firewire support! i.e. My stupid USB thing should work without question.
Burning CDR shouldn't be root.
Complete WinModem support
Already configured for network and being safe.
Should have a great API for games, 2D, 3D.
Graphic application should be as easy drag and drop, to create and clean code like Visual Basic 6, C++ Builder 5 or PhAB.
Should be very well documented.
Should be very secure.
Should not cost anything or available on Kazaa, which ever is more convenient.
Should be made by usability engineer, code verified by security paranoiac, filled with features from the ground up.
Data files and Config files should be XML like Apple Mac OS X.
Support Win32 and DOS application without trouble.
Did I miss anything?
What's your list? =P
I don't mean this as a flame but I'm just curious as to whether anyone with a better programming background could explain what sections of the Linux kernel are bad and what exactly is wrong with it (not portable, not secure, buggy, etc. ?)
If I recall, didn't Adobe recently express their opinion that Windows was the preferred platform for Photoshop?
-phish
Oh, I don't know. Photoshop works fine under Linux.
10 years of Wine finally paid off. I think you can get Wine to work in FreeBSD, including Crossover Office, as well - using lxrun
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
I am looking for interested programmers to work on the newest hottest OS out there: ajarBSD. This OS will combine many of the best features of existing systems: stability, good looks, a kernal etc. The twist is, that all of the source code will be available, but it will be so badly written and poorly documented that it will be useless. Other major advantages of ajarBSD: 1. I think it would be cool to have a command line function that let you check the date, but return it in a nice format. No more Tue Apr 29 06:36:53 EDT 2003 Now it could be something pretty like Tuesday, April 29th. Don't forget your dentist appoinment! 2. We'll release a new kernal every DAY, and users can spend all their time recompiling the new kernal, as opposed to using their computers for something useful. 3. Porn will be integrated into the windowing system. Let's face it, porn is the driving force behind computing, and ajarBSD will be the first OS to harness it! 4. We need a cute symbol. I was thinking a jar would be good. Any artists out there ? 5. It will be very secure. I'm not sure how we are going to do this yet. Does anyone know anything about where I could find out about secure type BSD OS's ? 6. It will be super intelligent. For example when you boot it will say "Good morning master. Shall I perform an ls -la on your home directory ? 7. We will get a really big DARPA grant. I mean big. ajar will be open enough just to entice the terrorists in, and then we got'em!! Needless to say, ajarBSD represents the cutting edge in OS development, and is what is needed to finish off Microsoft. I look forward to working with you and arguing about inane details. Best regards, Amanda Huginkiss
I think a good point to note when thinking about Windows vs. BSD is that BSD developers work on BSD because they _want_ to. It's their passion in life. They don't do it because it puts food on the table, or because some pointy nosed geek with a bad hair cut tells them to.
Perhaps another point is that BSD code is all open source; people are going to see it. If your code sucks, you sure hear about it. If your contribution to a closed-source OS sucks, who's going to know?
Why can't you get a "BSD is dying" shirt yet? Come on, more Slashdot trolls on T-Shirts!
I'll take one BSD is dying and one ASCII goatse.cx please!
in the comments for the story, I noticed that wes peters replied to someone's comments and spent some time talking about rcNG, here is what he said:
/usr/loca/etc/rc.d ? anyone know? all the userland scripts I've got in /usr/local/etc/rc.d are the old style, not the new style.
The booting sequence that seems to puzzle you is new to FreeBSD as well. It is a port of the NetBSD boot system, designed by Luke Mewburn. It is known as 'rcNG' in FreeBSD, and has quite a few desirable features. The main attribute of interest is that it allows subsystem or application designers to drop in a startup script that will be automatically sequenced with the rest of the system boot. Say, for instance, you've written an application that relies on both PostgreSQL and Apache to be started before your application can be started. In the Linux SysV-type startup, the system administrator would have to look through the startup scripts and give the application startup a sequence number that occurs lexically after both the Apache and PostgreSQL startups. With rcNG, the script itself reports that it depends on Apache and PostgreSQL, and the system starts and stops it in the correct order. The rcNG project is also a great example of code sharing between these two development teams, who have goals that in some ways differ greatly.
I far as I am aware, the rcNG stuff, while great, only applies to base startup scripts doesn't it? does it also support user applications in
anyone know anything about this?
dave
Crap :-)
On Unix systems, novices know they have no idea what is going on, and experts know that they know what is going on. On Windows systems, novices think they know what is going on, and experts know that they do not know what is going on.
I'm stealing that quote ! Did you just come up with this one or you got it from someone else ? I'd like to give proper attribution when I'll use that quote.
:wq
At the bottom of this page
Thanks! As far as I know, the phrasing is original, but it's not a new idea.
And their reasons for doing so were quite handily rebutted by a number of different people / websites. Which is why I wrote what I did at the end of my comment.
[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'
And a very limp one at that. Gay as debutante's tea party.
And is still have /usr/local/linux-sun-jdk... as my java path in konqueror as native java is unable to play even simple online games without glitches. Sometimes it works though.