Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 4.9 Released
Digital Dharma writes "Excellent! FreeBSD 4.9 has been released, and if it's anything like the RC series, this will be a release to remember. You can obtain it from the usual sources, or if you're feeling generous and supportive, you can buy the cd set. Support your local Daemon!" As Jani Laaksonen writes, the new release includes "numerous security advisory fixes, kernel changes and support for the Physical Address Extensions (PAE) capability on Intel Pentium Pro and higher processors (see page(4)). This release also adds support for a few more hardware NIC cards, ipfw network protocol enhancements, userland changes, and more. Check FreeBSD 4.9 Release Notes for more information."
The excitement over this new release hit the beleaguered BSD community like a bombshell.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Cheers,
Ian
FreeBSD Rocks!!! Linux Sucks :(
But... How does it compare to Linux 2.6.0-test9 performance wise?
There is a fairly significant amount of Christians in IT. Shouldn't open source be using something less offensive, like "services" instead of glorifying evil?
I thought FreeBSD was already on 5.x or something like that. Is that the development version? Does FreeBSD use a linux-like version numbering where odd numbers are development releases?
Who said Freedom was Fair?
To rise up yet once again from the dead!
BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
11. you have to not be a retard to use it.
Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.
So does this mean that the FreeBST team isn't patching security issues as they are reported, and are instead fixing them over the period of (presumably) scheduled release iterations?
If this is the case, why isn't the /. community all over them like they are Microsoft?
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
I wonder why those idiots with no more to say than "bsd is dying", "pull the plug", "bsd sux, linux rulez" are not simply filtering out BSD related posts and be done with it... they get moderated down to oblivion anyway...
:)
I'm personally very happy with FreeBSD, thank you.
Hope SMP support (and pthreads support) will get better soon now. Can't wait for 5.x becoming -STABLE.
// "If human beings don't keep exercising their lips,
// their brains start working." -- Ford Prefect
Er, that would be "FreeBSD" of course :)
Wow, Slashdot posting the story of a BSD release AFTER the official release announcement and the web page being updated? Must be a first.
> 1. You can not play games on it.
Wrong. There are plenty of games, and what is not supported by a native version may be playable under linux emulation and/or wine with a negligible performance impact.
> 2. It cannot be used by my grandma.
Then your grandma is dumb.
> 3. It lacks a GUI of any note.
Wrong. you can use XFree86 and any window manager or desktop environment you choose.
> 4. There is no support available for it.
Wrong. There are plenty of IRC channels, email lists and even commercial support providers.
> 5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.
Wrong. Even if it were not wrong this does not compare to the staggering number of Linux distributions.
> 6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform.
Wrong. FreeBSD was initially crafted directly from the 386BSD patchset in the early 90's. It has supported i386 from the very beginning.
> 7. You have to compile everything and know C.
Wrong. You can install packages just like linux. You can certainly compile everything if you want to, but this does not require even minimal knowledge of C.
> 8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.
Wrong. It isn't always poor. Sometimes support lags behind a little, many times IHV's have poor or no FreeBSD drivers, but new hardware is certainly not ignored.
> 9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux.
Wrong. FreeBSD has an extensive Linux binary compatability system that allows most Linux binaries to run just fine. Word is, sometimes even faster.
> 10.It is dying.
And Wrong. FreeBSD has a large community of active developers and maintainers, along with a significant installed user base.
9 out of 10 ain't bad. Clearly a troll but I was feeling self important so I thought I'd whip it out.
jesus, is that poor girl skinny enough for you?
Please explain why you modded this down. At least repy to the parent! I think there are some good points raised and just modding it down to 'troll' without any explanation is not fair!
These FreeBSD guys need to play some catch up here!
I mean, Apple is already on version 10 of their operating system, which is also FreeBSD - and the FreeBSD people themselves are only on version 4.9?!
C'mon - wake up and smell the coffee, guys. You've got 5.1 versions to go just to catch up to Apple!
This is good for BSD and good for all of us. For those you saying that BSD lost its vigor in 1990 (lawsuit) then i wonder how the current Linux fiasco is going to impact the penguin. We are all in this together really, a strong BSD means more security for all of us. Espescially with the SCO monster running around. Who know in 5 years maybe BSD will be growing at 17%/year and linux will be on life support. Remember fame is fickle.
Anybody ever hear what happened to the fork. DragonFly or something?...
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
That was actually really amusing. :D I'm legitimately laughing right now... Thanks for this one, AC, you made my morning. :)
None of the points raised by the post in question are worth wasting any time on. The poster's understanding of what "free" means is simply flawed. Flawed? Broken.
Free doesn't mean "do it my way." Free doesn't mean "do what I say." Free means free, period. Unburdened by restriction or prohibition. Free doesn't mean you get to tell other people what to do.
A lot of people don't like freedom. A lot of people think that other people should just do what they're told and not make their own decisions. The poster in question is evidently one of these people. He thinks that people shouldn't be free to do whatever they want with free software. He thinks that people should only be allowed to do certain things, under certain circumstances.
That doesn't sound right to me.
That's where the discussion begins and ends. The poster in question is wrong in his most basic assumption, so there's no point in getting any deeper into it than that.
If you buy the complete CD Set from BSDMall, you get a collector's box. That's right, a mini-coffin to hold your *BSD CDs!
The average all posts:non-0 rated post ratio on slashdot is around 1.3. On bsd.slashdot.org it's more like 3:1 to 5:1 (there's currently a story with 40:1). What is wrong with these people? Choice is good, mmm-kay.
It is a troll, but if you really want a reply: The BSD license is free in a different way than GPL software. It is free in a way that actually allows more freedom than the GPL. One of the points of the license is to allow for others to use it in their closed source software. This is a good thing, as it helps business and helps stimulate the economy.
Would it be better if Microsoft wrote their own TCP/IP stack and it turned out very buggy? Would it be better if OS X didn't exist at all? BeOS?
I'm not going to argue which license is more appropriate. They both have their pros and cons. And either one may be appropriate depending on your goals.
#!/
rimshot!
You can not play games on it.
That's true. FreeBSD is not for people who want to play games. These people need to use a PlayStation, GameCube, or Xbox.
It cannot be used by my grandma.
That's true. FreeBSD is not meant to be used in that sense at all. It's a server operating system, designed to run unattended.
It lacks a GUI of any note.
That's true. The only graphical user interfaces for FreeBSD are those based on X11--including the atrocities KDE and Gnome. These are nothing more than curiosities.
There is no support available for it.
That's true. FreeBSD is not for people who want to buy a support contract. These people need to use Solaris or AIX or IRIX or Mac OS X Server instead.
It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.
That's untrue. FreeBSD is just one operating system.
It cannot be run on the x86 platform.
That's untrue. The primary platform of FreeBSD is IA-32, which some silly people insist on calling "x86" for reasons that escape me.
You have to compile everything and know C.
That's half true. You do have to compile everything; that's what the "ports" system is. You do not have to know C, however; that's also part of the "ports" system.
Support for the latest hardware is always poor.
That's true. FreeBSD does not strive to be on the bleeding edge of anything.
It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux.
That's both true and untrue. FreeBSD can interoperate with Linux. FreeBSD can also run much of the same software as Linux. But unfortunately Linux developers decided to make some decisions in their design that could best be described as dubious, so certain incompatibilities arose over time. These incompatibilities come from the Linux side of things, not the FreeBSD side. Complain to your local Linux developer.
It is dying.
That's untrue. There were more shipments of FreeBSD last year than any other UNIX operating system. That's because Mac OS X is, for all intents and purposes, FreeBSD.
If microsoft had a shittier TCP/IP stack would that be better?!
Hell yes it would! That would make getting people to use free software that much easier! You are basically saying you want to help microsoft make a better product! If you like that at least fucking get paid for it! You want to work for a company like microsoft...for free? That is really sad...
Would it be better if OS X didn't exist at all? Sure. Why do I care if more closed source proprietary software exists?
"numerous security advisory fixes"
At first I read that as "humerous". But of course this isnt Windows we are atalking about. eyethangyoo.
<fnord>OBEY</fnord>
You have a naive understanding of how the world works my friend. Can you truly be free when there is no system in place to protect your rights? No! Would you consider yourself free if there were no laws?
Uh, we're talking about software, not human rights and freedoms. Till you manage to get that through your head, there really isn't any point in continuing this discussion.
Dinivin
If you are talking about kernel features in FreeBSD to allow better support for USB peripherals and the like, then comparing Linux against FreeBSD is like comparing apples to oranges. If you want to talk about a server platform, FreeBSD has better kernel throughput than Linux 2.4 while from a desktop standpoint Linux offers better support. Pick the right tool for the job.
Karma: Positive. Mostly effected by cowbell.
>> You can not play games on it.
/me has Heroes of Might and Magic on an old laptop, to amuse myself when traveling by train.
>That's true. FreeBSD is not for people who want to >play games. These people need to use a PlayStation, >GameCube, or Xbox.
Most loki games work fine, and installation using original linux CD is supported by ports tree.
You have a naive understanding of how the world works my friend.
No kidding?
Can you truly be free when there is no system in place to protect your rights?
Yup. You may not be happy, or secure, or safe, or wealthy, but you're free. That's what "free" means.
If you want to talk about stuff other than freedom, be my guest. But don't try to roll a whole trunk-full of ideas up and call the whole package "freedom." It doesn't work that way.
They can do it because they are just as free as you.
Right. That's what "free" means.
True freedom means the ability to be protected from losing your freedom.
No, that's not what "freedom" means. Wilsonian liberalism aside, freedom cannot be satisfactorily expressed as a negative proposition. There is no such thing as "freedom from." That's just a figure of speech. Freedom is a positive proposition: "freedom to."
I agree that unrestricted freedom would be a lousy way to live. I think restrictions on behavior are important, even critical, to a civil society. I'm just not deluding myself and misleading others by engaging in "slavery is freedom" double-speak.
Freedom is the natural state, the state of grace. We voluntarily give up our freedom, to a degree, when we join a society. In doing so, we must never forget that what we are doing is a conscious act. We must never forget that we have voluntarily surrendered our freedom for a greater prosperity. To say that freedom can't be freedom without restrictions is a disservice to the essential nature of freedom itself.
The thing about FreeBSD is that anyone can easily take away the freedom of the software!
Actually, no. Nobody can take away the freedom of FreeBSD. FreeBSD is now and will always be free... as long as it doesn't get "infected" with stolen IP, as Linux recently has been.
What you can do is take FreeBSD and create something new from it, something that is for a limited time protected by copyright. This is called "progress."
But eventually, all things return to the public domain. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. So your high-minded, blowhard rhetoric about "taking away the freedom!" is just silly.
For software to truly be free, it must never ever ever risk losing its freedom, no matter what hands it falls into. Anything else is not free.
Please extract your head from your ass before continuing this discussion.
Yes! You are right. That's the crux of the problem. In fact vendors are DISCOURAGED from contributing to BSD, because they FEAR helping out the competition.
Now, with Linux, even vendors are freer to contribute, because their contributions are GUARANTEED to not be exploited by their competition and used against the vendor that contributed. Everybody wins. This is why GPL is more free than BSD.
FWIW: Consoles suck for some type of games.
I bet that if you asked Mac OS X user "What OS are you running there?", all of them would say "It's Mac OS X" and not "It's FreeBSD". Roots of OS X might be FreeBSD, but that does not make it FreeBSD IMO.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
> 9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux. Wrong. FreeBSD has an extensive Linux binary compatability system that allows most Linux binaries to run just fine. Word is, sometimes even faster.
Some time ago I had 1GHz Athlon 256MB with ATA100 drive as my workstation. I put linux on it. Everything was ok, up to the time I had to untar some big files 200GB+. Starting single tar -zxf filename nearly made my computer not responding (even mouse cursor moved in jumps). First I thought the reason was that I have 2.2.x kernel so I switched to 2.4.x. It didn't help. Finally I put FreeBSD on this box and from that time unpacking archives with tar was no longer a problem.
You should not play with yourself when using public transportation!
While it's true that BSD is momentarily 'freer' in the sense that you can do whatever you want with it, this logic is ultimately really flawed.
If you look at the big picture, it is _not_ the way to go. FreeBSD discourages the true ideals of Free Software, because it offers no protections to those wishing to contribute, including private companies.
And if you think that if GCC had a BSD license that Apple would simply "give away" their modifications to GCC, you are pretty naive.
And to call the GPL a silly expression of freedom is utterly insulting and completely sophomoric. I won't even respond to that. You clearly don't get what free software is all about.
I personally enjoyed OpenVMS more than my experiences using FreeBSD. The little devil mascot should be replaced with a three thousand year old mummy...
Or, more likely, he's someone who considers `Linux' to be the same as `RedHat Linux', an is simply comparing version numbers in a vain attempt at humour.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
that the difference between a *BSD release and a Linux distro release is a night and day difference. When a linux distro is released everyone comes out of the wood-work, says it is the best thing since the 386 was released, praises Allah, and there would be few if any comments to the contrary. Yet, when a *BSD release comes out it becomes a religious war over which is better, and all the trolls come out of the wood-work?
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
right tool is a very appropriate term. That's about that FreeBSD is. A frikkin' tool. I haven't seen a legitimate commerical operation using FreeBSD for production servers in all my years as in IT. I think I saw more OS/2 and Banyan servers than FreeBSD boxes!
Subject header says it all... I'll just rely on good ol' fashioned ftp then.
I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
The BSD license is free in a different way than GPL software. It is free in a way that actually allows more freedom than the GPL.
You are confused. When you say that BSD is free, what you really mean is that the BSD licence does not impose any restrictions upon the recipient of the code, and hence the recipient of that code is "free" to do with it as they see fit.
When I say that the GPL is free, I really mean is that the code itself is protected by a garuantee that it shall remain open and freely available to every recipient of that code. It does not however, garuantee any freedom to the reciepient itself.
The BSD "free" is a different "free" to the GPL and applies to two different things. Hence the confusion and silly statements that "The [GPL|BSD] is [more|less] free than the [GPL|BSD]"
There are a few more lines in dmesg talking about SMP support, but I think that snippet gives you everything you need to know.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I work for a company that bases many of it's products on FreeBSD -- excellent OS - easy to customize, and we're not constrained by the GPL to give away our work.
The GPL does not constrain you to give away your work. It only mandates that you have to include your source code whenever you distribute the program--that's IF you distribute your program.
Generally we dont package up and sell our software, but rather sell services (accounts on our hardware running our software).
You could do the exact same thing with Linux, or... oh... GNU Hurd. There is nothing in the General Public License saying that you cannot make some software for Linux for internal use, and then sell services using that software.
When I say that the GPL is free, I really mean is that the code itself is protected by a garuantee that it shall remain open and freely available to every recipient of that code. It does not however, garuantee any freedom to the reciepient itself.
The BSD "free" is a different "free" to the GPL and applies to two different things. Hence the confusion and silly statements that "The [GPL|BSD] is [more|less] free than the [GPL|BSD]"
That is exactly what I said:
"The BSD license is free in a different way than GPL software. It is free in a way that actually allows more freedom than the GPL."
I didn't say that the BSD license is more free than the GPL, I said it allows more freedom [to the recipient].
#!/
you are a moron. Think yahoo, sony japan, hell even hotmail still has bsd boxes. Not to mention just about every hosting service that actually stays up for any amount of time is running on FreeBSD, and netcraft shows that the machines with the highest uptime are all BSD. Go back into the hole you crawled out of.
blah blah blah, shutup troll.
I'll bite on this one. I guess you've never heard of Yahoo or Hotmail. Both have used FreeBSD for web serving.
Obviously, you've been hiding behind OS/2 boxes all these years. It's a shame that you don't get out more.
No.
Even if somebody takes BSD and makes it into a closed-source product, the original BSD code is still available for free.
Thus, two things will cause customers to ignore the closed-source product based on BSD: more cost and less addition of value. Until the derivative clears this invisible hurdle, people will rather just get the completely free FreeBSD.
Mac OS X works, because it adds sufficiently many features and makes them easy enough to use that people will buy it for what Apple decides they will sell it for.
Jag pratar lite svenska.
Ahhhhh, sweet revenge.
Be nice to the FreeBSD project. In the remote event SCO wins its lawsuits, FreeBSD, especially the 5.x series, would easily be able to replace Linux.
Hey dude, try playing Halo or Tux Racer or whatever on a VT220 when stuck in a server room at 3 a.m. waiting for a system upgrade to finish, with nothing more than a bunch of blinking rackmounts to keep you company.
That's what Angband is for! What do you mean, it's not for people who don't want to play games. If it's a choice between Moria/Rogue and counting floor tiles during a long compile....I'll even take Mud Shell at that point.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
...does it run Linux?
I've used linux for about 4 years, but i have always peeked into the BSD camp now and again.
While i like linux, and it has always done well for me, i think it's time for me to jump the fence to FreeBSD completely.
The BSDs always seem to be more mature and logical, and `cleaner'.
Maybe this isn't the best reason to drive such a decision, but i think a lot of the noise and trolling from the linux camp of late has really put me off. I know *all* linux users aren't like this, but it's really turning into something don't want to be associated with. I have a similar situation with the Apple community, and Windows, well... i just hate the OS enough.
The level of integrity that i've seen in my (albeit limited) interaction on usenet, slashdot and irc with BSD folks is impressive. There aren't any issues of acting juvenile or overly zealous.
Maybe in a while the linux camp will "grow up" some and i'll come back.
Sorry.
do() || do_not();
I am a have excepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour and see nothing wrong with a play on words The great thing about Open Source, is you don't have to use it.
Accepting this as 'glorifying evil' absolutely incorrect. FreeBSD isn't saying, use it b/c the Devil uses it, or putting other 'evil' messages in the source. It is picture, one manufactured by Man, which has no idea what a demon even looks like. Red tights are fabrication by Man.
Anyone want to read Harry Potter?
Asenchi
What is wrong with these people?
Two words: inferiority complex.
Does that mean we'll have to abstain from using "icons" as well?
Actually, the word Daemon, like many things in Christianity, has roots in paganism, though it also has connections to Ancient Greek as well. Only in Christianity does the word specifically refer to an evil entity.
What's the difference between Unix borrowing the word to mean Disk And Execution MONitor, and Christianity borrowing the word to mean a sort of evil, supernatural entity?
Everyone one of REAL IT-types us are heathen atheists. Sorry to burst your bubble. We likes our BSD naughty.
Mmmm... sacrilicious.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I used Linux for about a year, coming from a 'doze background. It was alright but nothing spectacular. My first install of FreeBSD, however, I fell in love with. It seems to have all the things that Linux promised -- speed, stability, security -- without the overhead of some of the modern linux distros. Installation was simple and quick. Configuration was simple and quick. The ports collection rocks. FreeBSD is still an excellent choice for a professional developer or sysadmin.
Plus, SCO isn't coming after my source code;)
why do all the trolls suddenly come out when a FreeBSD story comes out? Perhaps all the linux zealots feel just a little inferior that a competitive OS besides Microsoft exists, and that linux may not be the single absolute best thing after all.
There was something on this that was already on /.
You can find that here and also here
Granted it's the 5.x versions of FreeBSD but still got a good comparison.
Evolution or ID?
You got trolled. If the word "daemon" is actually OFFENSIVE to you, you may as well not live, because everything will be offensive to you.
FreeLSD has a superior userbase but we can't go there because if we go there we'll bring down its amazing userbase and then linux will have a superior userbase.
Then you should have been specific and said "The BSD license is free in a different way than GPL software. It is free in a way that actually allows more freedom for the recipient of the code than the GPL." As it stands it reads like so many of the silly "more free" arguments, which it isn't.
I can't help it if you clowns can't understand English.
Agree 100%
People misunderstand the word "Free". Free with BSD truly means FREE. No strings attached.
"Free" to GNU people means "Well, its free BUT--you have to ensure it keeps this viral license"
That second part doesn't work. It can't be free and have a "but...". No excuses...don't even try. It ends there.
Dammit, and I was just thinking about installing 4.8 on an old machine I have. I got it with the 'latest', to the U.S. at least, issue of LinuxFormat.
Now I feel compelled to download 4.9 instead of 4.8 and try and install it.
"For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
You are correct, ZORK would suck on a Gamecube.
"For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
I keep reading all these posts about it. What's the story? Is FreeBSD an American Icon, like Ninnle Linux is?
FreeBSD is arguably just as secure as OpenBSD IF you do some reading and tune and secure and disable anything you don't need.
Don't believe the myth that OpenBSD is the only "secure" BSD around. Remember it even came with a trojan once so security issues can happen to any OS.
NetBSD has the lowest amount of reported vulnerabilities but that is probably directly reflected from the size of its user base. Anyhow I love em all and run all three in my home network.
FreeBSD for me is the platform I develop on (not just FreeBSD ware but POSIX and ANSI compliant), I run NetBSD on my more obscure older hardware that FreeBSD can't install on (enough power, just more unique hardware wouldn't get past installer). OpenBSD is what I run my personal firewall and Apache on just for a bit of flavour (even though Free or Net would work)
All my posts on this topic got modded down as troll or flamebait. :(
That's because you're a sad pathetic troll, I hope you get modded -1 every time. This thread is about a FreeBSD release, not about how GPL is more "free"
Quit polluting the thread and ruining it for the rest of us. We want to read about changes to FreeBSD, not how LUN1X 0WNZ j00. I'm not surprised you don't totally understand the concept of "free", you're a warez kidd after all.
go here: http://craig.afraid.org/site/main.pld=binaries/fre ebsd/4.9&f=1&t=0
UGH. http://craig.afraid.org/site/main.pl?d=binaries/fr eebsd/4.9&f=1&t=0
Thats better.
Too true. Coming from the "Bible Belt" I can say that the "Demon Factor" is a problem. It doesn't matter how many friggin' 'a's you stick in there, a red creature with horns, a pitchfork, and a tail is still a Demon to many people.
At least Open and DragonFly decided to change the mascot. Getting them exposure is a little easier in my "redneck [southeast non-]mountain town!!!!!"
I'll take your post seriously.
They probably mean it includes security fixes compared to 4.8-RELEASE. However security releases do exist, they are versions with a p# in them. e.g 4.8-p13. These contain 4.8 release plus any security fixes.
Also there are release engineering versions (aka releng) that have the update that have a version number like 4.8-20031010. These contain secuity updates plus system and driver updates.
Ugh.
Mac OS X is based on Mach. The command line userland is FreeBSD. So, yes, they're running Mac OS X. Secondary, they're running NeXT.
- oZ
// i am here.
i went to grab a ISO and all the mirrors have is disk two...
what happened to disk one, isnt that necesarry for booting and starting the install???
forgive my ignorence as i am a lowly Linux user...
> > 2. It cannot be used by my grandma.
:)
> Then your grandma is dumb.
Ouch scathing assault on Grandma's everywhere.
I'll break it to Grandma that she's an idiot tomorrow... or whenever the snail mail letter gets there - she can't do Windows or Mac, either
actually hhw (he has won)
Um, no. Just because it detects the second processor doesn't mean it does anything useful with it. If there's just a big honkin' lock around the whole kernel, like there was initially in Linux, that has been proven to be a cruddy way of doing things.
That's not true. While I'm not a heavy gamer, I have a number of games going on my FreeBSD system. I DO know of people playing Unreal Tournament 2003 on FreeBSD systems though. My games include: FlightGear, Abuse, Cube, Falcon's Eye, FooBillard (beautiful!), FrozenBubble, glTron, as well as SNES games through emulation. And that's just a tiny number of the 576 games currently in the ports collection.
>> It cannot be used by my grandma.
> That's true.
Says who? I could set up a FreeBSD box that my grandma could use. She couldn't admin it any better than she could a Windows system though. If something broke with Windows or FreeBSD, she'd still be calling me. So what's the diff? "Hey grandma, to send email click here, type here, then click there." The simplest user is sufficiently abstracted from the OS enough that they are the BEST candidates for alternative OSes. And if you're going to stick a total newbie with something that they're going to call you everytime they have a problem on, why not give them something that doesn't crash all the time?
> That's true. The only graphical user interfaces for FreeBSD are those based on X11--including the atrocities KDE and Gnome. These are nothing more than curiosities.
While I suppose it's true technically, I don't see it as a bad thing. In fact, when it comes to servers, it's a good thing. And when it comes to desktops, choice is a good thing. Does it really matter that one team makes the OS and one team makes the GUI? They work well together, and countless people like myself use them. Do you complain about Windows because it doesn't come with a word processor? No, and if MS tried to bundle Word w/ Windows people would cry foul. So take that to another level. Just because some people can't fathom an OS and the GUI being separate, doesn't mean it's not a good idea. I don't want a GUI on the server, and I like having choices about what window-manager or desktop-environment to run. Yes, KDE and Gnome are pretty resource-intensive. So use xfce then... it's pretty slick. I happen to like Gnome, but I've used KDE too and I'm actually running xfce4 right now just for fun.
> That's true. FreeBSD is not for people who want to buy a support contract.
Wow, that is so not true I begin to wonder if you're a troll. Did you even bother checking the website before making that claim? Or about about here?
> That's half true. You do have to compile everything; that's what the "ports" system is.
That's 100% not true. FreeBSD gives you choice. If you want to compile, you can build ports. If you want to install precompiled binaries, you install packages. Once installed, they are registered in the database (with their dependencies) the same way and are managed in the same manner. A little reading of the FreeBSD ports and packages system would be in order.
I'm hoping you're not a troll as some of your answers were correct. However some are quite wrong.
I think I will just wait for longhorn before I upgrade my OS again.
bad troll bad troll,
what you gonna do?
what you gonna do
when Columbine comes for YOU!
Oh, and the 5.x (-CURRENT branch) has removed most of the bits which lock `giant', making the kernel more SMP-friendly.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
While I'm not a heavy gamer, I have a number of games going on my FreeBSD system.
I'm sorry. What a colossal waste of time. Have you ever considered going outside?
I could set up a FreeBSD box that my grandma could use.
You have a funny definition of "use." What's grandma gonna use to write the Christmas letter? What's she gonna use to listen to music or to surf the web?
And when it comes to desktops, choice is a good thing.
An oft-repeated falsehood. Choice is only good if at least one of the available choices is acceptable. Being forced to choose between a number of unacceptable alternatives is bad.
Wow, that is so not true I begin to wonder if you're a troll.
Yawn.
FreeBSD gives you choice.
See above comment on "choice."
I'm hoping you're not a troll as some of your answers were correct.
You're out of your fucking mind.
> The thing about FreeBSD is that anyone can easily take away the freedom of the software! And many closed-source vendors do just that.
...
I said it in my other response to you, but the only people who are going to pay attention to the terms of the GPL are people who wouldn't "steal" code in the first place.
And the people who *would* steal GPLed code are people who wouldn't give 2 shits about licensing terms anyway.
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
I can't help it if you can't remember to specify a proper subject for your sentence.
are still using... but m$ tries to hide it bahahaha ... yahoo has been using FreeBSD for years.
Check my site: http://pixel.pagina.nl
spoken like true dead Anonymous Coward... once again sad :(
Check my site: http://pixel.pagina.nl
If you have troubles, try this mirror...
:)
ftp://olaf.spack.nu/pub/mirror/freebsd-iso/
Enjoy
Ender
Nothing to see here
Go Read Your Fucking Manual!
$ man rmfm
Now, Apache uses a BSD style license but they have an open development model which allows them to take advantage of a very large developer pool in order to stay ahead of their competition. In fact although proprietary versions of Apache exist which perform better than the official releases, SGI has put out some open source patches which generate even larger performance boosts. This is the reason why they have such a strong showing in terms of market share.
BSD once had potential but the procedural problems they are experiencing hurt it when it comes to the market. I suspect that this is probably in part because the BSD teams are not interested in such things, and that is a shame... In fact, although I labeled it as an inferior OS, this is not due to lack of progress within BSD -- it has been progressing somewhat, but rather because all the improvements they make tend to be quickly copied by their competitors AND they lack the developer pool to stay ahead of this game (a problem which does not exist in the Linux or Apache communities, though for somewhat different reasons).
I don't think that there is enough widespread support for BSD to save the operating system. What must be done is an opening up of the development process OR a GPL-style restriction on redistribution. In many ways I favor the former.
Even in a worst case scenario, I don't see BSD completely dying. I think the developers are less into competition and more into a sort of idealized cooperation. As a result, even if BSD becomes more marginalized, I don't think that it will die outright. It will most likely outlive Netware, for example.
Ugh, sorry about the formatting. That'll teach me about avoiding the "preview" button.
Now, Apache uses a BSD style license but they have an open development model which allows them to take advantage of a very large developer pool in order to stay ahead of their competition. In fact although proprietary versions of Apache exist which perform better than the official releases, SGI has put out some open source patches which generate even larger performance boosts. This is the reason why they have such a strong showing in terms of market share.
BSD once had potential but the procedural problems they are experiencing hurt it when it comes to the market. I suspect that this is probably in part because the BSD teams are not interested in such things, and that is a shame... In fact, although I labeled it as an inferior OS, this is not due to lack of progress within BSD -- it has been progressing somewhat, but rather because all the improvements they make tend to be quickly copied by their competitors AND they lack the developer pool to stay ahead of this game (a problem which does not exist in the Linux or Apache communities, though for somewhat different reasons).
I don't think that there is enough widespread support for BSD to save the operating system. What must be done is an opening up of the development process OR a GPL-style restriction on redistribution. In many ways I favor the former.
Even in the worst case scenario, I don't see BSD completely dying. I think the developers are less into competition and more into a sort of idealized cooperation. As a result, even if BSD becomes more marginalized, I don't think that it will die outright. It will most likely outlive Netware, for example.
Dude, Theo...
You must have one massive inferiority complex to make sure you are the first to say that the Linux Community has an inferiority complex with GPL and opensource et al.
Grow up, The duh Rat.
Ninja Banish!
Now, Apache uses a BSD style license but they have an open development model which allows them to take advantage of a very large developer pool in order to stay ahead of their competition. In fact although proprietary versions of Apache exist which perform better than the official releases, SGI has put out some open source patches which generate even larger performance boosts. This is the reason why they have such a strong showing in terms of market share.
BSD once had potential but the procedural problems they are experiencing hurt it when it comes to the market. I suspect that this is probably in part because the BSD teams are not interested in such things, and that is a shame... In fact, although I labeled it as an inferior OS, this is not due to lack of progress within BSD -- it has been progressing somewhat, but rather because all the improvements they make tend to be quickly copied by their competitors AND they lack the developer pool to stay ahead of this game (a problem which does not exist in the Linux or Apache communities, though for somewhat different reasons).
I don't think that there is enough widespread support for BSD to save the operating system. What must be done is an opening up of the development process OR a GPL-style restriction on redistribution. In many ways I favor the former.
Even in a worst case scenario, I don't see BSD completely dying. I think the developers are less into competition and more into a sort of idealized cooperation. As a result, even if BSD becomes more marginalized, I don't think that it will die outright. It will most likely outlive Netware or BeOS for example.
Now, Apache uses a BSD style license but they have an open development model which allows them to take advantage of a very large developer pool in order to stay ahead of their competition. In fact although proprietary versions of Apache exist which perform better than the official releases, SGI has put out some open source patches which generate even larger performance boosts. This is the reason why they have such a strong showing in terms of market share.
BSD once had potential but the procedural problems they are experiencing hurt it when it comes to the market. I suspect that this is probably in part because the BSD teams are not interested in such things, and that is a shame... In fact, although I labeled it as an inferior OS, this is not due to lack of progress within BSD -- it has been progressing somewhat, but rather because all the improvements they make tend to be quickly copied by their competitors AND they lack the developer pool to stay ahead of this game (a problem which does not exist in the Linux or Apache communities, though for somewhat different reasons).
I don't think that there is enough widespread support for BSD to save the operating system. What must be done is an opening up of the development process OR a GPL-style restriction on redistribution. In many ways I favor the former.
Even in a worst case scenario, I don't see BSD completely dying. I think the developers are less into competition and more into a sort of idealized cooperation. As a result, even if BSD becomes more marginalized, I don't think that it will die outright. It will most likely outlive Netware, for example.
What part of dead don't you understand?
You're a big boy now. High time you started acting like one.
if it's anything like the RC series, this will be a release to remember. OK, that comment sounds rather omnious. Can anyone clarify that remark?
Could they be stockholders in companies that have cast their lot in with Linux? Rabid adherents of the FSF (or the FSF itself)? I'd honestly like to know what the agenda is here.
Mac OS X is based on Mach.
Mac OS X has about as much in common with Mach as with FreeBSD, if not less. The kernel (check out Darwin) looks very LITTLE like Mach. No single servers, and it's not a true microkernel. What they did was take a BSD single server, hardwire the connections and optimise it. Then add years of hacking...:)
Oh and to add flamebait. If Mac OS X is not FreeBSD based, then why call Linux GNU/Linux? What matters most? The kernel or the userland...:)
BWP
There's a problem with USB support in FreeBSD? That's news to me. Every USB device I have works flawlessly out of the box.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
One of the points of the license is to allow for others to use it in their closed source software.
Gee, for a while there, you started to sound like one of those GNU people saying GTK+ was better than Qt because it wasn't under the GPL...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I love BSD. It's so easy for any Evil Corporation to take it, modify it, redistribute it under a draconian closed-source license, charge an arm-and-a-leg for it, and REAP THE REWARDS! Even if 99% of the code is untouched. Muahahaha!
Guys, wake up. BSD is not free software. It never was. Well it is free, but it's not designed to stay free due to its overly permissive license. Any true supporter of free software would shun it and stick with GNU/Linux these days.
BSD comes with a lot of GNU utils. Heck, BSD wouldn't exist without GNU gcc. They *owe* the GNU project, and would do well to switch their license to the FSF's GPL.
(Let me make a piece of software. Call it RedWM, the Red Window Manager, and within it offer only shades of burgundy and not any real Red. That's an analogy for how misnamed FreeBSD truly is!)
Available, maybe... ie if you have ADSL,
something still considered a bit of a
luxury here in Australia...
We got some unbelievably quick down-
load speeds using a 56 Kb/Sec modem,
UNTIL the end of our nominal 4-hour-
session...
at which time the transfer re-started
(despite our Resume request)
Thanks [Australian] FreeBSD server(s)!
Maybe they turn off Resume capability
to sell more CD-ROM sets...?
It won't matter in a couple of years. FreeBSD will be gone. And quickly forgotten, I might add.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I felt like calling someone a dumbass today. You're the lucky winner.
Dumbass.
Umm how long has Theo not been with FreeBSD?
If you are gona Troll, at least do it well. Choke on a penguin-cock and die you linux-halfwit.
If BSD is dead, someone should go install some shitty linux distro on our 300 servers (apperently using FreeBSD should be illegal)... I am powered by NetBSD... so I can't
their agenda is to piss you off, which looks like they are quite successful at.
on the same token, I could accuse BSD Fanboy's of being the ones who post the linux trolls. Ever thought of that, Mr. Smarty Pants?
Blatent troll, however: It's false. Look at apache for instance, It's thriving on a BSD license. If I release code, then I want to guaruntee it's usefull to someone, no-point reinventing the wheel so to speak. If someone at a draconian institution can use my code to help him achieve his task, then so be it, I have just made someone's day easier, and at no cost to myself. So what if they can stick a big price tag on it, the original version's still around and availible, and will probably spring competitor's.
-Gwala
#!/bin/csh cat $0
I wouldn't take it as a compliment that Hotmail runs FreeBSD myself...
Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of
Being able to murder your neighbor does not make for more freedom. It results in less freedom, because a right due your neighbor simply in virtue of being a person in these modern times, is violated.
Distributing an application without making source code available and granting the rights of modification and redistribution, violate such rights.
When you think you are doing good by using the BSD instead of GPL license, you are not. What you are doing is selling your neighbor and his or her rights down the river; you have bought the lie of wealthy corporate interests.
[jason@beast]$ uname -a
FreeBSD beast 4.9-STABLE FreeBSD 4.9-STABLE #0: Sat Nov 1 17:36:30 EST 2003 jason@beast:/space/obj/usr/src/sys/BEAST i386
so put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.
-Dirtbag
...runs smooth like shit coming from a duck's ass!
Check my site: http://pixel.pagina.nl
Please read the BSD license and learn something about copyright law before spreading this crap further. Nowhere in the license does it say you can relicense BSD code and under common copyright law you cannot do that anyway.
What Stallman said was BSD licensed code (or other code under a free license) distributed with GPL code should be *distributed* under the terms of the GPL, not relicensed (which legally is just wrong).
I love FreeBSD but I still can't use it on my main PC because I can't get printing to work. AHHHHH