Slashdot Mirror
Depenguinator "Upgrades" Linux to BSD
cperciva writes "Many systems around the world have been possessed by penguins and dead rats. It would be nice to exorcize these evil spirits, but this can be difficult without physical access to the machines in question.
Thanks to a new depenguinator, it is now possible to upgrade Linux systems to run FreeBSD 5.x without requiring anything more than an SSH connection." Clever idea.
have a nice GO FUCK YOURSELF!
Love Always,
News For Turds
and whats SSH?
The next root kit is announced and within days all machines have been *upgraded* to BSD. Argh
How do you moderate an entire article as flamebait? ;)
Cool stuff, but the write-up is a little, uhm, polarizing?
and watch this flame war. Marshmallows anyone?
If you can read this sig - the bitch fell off.
will this make me a necromant ?
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
that's right. this stuff is unbreakable, & wwworks on several (more than 3) dimensions.
.asp on that won?
morons build vessel that floats on any suBStance? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29, @02:53PM (#7829639)
you can bet your
creators/humankind converge to repel unprecedented evile? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29, @02:51PM (#7829610)
& why not? what other options are there for us?
eyecon0meter: survival most sought after feature? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29, @02:48PM (#7829586)
creators' badtoll over corepirate nazi execrable (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29, @02:46PM (#7829567)
disposal?
newclear power dissed/cussed? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29, @02:41PM (#7829536)
newclear powered blips explore corepirate nazi (Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29, @07:53AM (#7826913)
cesspool?
pheWWW.
lookout bullow. the daze of the phonIE payper liesense ?pr? ?firm? hypenosys stock markup FraUD softwar gangster execrable, is WANing into coolapps/the abyss, at the increasing speed of right.
consult with/trust in yOUR creators.... get ready to brighten up?
mynuts won: solar(is) power included?
.. a worm to upgrade all windows boxes to linux remotely :D
Looks like a great tool. Unfortunality for the daemons, I want to replace my dead rat (7.2) with a Debian branded penguin. I would love to do that upgrade online. Any tips or tools?
Thanks!
They're lurking in a nice Linux system just waiting for the moment to come alive and do their dirty work.
Perhaps we penguinistas need to perfect a means of exorcising our systems of these evil daemons! Pure Linux, I say, pure Linux!
"Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
Oh Great... Does this mean we'll see Linux boxes being turned into FreeBSD boxes when next remote ssh exploit is discovered?
Having used the latest FreeBSD which I say is probably more together as a group than the NetBSD (Which I've also used) I'm not impressed.
the *BSD's just don't have the polish of a Linux especially not the speed with the advent of the 2.6 kernel.
Sorry, for certain, specialized server stuff I've no problem recommending *BSD, for a workstation, I take Linux and don't look back
This post is a troll. Like the GNOME announcement.
Divide and conquer. Working for the evil coproration. Feed the trolls.
I give it a couple days, at most, before someone does the same thing to install Linux. ...and since THAT one would remove the little red "demons".....
I want to stick my pee pee in your poo poo hole
Oooooh! Fire! Pretty!
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
Personally, I find this howto more useful. ;-)
HOWTO - Install Debian Onto a Remote Linux System
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
It is official; Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now 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 [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] 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 dbblers. *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
Found next to the Bat Anti-Shark pills in Batman's utility belt, maybe? Still no reaction to the news from Mr Flibble, though
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
This isnt new, I changed 3 of my dedicated servers (2 debian 1 redhat) to Gentoo using a doc thats almost 2 years old that was based of a "how to remote install BSD"
you can do this with any system that lets you bootstrap the OS from the harddrive (i.e. gentoos stage tarballs).
I follow the SDK and GDN principles.. Spelling Dont Kount, Grammer Dont Neither
Effective, yet mischievously evil.
Well. Uhoh.. I don't know what to think about this. I mean, it's kinda neat. It's called depenguinator to make clear it's going to get rid of your linux, butbut...
I still think the way of operation is very crude and evil.
It says:
I'd personally go as far as saying:
Do not use this unless you are reallyreallyabsolutely sure you want to permanently destroy your current system.
Bot Assisted Blogging
I've often wondered if this could be done with Windows - if one could make a (perhaps large) Windows executable that, when you double click on it, assimilates your system and turns it into a Linux box. (Which could in turn provide the depenguinators with lots more machines to work on.)
.exe could create the root filesystem (maybe something like a base debian or gentoo install), put everything in place, change how the machine boots, and restart.
Win9x should be more straight forward - you can boot a linux kernel directly from a real DOS prompt using loadlin (although this may not be necessary), and it's possible to have the whole root filesystem stored in one file on a FAT32 filesystem, so the
The dead are going after the living!
>5. Make sure that the first 40MB of space on your hard drive is not being actively used. ...
I'm afraid that is NOT a trivial thing in 99.9% of all machines
How long do you think it will take the penguins to fire back with a dedaemonizer?
Wait, would that be considered a downgrade to Linux if they already depenguinized? Or would it then be a repenguinizer?
Having a bookmark to Google does not make you an expert on everything.
You miss-spelled "downgraded"
and I'm gonna feed it. I think upgrading from Linux to BSD must be like upgrading from CSS2/XHTML to the HTML formatting used by this guy. Has the guy heard about HTML 3.2 ? :P
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
A troll that made it to frontpage of Slashdot!
Any more examples of trolls that the editors accepted as actual stories?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
1) type in reboot at the $ prompt
2) Insert Windows XP installer disk
3) Find out that the CDR with Windows XP on it has been "upgraded" to Knopppix
4) Run QtParted on knoppix to remove BSD from it
5) Click the Install to Hard drive option on the K menu.
6) Log out
7) Reboot into the power of the Penguin.
8) ???
9) Post BSD is dying troll and slashdot!
< MooKore, because only SWINES like trollkore use BSD >
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||
PHTHBBBBBTTTTT!!!!!
Let me get this straight, we're supposed to remove "inferior" RedHat distributions (such as 7.3 which Progeny is going to support) or Debian, because an unstable release of FreeBSD 5.x would be better for our systems, peacefully obliterating all of our data while this script is running as well? WTF?
I wonder if there's a security risk here... so I can "upgrade" someone's linux installation to freebsd using only ssh, assuming permission is not blocked? That sounds like a potentially dangerous piece of software!
stuff |
It is official; Netcraft confirms: linux is dying
:)
yadda, yadda, yadda...
You know the rest of the troll
How do you moderate an entire article as flamebait?
May be you can write a program to flamebaitrate the article. Nobody said only people who freebsduse can verbgenerate, rite ?
getSexySig();
Time for the Slashdot Chorus to start singing, "Chestnut's roasting by the open Fire"
Dead Rat? OMG! I get it! It's like you took "Red Hat" and changed some letters around, and now it's like insulting!
That's what makes it funny!!!!111
Does FreeBSD have something like apt-get , or yum for fetching binary updates? I know you can patch the sources easily, but having to do a make world on 300 boxen is not my idea of time well spent.
Where was this when I needed it about 3 months ago?! This is PERFECT for one of those Dedicated Server hosting providers that don't let you touch your box at all.
Oh, and "creep" not "creap."
Yes. It's called ports. If you know how to use ports, it's possible to write a one-liner that will upgrade all the installed packages on a system (lord knows why you would do such a thing, but you can).
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
It is official; Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now 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 [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] 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 dbblers. *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
"upgrading" from one OS to another is never trivial.
/boot or swap.
/boot?)
/boot is going bye bye anyway.
/home and other stuff that you want to survive the upgrade (/var/www perhaps) and nuking the whole thing using OpenBSD. If you are 'upgrading' from GNU/Linux to a BSD at least make it the safest variant ;-)
I would think that on most i386 systems running linux the first 40mb or so is
Swap is a simple case of swapoff then setting it up again in the freebsd setup (perhaps using the old
and
As a confirmed debian user (running it across multiple platforms) I wouldn't use this anyway and would suggest any user looking for a clean upgrade to a BSD from GNU/Linux would be better off backing up
blog and junk
Why would anyone want to do this? BSD is dying!
Attention! You with the mod points. Yes, you.
Note the subject. If a message identifies itself as a troll, it can't really be a troll, but is rather an attempt at humor. (Conversely, any message that denies being a troll is most likely a troll, but hat is a different topic.) If you feel like wasting mod-points on this, do it on the basis of whether it was funny or not. Don't waste your mod-points calling it a troll.
Not only do we now have the Linux vs BSD flamefest, you've managed to work Windows into it as well! You, sir or madam, have my admiration. Well done!
Pass out the marshmallows. It's going to be a fiery one.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Actually it isn't difficult in most cases. Your /boot partition should be at the beginning of the disk, and will typically be more than 40 MB. It is also typically never used or accessed once the system is booted. This is usually at the beginning of the disk because some BIOSes and boot loaders still have problems with booting the kernel from a place on the disk that is beyond the first 1024 cylinders. This makes it dangerous to merge / and /boot partitions and just use root.
That is usually followed by a sizeable swap partition, which is also bigger than 40 MB. This is because the beginning of the disk is usually faster than the end (more sectors on the outer tracks).
So, actually, it is nowhere nearly as difficult to ensure as you are suggesting. It would certainly work on just about every RH install (including default ones) I have seen in the last few years.
Those `upgraded' boxes... we know that of course they run NetBSD, but do they run Linux?
So all this does is write to the boot partition and load a barebones copy of bsd on a ramdisk? Not terribly impressive. Now if there was a script which could make a list of my RH packages, backup all my config files, generate an BSD install script, then most importantly, intelligently copy my config files from their old RH default location to the new BSD location, then I would be impressed.
Not really difficult, just time consuming. Of course, this assumes the RH system was installed through packages only, would break on most anything compiled, but the script described above would be a start.
there's also the Darl McBride version that makes your Linux server require a SCO licence to run.
Linux is viral (due the the GPL) you're the worm! ;)
Darl ("Where's my $699?") McBride should use that $50M from the Canopy Group and pay someone so he can do this with OpenServer.
The Fed will then have to open an office dealing not with 419 scams, but 699 ones.
With an impending Linux vs BSD war, guess Bill G must be having a nice time. Merry Christmas and a happy new year for BILL
Would you be looking for FreeBSD Update, perhaps?
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
DUH, of course - if permission is not blocked - you can as well do rm -fr. It's not like some random kid on the net can upgrade your Linux if you have port 22 open to the world. Get a clue.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. I
Not as useful as a defenestrator.
"Smoking helps you lose weight - one lung at a time" -- A. E. Neumann
This crutch and vacant stool have become orphans, not unlike the now dead FreeBSD. No longer will FreeBSD hobble about on its cripple's crutch. Like the empty hearth, and the vacant stool, FreeBSD lies cold and still. FreeBSD's corpse, lifeless beneath frozen earth and December snows, will see no more Christmas cheer. No, there will be no Christmas ever again for FreeBSD, for FreeBSD is dead.
Goodbye, FreeBSD. The pain of life forever stilled, sleep for all eternity in that long winter's nap. Fade gently into Earth's frozen bosom where in dreams even cripples walk and blind men see.
I really think Slashdot should remove the BSD section of the site. All there is 90% trolls and 9% people comlaining about the trolls, with hardly any insightful comments. Sure BSD has its niche, but it is effectivley irrelevent to 99.9% of readers who don't use it.
BSDs base of supporters have moved on to non trolled sites. Removing the BSD section would be a boon for slashdot, and a bore for trolls. So, do you think Slashdot should remove this section, because agreeing with the trolls, it is almost "dead" on this site, so let it live in its niche.
I can safely live in a world running
ps -waux
instead of
ps -ef
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
This is the best story ever. We are going to be able to watch the flamefest AND his server dive into oblivion: http://mrtg.daemonology.net/
Great! Thanks CmdrTaco!
If nuns didnt get pregnant, how would they breed?
What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
Apparently the software was not designed to be used by the majority of the Linux community.
scott
It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying. Everyone knows that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD 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 marketing 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 hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.
Fact: *BSD is dying
The Year of Our Lord 2003 has been a particularly bad year for the "B"s,
- Bob Hope
- Buddy Ebsen
- Buddy Hackett
- Barry White
- BSD
This honored list of dead is but a small token of adieu from the many fans of the deceased.These dead were truly some American Icons. They will be missed.
DeadRat Linux
Is trolling now officially endorsed by Slashdot? Why the hell does everyone have to evangelize their system of choice as if it was necesary for the survival of mankind? If you think BSD is 1000x better than Linux, or Linux is 1000x better than Windows, or DOS is 1000x than OS/2, ok. It's your good right to have that opinion, and use what you will. But can't you leave other people alone? Do you people REALLY have to try and "educate" us about what's the only real OS to use in your book? Has it ever occured to you that we might not give a hoot about that? That we're happy with our OS? That we made a concious choice when we picked our OS of choice?
Besides, what's the point of this conflict between Linux and BSD users... most programs run on both plattforms anyway, also a lot of users don't have a real choice because of driver issues. And what's up with this whole holier than thou attitude? It's been fun for a while, but eventually it gets very very annoying. It's annoying enough to have to fight off religious windows users and ignore the tux fetishists in our own ranks, but THIS is the pinnacle of unnecessity!!
This whole article is just -1, TROLL
Sorry for the rant, but this is getting WAY too stupid for my taste.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
The Borg have come to assimiliate you. You will become part of our hive mind.
Resistance is futile.
- Locutus
Free your ecomony and enact the FairTax
It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying. Everyone knows that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD 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 only 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 marketing 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 hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.
Fact: *BSD is dying
Ancient Anguish
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even MicroEmacs is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various BSD machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a BSD box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the BSD machine's faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 800 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that BSD is a "superior" machine.
BSD addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a BSD over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
Debian/FreeBSD
Have a look at this: DebianTakeOver, a script that a debian developer is creating to migrate a Colo server from redhat to debian.
I know it is now almost a mantra set in stone that "FreeBSD is dying". Unfortunately, the abuse of that fact by trolls has obscured the truth, that truth being that FreeBSD really is dying.
My main reason for moving away from FreeBSD has been twofold. First, to avoid the constant political infighting and bickering. And secondly, to investigate more promising and viable entries into the operating systems sweepstakes. FreeBSD is no longer a legitimate player, I'm sorry to say.
The article seemed like it was describing the workings of a boot sector virus.
Replace the 40k virus payload with 40Mb of BSD and the story is the same.
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.
The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The loss of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral. In truth, for all practical purposes FreeBSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking. It's a fact: FreeBSD is dying.
I don't think He'll be able to to order his toast, lightly toasted this morning.
Reverse defenestration, throwing windows out of your computer. Where do I download? (Props to Eric for definition).
...replacing all the demons and evil spirits with nightmares?
These are good for sex at least.
What are the possibilities of using this method to let companies switch from SCO Unix to Linux/FreeBSD?
or better yet.....
Hmm.. How about trying the concept out on the microsoft services for unix package? Laides and gentlemen, I give you the "DeWindowsInator"!.
What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
BSD is more or less dead. It doesn't mean that no one at all uses it. However, BSD is slowly fading into oblivion. That is the truth. It is a hobby project mostly. Of course I don't care what anyone wants to play with. That is your business. But nevertheless there should not be an intentional cover up of the truth.
[wakes up to find system has been converted to FreeBSD]
"Somebody set up us ON TEH SPOKE!"
Not so quick BSD, first you have to through me (Linux Intrusion Detection).
Your nose is running and your feet are smelling.
What's up with BSD "demonizing" linux like that?
Actually, it's a fairly neat hack, even if the rivalry is somewhat silly.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I haven't made separate /boot partitions in years since the whole booting from >1023 cylinders fiasco was done away with on modern systems. My first partition is always the root so I can easily remember to boot off of /dev/sda1 or /dev/hda1 if I need to make a rescue disk.
I hope this software also inserts that unique "BSD eliteness" gene into your DNA. It seems too many BSD users have an unjustified superiority complex. The worst example I ever saw was on IRC; a jackass said "yeah, if you're stupid you should use Linux, but once you really understand UNIX you should use BSD". If only IRC had a /strangle command.
All these people who waste space in their /boot partitions. 20MB is more than enough for a fistful of vmlinuz's and System.maps, plus the associated junk from lilo or grub. And as for putting the swap next, no way. OK, so the outside of the disk might be a little faster, but most of the time the delays are actually from head movement, so on my boxes swap sits between other filesystems (e.g. / and /home, or between alternative / partitions on test boxes).
/dev/hda1 for /boot, so that is primary). Writing across the start of the extended partition record _will_ make the remaining filesystems unusable.
The other thing about my partitions is that almost all of them are extended (ok, I have an attachment to
FreeBSD flamebait - who needs it ?
this is a good thing for linux and bsd. it would be nice to see a dedemonizer to go with it. this shows to people what "open systems" REALLY can be.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
You don't need a depenguinator to do this. If you want to keep the pesky little critters from crapping on your lawn, just use a shotgun. If you are good, you can do it from your second floor window, that way you don't have to put on pants for the day.
-Charlie
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.
I have to say, if BSD folks weren't already considered the most annoying, obnoxious and dweeby unix users around, this pushes them over the top.
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.
Gee, that's a cool thing.
Only one question: Just who would want to install a dead OS?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
See Linux users don't understand the term "upgrade" so you have to speak their language.
This crutch and vacant stool have become orphans, not unlike the now dead *BSD. No longer will *BSD hobble about on its cripple's crutch. Like the empty hearth, and the vacant stool, *BSD lies cold and still. *BSD's corpse, lifeless beneath frozen earth and December snows, will see no more Christmas cheer. No, there will be no Christmas ever again for *BSD, for *BSD is dead.
Goodbye, *BSD. The pain of life forever stilled, sleep for all eternity in that long winter's nap. Fade gently into Earth's frozen bosom where in dreams even cripples walk and blind men see.
Elegy For *BSD
I am a *BSD user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
*BSD's foot is in the grave.
I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
*BSD died so soon.
Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but *BSD is dying.
I believe VNC comes with the distro
I would rather be ashes than dust!
"having to do a make world on 300 boxen"
/usr/obj (and /usr/src as well?) as nfs, mount it on your 300 boxen, and you only need to install the shiny new bsd with 'make installworld'. That's it. So it is actually quite easy to deploy on a large server farm. You would go the same way with the ports btw: build on one machine and have it make pakcages, than install the packages with pkg_add -r whatever on the rest of the machines. Neat. :)
Not any more, and 'make world' is being deprecated in favor of 'make buildworld'. The difference is, that 'make buildworld' is totally self contained. You do 'make buldworld' on one machine, export
If I understand correctly, it seems to depenguinate in a fairly destructive manner. I'm fairly certain that a better depenguinator could operate off the existing filesystem, even if it is Ext2/3 and certainly ensure it didn't stuff vital directories such as /home.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Why make world on 300 boxes? Why not do it on one box, and share the src dir. Same with ports or pkgsrc.
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.
Depenguinator: I guess when your OS is dying, you get really desperate to spread it around in hopes that it will survive
First, if i wants to install OpenBSD, i'll install it from scratch, not with some 'great' tool to 'erradicate the penguins from you box'. I'm tired of the 'openbsd is kooler than linux' or 'linux is kooler that netbsd' shit. Grow the fuck up.
They should better spend his time doing useful open source software...
I run two IBM T20s - on is my main machine, the other is backup and it runs the OS of the month. I keep FBSD 4.9 on most everything including my primary laptop, but last week I loaded 5.2RC to check its progress.
I was mostly interested in improved USB support and I'm pretty pleased with the behavior so far. I've found some things to not love about ACPI but that may be my lack of clue rather than a problem with the OS.
I pronounced 5.2RC almost cooked enough for daily use. I'm going to wrench on the backup lappie for a few more weeks and if it does nothing worse than ACPI neutering the power switch I'll probably swap drives and make it my main machine.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
"Is too!" "Ain't!" "Is Too!" "Ain't" So is BSD dead? Does any operating system really die? CP/M, AmigaOS, MSDOS, and so on are still used. Multics is dead only because the hardware to support it is not in the "hobbyist" price range. BSD is dead in the sense that CP/M is dead. It is still used, but it is not a viable platform for future development. BSD is at its heart a hobbyist's operating system. Nothing wrong with that. So there is some truth in both sides of the argument over whether BSD is dead. It depends on your definition of "dead".
Like a program that would "Capture the Flag" of a certain monopolistic regime...
;) Taking all the current settings of a Windoze machine, keeping the "wallpaper" and similar, familiar trappings, and allowing you to switch to BSD (or your fax 'NIX), and minimize the trauma of some poor drone's switch to something "else"...
Now *that* would be a Wonderful use of a "program"
But what are the Odds of seeing That happen anytime soon?
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest 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 hobbyist 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 dead
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest 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 hobbyist 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 dead
My weapon of choice for stuffing an OS on a remote box is a LILO boot floppy with just enough of a kernel to see the disks, NIC, and then run the barebones in-kernel DHCP client. This sits alongside an initrd that contains a small program that fixes up /etc/resolv.conf (using the stuff the kernel client found - dig around in /proc) and gets "stage 2".
Stage 2 is just a URL (courtesy of append= in the lilo.conf) to a root disk image. It pulls that into the ram disk, mounts it, then does a pivot_root over to the new filesystem. This binary was linked against dietlibc, since a static glibc binary would take up several floppies by itself.
The image is just a bastardized Slackware root disk with sshd installed and configured to start up and listen for a connection.
Once that's up, you just ssh in as root and now you can do anything you want from there. It's great for installing stuff on distant systems, and it's even better for repairing something that won't boot from the hard drive for some reason.
Anyone with half a clue about modern systems should be able to whip up something like this in a couple of days tops. None of it is particularly complicated. I bet the hardest part is writing the initrd program that pulls in the root image.
Change the names of the technologies around for a BSD equivalent, of course.
Note: once you have this technique down, you're about two or three steps away from a full-blown auto installer. Instead of starting sshd, run a script that partitions and then formats and mounts the disk, then start blowing packages onto the new filesystem. If you do it right, you can have a bootable floppy or CD that can be stuffed in a machine on any network with a DHCP server and a route to the Internet. Just pop it in, hit reset, wait for it to load, pop it out, and walk away. It will soon be yours.
That is funny, but it gets even better. If you click on the Dead Rat link it brings you to...
wait for it...
the Red Hat website!!
For those people who just didn't get it the first time.
mount /usr/src /usr/obj /usr/src /etc
mount
cd
make installkernel installworld
scp -r build:/etc/\*
This is assuming all your machines are identical. If not you'd have to be more careful about the config stuff, and use mergemaster, but that would be the case for any OS.
Of course, NFS is not something you'd want to use to a remote machine, the idea of opening RPC ports in my firewall makes my skin crawl. But for upgrading multiple machines on your own network, the BSD system is really quick and clean.
If something could be done to improve mergemaster, the ease of upgrading FBSD would be the killer argument for the death of the penguin. I've never seen a description of how to upgrade linux which didn't make me decide it would be easier just to do a clean install ofa new version. If there is such a description/method, please post and earn some well deserved karma.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
...pregnant nuns will turn some people on here.
Add some tentacle rape hentai, and watch Slashdot get slashdotted...
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
It was at 4:25am on the morning of December 27th 2003 that, after many failed attempts to resuscitate the dying OS, *BSD finally passed away. While *BSD has been in it's death throes for many months now and it's death has been foreseen for many years, this is still a very sad moment; a great loss for OS dilettante dabblers and *BSD lovers the world over. Though *BSD has passed away, it will surely be fondly remembered for years to come by users, developers, and trolls alike. Even if you didn't enjoy using *BSD, there's no denying it's contributions to popular OS culture. Truly a Berkeley icon. It will be missed :(
What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the generous goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
I'm not sure how much of the Slashdot crowd woudl have decided to actually visit the page (your famous /. effect)... but I'm sure the server woudl remain up, as compared to other OS'es I've seen get /.-ed.
/. of my own making. Damned OS (FreeBSD 4.9) stayed up and chugging along...
;-)
I ran a LOTR promotion on my site a few months ago that brought a signifigant number of eyes to the page, in effect, a
I've seen both Windblows and Linux creak under the same type of stress. You may label this as a troll post, but there is a bit of cheer for this "depenguinator"... I'm surprised the Linux community hasn't developed a "downgrade" tool for *BSD (etc.) to pop Linux back on a system posessed by the Daemon!
Cheers folks...
need to share your obj dir too
scott
holy men have created a DeDaemonator to rid those boxen of little satan men.
in seriousness, the same thing could be done to bsd so linux would be installed..
I feel the OS wars rekindling on a new level.
i think xbill now needs a sequel (after all the machines are turned into toasters): xlinus. except that now the daemons trash the dead rats.
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
More like "dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda". This *really* wipes the start of your disk, including the MBR.
I've done a similar thing to thousands of SCO boxes in order to turn them into penguins.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
As far as I'm concerned, this is further proof that BSD zealots are far worse (and less trustworthy) than Linux zealots.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
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.
After all the tools were taken from NetBSD (looking at the bottom of that web page), I wonder how hard it would be to adopt this to end up with NetBSD on the disk? :)
- Hubert
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. I
* Put one line in your kernel config file (devce pcm) and you can just plug any supported sound card in. /dev/da0s1 /mnt/camera and there you go.
* The same goes with digital cameras: plug it in, and mount_msdosfs
You mention this as if it demonstrated how easy freebsd was to operate!
Whilst the above steps might seem trivial to the experienced users, you have to admit it's not the kind of intuitive setup proccess you would reccommend to your grandma.
Whilst win32 is a joke to advanced users, you generally plug in supported hardware, and it just works. This is probably the main, and only, reason why windows continues to have it's widespread popularity amongst newcommers.
Maybe it's a neat hack (well, it's dead simple actually, nothing just about anyone couldn't do), but the way it's presented is a gigantic flamebait.
RedHat bashing is especially transparent and nothing short of insulting, really.
Editors continue to happily let trough "articles" that have obviously been written by someone who is at mental level of five years old. Way to go.
Let's see. Why won't I do it?
It's very simple - I just ditched FreeBSD (stupid OS corrupted my hard disk!!) and switched to Linux.
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.
Yee. These BSD guys sound exactly like Linux guys sounded during mid 90ties - it's cool, even the soundblaster (usb for bsd guys) is working properly. It's really cool :)
MySQL Error 1040: Can't return sig, Too many connections!
Fact: FreeBSD is dying
apt-get update
apt-get -u dist-upgrade
This is for Debian.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
I replaced a dead rat with Larry The Cow using an SSH connection. There are instructions in the documentation section at gentoo.org.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I am an active Linux user and developer, so what. I just think it is a pitty that some ppl, especially from the free/unix side still have to proclaim in such a way that their flavour is better and given an informative discription.
:-/ Let's kiss and make up :) [hm, come to think of it, since I guess the author is a 'guy', I'll drop the kissing]
Just when I have the impression that a lot of the distro wars are over (or am I just passively ignoring them), some BSD zealot has to attack Linux. I have the impression that the author of the site/tool used these words sarcastically, but the submitter of the story should have had better judgement than to just take over the heading of the page.
I want to try BSD from the moment I have some more time (possibly in some emulator or on an old box initially) and I don't care that much what *n*x system I am working on, especially when I consider the alternative. This kind of stuff does not really help when the *n*x playground if fighting like small children while big brother is sitting by and enjoying the spectacle.
Hm, I'm taking myself too seriously again
Nice tool, though I don't see the real innovative in this simular things are available (dunno for which *n*x but I would guess they are pretty platform independent).
Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest 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 hobbyist 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 dead
I'm still waiting for the upgrade-worm to appear.
The worm that installs linux has been joked about for years. It'd be a fr*gg*n' time someone actually implemented it and let the windows users out of their miseries. We need a really VIRAL Linux/*BSD!
I just spent 3 months on FreeBSD 5.1, and from my experience I have to disagree. I switched to Mandrake to test an app I was developing against 9.2, but it has been a nightmare. FreeBSD was much more responsive under load than Linux has been, and the sound is for some reason fucked up on this Mandrake install (intel integrated sound that worked great in 9.1 and on FreeBSD). urpmi keeps spitting a weird and as far as I can tell useless error message at me and moving on, and I had to add shit to /etc/rc.local to make my hostname work right.
/etc/rc.local being a BSD user/admin, but with people touting the "ease-of-use", "ease-of-install", and "polish" of Linux distros, I have to say I'm not impressed. One more thing, supermount sucks and should be destroyed. Rebooting to get you fscking cd back is not cool.
/. passwd
A note on the last thing. I don't mind editing
bja
-who can't remember his
My old business partner and I got a kick out of the ReadMe file included with MS-DOS v6. It told how to "upgrade" from OS/2 to MS-DOS.
Jason
"FORMAT C:" - Kills bugs dead!
Interestingly, the k root name server has been running Debian Linux for a year or two now and has not had any "creak". It gets about 1500 queries/second per machine (the root server is distributed geographically via anycasting, and at each site by load balancing), and receives all manner of ill-formed packets.
Other root servers seem to run Linux (use nmap if you're curious), but I don't know the people running them so I can't be sure.
Now admittedly this is a very specific type of service: it's a single application that all fits into memory.
We're going to be moving www.ripe.net and whois.ripe.net from Solaris to Linux in 2004. The WWW server gets about 20 hits/second as you can see here, and the whois server gets around 28 hits/second as you can see here. These have more complex usage, with disk I/O, new process creation, and so on. I wouldn't let these services migrate if I thought they would be unstable.
The Slashdot crowd needs this. It justifiably makes many of them look like rats picking fights with their tails. So many of these Slashrodents are so myopic by virtue of their unceasing "promotion" of Linux that it's as if they don't know what to do now when you show them something that isn't Windows, but isn't Linux, but it isn't Windows! but it isn't Linux! So they default to ATTACK! AAUUUGGGHH! It might be friendly but we can't afford to take the risk! ATTACK!
..."
..."
Even now, throughout these posts, there are a ton of "off-topic" posts that didn't get moderated as such. "Personally I prefer this ". They're not commenting on BSD, they're just moving their mouths and out comes LinuxLinuxLinuxLinux in a neverending, mindless blather. Most of them are like the Scientologists on Hollywood Blvd. "Would you like a free personality test? Oooohhh, we see here you need Linux. Linux will make you whole
It shows that many of these nits can't distinguish between understanding computers and software as tools or understanding computers and software as religion. Here's a hint guys: This isn't religion. Or it shouldn't be. And Linus isn't God. He's just an egotistical programmer that made some nice software. And, because I've never read it anyplace else, I'll just say this: He looks as dorky as hell.
Get a freakin' clue, guys. BSD is amazing. Stop being sheep and start using the brains you were born with. Learn what BSD is about and then, perhaps, you'll stop stuttering "DebianDebianDebianDebianDebian
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
"upgrade" to "BSD" ? bahahahahahahahahaha
BSD's hardware support is still in the f-ing
dark ages! omg this is so pathetic!
and the "hack" (cough) itself is so freaking lame!
any REAL BSD hacker would have used "picoBSD".
Hello? clue calling moron, clue calling moron,
come in moron!
jeez. yeah, install this tar, download a freaking 700meg useless ISO image, etc. what the hell is that? are you so freaking stupid?
How about a direct network install from ftp, or a BSD image on the web, or something?
Linux can do that, why can't BSD? OOps, it can! but the author wouldnt know how to code if it bit him in the a$$...
Get a clue people, and call me when BSD gets out of the stone age.
The Year of Our Lord 2003 has been a particularly bad year for the "B"s,
- Bob Hope
- Buddy Ebsen
- Buddy Hackett
- Barry White
- BSD
This honored list of dead is but a small token of adieu from the many fans of the deceased.These dead were truly some American Icons. They will be missed.
Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure, but why? Why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personas?
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.
exactly right. The idea that some complicated command line is "good" in any sense of the word is rediculous.
By definition, a good OS will recognize peripherals automatically
1. load the driver from the supplied cd (where is that damn thing)
2. reboot
3. recover from blue screen of death
4. reboot in 'safe mode' (thanks MS, for protecting me from evil!)
5. Remove outdated, incompatable driver
6. Spend six hours reading forums and newsgroups about other users experience with how the device failed for them, and what they did.
7. Hunt down an obscure driver that is not intended for use with your device, but will give you some functionality without conflicting with your other drivers.
8. Download and install driver from a less than reputable source
9. Watch a worm run rampant through your system
10. Finally learn your lesson and install Linux or buy a Mac
Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy
To prevent sounding biased... I run FreeBSD on all servers. I ran Linux on my laptop until FreeBSD 5.1 was released. I switched because I use FreeBSD more often, not because Linux was lacking. I run XP on my workstation. I'm quite familiar with the strenths and weaknesses of each platform.
Back on topic...
5.2RC2 was released what?.. less than one week ago? I don't think you invested enough time to make an educated decision.
If you were a long time Windows/MacOS user, and gave Linux/BSD/Solaris/WTFE a few hours of your time, do you honestly think you would switch? I very much doubt it.
"Why did I spend an hour of my time installing THIS!?"
In short, changing OSes requires a fair amount of tenacity. A true geek cannot be a zealot. You've got blinders on my friend. Open your eyes and you will see how great *BSD really is.
This crutch and vacant stool have become orphans, not unlike the now dead FreeBSD. No longer will FreeBSD hobble about on its cripple's crutch. Like the empty hearth, and the vacant stool, FreeBSD lies cold and still. FreeBSD's corpse, lifeless beneath frozen earth and December snows, will see no more Christmas cheer. No, there will be no Christmas ever again for FreeBSD, for FreeBSD is dead.
Goodbye, FreeBSD. The pain of life forever stilled, sleep for all eternity in that long winter's nap. Fade gently into Earth's frozen bosom where in dreams even cripples walk and blind men see.
You mean the slowest with the weakest hardware support for the most realistic platform. Yup. Good plan. Keep on using GNU/Retardian.
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. Perhaps it will most likely outlive Netware, for example.
1) I'll bet you $100 that you posted that from a Windows box.
2) If you are too stupid to figure out how to update a driver in Windows then perhaps this whole "com-pu-ter" thing is too much for you.
3) Please give us step-by-step instructions for updating *anything* on a *nix based box (one per variant and packager please... one where you compile the source yourself on each variant.. oh and one where you do not run any XWindow system whatsoever.)
Have a nice day, tool.
BSD is Dying
Not really true. The only reason that windows continues to have popularity amongst "newcomers" is because it is pre-loaded on all computers sold in retail! Newcomers never know of anything different. To them, windows is a fact of the computing world and is part of all computers(Most "newcomers" don't know what a OS is!). Oh and, some Linux distributions can automatically detect many devices when they are plugged in and they will "just work". This is not true of all devices however, and it is not true of all devices for ANY OS! Mac claims to be the OS where everything "just works," but I find that many devices won't work unless you install the drivers. Windows is far worse when it comes to device detection. Many installs of windows I've had the displeasure of working with fail to find drivers or use a device properly even after you install the drivers(Through the control panel which many users couldn't do). Windows rarely "just works".
...why doesn't BSD do this by default? I don't mean to fan the flames here, but that sounds like more work than I have to do with either a Windows or a Linux installation. In either case, I can just plug in a sound card and it'll work (In Linux, it's usually detected by harddrake, anaconda, or whatever hardware configurator the distribution you're using happens to be). So what are the benefits of configuring a sound card as you describe? And why doesn't it do that by default, so you don't have to go through the recompilation?
Correct! If by "just works" you mean:
1. load the driver from the supplied cd (where is that damn thing)
2. reboot
3. recover from blue screen of death
4. reboot in 'safe mode' (thanks MS, for protecting me from evil!)
5. Remove outdated, incompatable driver
6. Spend six hours reading forums and newsgroups about other users experience with how the device failed for them, and what they did.
7. Hunt down an obscure driver that is not intended for use with your device, but will give you some functionality without conflicting with your other drivers.
8. Download and install driver from a less than reputable source
9. Watch a worm run rampant through your system
10. Finally learn your lesson and install Linux or buy a Mac
I am definetily no fan of WinBlows. I use linux everyday. Unfortunately, installing *new* hardware on Linux can be just as inconveinent as any othe OS.
The same thing can be said about most Linux distros as well....
1. find the driver on some obscure website or news group.
2. Recompile the kerenel to include the driver(Damn it has errors)
3. Fix code problems
4. Recompile
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4
6. Write patch for incompaitable gcc version
7. Repeat steps 3 and 4
8. Restart with new kernel
9. kernel panic
10. reboot old kernel
11. Remove incorrectly compiled kernel.
12. Spend six hours reading forums and newsgroups about other users experience with how the device failed for them, and what they did.
14. Download and install beta or (shudder alpha level)driver.
15. Repeat steps 2 - 12
16. Compile driver as loadable module.
17. Repeat steps 3 - 7
18. Start Daemon or reboot
19. Kernel Panic
20. Reboot in 'interactive mode', 'different run level' or 'using emergency boot media'
21. Remove loadable module
22. spend 6months writing your own driver
23. Overlook security flaw in your own code.
24. Watch your box get r00t'ed.
22. Finally learn your lesson and install Windows or buy a Mac.
Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Unfortunetly I did not see something like Depenguinator for windows. Again the FreeBSD crowd attacks Linux and ignores windows. Maybe old Linux users is their only market share.
And my FreeBSD friends wonder why I'd rather run NetBSD on my systems. Maybe it's because politically Linux and NetBSD users can coexist. Or maybe it's because NetBSD is in "full production" on more architectures than FreeBSD. (many times more, including architectures I don't use).
*waits for some OpenBSD person to post how great they think OpenBSD is*
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
3) Please give us step-by-step instructions for updating *anything* on a *nix based box (one per variant and packager please... one where you compile the source yourself on each variant.. oh and one where you do not run any XWindow system whatsoever.)
... post[ing] that from a Windows box; I got it copy of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic for Xmas, and it freaking rocks. Thus, I'm using my X(P)box right now.)
apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
Updates all of my packages on the distro of my choice, Debian. (If you need help, it's kind of like Windows Update, except that it works, and I excercise control over whose updates I trust.)
(Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I am 1)
If you really want to compile from sources yourself, I'm sure that someone around here can help you with Gentoo and the emerge command.
emerge sync && emerge packagename , I think. So simple, even an MCSE (me) can do it.
Carthago delenda est!
I think some people take things too seriously. I think this is rather funny.
... Z and was so restrictive that you could not write a callable function.
BTW - As to BSD dying. I don't think so. We've migrated to OpenBSD on the servers and we really like it. It is solid, secure and stable. It is easy to install what we need and performance is certainly adequate for what we are doing.
This does not mean that Linux would not do the job... yet with Linux we found that the last two (2) redhat distros we bought were broken miserably. Hense - we do not expect to ever use RedHat again.
So its a toss up - those folks who install one of the BSD's on their servers generally know why they are doing it and generally are going to be pretty happy with it.
Those people who elect to go with a Linux distro probably also know why they are chosing what they chose (even if its the support they are looking for) and they also probably are going to be happy.
As for the people who install Microsoft servers. Well - they probably are happy too - but for different reasons. First off, ignorance is bliss. Next they have a marketing machine that certainly knows how to passify people who don't know too much and are dumb enuf to listen to marketroids. Yup - so they can be happy too.
I guess that leaves one group that probably isn't all that happy and they would be the professional admins who know better but are told by their collective bosses to use what they are given. To this group I will address the following comment.
A professional knows when to say NO. Just say NO dammit! Don't install it - don't support it - don't clean it up. Let them sink if necessary. A professional engineer will not use faulty concrete to build a bridge any more than a professional doctor will follow the bad advise of a bean counter. Right?
As a professional developer I personally have had to stand up to dumb ass bosses. One wanted us to use (of all things) BASIC to build a system that eventually had more than 1/2 million lines of code in it. Now - that was a really dumb suggestion since the BASIC in question only had variables of the type A B C
The point is that sometimes we have to simply say NO to the dumb ideas that float around and we need to do this even if we feel our job is in jeopardy.
Careful. That shell script may contain valuable and confidential SCO intellectual property. ;-)
Not all those who wander are lost.
All major marketing surveys show that FreeBSD has steadily declined in market share. FreeBSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim.
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.
The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The loss of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
In truth, for all practical purposes FreeBSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest 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 extremely sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist 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 dead
Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure , but why? Why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personas?
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.
Outside the frigid tumble-down shack, dry leaves before the wild winter hurricane fly. Here within, at the corner by the cold hearth rests an empty stool. A crutch without a master stands perched against the wall. These forlorn and lonely objects serve as mute reminders of their departed owner, FreeBSD.
This crutch and vacant stool have become orphans, not unlike the now dead FreeBSD. No longer will FreeBSD hobble about on its cripple's crutch. Like the empty hearth, and the vacant stool, FreeBSD lies cold and still. FreeBSD's corpse, lifeless beneath frozen earth and December snows, will see no more Christmas cheer. No, there will be no Christmas ever again for FreeBSD, for FreeBSD is dead.
Goodbye, FreeBSD. The pain of life forever stilled, sleep for all eternity in that long winter's nap. Fade gently into Earth's frozen bosom where in dreams even cripples walk and blind men see.
Those are the plastic underpants for loose-sphincter elderly, right?
Whilst win32 is a joke to advanced users, you generally plug in supported hardware, and it just works.
Huh? While often true, there are way too many times where this is NOT the case.
The primary advantage for windows is most new computers have it preinstalled. Thus, no pain of installing it yourself...all drivers already there.
Linux and BSD have a nice symbiotic relationship. Just like a snuffpr0n co-starring Christopher Reeves and Teri Schiavo.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest 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 extremely 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 hobbyist 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 dead
I've been an avid follower of the developments in FreeBSD for around 5 years now, so my overview of the entire history of "glue that binds" FreeBSD together isn't complete. That said, I've come to be a bit disappointed at how events in the last 18 months or so seem to be pushing the project in a direction that has made things more difficult, instead of more successful, that has shown distain for experience and quality and made FreeBSD a platform for large ego's to push their personal projects down everyone's throat.
The statistics sample from 2001 over a year was a cheap attempt to minimize Matt's contribution to the project. The reason why he has been mostly silent is probably one of the most prominent signs of his superior maturity. The fact that the official defense (mostly fronted by Greg, atm) he wasn't such a substantial committer is crap, for the most part. If one wanted to go by the stats, Jeff Robertson (sorry if I munged the spelling) would be one of the key committers, and his UMA system isn't even entirely ripe yet, it's just been committed within the sample timeframe. That suddenly phk is at the top of the list, is simple a result of his newest attempt to add another large chunk of bit rot to the project that he can later claim not to have time to maintain "unless someone is willing to pay for my time" (like the atm bits, the half-finished devd monster, et.al.) One can hardly get him to look at his malloc bits, that put his name in lights at some point in the long past.
Matt didn't contribute because he was convinced that that the smp development direction that was chosen (my impression at least from the archives and my fading memory) was overly complex, too complex for the number and talent level of the contributers involved, and that it would delay a release from the -current branch significantly. So he was right. I'll almost bet that that was a constant sore for John, who still hasn't gotten his long-promised, but little delivered re-entrant work done, but he always had time enough to object to any other commits that might help along the way. Strangely Julian and Matt could work together. One might attribute certain commits to both Matt and Julian (if that would matter anyway, since -core is interested in proving the opposite statistically).
If the issue here had anything to do with IPFW, then you all better get out your C-coder hats and take a little more time to fix that rotting pile of muck that has been the standard broken packet filter interface for FreeBSD long past its possible usefulness. A packet filter with no central maintainer which is subject to once yearly random feature bloat through some wild university project from Luigi. The brokenness that Luigi introduced (and the repository bloat through backing out and recommitting, ad absurdum) was probably no less a threat to security than anything Matt did. If the security officer was to be blatantly honest with himself, ipfw would be marked broken for either a full audit or full removal (just port obsd's pf or something that someone actually actively _cares_ about).
You've alienated Jordan, Mike, Bill Paul (for all I can see), Greenman, you constantly rag on Terry, even though he's seen and done more with FreeBSD than most of you, O'Brien is on the verge of quitting (since he, like I, am not convinced that GEOM is anything more than an ego trip that will never be completely maintained or usefully documented). There are certainly others, too, that have attempted to make technically correct contributions, but didn't fit into the sort of paranoid "glee club" that core would like to have around them. You guys lack the talent to steer the positive from Matt into the project and let the crap fall by the wayside. I'm not saying Matt's rants are the most intelligent thing he's done, but he's sat by the wayside and watch the superstars beat up the code to a point where it's less stable, slower, and more bloated than it ever was. I, for one, can understand his frustration (as I can with Mike's, Jordan's, and a few o
I've been an avid follower of the developments in FreeBSD for around 5 years now, so my overview of the entire history of "glue that binds" FreeBSD together isn't complete. That said, I've come to be a bit disappointed at how events in the last 18 months or so seem to be pushing the project in a direction that has made things more difficult, instead of more successful, that has shown distain for experience and quality and made FreeBSD a platform for large ego's to push their personal projects down everyone's throat.
The statistics sample from 2001 over a year was a cheap attempt to minimize Matt's contribution to the project. The reason why he has been mostly silent is probably one of the most prominent signs of his superior maturity. The fact that the official defense (mostly fronted by Greg, atm) he wasn't such a substantial committer is crap, for the most part. If one wanted to go by the stats, Jeff Robertson (sorry if I munged the spelling) would be one of the key committers, and his UMA system isn't even entirely ripe yet, it's just been committed within the sample timeframe. That suddenly phk is at the top of the list, is simple a result of his newest attempt to add another large chunk of bit rot to the project that he can later claim not to have time to maintain "unless someone is willing to pay for my time" (like the atm bits, the half-finished devd monster, et.al.) One can hardly get him to look at his malloc bits, that put his name in lights at some point in the long past.
Matt didn't contribute because he was convinced that that the smp development direction that was chosen (my impression at least from the archives and my fading memory) was overly complex, too complex for the number and talent level of the contributers involved, and that it would delay a release from the -current branch significantly. So he was right. I'll almost bet that that was a constant sore for John, who still hasn't gotten his long-promised, but little delivered re-entrant work done, but he always had time enough to object to any other commits that might help along the way. Strangely Julian and Matt could work together. One might attribute certain commits to both Matt and Julian (if that would matter anyway, since -core is interested in proving the opposite statistically).
If the issue here had anything to do with IPFW, then you all better get out your C-coder hats and take a little more time to fix that rotting pile of muck that has been the standard broken packet filter interface for FreeBSD long past its possible usefulness. A packet filter with no central maintainer which is subject to once yearly random feature bloat through some wild university project from Luigi. The brokenness that Luigi introduced (and the repository bloat through backing out and recommitting, ad absurdum) was probably no less a threat to security than anything Matt did. If the security officer was to be blatantly honest with himself, ipfw would be marked broken for either a full audit or full removal (just port obsd's pf or something that someone actually actively _cares_ about).
You've alienated Jordan, Mike, Bill Paul (for all I can see), Greenman, you constantly rag on Terry, even though he's seen and done more with FreeBSD than most of you, O'Brien is on the verge of quitting (since he, like I, am not convinced that GEOM is anything more than an ego trip that will never be completely maintained or usefully documented). There are certainly others, too, that have attempted to make technically correct contributions, but didn't fit into the sort of paranoid "glee club" that core would like to have around them. You guys lack the talent to steer the positive from Matt into the project and let the crap fall by the wayside. I'm not saying Matt's rants are the most intelligent thing he's done, but he's sat by the wayside and watch the superstars beat up the code to a point where it's less stable, slower, and more bloated than it ever was. I, for one, can understand his frustration (as I can with Mike's, Jordan's, and a few o
I've been an avid follower of the developments in FreeBSD for around 5 years now, so my overview of the entire history of "glue that binds" FreeBSD together isn't complete. That said, I've come to be a bit disappointed at how events in the last 18 months or so seem to be pushing the project in a direction that has made things more difficult, instead of more successful, that has shown distain for experience and quality and made FreeBSD a platform for large ego's to push their personal projects down everyone's throat.
The statistics sample from 2001 over a year was a cheap attempt to minimize Matt's contribution to the project. The reason why he has been mostly silent is probably one of the most prominent signs of his superior maturity. The fact that the official defense (mostly fronted by Greg, atm) he wasn't such a substantial committer is crap, for the most part. If one wanted to go by the stats, Jeff Robertson (sorry if I munged the spelling) would be one of the key committers, and his UMA system isn't even entirely ripe yet, it's just been committed within the sample timeframe. That suddenly phk is at the top of the list, is simple a result of his newest attempt to add another large chunk of bit rot to the project that he can later claim not to have time to maintain "unless someone is willing to pay for my time" (like the atm bits, the half-finished devd monster, et.al.) One can hardly get him to look at his malloc bits, that put his name in lights at some point in the long past.
Matt didn't contribute because he was convinced that that the smp development direction that was chosen (my impression at least from the archives and my fading memory) was overly complex, too complex for the number and talent level of the contributers involved, and that it would delay a release from the -current branch significantly. So he was right. I'll almost bet that that was a constant sore for John, who still hasn't gotten his long-promised, but little delivered re-entrant work done, but he always had time enough to object to any other commits that might help along the way. Strangely Julian and Matt could work together. One might attribute certain commits to both Matt and Julian (if that would matter anyway, since -core is interested in proving the opposite statistically).
If the issue here had anything to do with IPFW, then you all better get out your C-coder hats and take a little more time to fix that rotting pile of muck that has been the standard broken packet filter interface for FreeBSD long past its possible usefulness. A packet filter with no central maintainer which is subject to once yearly random feature bloat through some wild university project from Luigi. The brokenness that Luigi introduced (and the repository bloat through backing out and recommitting, ad absurdum) was probably no less a threat to security than anything Matt did. If the security officer was to be blatantly honest with himself, ipfw would be marked broken for either a full audit or full removal (just port obsd's pf or something that someone actually actively _cares_ about).
You've alienated Jordan, Mike, Bill Paul (for all I can see), Greenman, you constantly rag on Terry, even though he's seen and done more with FreeBSD than most of you, O'Brien is on the verge of quitting (since he, like I, am not convinced that GEOM is anything more than an ego trip that will never be completely maintained or usefully documented). There are certainly others, too, that have attempted to make technically correct contributions, but didn't fit into the sort of paranoid "glee club" that core would like to have around them. You guys lack the talent to steer the positive from Matt into the project and let the crap fall by the wayside. I'm not saying Matt's rants are the most intelligent thing he's done, but he's sat by the wayside and watch the superstars beat up the code to a point where it's less stable, slower, and more bloated than it ever was. I, for one, can understand his frustration (as I can with Mike's, Jordan's, and a few o
I've been an avid follower of the developments in FreeBSD for around 5 years now, so my overview of the entire history of "glue that binds" FreeBSD together isn't complete. That said, I've come to be a bit disappointed at how events in the last 18 months or so seem to be pushing the project in a direction that has made things more difficult, instead of more successful, that has shown distain for experience and quality and made FreeBSD a platform for large ego's to push their personal projects down everyone's throat.
The statistics sample from 2001 over a year was a cheap attempt to minimize Matt's contribution to the project. The reason why he has been mostly silent is probably one of the most prominent signs of his superior maturity. The fact that the official defense (mostly fronted by Greg, atm) he wasn't such a substantial committer is crap, for the most part. If one wanted to go by the stats, Jeff Robertson (sorry if I munged the spelling) would be one of the key committers, and his UMA system isn't even entirely ripe yet, it's just been committed within the sample timeframe. That suddenly phk is at the top of the list, is simple a result of his newest attempt to add another large chunk of bit rot to the project that he can later claim not to have time to maintain "unless someone is willing to pay for my time" (like the atm bits, the half-finished devd monster, et.al.) One can hardly get him to look at his malloc bits, that put his name in lights at some point in the long past.
Matt didn't contribute because he was convinced that that the smp development direction that was chosen (my impression at least from the archives and my fading memory) was overly complex, too complex for the number and talent level of the contributers involved, and that it would delay a release from the -current branch significantly. So he was right. I'll almost bet that that was a constant sore for John, who still hasn't gotten his long-promised, but little delivered re-entrant work done, but he always had time enough to object to any other commits that might help along the way. Strangely Julian and Matt could work together. One might attribute certain commits to both Matt and Julian (if that would matter anyway, since -core is interested in proving the opposite statistically).
If the issue here had anything to do with IPFW, then you all better get out your C-coder hats and take a little more time to fix that rotting pile of muck that has been the standard broken packet filter interface for FreeBSD long past its possible usefulness. A packet filter with no central maintainer which is subject to once yearly random feature bloat through some wild university project from Luigi. The brokenness that Luigi introduced (and the repository bloat through backing out and recommitting, ad absurdum) was probably no less a threat to security than anything Matt did. If the security officer was to be blatantly honest with himself, ipfw would be marked broken for either a full audit or full removal (just port obsd's pf or something that someone actually actively _cares_ about).
You've alienated Jordan, Mike, Bill Paul (for all I can see), Greenman, you constantly rag on Terry, even though he's seen and done more with FreeBSD than most of you, O'Brien is on the verge of quitting (since he, like I, am not convinced that GEOM is anything more than an ego trip that will never be completely maintained or usefully documented). There are certainly others, too, that have attempted to make technically correct contributions, but didn't fit into the sort of paranoid "glee club" that core would like to have around them. You guys lack the talent to steer the positive from Matt into the project and let the crap fall by the wayside. I'm not saying Matt's rants are the most intelligent thing he's done, but he's sat by the wayside and watch the superstars beat up the code to a point where it's less stable, slower, and more bloated than it ever was. I, for one, can understand his frustration (as I can with Mike's, Jordan's, and a few o
I've been an avid follower of the developments in FreeBSD for around 5 years now, so my overview of the entire history of "glue that binds" FreeBSD together isn't complete. That said, I've come to be a bit disappointed at how events in the last 18 months or so seem to be pushing the project in a direction that has made things more difficult, instead of more successful, that has shown distain for experience and quality and made FreeBSD a platform for large ego's to push their personal projects down everyone's throat.
The statistics sample from 2001 over a year was a cheap attempt to minimize Matt's contribution to the project. The reason why he has been mostly silent is probably one of the most prominent signs of his superior maturity. The fact that the official defense (mostly fronted by Greg, atm) he wasn't such a substantial committer is crap, for the most part. If one wanted to go by the stats, Jeff Robertson (sorry if I munged the spelling) would be one of the key committers, and his UMA system isn't even entirely ripe yet, it's just been committed within the sample timeframe. That suddenly phk is at the top of the list, is simple a result of his newest attempt to add another large chunk of bit rot to the project that he can later claim not to have time to maintain "unless someone is willing to pay for my time" (like the atm bits, the half-finished devd monster, et.al.) One can hardly get him to look at his malloc bits, that put his name in lights at some point in the long past.
Matt didn't contribute because he was convinced that that the smp development direction that was chosen (my impression at least from the archives and my fading memory) was overly complex, too complex for the number and talent level of the contributers involved, and that it would delay a release from the -current branch significantly. So he was right. I'll almost bet that that was a constant sore for John, who still hasn't gotten his long-promised, but little delivered re-entrant work done, but he always had time enough to object to any other commits that might help along the way. Strangely Julian and Matt could work together. One might attribute certain commits to both Matt and Julian (if that would matter anyway, since -core is interested in proving the opposite statistically).
If the issue here had anything to do with IPFW, then you all better get out your C-coder hats and take a little more time to fix that rotting pile of muck that has been the standard broken packet filter interface for FreeBSD long past its possible usefulness. A packet filter with no central maintainer which is subject to once yearly random feature bloat through some wild university project from Luigi. The brokenness that Luigi introduced (and the repository bloat through backing out and recommitting, ad absurdum) was probably no less a threat to security than anything Matt did. If the security officer was to be blatantly honest with himself, ipfw would be marked broken for either a full audit or full removal (just port obsd's pf or something that someone actually actively _cares_ about).
You've alienated Jordan, Mike, Bill Paul (for all I can see), Greenman, you constantly rag on Terry, even though he's seen and done more with FreeBSD than most of you, O'Brien is on the verge of quitting (since he, like I, am not convinced that GEOM is anything more than an ego trip that will never be completely maintained or usefully documented). There are certainly others, too, that have attempted to make technically correct contributions, but didn't fit into the sort of paranoid "glee club" that core would like to have around them. You guys lack the talent to steer the positive from Matt into the project and let the crap fall by the wayside. I'm not saying Matt's rants are the most intelligent thing he's done, but he's sat by the wayside and watch the superstars beat up the code to a point where it's less stable, slower, and more bloated than it ever was. I, for one, can understand his frustration (as I can with Mike's, Jordan's, and a few o
I've been an avid follower of the developments in FreeBSD for around 5 years now, so my overview of the entire history of "glue that binds" FreeBSD together isn't complete. That said, I've come to be a bit disappointed at how events in the last 18 months or so seem to be pushing the project in a direction that has made things more difficult, instead of more successful, that has shown distain for experience and quality and made FreeBSD a platform for large ego's to push their personal projects down everyone's throat.
The statistics sample from 2001 over a year was a cheap attempt to minimize Matt's contribution to the project. The reason why he has been mostly silent is probably one of the most prominent signs of his superior maturity. The fact that the official defense (mostly fronted by Greg, atm) he wasn't such a substantial committer is crap, for the most part. If one wanted to go by the stats, Jeff Robertson (sorry if I munged the spelling) would be one of the key committers, and his UMA system isn't even entirely ripe yet, it's just been committed within the sample timeframe. That suddenly phk is at the top of the list, is simple a result of his newest attempt to add another large chunk of bit rot to the project that he can later claim not to have time to maintain "unless someone is willing to pay for my time" (like the atm bits, the half-finished devd monster, et.al.) One can hardly get him to look at his malloc bits, that put his name in lights at some point in the long past.
Matt didn't contribute because he was convinced that that the smp development direction that was chosen (my impression at least from the archives and my fading memory) was overly complex, too complex for the number and talent level of the contributers involved, and that it would delay a release from the -current branch significantly. So he was right. I'll almost bet that that was a constant sore for John, who still hasn't gotten his long-promised, but little delivered re-entrant work done, but he always had time enough to object to any other commits that might help along the way. Strangely Julian and Matt could work together. One might attribute certain commits to both Matt and Julian (if that would matter anyway, since -core is interested in proving the opposite statistically).
If the issue here had anything to do with IPFW, then you all better get out your C-coder hats and take a little more time to fix that rotting pile of muck that has been the standard broken packet filter interface for FreeBSD long past its possible usefulness. A packet filter with no central maintainer which is subject to once yearly random feature bloat through some wild university project from Luigi. The brokenness that Luigi introduced (and the repository bloat through backing out and recommitting, ad absurdum) was probably no less a threat to security than anything Matt did. If the security officer was to be blatantly honest with himself, ipfw would be marked broken for either a full audit or full removal (just port obsd's pf or something that someone actually actively _cares_ about).
You've alienated Jordan, Mike, Bill Paul (for all I can see), Greenman, you constantly rag on Terry, even though he's seen and done more with FreeBSD than most of you, O'Brien is on the verge of quitting (since he, like I, am not convinced that GEOM is anything more than an ego trip that will never be completely maintained or usefully documented). There are certainly others, too, that have attempted to make technically correct contributions, but didn't fit into the sort of paranoid "glee club" that core would like to have around them. You guys lack the talent to steer the positive from Matt into the project and let the crap fall by the wayside. I'm not saying Matt's rants are the most intelligent thing he's done, but he's sat by the wayside and watch the superstars beat up the code to a point where it's less stable, slower, and more bloated than it ever was. I, for one, can understand his frustration (as I can with Mike's, Jordan's, and a few o
umm just plug in hardware and it works? Are you on crack, damn near nothing "just works" on windows.
I mean honestly, I work nonstop of different windows configurations all day. Install two network cards, oops ip stack is corrupted, by the way neither just worked I had to install drivers and that is the best you can expect with new hardware on windows. netsh didn't work as usual DAMN, have to get out a utility I wrote myself that goes through and REALLY resets ip on NT based systems.
Then install two nics on linux, boot computer up, nics detected, system prompts if I want to configure those nics. I do, it just works. Nics are now ready to be configured and work perfectly.
You know, I've NEVER had an ip stack corrupt on a linux system? It happens literally daily with all versions of windows.
There was a time when I didn't work with so many systems that I thought this was a rare event, once in a great while you had a problem with IP that couldn't be resolved by reinstalling the nic and such. But not anymore, now I know that 1 in 5 nic installs on windows corrupt the ip stack! woohoo.
The BSD crowd needs to learn that their constant trolling of the Linux community is what is responsible for the hatred of anything *BSD related.
Now you are saying that "we need BSD", as if your high and mighty ways are somehow overly superior to our own.
If you don't like Linux, then present your software and if it is actually superior, the people who actually care will use it. Simple.
You will not get converts with this arrogant attidude of yours, nor will you win over any hearts and minds, including my own.
I've been very interested in *BSD, but the arrogance abd condesendence of the *BSD community (and to be fair, it exists, to a much lesser extent, in the Linux community as well) has turned me off and away from looking into BSD solutions for my business and personal use.
So, we can now exorcise the penguins and dead rats, but is it really better to have a demonically posessed system?
Any generalization is a stupid one.
If you're running a distro that requires you to recompile your kernel to gain hardware support, you've got the wrong distro.
Get a swiss army knife kernel like Mandrake and others use..they create ALL possible modules for you and they're just a modprobe away. That's why hardware support is so much better on the 'easy' distros. Remember, easy doesn't mean 'not good'.
I actually thought I was being funny and expected to be moderated that way. :-)
But moderating me and especially that post 'Insightful' takes the cake. I give up.
And thus hereby offically anounce: Credit for the biggest 'Funny' goes to Mr. '+1 Insightfull' modder.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
5. Make sure that the first 40MB of space on your hard drive is not being actively used. If the first partition on your hard drive is being used for swap, run swapoff to disable it; otherwise, move your partitions around so that this is the case.
/boot or something else that cannot be unmounted on the first partition?
Oh YEAH! That makes the remote install a snap! What linux user puts / or
Unless your looking to power an SMP system...safest or not OpenBSD is still lagging in many areas and why I continue to goto FreeBSD for everything but firewalls
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Unfortunately even with swiss army knife distros some drivers still need to be compiled into the kernel. Not to mention by compiling them into the kernel, you will get better performance. Of course, we are getting past the orginal intent of my reply. My reply was only meant to show that every OS has its quirks about installing drivers. Linux, *BSD, WinBlows, Unix, etc. They all have their own little idiosyncrasies.
I Love Linux....but hate Linux Zealots!!!
My point is that Linux shouldn't be used to mean 'every distro of linux' because they all have different idiosyncracies that make them better or worse than other distros. You can't really lump all distros into one category when you're drawing parallels to installing drivers and the difficulties to be had with such.
I'm no zealot, but I defend what I like. Fairness is paramount.
Whilst win32 is a joke to advanced users, you generally plug in supported hardware, and it just works
Haw, say that while installing a Shuttle 801 motherboard.....
"Yessiree, that board needs the SIS 630 drivers!" said Win2K
"No," Knoppix says, "its SIS650"
"Oh, ah, thanks" grumbles Win2K
I guess it's fair to say FreeBSD is dead, but that's a sort of odd thing to say. It stems from the obvious popularity of Linux as _the_ Unix free OS, but the FreeBSD project has only grown in recent years with the ports collection expanding, more people porting software to BSD or working on FreeBSD. Granted the lack of development in the BSD standard is gonna hurt later, right now things are looking fine, I think, for FreeBSD.
There were two Bohemian Defenestrations. The first one was in July 1419, when the Hussite Protestants threw the town council out the castle windows, killing seven of them.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Blasfemy!
My point is that Linux shouldn't be used to mean 'every distro of linux' because they all have different idiosyncracies that make them better or worse than other distros.
You are correct, which is why I submitted my orginal reply. If you can't even compare diffrent distrobutions, how can you comapre "Linux" to Windows? Every OS and OS variations have their own little quirks. It just pains me when I see people bashing an OS (wether it is Windows, *BSD, Linux (Insert your favorite distro here), etc.), just because It is not Open Source. If you like WinBlows, then you will live with its problems and quirks. If you like *BSD, then once again you will live with its own set of idiosyncracies. The same holds true with your favorite Linux Distro. The only thing I am trying to say is that I constantly hear more and more non-Linux-OS bashing on this sight. Linux=Good, AllOtherOS'es=BAD. Hell we're talking about Winblows, when the parent post had nothing to do with it. Linux was created using the Open Source model. IMHO one of the basis' of the Open Source model is choice. I seem to hear more and more "Linux enthusiaist" bashing other peoples choices of OS'es. It just p*sses me off when, peopel that are suppose to be preaching choice and openess, are so closed minded.
Interesting take on this.
We shall call you the shepherd, leading the other sheep down a road of "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, and doubt), in regards to BSD longevity.
Yes. There are a number of port catalogue systems for FreeBSD too...
"Free BSD" is not free software. This is why I've never even looked at it. They'll learn some day.
OSX is not FreeBSD. Just because they incoporated its code into their propietary OS does not make it FreeBSD.
Learn to just concede defeat, moron, when you've been shown to be ignorant.
I see that you have run out of actual argument. You resort to name-calling and ad-hominem. This shows to me that you are already defeated.
Or have IBT?
I'd consider the article flamebait because of the baiting way in which it is written. A more mature way to describe the purpose of this software might be "a tool for migrating from Linux to FreeBSD", leaving out the controversial "upgrade" part. The author could have written the description in a neutral (in my opinion at least) tone, but decided on an inflammatory one.
... you don't know what you're talking about ...
An ad hominem fallacy would be if I stated you were wrong *because* you were an idiot. I don't say that.
You're wrong because your statements don't hold up. You stated you were closed to BSD because of your own perceptions, not because BSD wasn't superior. This is a wrong, incorrect stance to take.
You're silly because the manner in which you state your opinions is representative of many of the shrill Linux devotees of which you are one.
You're an idiot because you can't see how clearly you are representing these people and because when I accused you of having a closed mind, you responded "So, what?"
You *are* fun, however.
You see, if I'd stated you were wrong *because* you're an idiot, then that would be ad hominem. That you are wrong, and that you're an idiot, these things are merely coincidental.
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
no i am not lame
while (!asleep()) sheep++
What evil system are you standing up to by linking to nonexistent web pages?
grep -ri 'should work'
Not sure what you're talking about.
If you are refering to the BSD license, well, you're just wrong, because I'm even free to take FreeBSD and change it and sell it as my own, as long as I mention that it's based on FreeBSD code.
If you're refering to the fact that the CD ISOs are not free, that doesn't keep you from downloading everything that's on the CD...for free.
So FreeBSD==Free
Bull crap. I have had several family members and friends lately seek my advice for buying a new computer. In spite of my efforts to convince them to try out an alternative OS, NONE of them wanted anything to do with it. Hell- one of them even bought a cheap-o system from Fry's that came with Linux installed, and he wanted me to help him reformat to install Windows XP. He went through great pains to avoid using Linux!
The point is, you cannot dismiss the popularity of Windows as a product of consumer ignorance. All of these people I helped knew that there were alternatives to Windows, they just wanted nothing to do with them.
The Year of Our Lord 2003 has been a particularly bad year for the "B"s,
- Bob Hope
- Buddy Ebsen
- Buddy Hackett
- Barry White
- BSD
This honored list of dead is but a small token of adieu from the many fans of the deceased.These dead were truly some American Icons. They will be missed.
why not make a picobsd image and drop it in /, boot it from the linux loader?
This is often true, but configurations in which it is not true are not uncommon. A friend of mine once had his BSD server stay up with a load of 86. It might take 2 minutes to completely service a request, but it still worked. When he had linux on the same box, same configuration on the same services, it would fall over around 12. BSD is incredible at handling load. It's less flexible in many ways than Linux, but it makes a really great server.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
...and anyway, it would be more fun to return the traffic to the originating machine.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Signed, Oscar.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
They'll never look back. In case of emergency, click here.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Listen. That gurgling sound you hear? That is the death rattle in *BSD's throat.
reverse defenestration would be throwing something in through a window, I think maybe you want inverse defenestration.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
Ya know, I thought you made a mistake adding "reverse" to "defenestration", but I think I finally got your intent.
:)
The word "defenestration" means "the act of throwing someone or something out of a window"... "de-" meaning "out of" and "fenestra" meaning "window".
At first I thought "reverse defenestration" might be like "not not x", which would result in "fenestration"... perhaps meaning "to make something windowed" or throwing something to the inside of a window, both of which would be contrary to your intended point.
But I see now that you are actually applying "reverse" to what is being thrown ("something" vs. "the window") rather than the direction it is being thrown (inside or outside the window... e.g. with the inside being representative of the computer).
Ha! very funny... hmmm... just like me to overanalyze a perfectly pleasant quip. Sorry.
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. I
If you're going to disable all access to SSH, why not just stop sshd?
DUH.
Ron Paul 2012
> In the FreeBSD Ports Collection, there are many Ports marked as broken,
> and many more unmaintained and suffering from bit-rot.
Let me inject some facts into this discussion, as this is an area in which I've done a lot of research.
As of 12/30/2003, there are 10011 ports in the FreeBSD ports collection. Except for a very few cases where only a binary is available from the authors, the entire collection is meant to be buildable from source.
On 4-STABLE i386, 214 ports fail to build from source; on 5-CURRENT, 366 fail to build. The difference is primarily due to FreeBSD being an early adopter of gcc3.3 in 5-CURRENT. As these bugs are fixed, we try to encourage people to get them adopted upstream. This benefits the Linux as well as BSD communities.
239 ports are marked broken on 5-CURRENT; these are the 'hard-broken' cases. Right around 50% of those are compile problems and in some cases the code is indeed quite old. Some of the others that fail to build, but are *not* marked broken, are failing to fetch and part of that is due to the savannah compromise which is outside our control. That's temporary, we all hope. (I'm reluctant to see any port marked as broken unless it really won't compile/install -- not just having some transitory error.)
A slightly larger number, for which I don't have statistics, are marked broken on the 64-bit architectures, generally due to bad assumptions in their C code. Again, as these are fixed, changes make it back to the larger community. And, the number of broken ports on the 3 64-bit architectures has also come down dramatically.
The number of ports PRs has come down from a peak of 1500 during the 5.1-RELEASE freeze, to around 800 today. This is primarily due to a dozen new ports committers in the past 6 months who have been very active.
The number of officially unmaintained ports is 2616. Although this number may have decreased as well, clearly we still need more volunteers.
As for bit-rot, again, much of the code that is rotting lies outside the control of the FreeBSD ports team. Another project that is active is to try to identify, and prune, ports for which there is no hope. However, this requires getting a community consensus on what "no hope" is, and that takes time. The last time a pass was made scheduling ports for demolition, somewhere around 100 were proposed, and around 70 were fixed by someone or otherwise adopted in the 3 months afterwards. There are another 100 or so proposed for removal in the next pass; some of those have already been fixed as well. (I hope to create a framework for making this process more visible to end-users so there are as few "surprises" as humanly possible.)
One last point about bit-rot. For ports that fail to compile/install, the previous version of the binary ("package" in FreeBSD terminology) remains available for fetching until the new version works. Thus, most of the bit-rot only affects those who are installing from source.
The code that I've written that generates these statistics does so by mining the Problem Report database, the error logs from the bento build cluster (which iterates over each port on each architecture and each relevant OS release, continuously), the ports collection itself, and (to a limited degree) CVS meta-info. As far as I know no-one else has similar functionality. (Interested parties can contact me directly; since this machine is on the end of a cable modem line, I need to protect it from slashdotting). I hope to get this code up and running on a machine with greater bandwidth to make it more generally useful, soon.
To conclude, IMHO things that get fixed in the FreeBSD ports collection can have the effect of helping the greater community. I'd like to see the culture of zealotry start to disappear, and a greater degree of peer respect, especially in regards to making as many apps useful to as many people on as many platforms as possible. I think there is a lot we can learn from each other, and a lot of duplicate effort that could be avoided, if we could just wrap our heads around that.
By definition, a good OS will recognize peripherals automatically
Then I guess there is no "good OS"...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Has anyone noticed the requirement to have a FreeBSD install ISO in order for it to work? I mean cripes if you have the iso why don't you just install FreeBSD. Lower ram requirement, works faster and well. You end up with FreeBSD.
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
Whilst the above steps might seem trivial to the experienced users, you have to admit it's not the kind of intuitive setup proccess you would reccommend to your grandma.
The comparison was being made with Linux. Granted, Linux has made some strides recently. But look back just one year ago. Under FreeBSD you just mounted your camera like it was an everyday filesystem. Under Linux you had to get special software, wade through reams of imcomplete HOWTO's, cross your fingers, clench your buttocks, and hope it worked.
Whilst win32 is a joke to advanced users, you generally plug in supported hardware, and it just works.
Yeah right. And I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn...
Over Christmas vacation I was visiting my mom. Her computer was Win98SE. USB mass storage devices are supported by the OS. Plug in my thumbdrive and it works. But plug in my camera and it goes off into neverneverland. Even though my camera is a standard UMass device. I had to download the camera's USB drivers for Windows before it would recognize it. But I didn't need any special software under FreeBSD.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
If you keep reading, god gave moses a whole book of do's and don'ts which boil down to "if soome-one does this, stone them. if someone does that, stone them". The adultery and homosexuality laws spring immediately to mind, but that is only the _tip_ of the iceberg.
Oh, by the way, that's not even taking into consideration the "cleansing" of Palestine^W Canaan.
It was at 4:25am early on the morning of December 28th 2003 that, after many failed attempts to resuscitate the dying OS, *BSD finally passed away. While *BSD has been in it's death throes for many months now and it's death has been foreseen for many years, this is still a very sad moment; a great loss for OS dilettante dabblers and *BSD lovers the world over.
Though *BSD has passed away, it will surely be fondly remembered for years to come by users, developers, and trolls alike. Even if you didn't enjoy using *BSD, there's no denying it's contributions to popular OS culture. Truly a Berkeley icon. It will be missed :(
I guess so my def of an OS is automatic regcognition of new hardware, with seamless web access to drivers. So, i guess there are no good OSs
you have to realize one fundamental fact:
While I certainly get your main point (rooting one box will leave the rest safe) I simply *must* take issue with your example.
You say if this guy roots your DNS VM, he won't be able to deface your website. I'll point out the obvious: he now has control over the web address, and can point your website at his own box, where the defaced site lies. Or he can point it at the DNS box itself, install apache, and deface it there.
Point is, if he roots your DNS server, you are all kinds of jacked.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
Abbreviating Gnu/Linux to Linux is usually clear in context, but when talking about changing the kernel it's clear as mud!
The Linux kernel is a tiny part of the Gnu/Linux system and can be replaced by several alternative kernels, thus "depenquinating" it, with little or no impact on users or application programs. So Gnu/Linux can be switched to Gnu/(*BSD kernel) or GNU/Hurd, etc.
You can also replace the whole O/S with a different one that is able to run Gnu/Linux application binaries. Thus Gnu/Linux can be replaced by FreeBSD or Solaris or SCO Unix. As this is a much larger change, I would expect some trouble and user-visible changes.
I prefer to always use the term Gnu/Linux in writing even if I may abbreviate to just Gnu or just Linux when speaking.
Ridiculous.
You argue against this person (The italisized portion of your post) who shows a *parallel* situation, by demonstrating the way an *opposite* situation behaves!
Seriously, he says "if it was about 'upgrading' windows boxes to Linux it would not be considered flamebait." THIS IS NOT THE OPPOSITE OF THIS ARTICLE! It is in fact a parallel; the same thing with the names changed.
Now, as it happens, this act (Linux "upgraded" to FreeBSD) has no real opposite. Even a FreeBSD->Linux upgrade would still be more the same than opposite. But that just makes your argument all the more silly.
Now, that's not to say I agree with this fool, either. Frankly, you're both wrong; you for your argument, and he for his conclusion. Any of the three parallels would be flamebait...no matter what, an article written up this provocatively and on this subject is going to cause the vast majority of responses to be holy-war. You don't think an artical about "upgrading" Windows to Linux would be flame-laden? Who the hell are you kidding?
On the other hand, that's why I clicked on the story; I wanted to see it happen, and work my logic muscle a bit. Against both sides. I mean, seriously...you get what you pay for. Who here didn't know they were about to read some flames?
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...FreeBSD is the real man's UNIX. Linux is a toy...a well-meaning toy, to be sure...but a toy by comparison, none the less. 'Nuff said.
"IF IT'S over a year, BSD's not ever going to get up," said Fred Plum, a professor emeritus at Weill Cornell College in New York. "You'd just don't see it. It just doesn't happen."
BSD, 39, has been in a persistent vegetative state since its heart stopped for unknown reasons in 1990. A feeding tube in BSD's stomach was removed this past Wednesday after its husband, Theo De Ratt, who said his wife had told him she (BSD) would not want to be kept alive under such circumstances, won a long series of court battles to have life-sustaining nourishment withdrawn so she (BSD) could die.
It seems to me that OpenBSD has the foundation for remote install already. There is a bsd.rd kernel that, upon being run by the bootloader, boots into a ramdisk based kernel with the installation routines.
All that would need to be done is modify the creation of the bsd.rd file to include an ip number to an interface, start up the sshd daemon, and a root password. Maybe they left more out of the ramdisk kernel since you just do the installs from the console. Adding a ssh daemon and the underlying framework may be more complicated that it seems.
But the concept is there. Just put a file on your linux host that the boot loader will run upon a power cycle and reboot and connect. You could even have a second program that would scan the dmesg to discern what interfaces were on the machine, partition sizes, etc.
The beauty of OpenBSD is the kernel can fit on one floppy, or you can use the bsd.rd kernel, and then download all of the system via ftp over a network connection. The same connection you would use to control the remote install over.
I'm no kernel programmer, but that seems to be the best method yet: create a file that you could copy to the right place and then when Windows boot it, it takes over and becomes the install kernel of your favorite OS.
Try reading the fucking article. Jesus Christ. It's about a remote install where you DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE HARDWARE, which sorta shoots your brilliant idea down to shit.
His use of computer language was not only sad and oddly humorous. It was also an example of how technology shapes the way we think and live.
What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
WHich makes it funny and ironic!
i wouldn't care too much if my system were to get rooted by some script kiddy, but if they're going to install F*BSD on the thing, then i'm scared!
Software Freedom Day!.
BSD is a walking corpse, putrifying on the hoof
If you're running a distro that requires you to recompile your kernel to gain hardware support, you've got the wrong distro.
Get a swiss army knife kernel like Mandrake and others use..they create ALL possible modules for you and they're just a modprobe away. That's why hardware support is so much better on the 'easy' distros. Remember, easy doesn't mean 'not good'.
You remind me of the Windows admin in the commercials who said he liked Win2k because it automagically detected all of his hardware. I wanted to slap that fucker, because every fool knows that you can only autodetect hardware you have drivers for. In other words, it has to have been developed before your OS CD was made, and there have to have been drivers in time for that release.
You are referring to the fact that Mandrake and friends compile all the modules included with the Linux kernel, and yes that is probably super spiffy for you. However, what happens when you go get new hardware that was not supported by the kernel that you have? Better yet (and more on the mopney in this case) what happens when the hardware is not supported at all in the vanilla kernel? That's right, you get to do the dance explained above. This is the same for every Linux distro, and anyone with a very basic understanding of how drivers and operating systems work knows why.
The point is, you cannot dismiss the popularity of Windows as a product of consumer ignorance. All of these people I helped knew that there were alternatives to Windows, they just wanted nothing to do with them.
That is because the daemon you know is never so scary as the daemon you don't. Face it. No one likes windows. Only MCSE types claim it is worth a shit, and that is because they are praying to keep their jobs because they don't really understand computers. But people (including the MCSE types) are also afraid of change. Deathly afraid. It was scary enough for them to try a computer, and they have been having nightmares about it ever since. It is no wonder they aren't so keen to repeat the experience, except this time without the benefit of following the herd and having massive corporate support.
Uhg. OpenBSD as a desktop system? Not a good idea.
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
Unfortunately, since we run Linux and BSD, we have to do a moderate amount of research before we buy bleeding edge or 'different' hardware. Strangely enough, I find that these days even the most obscure pieces of hardware are supported (a Soyo KiKY-X USB playstation controller convertor? yes!). So while once in awhile you may have to hunt down driver sources and compile them, if you do some research beforehand you may never have to compile anything.
This bitch is dead.
If you are refering to the BSD license, well, you're just wrong, because I'm even free to take FreeBSD and change it and sell it as my own, as long as I mention that it's based on FreeBSD code."
You can do that with code released under GPL too, provided you supply source code. The problem with the BSD license is that someone with a big name (i.e. MS) can come along, take the code, add DRM to it, and release MS-*NIX. Because they don't have to release source code, they can assimilate and extend it into a proprietary product. After establishing themselves as the dominant player, DRM becomes mandatory for their distribution so all the free applications won't run. Meanwhile, because they've become the dominant distribution and simply integrate all additional features developed by the BSD community (who now feel like free labor to said company) they've given up, and only the proprietary version remains. Don't think this can work? Can it be done for $50Billion? You bet. Can it be done to Linux? Yes, as long as we continue to use X"free"86 which is not free either.
The BSD style licenses are for people who say they're open-source/free but have ambitions of later making a proprietary product. The problem is that if the software is successful, the winning product will not come from them. It will come from the one who has the most marketing ability.
RMS may be a bit extreme, but he was the first to really understand this.
F--- the BSD license.
Not at all. If you have ever worked in a PC shop you would know there were just as many grannies asking about how t0 blah blah such and such in windows too.
Adam Blundell
Philip Busch
Jeffery Candiloro
Michael Collins
Adrian Dunston
Bill Folsom
Grant Henninger
Robert Hill
Brett Howard
David Johnson
Mark Kistner
Edmund Kump
Scott Lockwood
Dave Mauldin
John McKeon
Franjo Sarcevic
Robert Sheehy
Max Stalnaker
Jan Sulmont
Todd Varland
Mark Vyland
Russell Warner
John Woodbury
If you're going to disable all access to SSH, why not just stop sshd?
Limit on title length prevented me from adding -s (somewhere). Crap. Couldn't even use the much more fun TARPIT target.
What the hell? What driver made you go through all that? Yeah, it's fun to make up a bunch of stuff, but where's the beans? Link please!
When booting Linux, it mounted the FAT32 fs, then mounted the root, swap, etc as loop filesystems. Slower than a real partition, but very cool and very safe for someone who didn't want to risk destroying his Windows setup.
Since Windows constantly crashed (ME - one of the worst versions), when he got a new disk, he was confident enough to install RedHat directly, and bought Win4Lin (a virtual machine with custom Windows drivers to avoid emulating the hardware - much faster than VM ware for supported Windows versions). ME still crashes inside Win4Lin, but rebooting is much faster (win4lin keeps a ram image of mostly booted Windows) and all the Linux applications stay up!
The LIN4WIN approach was very good - but is hampered now by MS use of the ever changing and undocumented NTFS.
URL please?
BSD is NOT dying. The official dying title goes to Amiga, of course, which has been "dying" since 1993. So enough with the "BSD is dying" statements - you're showing your lack of experience.
Subject says it all :P