Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 5.1 Review and BSD Roundup
securitas writes "Both eWEEK's review of FreeBSD 5.1 and ExtremeTech's BSD overview and roundup (single page) will be of interest to BSDers and anyone else who wants to explore their open source OS options. The review of FreeBSD 5.1 says it lacks the stability of v4.8 but adds features that some may find useful (for example, more processor architectures are supported) so it shouldn't be considered for critical deployments yet. And the BSD round-up speaks for itself."
A lot more polish than the 5.0 release.
Also a lot more of the new stuff on by default.
Have you painted a shed today?
One might well be justified in calling BSD the "Mr. Chips" of operating systems. In the final scene of the classic movie "Goodbye, Mr. Chips", a doctor remarks that it is a shame that the title character -- a masterful schoolteacher now on his death bed -- has never had children. Referring to the many youngsters whose lives he had helped to shape, Mr. Chips replies that he has indeed had children... thousands of them.
;)
I'm not sure I get the analogy, but I *think* he just said *BSD is dying.
My journal has hot
I highly recomment FreeBSD for both a server and a desktop. Doesn't have all the support as Linux has, but on the other hand, Linux doesn't have all the support that Windows has. So speaking as an OS offering, it is a very nice and good UNIX.
I've been able to do this in the past with a a few Fortune 500 companies by implementing a strict B2C affinity marketing plan which relies heavily on E-mediation performance metrics, something that not everyone is willing to go through.
In short, don't even come to me with questions about your Value chain collaborative commerce unless you're willing to pay the piper and upgrade to FreeBSD because this is not your daddy's economy and you'll get nowhere by running legacy operating systems. Times have changed and unless you're willing to change with them you'll be left behind wondering what the hell happened to all your profits.
Warmest regards,
--Jack
Wagner LLC Consulting Co. - Getting it right the first time
Proof that BSD is alive and kicking despite the recurring claim that it is dead.
No dead program comes out in new releases.
Ha!
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
Isn't this what has been said about Windows for quite some time?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Give me a break. Somebody gets paid for doing that kind of work, and a title like "Senior Analyst"?
That's why it's 5.1-CURRENT and not 5.1-STABLE. That's like saying version 2.5.60 of the linux kernel lacks the stability of version 2.4.21.
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
Nope, sorry.
Don't swallow everything you read. If it doesn't come from Netcraft, I'm not believing it. What? Oh.
BSD is dead! Long live BSD...
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Part of the reason why Linux is in a better market position than FreeBSD is the range of hardware supported by Linux. For instance FreeBSD supports only two ATM cards and no Tokenring cards, while people have done fancy things using Linux with both networks.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I started reading the article, and found the summation of why I prefer BSD.
Plant a tree in a developing country.
Adding more then just the Alpha and Intel chip was a smart move. With the support of SPARC Linux being given up bu both RedHat AND SUSE IT folks in a mixed environment(SPARC / Intel / Alpha) have both a choice and a consistent OS to use. Yes, this was available on the the other BSDs since they supported
more then one or two platforms.
--EG
Truly the UNIX on steroids, has had a pioneering role in the evolution of the *nix operating systems.
Sad indeed that such a good system is dying.
----
There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us
the article is way too pro-BSD to be said, and is comparing apple (linux, kernel sense) with oranges (BSD, distribution-sense).
Though being a BSD-user (OpenBSD server & MacOSX desktop), I feel uneasy to read all those, esp. the 'linux-copy-bsd' phrase.
I did not like this comment one bit in the article. "In fact, as far as anyone knows, only one worm has ever been developed that attacked any of the BSDs."
What is the point of that? He should not step outside his specialty...
Otherwise i liked the article, rehashed well known points, but good to see press for 5.*.
man jail, on freebsd 4.8 or 5.1. You will be very pleased with it. Virtual servers are nice.
later
Sorry, but YFI. From the FreeBSD docs:
One detail that the lawsuit did clarify is the naming: in the 1980s, BSD was known as ``BSD UNIX''. With the elimination of the last vestige of AT&T code from BSD, it also lost the right to the name UNIX. Thus you will see references in book titles to ``the 4.3BSD UNIX operating system'' and ``the 4.4BSD operating system''.
So what is really the difference between, say, Debian Linux and FreeBSD? For the average user, the difference is surprisingly small: Both are UNIX-like operating systems. (Emphasis mine.)
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
"The review of FreeBSD 5.1 says it lacks the stability of v4.8"
A BSD lacking stability? *universe explodes*
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
Try out OS X, not classic :( some time.
Good objective articles despite extremetech's review is more than 8 months old now. Interested slashdot readers can look at the progress of fine grained SMP and advanced multi-threading system (KSE), two features which made me try this great operating system.
5.1 is not in the stable branch yet, but 5.2/3 show great promises.
So bottom line is, I really liked a lot of BSD's features, but unfortunately an OS without programs is useless. The ports guys do a great job, but can't make up for lack of vendor support. ;(
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
We now have a buzzword troll.
My system slows to a crawl when I copy 100+mb files from partition to partition on Windows. I mean, it shouldn't black out at 100% CPU for an f***ing file copy!! IE is unusable. Networking suffers. It makes no sense. Why the hell do you need to put 100% CPU into file I/O? I don't have this problem in *NIX.
Dude, first off, that's an old machine.
Second, it's pretty well known the old finders were not multitasking. Or at least, not preemptive. I always wondered about formatting a floppy, copying a file while trying to do something as well. But a lot of people I've seen use Macs are happy doing one thing at a time.
Others have claimed Macs were/are superior because they tend to just work. For a long time they came with sound on board, networking, video, Scsi, and in GUI usability terms were far ahead of Windows pre-95.
Granted, Apple has a monopoly on their OS and hardware, but there's a reason for that; they believe that the whole computer should be package, not a bunch of parts. I was not much of a Mac fan until I bought my first Titanium Powerbook. After that, my Mac has replaced my Linux and Win desktops. I still love Linux and Intel hardware, but there is something to be said about plug and play that works - even for geeks.
So yah, you're right, you're using a shitty browser on a old slow Mac. But why does it have to get to the point of calling people fanatics all the time. I'm sure all the Windoze, BSD, etc.., people speak highly of Linux zealots complaining about any OS that doesn't have skinnable everything and doesn't run on the shittiest hardware invented.
I'd still buy a Mac for my parents in a hearbeat even though they 'like' Windoze. That said, my mom runs a online store off a Gentoo box I built her, so..
agreed, the only thing Mac zealots will do is repeat marketing crap. I like Macs, but I only own a 350Mhz iMac for my daughter. I don't see the need to buy a G4 (that was billed as a 'supercomputer on your desk') or the G5 (which is billed as the 'fastest personal computer') if I can get better perf from a 'roll yr own' AMD boxen running Gentoo.
CB
Jack Wagner is fiction, what this troll is saying is compleate nonsence. Please do not encourage him.
"think of it as evolution in action"
Can this guy POSSIBLY have a higher buzzword quotient? Sheesh! I think we need to add a BWQ to anti-troll filters.
Oops! It looks like IBM and Redhat were just charities after all...
But seriously, does this stink of someone that's lapped up the FUD to anyone else?
Ah, Slashdot, land of the ad hominem and home of the trollbait...
*sigh*
I don't have anything to do with BSD other than my experiments porting OpenBSD tools to DOS (!), but my crystal ball shows FreeBSD holding its own...
I like the BSD license better than the GPV anyway. I started work a couple years ago on a project called RMF-DOS (Reduced Memory Footprint DOS), which never got off the ground, but I did it because I felt the world needed a BSD-licensed DOS clone suited for embedded systems and ancient 8086 boxen. I still believe in it. I just haven't had any way to write a kernel for it.
BSD's philosophy is why it endears itself to the hearts of companies better than Linux (this is not intended as a troll or a flamebait), and also, it is why it is not as well-known as the more radical GNU projects and the Linux kernel.
As long as there's a use for it - and as long as there is BSD code in MacOS X - BSD is very much alive.
Good. Now mod me down into oblivion again.
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
Those were the days. In the chapter "Who Owns UNIX?" they never once mention SCO.
...it was my intention to point out that what has been the main problem with Windows for years is now being defined as 'progress' for *BSD. Hypocritical? Nah, not Slashdot!
The article that's linked to over at extremetech is an extremely good read, but its dated Sept 26, 2002. Does it take Slashdot that long to pick up on BSD-related news?
There is nothing in the GPL that prevents you from selling GPL'ed software. In fact, the FSF says to go right ahead and do so if you want. What the GPL of course DOES guarantee is that the software can't become proprietary at any point, whereas the BSDs can be.
Karma whorin' since 1999
Your point may be true aobut the BSD license, it is not about *BSD in generl. Rhe OS is not just the kernel. That has been RMS's point for a long time. compilers, editors, libraries, those make up the OS, not just the kernel. Many of those are GPL'ed.
"Granted, Apple has a monopoly on their OS and hardware, but there's a reason for that; they believe that the whole computer should be package, not a bunch of parts."
Funny, so does Microsoft.
A common complait to the naive *BSD user. No biggie, everyone goes through it. The "damn! the filesystem is SLOW!"...
Turn on softupdates.
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are virtually one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
Nice. REAL nice fuckflap! You contributed absolutely nothing to the stream of stupidity taking place here. Go sit in a corner and think real hard before posting again lest I beat you with a rubber hoatse.
"I don't want to start a holy war" ---- Mac fanatics
"I don't want to start a holy war" ---- BSD fanatics
Etc, etc...
Check out http://www.kottke.org/98/11/981125my_mac_sucks.htm l
Looks like this comment was made in 1998.
I read the internet for the articles.
We live in the real world.
:)
Nobody is going to voluntarily pay for something they can get for free.
And besides, you're wrong- BSD-licensed code can never be "made proprietary". However, modifications to it can be.
The GPL is worthless anyway-
"Sure, here's my source code- of course, it only works with my custom interpreter that I will sell you for $995."
The road down describing "source code" and "human readable" is a very long one indeed...
Now you can put that in your pipe and smoke it
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
compilers, editors, libraries, those make up the OS, not just the kernel.
So you're saying then that Visual C++ and Word (or Visual Basic and Notepad) are part of an operating system? Huh?
The typical user has no idea what an operating system is, but RMS ought to know better.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"I like the BSD license better than the GPV anyway."
Ahypocritesayswhat?
ahahjlghaahahahaha
. jpg
To everyone replying to this message:
You got trolled. See also: http://users.adelphia.net/~khaosvoid/images/owned
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
What does me living somewhere in a dodecahedral shape have to do with what timezone I live in?
Oh you mean geographic, not geometric... Never mind...
You just got trolled! Sucker!
Looks like middle age hasn't been kind to action hero Duke Nukem. In a prerelease press preview, presented by Joe Siegler, the studly hero is bald with a huge beer-gut. "We wanted to flesh out the character of Duke", Siegler said, "we want to make him more a character that his fans can directly relate to".
In the new title, Duke is in a custody dispute with his ex-wife. Apparently, since he lost his job, he's in arrears on his child-support payments. When his (alien) wife kidnaps their kids and leaves for her mothers on Vega VII, it's butt-kicking time!
It's amazing what passes for "news" around here!
I use FreeBSD, and upgraded to 5.1 from 4.7 about a week after 5.1 was released. Though I did have some issues with X and DRI, I got it working with not much effort. (About 20 minutes of searching the web turned up some instructions that directed me to set ForcePCIMode on in my drivers section of XF86Config.)
Though 5.1 is a new technology release and so not as stable or as fast as 4.8, it is still quite stable and quite fast at most everything I do. I've had no problems with doing my usual work, and some "weird" behavior in or two apps actually went away when recompiled on 5.1 versus 4.7.
That said, I haven't gotten YMessenger to work, and I've been too lazy to try fixing it myself. (It just appears to need to be relinked against a certain lib, and I haven't bothered to find out which one that is.)
Generally, I've not had any trouble running Linux apps under emulation, either.
All my Java 1.4 stuff works, too.
I know that anecdotal evidence proves nothing, but I just thought I'd weigh in with a mostly positive experience of someone who has been a FreeBSD user for quite some time.
Yes, I also use GNU/Linux, too. In fact, I have two machines running GNU/Linux at home, only 1 running FreeBSD, and one other running OpenBSD. Though I may switch one of the GNU/Linux machines to FreeBSD in the near future (maybe after 5-STABLE is branched).
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
I've just made - PAINFULLY! - the expirience, that Linux isn't really stable on big machines.
:)
I've set up a NFS-Fileserver on a Dual-Xeon with 4GB RAM and after around 2-3 days it locks up.
Tried several kernels, even used RH standard one (given the fact, that Alan Cox hacks around for RedHat...).
The buffer is eating up 3.8GB and after a while kswapd is running amok, eating CPU and not swapping out a single page.
The is no write starvation either, all buffers are clean (and I made sure they are synced often enough).
I am not talking about some "funny little server here", but serving 10 machines via 100Mbit and 6 via 1Gbit and a total of around 500GB (right know; RAID is expanded next week to > 1 TB running JFS, thank god & IBM).
Each run of a programm reads ~10-20 GB of data.
I thought of FreeBSD as a viable alternative when I started that job, but choose Linux to have a common platform (clients and compute-servers are also Linux).
This expirience leaves me right out in the dust. The Linux-Kernel-guys seem to know the problem as many other have reported it, but don't really do something. Unfortunately. And I've been polite
The GPL license is "a virus" as defined by Microsoft, but has helped spawn many great free variants of the Linux operating system and tools for it.
The BSD license says you can make money off of their code, and they spawned the virus that is Microsoft!
How's that for your free software irony.
[...] to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this BSD box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes.
I owned a Dual Pentium Pro 200 running NT4. What's even funnier is I owned it and the poor fool didn't discover I was serving MP3s (with Gnutella protocol) until about two months later! I did this by hiding the crackapp name of my custom gnutella server from the POSIX tasklist and only would serve the MP3s to the Gnutella network while another filetransfer was active by the local user. 1337 cr4x0r h47h 0wn3d j00!
My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 800 mhz machine at times.
That's not uncommon. I own a 486/25 with 4MB of RAM, S3 video, XFree86-3.3.5, and I telnet to my GS140 AlphaServer, issue a "export DISPLAY='192.168.1.66:0.0'," and finish it off with a "darkplaces >/dev/null 2>&1." I get Icculus' DarkPlaces Quake1 engine playing on my 486/25 machine at about 300 frames per second in software rendering, but alas my 486/25 can effectivly only update the X Server display at about 20 frames per second. Still, my 487/25 is playing DarkPlaces twice as fast as your Pentium3/800! That makes my freeBSD 486/25 much faster than your measly Pentium3/800! And with Linux on the GS140, I have a great team-alliance for stability and performance.
You realy need to ditch that M1cr0$l07h W1nd0z3 NT4 in favor of an operating system that can at-least handle more than four CPUs and USB/Firewire, becuase NT4 is sooo-obsolete, same for ActiveDirectory and IIS; just use Apache/FetchMail/ProFTP
I am using FreeBSD stable since over a year now on my Intel-PC. I noticed I have everything I need here.
:)
The best is, my PC is a regular desktop PC. I can watch DVDs and TV, listen to Oggs, burn CDs, chat and now I am writing this comment.
I have uninstalled Debian. I don't need it, because FreeBSD has got the best Linux emulation in the world. I can even play regular 3D-accelerated games with top frame rates.
I don't understand why people are bitching about FreeBSD. It is easy and even trivial to use. You can install it in many different ways. Experts mostly use minimal installs or even the floppy install.
You can choose between packages or ports, whatever you wish. There are 9000 software ports and they compile without problems. A simple 'make install' in the proper directory is enough to fetch dependencies and install the package. Most of them are pre-configured in a a way which is appropriate for many users. Before and after installation you will get further hints what to do and how to use a port.
The manpages are good. You get examples and a centralized configuration file. I don't need to mention the possibilities if you want to use FreeBSD as a firewall. And the VM is top quality! Heavy load is no problem. You can still listen to your MP3 or watch an AVI while dd'ing a harddisk.
FreeBSD is my favorite OS.
On a Unix system where you need to compile most of your applications (and especially the kernel), yes, it IS part of the OS. Under Win32, I'd say no, it's not part of the OS.
Ignore my overworked friend over there. Now is time for the annual *BSD is dying sale! Come on in and try our fine selection of dying products!
BSDi! BSD86! iBSD! freeBSD! netBSD! openBSD!
We'll beat any competitors price or your mattress^H^H^H^H^H^H^H dead BSD operating system is freeeee!
talentless troll! anyone from teh apple section knows that all he did is replace MAC with PC and macOS with BSD. The poor state of trolling dissapoints me, at least you could be original.
I want 2D games back.
Yes, because putting an "I'm not trolling" tag on your trolls is going to make it less obvious. Excellent strategy.
Go fuck yourself, you stupid prick. Oh, that's not meant as a troll or a flamebait though. Just so you know.
Mod this troll up!
Funniest troll I've read in a long time - its a hilarious modification of the anti-Mac troll.
ships with several desktop environments, including K Desktop Environment and GNU Network Object Model Environment.
I haven't heard Gnome refered to that way in a while. Makes you wonder why they didnt say "Kool Desktop Environment" as well...
> "I allege that SCO is full of it" -Linus
...and I'm finding that for end-user applications it's much more stable than 4.7 was, and things just work compared to 4.8. I've been with FreeBSD since 4.4, and here's my recent summary:
4.4 to 4.6: Used on my 2nd computer at home to burn backup data CDs, FTP and web server. Fairly low-key usage, not running X. No real problems, but it was mostly to learn my way around the OS.
4.7: Stable, but KDE was a bit broken and Konqueror was a bit flakey. Multimonitor worked nicely at this point, so I switched to using this most of the time (from Windows) on my primary machine at home.
4.8: Stable, but multimonitor support was broken. A few notable packages had also been broken when they were fixed for 5.0 support. The 4.X series is reaching the end of it's usefulness for desktop use. At this point, I went back to Windows for a bit on my main machine. In retrospect I shouldn't have upgraded from 4.7.
5.1: Multimonitor support works again (as do X video extensions in multimonitor - something that was not previously be possible), for me stability is excellent compared to 4.7 & 4.8 - I've simply not had a problem with it, although there are a few quirky dependancy problems in the kernel (had to leave a bunch of SCSI stuff enabled or it wouldn't build - even though I don't have any SCSI drives). I'm back on FreeBSD from Windows (except for games).
5.1 works for me - it's a joy to use as a server - or on the desktop. Each release has been better than the last.
Thanks for reading and have a pleasant morning (or whatever time of day it is, depending on your geometric location).
Geometric ?, is that a word ?, I think you probably meant geographical.
I think that most people would agree that libc is a core part of an OS, You really can't do anything w/o it (at least is a .so environment) In the windows world, most people would agree that explorer is part of the O.S, as is the rest of their GUI environment. I am not that up to day with the *BSD O.S, but I am guessing it would not be that complete without any of the GPL tools such as bash, tcsh or whatnot for example. Now the extesion to vi and gcc, somewhere this is a line between those where something stops becoming a O/S and a complete system. I don't thing a O/S is complete until it has a compiler, but that is just me.
Is there a reason that it is not enabled by default? Because with it off, it seems the OS would be quite useless at speeds like that.
*BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
Make your mind up, mate. It can't be both 'dead' and 'dying'.
Thanks for the hearty guffaw. And don't pay any attention to the negative posts by kiddies who've obviously not actually been employed in the 'real world'.
The scary part is, I once worked for a guy who sounded exactly like this! Except that he was serious and had no idea what an idiot he sounded like.
"That naive cube! How long must I suffer this!" --Sheldon J. Plankton
anyone replying to a troll gets trolled too.
Idiot.
Maybe when it develops a robust way to handle multi-threaded applications that still use the same shared memory (read mysql) it will be a viable option.
That is unless you talk to the only bsd guy in the shop.... but again who really wants to tinker...
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
Apple Mac OS X has all the benefits of FreeBSD,plus much much more. It has a better GUI, and it runs on better hardware (faster CPU's, etc). In addition, it runs way more software. Both commercial and open source, too. It is also supported by a visionary corporation that has been able to create software and hardware that literally redefine computing. FreeBSD (and Linux for that matter) are by comparison, quite primitive and not much more than hobby systems for people who are not really interested in cutting edge technology.
Try this out ! I know that there are several versions out there, one of them specific to I.T. but I don't remember the link off-hand... Someone feeds this post through the B*S Bingo for some fun !
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
Not only that, but the mac version was also posted for this article, up the page a ways.
While I recently abandoned RedHat for OpenBSD, I am uncomfortable in the knowledge that Microsoft could continue to incorporate BSD code into their Windows variants, and that I am helping this process by purchasing OpenBSD CDs. While I love the reduction in traffic on the OpenBSD errata channel (vs. RedHat), I do not wish to see the Microsoft monopoly continue, and the only thing that will stop it is the GPL.
While I realize that I could simply attach the GPL to every piece of source code in the BSD CVS tree and redistibute it, my actions would not in reality hamper any corporate acquisitions of BSD code.
Ideally, I would like to see the hacker community free to use the BSD license, while I would like to force the corporate community to abide by the GPL in every piece of software they produce (as will someday occur when Microsoft is finally defeated by "viral" GPL code).
I haven't always felt this way, but US corporations are abusive in many ways, and I would like to see them be more forcibly restrained. A judge instantaneously applying the GPL to all Microsoft software would be a real joy.
I'm always wondering why doesn't people use Java for such large developments... If tomorrow X86 is declared illegal because of the lack of DRM (very unlikely though), you just reinstall buy DRM hardware with a java vm ( i.e., pre-installed windows box) and keep on going.
Multi-platform is an invaluable freedom on such projects where deployment and operating costs are so high
*.sig: No such file or directory
"What the GPL of course DOES guarantee is that the software can't become proprietary at any point, whereas the BSDs can be"
Just to be cleear, modifications can become proprietary, but what is presently available under the BSD license will always be available under the BSD license.
The BSD philosophy also differs from that of Linux. Proponents of Linux tend to take a "revolutionary" stance, seeing their work as a war to compete with, and destroy, Microsoft and other commercial software vendors. But the BSDs are content to coexist with commercial software, and in fact are happy to allow commercial software to use what they create.
This is a bias statement that can not only apply to Linux, but any version of BSD. I'm pro linux, but I don't see Linux as a tool to kill Microsoft. I'm also pro BSD, but don't see it as that way either. I actually find BSD harder to work with in a enterprise environment due to the lack of software. I've been lucky enough to use Linux in many locations within the workplace because it's suited to the job (webserver/email server/ databases) and it has all the software I require to run it. (the main issues are BSD backup support for my hardware/software)
Don't get me wrong. I love FreeBSD. It's my utility server at home. (procmail/ftp/webserver/database/file server-mp3s) I just prefer linux as my desktop (the drivers make a world of difference) at home.
And to think, people call it redundant when RMS and others point out that "Linux" refers only to the kernel.
Obviously we need to continue making clear the distinction if reviewers supposedly "in the know" don't have it straight.
If we call the OS "Linux", what are we going to call the kernel? What are we going to call the OS, if it ceases using the Linux kernel.
With some work, any of the major Linux-based distributions could probably replace the Linux kernel with the FreeBSD kernel and many end users, particularly those who do not understand the OS/kernel distinction, would be none the wiser.
In this case, it would clearly be incorrect to call the OS "Linux", but these end users would not understand why this is so.
Did anyone else catch that the Extreme tech article is more than a little out of date? Posted originally Sept 22/02?
StatiK76
He's been harping on the "you can't sell GPL software" point for years even though it's not true. Linux people may also take issue with the quote that it was based on Minix. He's about as much of a pro-BSD, anti-Linux, anti-GPL person as you can get. Notice while he said that many systems are dependent on BSD code, he neglects also note that BSD relies on some GNU code as well.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
This article was patheticly low in actual content. It reminds me of the Movie Review's by Teenages that many local newspapers like to do in lieu of hiring actual professional movie critics.
It would be nice if some real-world IT type person who uses various unix type technologies on a daily basis would provide a review instead.
Kevin,
I wish you would stop posting this crap and just move on with your life. I'm sorry that things worked out the way they did, but you gave us no choice. As it was, I spent a lot of time convincing Jon and Bill not to have you brought up on criminal charges. I even managed to get you a week's severence.
Instead of being grateful that they gave you a break, you have become obsessed with trying to sabotage their business -- but your *BSD is dying posts are just childish and silly. We move more product now than when you left. No one is cancelling orders because of your anonymous messages on Slashdot.
I think that you could still have a bright future, but if this keeps up, Jon and Bill are going to get pissed off and have you brought up on criminal charges. Is that what you want? How many jobs will you get when potential employers see a criminal record that includes the theft of company computer equipment? Jon still has the laptop that he bought back from the pawn shop along with the company's original purchase records for it. He still has printouts of the ads you put up on ebay for the DLT auto-loader and the RAID array. There are records showing that your badge was used to gain entrance to the building at 2:13AM on the day that the equipment was stolen. On top of the thefts, we also have logs showing your attempts to break into the servers using your ID the evening after you were let go.
Do you want to end up being some guy's bitch in prison? That's what may happen if you keep this up. If you think that your shopping mall karate classes are going to do you any good there, you are in for a shock.
Tim
P.S. Please don't bother with denying this, who you are, and so forth. This started practically the day after you were let go. The writing style and the Kreskin reference leaves no doubt as to who's posting this. (Like someone else is going to go to that much trouble to discredit BSD and then not sign their name! Get real.)
You got it reversed: apple is to BSD as orange is to Linux. :-)
In a recent eWeek analysis/opinion piece, ZDNet's Technical Director Jim Rapoza argues the case for BSD. He talks about some of the history of BSD, and says that "FreeBSD is probably the most Linux-like of the three, with good third-party application packages and user utilities."
By the same token he also says that the greatest weakness of the BSDs "for those seeking an everyday operating system, is the lack of good desktop applications." Then he turns around and says that "if you really want a BSD-based system that has an excellent--maybe even the best--desktop and user application environment, there's always Mac OS X, which is based on BSD."
Interesting analysis and opinion piece. But it's pretty clear that he's a BSD proponent.
From the "linked" article by Brett Glass, 3998,a= 31573,00.asp
...programmers quickly developed replacements for these six files and made the BSDs into usable operating systems...
http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0
What is BSD? If you ask a typical computer "expert," he or she is likely to reply (incorrectly!) that it is "an operating system."
Nowadays, the term "The BSDs" refers to the family of operating systems...
Brett, what's up with this??? Is it or isn't it? I know that FreeBSD is and I appreciate it and use it every day. It has never failed to preform a task I have wanted it to do. Viva BSDs, whatever they are.
dd if=0 of=(whatever you want to hose!) Windows, a corrupted partition, your C drive? You never know. I love it.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
I do it wrong
Laying here in the shadows of my room, I squint up at my love. My Ms. Portman. I am sore and tired after fucking her for eight solid hours. My chapped and aching dick is soaking in grits to relieve the pain. She gets on her knees and starts lapping the grits up out of the bowl. She places her beautiful hands on my penis and starts to lick the grits off my achy piece.
Massaging my nutsack she....
WAIT, I DO IT WRONG!!!!
Yanking my dick out of her mouth I throw her to the ground and shove it in to her gaping freshly fisted ass. [goatse.cx]
OH BIG ASS SPORK!! Fuck my ass, fuck my ass good. DEEPER, my stallion, deeper!! Make a Beowulf cluster of sperm on my back!!
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of this baby!
I DO IT WRONG!!!!
I continue to hump her alabaster form. Glistening with beads of sweat, she bites her lip in delight as I tear her ass open with my engorged dick.
Queen Amidala!! I shreik as I near climax.
She looks up at me and screams, You are so alive in me, unlike *BSD or VA Software!!! Fill me with seed!! Yes, Yes, Yess!!!!
For me you are calling, hhhmmm?
YODA?!? What the fuck, can't you see I am using the force here?
He savagely kicks my Natalie aside, he pulls out his large green penis and impales me...
I DO IT WRONG!!
Actually, gcc is the only *required* GPL program. I think all the other parts of a BSD system are BSD licensed. This includes libc, ash, and even a vi clone.
It is less clear that a compiler is really a core part of an OS. It may be required to be practical, but I have an openbsd box on old hardware without a compiler! It's very usable!
It's basically true though.
So bottom line is, I really liked a lot of Linux's features, but unfortunately an OS without programs is useless.
If you want x86 Unix with some commercial support, there is Linux. If you just want commercial support, there is Windows.
You can still get the commercial apps to work on BSD (and some may be native), but that's not why you are using it. You are using it because you are a geek and you're not a slashbot, macophile, amiga-freak, microsoftie, or aol-er. Also, you don't like getting 0wn3d.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
GNU's not Linux.
But those three reasons are more or less why people pay for Widows, or any other proprietary software:
1. Philisophical/moral reasons: They don't want to freeload
2. CD vs p2p/warez-site
3. They are not paying for Windows, but to keep the BSA out of their hair, or they got their legal windows when they bought their computer
Laws aside (And in this case they are somewhat irrelevant) nobody will pay for commercial/proprietary software either, unless for moral reasons
The stars that shine and the stars that shrink
in the face of stagnation the water runs before your eyes
> Geometric ?, is that a word ?
Yes. A geometric progression is one in which the second-order
operation[1] is used rather than the first-order operation[2] to
process each element of the progression in order to acquire the
subsequent element. When charted on a cartesian visualization
system, a geometric progression will be parabolic; whereas, an
arithmetic progression would be linear.
There are of course higher-order progression classes than the
geometric class; by leveraging a higher-order operation it is
possible to achieve progression performance on a scale that will
cause the competition to revisit their benchmarks. The gamma
progression is generally considered the market leader going
forward in this regard. By incorporating integration of this
function into your gameplan, you can achieve results-driven
core competency in the progressions market.
[1] Colloquially, "multiplication", although any second-order
function will do; it does not have to be traditional
Real-number multiplication.
[2] Colloquially, "addition", but with the same qualification
as for "multiplication".
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
> The gamma progression
I should have put a third footnote there:
Colloquially, "factorial".
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
1) I had a very common system (Inspiron 8000 which sold millions). I couldn't find a 5.0 configuration file which allowed me to use X (Nvidia driver incompatable). Even in the mid 1990s I could always get Linux X to run 640x480 on a machine.
2) Slight errors in syntax when using ports results in ports trying to compile everything. Good system which needs a better safety.
3) The configuration system doesn't allow for small changes easily (like getting rid of an IP).
Linux now has: autohardware detection, good drivers, sample configs for virtually every system, lots and lots and lots of documentation.
How is BSD "friendlier"?
Geepers I've seen this lame troll post before! If freebsd is dead then it sure is making alot of noise. If you really are into coding then bsd is alot more fun than anything else around.
The kernel is rock solid and is easier to test virtual environments without hosing some core config. The core libraries are very easy to protect, and duplicate. The unfortunate thing that I have found about Linux is that the core libraries other than the Kernel make ./config on cross platforms a nightmare with some distros. Slackware is the only one thats still easy to figure out the path structure. With only one official Freebsd some people who are getting tired of having to find paths to ./config for the different Linux distros are switching to Slackware and FreeBSD, for the sake of their santity. To those who like to code for KDE Slackware runs about 30% faster with KDE 3
than Mandrake or RedHat. Bsd smokes if you set it up right. For the bunch that do shell scripts and code in Vi (and its variant) Bsd and Slackware are still the best dual boot and the closest to a real programmers tool. So what if you do not default boot directly into a window manager, unless you set it up. I still like to type startx and find that Mandrake and RedHat installs since version 8 have become geared to Windows users (which is fine) not the Gnu/Bsd/Linux community as a whole.
FreeBsd, Slackware, and Debian have an important place in the free software world they are and will remain the developement platforms of choice, because choice is what they deliver.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
FreeBSD is just a Gentoo Linux wannabe.
The old crappy poker AI has a pretty good shot at winning. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating a better feature would be a tutorial. Replies to your comments are sent to you at the same time that the Go project announces its formation and the release today to the worldwide open source development community. It has some good points, and I think it sums up what many of us know, but haven't quite been able to put into words yet--then your phone rings! I can't begin to count the number of times that happens. BSD won't survive another year. Its time on earth is over.
[ note: in this 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'
Yet one more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped once again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
Subject says it all. Period.
- deal with the inevitable.
- grieve for your loss.
- move on.
Never let your emotions get tangled up with something as silly as a computeroperating system. It isn't healthy. So BSD fails. Big whoop. Deal with it and move on.
My wife is a clinical psychologist. She actually had a patient who was suicidal over
the declining fortunes of BSD. Pathetic. The advice I gave you is essentially the same
as she gave her client (and it didn't cost you 500 bucks for the therapy sessions).
But under some assumptions.
- If you have MS background or No University degree, forget it
- If you have the linux "i want my free support right now you pathetic open source technical support guy" attitude, forget it
- If you love making conclusions after one hour of "research" , forget it.
P.S.
I had JAIL configured.
Amazing.
2 IP's, 2 FS Hierarchies, 2 hostnames,
2 root uids, 2 sendmails, 2 sshds,
even 2 POSTGRESQL's!!!
amazing....
Do any of the guys over here know
when SYSV IPC will be safely jailified??
I am sure its just a piece of cake for the FreeBSD
warriors...
If you are talking about BSD as operation system, than yes - there is some GPLed software included. But there is no GNU stuff in the kernel. You easily could replace GNU programs with programs with about the same functionality and different license. There is no essential dependency on GNU.
My My He Hey
FreeBSD is here to stay
you dumpfunk!
Not that this is used very much, but be aware that making Free BSD gpl free is a tricky task, and not worth it for most people.
Work bio at MMWD
When you lose marketshare year after year, when you have lost all commercial support,
when no major ISV supports you, then you are dead, BSD. You are dead.
When you lose marketshare year after year, when you have no commercial support,
when no major ISV supports you, then you are dead, BSD.. You are dead.
Fact: FreeBSD is dying
- deal with the inevitable.
- grieve for your loss.
- move on.
Never let your emotions get tangled up with something as silly as a computeroperating system. It isn't healthy. So BSD fails. Big whoop. Deal with it and move on.
Thanks for the insight. It is hard to argue with facts, and the fact is BSD is dying.
- FreeBSD is dying
- OpenBSD is dying
- NetBSD is dying
- BSDI is dying
- *BSD is dying
Hope this helps.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.
BSD dead? Indeed it is. *sob*
What does remain in the BSD world are a couple of penny-ante "mom and pop" shops, but nothing important. Think about it--crafts shops that sell macrame supplies gross hundreds of times more per year than all the BSD shops combined. BSD is dead commercially, that is for sure.
Brett Glass has a reputation for playing fast and loose with the facts. We have even banned him from some of the FreeBSD mailing lists. He is a zealot in the worst sense of the word.
buh bye!
September of 2002? Cmon.
bsd = fags 'n' hags
Petula's turn came early in the second half. With her hair pulled back and wearing her now signature black ensemble (long black skirt, black lace blouse, topped with a black jacket) and backed primarily by Miss Lee's own rhythm section, Petula spoke a few words about having first idolized & then ultimately having sung with Peggy, before enthusiastically launching into the uptempo "Things are Swinging" (written by Peggy Lee & Jack Marshall) using the very same arrangement used by Miss Lee but making it her own. Later, looking stunning in a new gold ensemble (reminiscent of the gorgeous blue dress she wore in Norfolk) she returned to the stage again very near the end of the show. This time, with lush orchestral backing, she sang a very heartfelt rendition of "Circle in the Sky." Both songs were very enthusiastically received, particularly by the front row.
During a video clip of Miss Lee singing "Is that All There Is," Petula and ensemble returned to the stage for the finale and ended the show with a touching "I'll Be Seeing You" (with Petula being one of the few singers who seemed to know all of the lyrics.)
During the after-party reception down the street at Shelly's, Petula could be heard sharing "Sunset Boulevard" memories with Rita Moreno (who had taken over the Norma role while Petula had been on vacation) and advising Nancy Sinatra about venue selection & performances in London, while in-between managing to enjoy a piece of chocolate cake and warmly greet several fans with a kiss on each cheek.
Over lunch the following day she was anxious to hear our comments about the show, confiding that there had been precious little rehearsal and that unfortunately the singers on stage had been unable to hear many of the other performances, much less see them. She also mentioned that while she had been unable to see much from the brightly lit stage, she had very much enjoyed the feel of performing in the Hall, comparing it to the London Palladium and the Paris Olympia. Following lunch, she had a full afternoon of work-related activities scheduled for her and said she would be leaving the following day to return to London to prepare for her June 29th appearance at the Albert Hall, before commencing promotion for the upcoming German CD release.
All and all, it had been a memorable evening and we were grateful for the time we spent with her, however brief.
Where's the fun in that. Huh.
Tiny C Compiler already exists and works.
First hit:
.......
:: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 1 Guest [ Administrator ] [ Moderator ]
http://www.bsd-laptop.org/
Our users have posted a total of 26 articles
We have 5 registered users
The newest registered user is Mo===
In total there is 1 user online
Most users ever online was 3 on Mon Jan 20, 2003 10:49 pm
Registered Users: None
One might like to point out also that FreeBSD is the basis for the best routing OS there is: JunOS. FreeBSD is very ripe for being a commercial product because of the no-nonsense base install, the wonderful kernel which is exceedingly stable and despite the rants of others, is fairly close to being on par with Linux. Linux tends to change rapidly. FreeBSD changes in a more deterministic way. I also must say that bundling the c library and compiler along with a coherent well documented userland is something that Linux systems may want to take a long had look at. I also really like building the kernel, libraries, compiler and userland easily and reliably from a very easy to follow procedure, mine is: /etc/make.conf; CPUTYPE?=p3; CFLAGS= -O2 -pipe -march=pentium3 ; CXXFLAGS+= -fmemoize-lookups -fsave-memoized -O2 -march=pentium3 ; [-march I do repetitively to make sure i get my probably not needed CPU optimizations ;p] ; COPTFLAGS= -O2 -pipe -march=pentium3 ; NOPROFILE= true ; WANT_EXT2FS_MODULE=yes ; MAKE_IDEA= YES ; COMPAT4X= yes ; configure cvsup in /etc/make.conf ; various other tweaks /etc /usr/obj ./usr/src, build system ;
- cvsup the base system to latest CVS stable release
- configure
- reconfigure kernel config file to include SMP [options SMP; options APIC_IO], and a shorter timeout period for the SCSI driver [options SCSI_DELAY=4000], and I add a few things to support IDE-CD burning [device atapicam], etc.
- backup
- clean out
- in
make clean && make cleandepend && make cleandir && make clean && make cleandepend && make cleandir [anal retentive cleansing]
make buildworld ; make buildkernel KERNCONF=SMP
make installkernel KERNCONF=SMP
single user mode
fsck -p ; mount -u / ; mount -a -t ufs ; swapon -a ; adjkerntz -i
mergemaster -p ; make installworld ; mergemaster ; reboot
Now my whole system is custom made for my CPU and hardware. It lets me see the care taken in building the whole system and shows off a very clean build process.
The ports system has many meta-ports that make making an instant workstation quite easy to construct. If you don't want to build your ports with massive optimizations, a large cache of packages are available.
I would like to point out that I have never had an unbuildable world. I've heard of it on -CURRENT, but have never experienced it, but -STABLE is wonderfully - stable!
Ports could use a rollback feature such as the one found in Gentoo. Not that I long for Gentoo [I've used this system and deprecate it for a multitude of reasons, maybe later], I have supervised many systems and find that FreeBSD is the best in terms of stability and longevity. Of course uptime is more of a game, who can build a better mousetrap, but its certainly not a meaningless metric.
The biggest hole in FreeBSD at the moment is Sun's fault. Native Java 1.4 support is available with a bizarre license. Interestingly, IBM and Sun's Linux products actually run very well under the Linux emulation support.
I have never understood the hatred people have for FreeBSD. It bizarre and unfounded. Its a non-RedHat systems to Winux [Windows weenie Linux wannabees] admins, so they have a conniption that real UNIX is complex and detail oriented, and that reading mans, howtos and docs are par for the course - no admin wizards to "save the day." No, you must actually understand and configure something properly.
The documentation on FreeBSD is superior. There are many, many docs that cover basic to esoteric administration, with a lot of attention paid to performance enhancing things one can do.
Add Vinum and UFS2 to the stack of features, and you have yourself some fairly serious filesystem support. While I would like to see XFS in FreeBSD as well, it is a pipe dream, as it is still in "stable" Linux - the best file
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
get help kid
you know it's dead .
Don't you think that BSD is dead already? I would say so; yes I would.