NetBSD Quarterly Status Report

An anonymous reader writes "NetBSD's Jan Schaumann announced today that, in order to provide a summary of the most important changes over the last few months, the NetBSD Foundation has decided to follow the example of other projects of releasing official status reports on a regular basis. The first quarterly status report, covering the activities within the NetBSD Project during the first three months of 2004 is now available online."

Comments

Requiem for BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Good Bye Horses my love. Dedicated to kewsh

You told me, I see you rise
But, it always falls
I see you come, I see you go
You say, All things pass into the night
And I say, Oh no sir I must say you're wrong
I must disagree, oh no sir, I must say you're wrong
Won't you listen to me
You told me, I've seen it all before
Been there, I've seen my hopes and dreams
A lying on the ground
I've seen the sky just begin to fall
And you say, All things pass into the night
And I say, Oh no sir, I must say you're wrong
I must disagree, oh no sir, I must say you're wrong
Won't you listen to me
Good-bye horses I'm lying over you
Good-bye horses I'm lying over you

Report slashdotted; here's a repost

[Anonymous Coward]

_d8b____________________d8b_______d8,
_?88____________________88P______`8P
__88b__________________d88
__888888b__.d888b,_d888888________88b_.d888b,
__88P_`?8b_?8b,___d8P'_?88________88P_?8b,
_d88,__d88___`?8b_88b__,88b______d88____`?8b
d88'`?88P'`?888P'_`?88P'`88b____d88'_`?888P'

______d8b________________________d8b
______88P________________________88P
_____d88________________________d88
_d888888___d8888b_d888b8b___d888888
d8P'_?88__d8b_,dPd8P'_?88__d8P'_?88
88b__,88b_88b____88b__,88b_88b__,88b
`?88P'`88b`?888P'`?88P'`88b`?88P'`88b

Linux FAQ

[Anonymous Coward]

The Linux FAQ


Here's a list of some frequently asked and answered question here
and elsewhere that you may find useful in your quest to try linux.
Read these carefully before you decide to invest time in Linux, you
may find that you have better things you can do instead.

SECTION ONE - INSTALLATION
--

1.1 Q: I heard linux was easy to install, is it?
A: That depends on what distro you try. Most of them will have
trouble detecting all your hardware. Most new hardware devices
are not supported. If your lucky you might be able to find
something that someone threw together on the net. But that's
after spending a couple hours searching and probably won't take
advantage of your hardware to it's fullest capability.

1.2 Q: Once I get it installed, then what?
A: Then you get the joy of making sure everything is configured
right. Plan on a minimum of two hours per device to get it to
work. That's if the device is even supported.

1.3 Q: What happens if I'm in the middle of an install and the
installation freezes or just stops?
A: You get to reboot and start all over again. :) This happens
every so often with Linux. It seems like it's buggy install
routines or something. Ain't Linux grand? :)

1.4 Q: What's the deal?! I installed Linux and it took up almost 2GB
hard drive space!
A: The Linux distros usually install a LOT of never-used programs
on the default install. You can pick and choose what you want,
but good luck figuring out what programs are needed and what is
useless, obscure tools. Linux usually installs stuff like 10
different editors, 12 different mail clients, and so on.

(more to come...)

SECTION TWO - CONFIGURATION
--

2.1 Q: What's with all these cryptic files?
A: All of Linux is configured with cryptic text files. Some of
the more user-friendly distros have configuration utilities
that claim to do it for you, but success with these works
sometimes and other times don't, so sometimes you have to
edit them by hand. With Linux's spotty reliability in UI
programming, you might as well get used to it.

2.2 Q: What is killall, HUP, ls, cat, rm, which, etc and why are
these programs telling me to do them? Arggg!!
A: These are command line programs that do things within the
system. It's what makes Linux a powerful OS for those that
are experienced with it. But it's also what makes it a pain
in the arse to use and inefficient as a desktop system. Who
wants to type all the time when they can just click?!

(more to come...)

SECTION THREE - APPLICATIONS
--

3.1 Q: Where can I get some programs to run on linux?
A: Good question. Because Linux doesn't have a large user base
on the desktop,(I think it's about 0.24%, less than 1%)
companies that make software won't write their programs for
Linux. There's a lot of community created programs out there,
and some are fairly good, but those are few and far between.
Most of the Linux software that tries to mimic it's windows
counterpart is substandard. It's usually slow and buggy and
early in development.

3.2 Q: I tried to install an RPM but I got 'failed dependencies', what
is that?
A: That's Linux's version of DLL hell. Different versions and
distros use different libraries. So unlike windows where
programs will run on many different versions, Linux programs
will fail if they're not made for your specific version.

3.3 Q: What is compiling and configure, make and make install? And
what is a makefile?
A: Th

Re:Linux FAQ

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFLMAO -- this is great stuff, please bring us more Linux news!

Creed of the *BSD User

[britneys 9th husband]

We believe in one Demon,
the Beastie, the Almighty,
compiler of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Operating System, *BSD,
the only Son of Beastie,
eternally coded in Berkeley,
Demon from Demon, Dark from Dark,
true Demon from true Demon,
coded, not made,
of one Being with the Beastie.
Through him all things were compiled.
For us and for our salvation
he came up from hell:
by the power of the University of California
he became incarnate from Berkeley,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Lunis Torvalds;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he died again
in accordance with the Documentation;
he descended into hell
and is seated at the right hand of the Beastie.
He will come again in glory to moderate the insightful and the flamebait,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Demon, the Beastie, the giver of death,
who proceeds from the Beastie and Berkeley.
With the Beastie and the OS he is trolled and flamed.
He has spoken through the Slashdot Trolls.
We believe in one holy dead and dying Operating System.
We acknowledge one baptism in fire for the forgiveness of bugs.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the death of *BSD to come. Amen.

NetBSD 2.0

[Halfbaked Plan]

I, for one, am looking forward to the upcoming NetBSD 2.0 release. Just installed NetBSD-current on a new four-way server and it's running great with SMP. Looks like the 2.0 release is scheduled in the next several months.

Cool

[theapodan]

I'm glad that NetBSD seems to have a strong roadmap that is going somewhere soon. Since I've started fiddling with FreeBSD, I've thought that NetBSD didn't have the drive and commitment that FreeBSD did. Bully for them, putting out an optimistic showing for v 2.0. I wonder what the new logo will be.

Re:Cool

[noselasd]

You defintly should start fidling with NetBSD as well :-)
Its much cleaner, and more stable than any other OS's I've tried.

Re:Cool

[IEFBR14]

I saw this announcement a while ago regarding the new logo.

Re:Cool

[noselasd]

>Subject: Announcing the New NetBSD logo
>To: None
>From: Hubert Feyrer
>List: netbsd-advocacy
>Date: 04/01/2004 00:15:39

Lets take a look at the Date header again ;)

Re:Cool

[IEFBR14]

I know that. I thought the part about it being a highly portable LINUX system, and the Linux Torvalds announcement were funny.

Re:Cool

[Halfbaked Plan]

I've been 'spoiled' by the clean well-focused tightness of NetBSD going way back to 1.3.2, when I first installed it, over NFS, on my Toshiba 486 laptop. The laptop has only a floppy drive and PCMCIA slots, so an ethernet install was the only reasonable way I could see. At that time, in the Linux 1.2 kernel era, PCMCIA support in Linux was a 'hang a bag on the side' set of kernel extensions that one had to fool with to get working. With NetBSD, PCMCIA ethernet support was integrated into the kernel core and 'just worked' in the single boot floppy needed for the install.

The 'minimal, clean' philosophy extends all the way through NetBSD. A basic install for most architectures is an 80-100 MB set of gzipped tarballs you can easily download. This gets you a working system, with all the basic functionality, a C compiler, X11 with the basic Tab Window Manager (TWM), networking, etc. The installer lets you 'pare' this down even further if, say, you don't need X11 or dev tools. When you want to extend your system beyond this base, you turn to the packages collection, which is really a massive build script, with 'configuration-wrapper' scripts and patches that are applied over the standard source tarballs from whomever the package actually comes from. You can also applie the packages as binaries using the pkg_add command and a large repository of prebuilt packages available from the NetBSD ftp sites.

Because the base system is small and fully integrated, you can also compile the whole base userland from a set of integrated gzipped tarballs (*.tgz files). It's as simple as unpacking the source tarballs and issuing a top-level make command. The whole kernel and base userland can also be upgraded with CVS live over the network and rebuilt.

Once you learn how to admin and run with NetBSD on one architecture, you know most of what you'll need to for running it on different architectures. All the ports of NetBSD, for Mac68k, MacPPC, i386, Sparc, Sparc64, VAX, MIPs, etc. built from the same core source files. The structure of the /etc/ directory is common to all architectures.

And NetBSD has adopted a philosophy of doing things right, one time, and keeping things that way. Most of the info you need to set up and admin a NetBSD system you can learn from the classic UNIX books and documentation. The O'Reilly X Window System documentation (the big 8 book set) tells you almost anything you need to know, for instance.

There isn't a cadre of people out there trying to make NetBSD 'easy to use.' Thus, there aren't a bunch of people muddying things up and producing all kinds of croft and layers of GUI stuff to do basic tasks. There isn't a perceived goal of 'win over OS foo' which eggs the developers on to misdirected goals of competitiveness. The excellence of NetBSD stands on it's own and is based in what it is, not how it 'compares' to other OS projects and products.

Anyway, I think NetBSD is cool, it gives the users who are interested in 'getting under the hood' the opportunity to explore along well-followed paths of classic UNIX, and also lets the computer enthusiast run a Common OS on his whole collection of machines. I've run NetBSD on a Macintosh SE/30, a Quadra 650, on various PC compatibles going from a 386sx laptop to a Quad PentiumPro server, on all the classic Sun Sparc machines (IPC, IPX, LX, Classic, SS2, SS5, SS10, Ultra1), and on an RS/6000 box with the PowerPC chip.

Re:Cool

[Shanep]

I wish I had mod points.

Very nicely summarized.

PS, what port did you use for the RS/6000? I couldn't find one a few months ago.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll want the "PReP" platform port:

http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/prep/

Re:Cool

[Halfbaked Plan]

The RS/6000 that I ran NetBSD on was one of the PREP boxes. So it had a PowerPC processor, ISA and PCI slots, an S3 video chip, and used PS/2 keyboard and mouse. In all regards except for running on a PPC, it was a PC. I ran NetBSD/PREP on it. Not all RS/6000 boxes are as 'PC compatible' as that machine (a 7248 box). I now have an absolutely ancient box, one based on the Power1 processor, that I seem to be limited to running AIX on. Though I will be checking on that before long.

Re:Cool

[Shanep]

The RS/6000 that I ran NetBSD on was one of the PREP boxes. So it had a PowerPC processor, ISA and PCI slots, an S3 video chip, and used PS/2 keyboard and mouse. In all regards except for running on a PPC, it was a PC. I ran NetBSD/PREP on it.

I found one thrown out in a residential area. With "PowerPC" written on the front and RS/6000 I had to have it (BTW, it was built like a main battle tank! So bloody heavy for such a little box!). When I got it home, I found it had no HDD (which I would assume would be no problem), no CDROM, no floppy drive and no RAM.

An AIX expert friend of mine told me that I would have trouble even getting AIX on it without a supported CDROM drive (apparently just any SCSI CDROM drive would not do), so after many weeks I ditched it. ; ( It was picked up again within hours, BTW, I guess a little box with IBM written on it would have been snapped up by a PC user. ; )

Not all RS/6000 boxes are as 'PC compatible' as that machine (a 7248 box). I now have an absolutely ancient box, one based on the Power1 processor, that I seem to be limited to running AIX on. Though I will be checking on that before long.

This one seemed to have what looked like PS/2 connectors for K, M and C (Console?).

Maybe I should have kept it. ; (

It did not have anything that looked like a VGA connector though. Mostly lots of DB25 connectors, seemingly for serial, parallel and SCSI.

Good luck with that Power1.

Interesting classes using *BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Florida Community College is offering some interesting classes that I think could be of use to users of NetBSD. Users of the other *BSDs should check it out too... it covers a lot of important issues that, regrettably, the *BSD developers are often reluctant to discuss. Since it's a community college, tuition is cheap, and you might even meet some good looking girls (suggestion: take humanities classes for this).

Re:Interesting classes using *BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to admit, that was pretty funny

FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

FreeBSD vs Linux - The Definitive Comparison

Flamewars between FreeBSD and Linux advocates occur all the time, so it's often hard to make a judgement. Our 500-employee company recently decided to convert fully to Open Source software and OSes; I was put in charge of making the decisions and thought that the regulars on Slashdot would like to see how it worked out. It boiled down to FreeBSD and Linux, and without letting any bias or emotions get in the way, I established the following criteria.

Performance

This is a complicated issue, so let's consider these three types of machine (in use at our company):

Single CPU server: FreeBSD just edged ahead of Linux on this one. The differences weren't drastic, but large enough - consequently, score 1 for FreeBSD here.

Multi CPU server: With kernel 2.6, Linux performed considerably better than both FreeBSD 4.9 and 5.2.1. The updated SMP code and revised scheduler have worked wonders here, so 1 for Linux.

Desktop: Linux 2.6 is much faster than either FreeBSD, particularly when the system is heavily loaded. Application start times are slightly better, while responsiveness is remarkably superior to FreeBSD. Another 1 for Linux.

Result: FreeBSD 1, Linux 2

Stability

Linux distributions vary greatly in terms of stability, with Mandrake Linux and Fedora Core aiming for bleeding-edge desktop features, while Slackware and Debian put great emphasis on stability. FreeBSD is indeed a reliable OS, but the smaller development and testing community puts it behind Linux - additionally, there are more full-time Linux developers working with commercial companies on hardware support and core component testing.

Our Debian and Slackware systems have never crashed or suffered any other major glitches in five years of use, and we know of other individuals and companies that can say the same. With the correct distribution selection, Linux systems are extremely reliable. The far greater amount of testing by the community and companies gives Linux a boost here.

Result: FreeBSD 0, Linux 1

Support

Ease of updating: Although a third-party binary updaing system exists, it's not yet part of the official FreeBSD system (and consequently, problems with trust occur). Current FreeBSD releases rely on manual CVS updating, patch applying, compilation and installation. Debian GNU/Linux, conversely, only needs a single command to update; this is a major win for Linux, as it saves a huge amount of time on a large number of machines. 1 to Linux.

Length of support: Each FreeBSD point release is only supported for 12 months. The Debian Project supports each of its releases for over two years, and other distros such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux are supported for five years. Although upgrading FreeBSD is fairly simple, the changes in userland tools and Ports means that extensive re-testing of home-grown apps needs to be made. A major win for Linux here.

Commercial support: FreeBSD is significantly weaker on this front, with Linux vendors offering a much greater range and variety of support contracts than are available for FreeBSD. 1 to Linux.

Result: FreeBSD 0, Linux 3

Hardware

Server: FreeBSD's driver range for server-class machines is very good, and the drivers themselves are robust and well-tested. Linux is strong on this front too, but FreeBSD just pips it to the post. 1 to FreeBSD.

Desktop: Linux far surpasses FreeBSD in terms of desktop hardware support, with a gigantic range of drivers and subsystems from both kernel developers and third parties. 1 to Linux.

Other platforms: Debian supports more architectures than FreeBSD, although the gap is narrowing. NetBSD supports even more, but that involves throwing another BSD variant into the mix - this causes problems. 1 to Linux.

Result: FreeBSD 1, Linux 2

Software

The commercial software range for Li

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're thinking of deploying Open Source solutions in your company, hopefully this unbiased and detailed guide will help!

Unbiased? So you say.

Detailed? You have got to be kidding me. That read like a review of the latest Duke Nukem, from some crappy gamer mag. I'm surprised you didn't give FreeBSD 2 Bullets and Linux 9 Bullets.

People say that this Unix should be used because it is most supported, etc. But in reality, what any Unix needs is good admin. Whether a Solaris, AIX, HPUX, Linux or BSD is being taken care of, chances are that there have been customizations that require a good local admin. He rarely needs this support you talk of. FreeBSD is very reliable on the hardware that you would want to run servers on.

I'll take FreeBSD with a good admin, over Fedora with a good admin, any day.

How far will you get with Fedora, when the problem arises from one of your in-house perl scripts? Local knowledge with a consistent system wins every time.

The "good admin" is your local knowledge, and FreeBSD is your consistent system.

PS, regarding OEM driver support, OEM support even in Linux, is proving to be poor quality. The OEM's might know their hardware and Windows very well, but how well do they know Linux for example? I'll continue to choose hardware based on how well it is documented. That is where the real support is in OSS.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[bccomm]

Why is it that every time something happens in the FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, et al. communities (or, at least, when it gets on slashdot) some Linux zealot (AC) has to go touting the problems of FreeBSD (note only one)? ALL OSes have problems! IMHO, all of the BSD derivatives (NetBSD for me) suck less than any of the other 73(!) OSes I've ever tried. Also, this wasn't even about FreeBSD: I hate it when people like you treat the BSDs as if they're all the same, with FreeBSD being the ringleader and the only one with commercial support (ever hear of Wasabi Systems?). If you don't like the BSDs, why would you waste your time on BSD slashdot? Do you seriously think you're going to magically make us care?

Now, I, like most other hackers, am a libertarian in most ways: I believe you have the right to express an opinion. But seriously, what the hell are you trying to prove? Mod me flamebait if you will, but I for one am tired of all the supposedly-unbiased BSD-against-Linux crap. This is not meant to offent anyone (besides the parent AC), but really, why can't Linux and BSD users just stop pissing each other off?

*Storms away*

PS: I do use Linux (Debian and Slack at school, at home I run a multiboot system with 4 different Linuxes and 9 other systems) on occasion and find them nice for some things (like good binary packages).

PPS: Debian has many packages (and is a good all-around distro), but I'll need to see some lists *without* virtual packages, dummy packages, meta packages, stubs, and a zillion different libraries that are normally bundled with their respective reverse-dependancies before I will believe that FreeBSD's collection isn't larger. Also, Woody still has less than FreeBSD, and you really shouldn't (at least, I wouldn't) use Sid on a server

-Bruce
-----------
|\|3+85D: f0r t3h r3a1 133+ h4x0r5!!!!!1 Those who know will attest! They will agree! They already use it! They will not use annoying hacker-esque stereotypes!

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[IEFBR14]

Actually, Wasabi supports NetBSD.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

What a laughably indadequate response. First, you don't counter ANY of the points raised; instead, you compare FreeBSD with Fedora. If you'd read the post properly, you'd see that the author also dismisses Fedora. He/she talks about Debian, so your point is completely moot.

Second, you say that a good FreeBSD admin will beat a bad Linux admin. Well, duh. A good Windows admin will beat a bad FreeBSD admin too.

Amazing. The BSD zealots STILL can't refute the strenghts of Linux, instead opting to hand-wave their way out of the argument. Sheesh!

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Homology]

Amazing. The BSD zealots STILL can't refute the strenghts of Linux, instead opting to hand-wave their way out of the argument. Sheesh!

When I first saw your post, I thought you where just another Slashdot troll, and did not reply. If it was not a troll, then I must say that your reasons and methology is superficial. I would not trust your jugdement based upon this, nor should your managers.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymovs Coward]

This story is on NetBSD -- for that reason alone, your story is offtopic, flamebait and a troll.

Regrettably, however, there is truth in a lot of what you say. There was a time when FreeBSD was clearly a superior solution to Linux in every department, but today Linux has better SMP support, far better hardware support, and better software support too. FreeBSD 5.x is still not really "stable", 4.x is very stable but has lagging hardware support and poor SMP and threading, and the linuxulator can handle most but not all Linux binaries.

As for NetBSD, some of the above applies to it too. Its hardware support is often a bit better than FreeBSD (or even Linux -- NetBSD was the first free OS to have USB support, for example). But the smallness of its userbase means it will always lag linux in some hardware support and some usability aspects at the very least.

Nevertheless, after a year or so with Linux, I switched back to BSD (specifically, to DragonFly, a FreeBSD fork). Why? For the learning experience. The BSDs take their documentation seriously: not just commands and function names, but entire kernel subsystems are carefully documented in the manpages. And the source code is much cleaner. These things didn't matter to me earlier but I'm doing more and more programming now and find BSD a much nicer environment. You also learn a lot lurking on the lists. The linux kernel list is just too chaotic for me, this is not my primary focus in life. FreeBSD has the sense to use separate lists for separate topics (-current, -stable, -hackers, -mobile, -arch, -hardware, and most crucially -chat for the "offtopic" stuff), and DragonFly is still small enough that its lists are quite clean.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

First, you don't counter ANY of the points raised; instead, you compare FreeBSD with Fedora. If you'd read the post properly, you'd see that the author also dismisses Fedora. He/she talks about Debian, so your point is completely moot.

No, actually I did read the post. Debian is easy to take care of (when all goes smoothly) but does not provide the support that the enterprise expects, which Fedora does.

Second, you say that a good FreeBSD admin will beat a bad Linux admin. Well, duh. A good Windows admin will beat a bad FreeBSD admin too.

Read it again, fuckwit. Talk about, "If you'd read the post properly"! I said, "I'll take FreeBSD with a good admin, over Fedora with a good admin, any day".

Amazing. The BSD zealots STILL can't refute the strenghts of Linux, instead opting to hand-wave their way out of the argument. Sheesh!

You need to improve your comprehension skills. I do not refute the strengths of Linux, in fact I have deployed more Debian Linux than BSD. My point is, that ANY Unix system that requires daily admin, also requires a good admin, since the "support" you get from ANY Unix is not enough to cover the weaknesses of a lesser admin. Where a good admin is on the job, a consistent platform shines. FreeBSD is consistent and Debian is too for that matter. I happen to prefer FreeBSD for systems that I use every day and Debian for systems which I only attend every now and then.

OK, so here are the points and my stance on them (it might shock you to know that I might not actually disagree with all of them):

Performance

Single CPU server: FreeBSD just edged ahead of Linux on this one.

A pretty generic statement. Hardly detailed.

Multi CPU server: With kernel 2.6, Linux performed considerably better than both FreeBSD 4.9 and 5.2.1. The updated SMP code and revised scheduler have worked wonders here, so 1 for Linux.

True. For now.

Desktop: Linux 2.6 is much faster than either FreeBSD, particularly when the system is heavily loaded. Application start times are slightly better, while responsiveness is remarkably superior to FreeBSD. Another 1 for Linux.

There have been times, when I've been compiling a BSD kernel in the background and completely forgot. I noticed no difference in responsiveness while the CPU is regularly near 100% occupancy and only slight delays with IDE disks when they are thrashing.

Stability

Linux distributions vary greatly in terms of stability, with Mandrake Linux and Fedora Core aiming for bleeding-edge desktop features, while Slackware and Debian put great emphasis on stability. FreeBSD is indeed a reliable OS, but the smaller development and testing community puts it behind Linux

FreeBSD behind Linux on stability? Garbage. They are both very close, assuming we're talking about the Linux kernel at it's best and not gcc optimized to hell by some distro that gives up stability for marginal performance gains.

I see FreeBSD as being slightly more stable than Linux, but this is only my subjective opinion.

additionally, there are more full-time Linux developers working with commercial companies on hardware support and core component testing.

Yes and I have done my fair share in the past. I've since moved over to the very clean BSD's and I'm no longer under NDA.

Commercial hardware companies fall into a few major categories. 1. Full documentation of hardware or driver source. 2. NDA documentation of hardware, resulting in binary only drivers or a mixture of some binary and source. 3. No support at all, reverse engineering required.

I don't really want to buy anything from 3 or 2. At least 2 can sometimes give the BSD developers a head start and some leads with some Linux code. With 1, BSD developers can either write their own driver from documentation or port from Linux driver source.

So, that point is moot.

Our Debian and Sla

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Shanep]

Actually, Wasabi supports NetBSD.

I thought that was his point, that FreeBSD is not the only BSD with commercial support.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

'[FreeBSD] Stable is always supported'

er, that's a bit like saying 'fedora is always supported, providing you upgrade with each release'. as the OP said, each x.x release of FreeBSD is only supported by the security team for 12 months. once those 12 months are up, you either upgrade to the next release or face security problems.

now, if you work in a business with lots of systems on the go, that is a _huge_ concern. yes its easy to upgrade freebsd, but even among the stable branch you get changes to libraries, the kernel, supporting apps (ports) etc. fbsd 4.7 and fbsd 4.8 are slightly different in many many ways, and this means that mission-critical apps have to be retested, again and again every 12 months.

that is, unless you don't mind upgrading operating environments without testing. in big business and serious work, thats essential. so although I dont agree with some of the stuff the OP said, he or she was spot-on with the support (should be known as 'release lifespan'). why do you think there was so much discussion when win98 and winnt4 were EOLed? and those were supported for AGES

so freebsd's 12 months doesn't cut it in serious work. sorry, but its a fact. having to upgrade to slightly different environments every 12 months is unacceptable, and a hinderance to fbsd's progress. debian's 2.5ish years isnt great either, but a lot better.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Way to avoid the actual points and issues raised, and instead wander off on tangents. Yet again, a BSDer can't defend with facts, but instead talks about: "Subjectively, FreeBSD is more stable". So what? I never had DOS crash on me either. The REAL facts are that Linux has a MUCH larger testing and QA community, along with the further patching and fixing from distro vendors, so if you want to use code that's been really hammered on, Linux is a far better choice.

Then we come to security. I pointed out that Debian's update system is so, so much easier and simpler than FreeBSD's, which is critical in our business with thousands of machines. You say:

"Do you not read the code changes that you're about to deploy to production systems?"

Eh? Of course! And that has NOTHING to do with the issue. I can check the changes and make sure everything's OK, and then roll-out updates quickly and simply. You know, just because you can binary update an OS, doesn't mean you never see the source.

So your point is redundant and irrelevant. In BOTH OSes you can read the code changes. But in one you have to mess around with downloading and patches, recompiling and installing altered binaries, and in the other it's typically a single command. Guess which one is more suitable for large deployments?

The rest of your response consisted of anecdotal 'proof' (eg "legendary BSD reliability") and deep misunderstanding of technical issues (NetBSD's SMP code having a "flow on effect" to other BSDs -- hint, the FreeBSD and NetBSD kernels are radically different now. In no way can you just drop code from one SMP implementation into another).

The points raised are critical issues, and areas in which Linux has a technical advantage. In each case you come up with some spurious side-tracked argument which holds no water (eg, I point out better commercial support, and your answer is essentially "commercial support is often crap anyway". So what? Linux still has a wider range!).

Next time, try to refute points with coherent and logical counter-arguments. Not rose-spectacled mumblings and tangental anecdotes.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

why can't Linux and BSD users just stop pissing each other off?

You'll stop pissing us off, when you stop posting your bullshit about your toy "OS", then we'll stop pissing you off by pointing out its lack of quality and other flaws that lead to its demise. Agreed?

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, you have shown that you have comprehension troubles. If you have trouble comprehending English, I imagine C might be too much for you and that is why you are a one command admin.

Your argument is that Debian is easy to update and therefore the best for large networks. My argument is that any important Unix server or network, needs a good admin who will be proficient with any Unix. He won't need Debian because he can do as well or better with Unix tools regardless of whether he is using Debian or a BSD.

I never had DOS crash on me either.

DOS has crashed on me MANY times. What have you been doing all that time with DOS? Spending all your time in edit?

The REAL facts are that Linux has a MUCH larger testing and QA community, along with the further patching and fixing from distro vendors, so if you want to use code that's been really hammered on, Linux is a far better choice.

Look at how much more secure Linux is over the BSD's...

Debian Linux 2.x 56 advisories in 2003, 37 in 2002.

FreeBSD 4.x 24 advisories in 2003, 7 in 2002.

Debian 3.x 186 advisories in 2003, 62 in 2002 (55 so far for 2004).

FreeBSD 5.x 21 advisories in 2003 (6 so far for 2004).

NetBSD 1.x 19 advisories in 2003, 14 in 2002 (4 so far for 2004).

Then we come to security. I pointed out that Debian's update system is so, so much easier and simpler than FreeBSD's, which is critical in our business with thousands of machines.

If you need the ease of Debian, you are a failure.

"Do you not read the code changes that you're about to deploy to production systems?"

Eh? Of course! And that has NOTHING to do with the issue. I can check the changes and make sure everything's OK, and then roll-out updates quickly and simply. You know, just because you can binary update an OS, doesn't mean you never see the source.

So you assume the binary that you are about to deploy, came from the good source? Monkey see, monkey do.

So your point is redundant and irrelevant. In BOTH OSes you can read the code changes.

No, actually my point goes deeper than what you seem to be capable of seeing. My point is that you can't trust a binary unless you compile it yourself. If you compile it yourself, you can also deploy that binary, just as quickly as you could in Debian. If I had an important Debian server, I would compile patches.

There is a huge difference between reading code changes and being sure that the binary you have, only contains those changes. The fix for that is to compile it yourself.

But in one you have to mess around with downloading and patches, recompiling and installing altered binaries, and in the other it's typically a single command. Guess which one is more suitable for large deployments?

A large deployment, requires a team which includes a testing team who reads patch code, compiles it, tests it on a staging server and then deploys it gradually. They don't need Debian for that. They can do it with ANY Unix and that is my point.

They would NEVER just deploy a binary from a project (read any project) which has their servers compromised every now and then. I have taken care of some of the largest WAN's on Earth, including financial and edu. A one command admin who is too lazy to read patches, compile them, test, then deploy, would not be acceptable there. If you honestly think that Debian's one command updating offsets the burden of taking care of many machines, then you shouldn't be taking care of large networks.

I realise that you could have a Debian staging server and point apt to it, but if you are going to all that trouble, for a large network, then you don't need Debia

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

DOS has crashed on me MANY times. What have you been doing all that time with DOS? Spending all your time in edit?

Wow, once again you completely miss the point. I've no doubt that DOS was prone to crashes. But you were saying "subjectively, FreeBSD is more stable to me", and I was demonstrating how redundant such a comment was. Subjectively, DOS was stable in my use, but that doesn't mean it IS per se. So anecdotal 'evidence' is meaningless.

Look at how much more secure Linux is over the BSD's...

Ooh, that's REALLY scraping the barrel -- and it's sad. If I had used such 'stats' to prove a point, you'd have jumped all over me because we both know they're meaningless. Most significantly, Debian has a much larger number of packages to maintain, and in many cases Debian uses multiple packages where FreeBSD uses one. So that makes your argument useless from the start.

On top of that, it may surprise you to learn that a lot of FreeBSD Ports go unmaintained -- quite a few are marked as broken, and others don't see updates for large amounts of time. If the FreeBSD project maintained the same number of packages as Debian and with the same level of quality and consistency, the figures you quoted may be more accurate. But with fewer Ports, broken Ports and unmaintained Ports, it's laughable to even compare them.

Finally, when talking about Linux-specific low-level components (kernel, glibc etc.), many security advisories have no known exploit and are fixed to stop any potential problems in future. Think about it: Linux's developer and testing community is at least 10x larger than FreeBSD's, and includes many professionals working full-time on security matters. If you shifted these hundreds (possibly thousands) of people over to the FreeBSD kernel, you'd start to see a lot more hard-to-find security issues being discovered too.

Desktop: Using your arguments, Windows is the best choice here.

But it isn't. It's about FreeBSD vs Linux. Why can't you stay on track? I never mentioned Windows, and the fact that you have to bring it up is a sign that you can't argue the matter in hand.

It's like in your previous post. I'd mentioned that Linux has much broader hardware support, and your argument was that "BSD developers can copy Linux drivers". So what? That doesn't change what's actually true HERE and NOW!

Commercial Support: Has proven to be no match for mailing lists.

Oh, come on. Try telling that to your boss. Sure, as a geek I agree with you that newsgroups, mailing lists and IRC almost always offer a solution, but that doesn't matter in the real world. When a critical server falls down, you can't say "Boss, I know this guy called [HaCkD00d] on #freebsd, let me see if he's around". You need someone to call, to divert the blame, and someone who can be out 24x7.

As said, that doesn't matter so much to me personally, but you're insane if you're dismissing the value of commercial support. It's one of the reasons Windows is doing so well. Big companies need this, and as such, Linux is a better choice for them right now.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was demonstrating how redundant such a comment was. Subjectively, DOS was stable in my use, but that doesn't mean it IS per se. So anecdotal 'evidence' is meaningless.

I never meant for my anecdotes to be taken as evidence or proof, which is WHY I used the word "subjective".

Subjectively, DOS was quite stable for me too. But having used it I could not say that it has "never" crashed on me. Every version I ever used, since 3.3, I managed to crash with normal use, from time to time.

Your anecdote demonstration is ridiculous, because I fail to see how anyone can claim that DOS (to have used it long enough to be able to make stability claims) never crashed on them and then be taken seriously. Saying that about Linux, a BSD or even Windows XP is beleivable.

My anecdote is real, as perceived by myself. It also holds true against anecdotes of other BSD users. Your DOS anecdote does not. If my anecdote does not hold true against Linux user anecdotes, then we have a very difficult to resolve dilema. But then, I am not the one claiming one is more stable than the other. An anecdote is all that I can provide, so I make it obvious that that is what I am providing. You on the other hand, have faith...

The hipocrisy is that your claim that Linux is more stable than FreeBSD, is based on this theory of more eyes looking at code. Can you prove it is more stable? If not, then that seems worse than anecdotes. At least I disclaim my anecdotes as being subjective.

When I specifically use the word "subjective", I hope that the reader is inteligent enough to realise that I am openly NOT trying to provide proof or appear to be.

OpenBSD has very few eyes, yet very high security. You can argue that this is because so much is not switched on by default, but the truth is that many services which get remote root in Linux, merely allow a DoS of that service within OpenBSD, assuming that it wasn't already patched by OpenBSD developers, long ago (which happens from time to time, maybe those Linux eyes should look at BSD every now and then).

If I had used such 'stats' to prove a point, you'd have jumped all over me because we both know they're meaningless.

Be careful. I did NOT claim that FreeBSD IS more stable than Linux. I was trying to show that they are very close, which I have stated in this thread. Any slight difference that I perceive, is just that, perception. I stated that, plain as day. Please take my words as they are. You are reading more than what I convey.

Finally, when talking about Linux-specific low-level components (kernel, glibc etc.), many security advisories have no known exploit and are fixed to stop any potential problems in future.

The same thing can be said about BSD specific vulnerabilities. Especially OpenBSD. They go to town closing things they find, regardless of how remote it might seem to be able to exploit them.

Linux's developer and testing community is at least 10x larger than FreeBSD's, and includes many professionals working full-time on security matters.

There are plenty of professionals working full time on BSD code. Many of which don't have to be up front about it and give back, because of the BSD licence. BSD code ends up in lots of places that you might not know about. Some companies do give back, like Apple. I know of a photocopier that runs NetBSD, a few security appliances that run OpenBSD and storage appliances that run FreeBSD. That's just off the top of my head.

With this in mind, I ask you to prove your, "Linux's developer and testing community is at least 10x larger than FreeBSD's" claim. You attack me for openly providing an obvious subjective anecdote and then make a claim like that. You'll need to prove the number in the Linux camp and prove to number in the (often closed) BSD camp, before you can put the words "at", "least" and "10x" together in a statement regarding Linux and BSD dev/testing population. I'm sure

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a worthless incoherent fucking rambling pile of drivel if ever I've seen one. You managed to get on your high horse and get very offended at lots of things but that was about all.

Come back when you learn how to form coherent arguments and succinctly communicate your points. Until then I won't bother wasting my time with you.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

Two things, then:

1) That offensive reply, shortly after you posted, wasn't from me. Hey, I may disagree with some of the things you've said but you clearly know your stuff and I like a good debate.

2) You've also side-stepped some of my points (eg about Debian having more packages, and some of FreeBSD's Ports being unmaintained), so we're both guilty of that.

Might get some time later to write a proper response...

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

Two things, then:

1) That offensive reply, shortly after you posted, wasn't from me. Hey, I may disagree with some of the things you've said but you clearly know your stuff and I like a good debate.

I felt that it probably was not you.

I respect your opinions, some are quite thought provoking.

2) You've also side-stepped some of my points (eg about Debian having more packages, and some of FreeBSD's Ports being unmaintained), so we're both guilty of that.

I honestly have not tried to side-step any comments. Pull me up on them and I will try to address it.

It seems to me that Debian has lots of unmaintained packages, metas, fake, whatever and it seems difficult to accurately compare the practical state of Debian packages with FreeBSD packages and it's certainly very difficult to compare stability. I did not want to be an asshole and link to Netcraft's uptime stats, because I'm sure we both know that uptime counters roll over in some Linux and BSD kernels, so it's hard to qualify.

Might get some time later to write a proper response...

The really thought provoking stuff you've started me on, is that even Debian and FreeBSD have a major hurdle in corporate acceptance due to ongoing support. I've worked in large places and with people who would maintain private trees, but they were stock exchange and telco type of high end. Most corporates wouldn't bother with private tree maintenance.

Maybe some would maintain private trees with nothing more than back porting, but that would become a bigger and bigger headache as time goes on.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

Come back when you learn how to form coherent arguments and succinctly communicate your points.

After 14 years of online discussions, I've learned to not succinctly communicate my points. Because if I am not verbose, I run the risk of being misinterpretted.

Certainly, maybe I can reduce the length of points and improve the meaning. I'm trying to work on that.

Thanks for the feedback.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

After 14 years of online discussions, I've learned to not succinctly communicate my points. Because if I am not verbose, I run the risk of being misinterpretted.

No, it might seem like you are winning your arguments or getting your points across because your audience has left or is asleep.

Certainly, maybe I can reduce the length of points and improve the meaning. I'm trying to work on that.

That would be nice.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry I was rude to you, BTW.

I've had a lot a stress lately, with family, money, health, etc...

Spending Easter arguing over the merits of BSD and Linux is not my idea of fun. : / The irony is that I've been spending the past couple days downloading Gentoo 2004.0 ISO's over 56k dial-up and Debian is by far my favourite Linux distro and one of my favorite shirts is the Debian Code shirt, which is now very worn out. ; )

I prefer OpenBSD and NetBSD, but I need to chill out! The Gentoo download is almost finished (has about 9 hours to go), so I should be enjoying it soon. I think this is the most I've ever downloaded over such a short period (over 56k), about 1.3GB in about 85 hours.

Re:FreeBSD vs Linux - check it out!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it might seem like you are winning your arguments

This is not a competition for everyone.

You don't have to read it.

Elegy read at Quarterly Meeting

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

BSD is dead!

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD is so dead, it had to be dissolved in penguin urine!

Virtual machine monitor : Xen

[Homology]

The new port Xen virtual machine monitor for i386 sure looks interesting. The guest OS has to be ported to the Xen architecture, though.

Re:Virtual machine monitor : Xen

[pschmied]

My understanding that this _IS_ the guest OS port to the Xen architecture. Check it out at http://www.netbsd.org/Changes/#newportxen.

Now, who knows what operating systems can host the Xen virtual machine monitor.

-Peter

Re:Virtual machine monitor : Xen

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe the xen virtual machine monitor doesn't run on top of an os. does it?

Re:Virtual machine monitor : Xen

[Guy Harris]

maybe the xen virtual machine monitor doesn't run on top of an os. does it?

No, it doesn't. See the SOSP paper on Xen (and the Xen Web site).

Here is a reprint to avoid the Slashdot effect..

[Anonymous Coward]

Report of Quarter 1 2004 NetBSD

Number of Users

* Still just me a a vampire called Gary. We are vsiting more and more graveyards to get new blood into the team.

Significant Bug Fixes

* I fixed the typo in the word "starting" at BSD boot time.

Vital Signs

* Pulse seems to still be just a flatline at this stage. We are somewhat disappointed at this state of affairs. Gary reckons we should look into kryogenics.

How we compare to the competition out there

* I tried out this kernel called Linux the other day and was really impressed. Not only was the operating system bootable and solid, it appears that is ws able to run these thing called Applications.

Financial Status

* 156 Pesos and one Video Hire Voucher.

Future

* Now that we have firmly establised a "community" presence in the BSD section of Slashdot, we expect to get far more friends. Everone there is postive about our project an wished us the best of luck.

End of Report

This report written with vi.

GNAA Confirms:

[Anonymous Coward]

*
_d8b____________________d8b_______d8,
_?88____________________88P______`8P
__88b__________________d88
__888888b__.d888b,_d888888________88b_.d888b,
__88P_`?8b_?8b,___d8P'_?88________88P_?8b,
_d88,__d88___`?8b_88b__,88b______d88____`?8b
d88'`?88P'`?888P'_`?88P'`88b____d88'_`?888P'

______d8b________________________d8b
______88P________________________88P
_____d88________________________d88
_d888888___d8888b_d888b8b___d888888
d8P'_?88__d8b_,dPd8P'_?88__d8P'_?88
88b__,88b_88b____88b__,88b_88b__,88b
`?88P'`88b`?888P'`?88P'`88b`?88P'`88b

Happy Easter

[britneys 9th husband]

Matthew 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the users, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek *BSD, which was crucified.

Matthew 28:6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where *BSD lay.

Matthew 28:7 And let us not troll slashdot with further announcements of his death, for *BSD is risen.