Slashdot Mirror
NetBSD Sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record
Daniel de Kok writes "Researchers of the Swedish University Network
(SUNET) have beaten the Internet2 Land Speed Record using two Dell 2650 machines with single 2GHz CPUs running NetBSD 2.0 Beta. SUNET has transferred around
840 GigaBytes of data in less than 30 minutes, using a single IPv4 TCP stream, between a host at the Luleå
University of Technology and a host connected to a Sprint PoP in San Jose, CA, USA. The
achieved speed was 69.073 Petabit-meters/second. According to the research team, NetBSD was chosen 'due to the scalability of the TCP code.'"
"More information about this record including the NetBSD configuration can be found at:
http://proj.sunet.se/LSR2/
The website of the Internet2 Land Speed Record (I2-LSR) competition is located at:
http://lsr.internet2.edu/"
i rule
...but don't the three main BSD projects use pretty much the same TCP/IP stack?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Fools, BSD is dea . . . oh, wait, what?
trustedworlds.net - gaming, security, and the gunk that lives in between
GO!!!!
I was so close to fp...
They will still get slashdotted.
Thanks for listening.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
how about we get 1MBS real downloadspeed in everyones home before we go shooting porn to reach ISP owners at the speed of light.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of graveyards.
I thought that stuff was dead.
Yet another sickening blow has struck what's left of the *BSD community, as a soon-to-be-released report by the independent Commision for Technology Management (CTM) after a year-long study has concluded: *BSD is already dead. Here are some of the commission's findings:
Fact: NetBSD, which claims to focus on portability (whatever that is supposed to mean), is slow, and cannot take advantage of multiple CPUs. "That about drove the last nail in the coffin for BSD use here," said Michael Curry, CTO of Amazon.com. "We took our NetBSD boxes out to the backyard and shot them in the head. We're much happier running Linux."
Fact: the *BSDs have balkanized yet again. There are now no less than twelve separate, competing *BSD projects, each of which has introduced fundamental incompatibilities with the other *BSDs, and frequently with Unix standards. Average number of developers in each project: fewer than five. Average number of users per project: there are no definitive numbers, but reports show that all projects are on the decline.
Fact: X.org will not include support *BSD. The newly formed group believes that the *BSDs have strayed too far from Unix standards and have become too difficult to support along with Linux and Solaris x86. "It's too much trouble," said one anonymous developer. "If they want to make their own standards, let them doing the porting for us."
Fact: DragonflyBSD, yet another offshoot of the beleaguered FreeBSD "project", is already collapsing under the weight of internal power struggles and in-fighting. "They haven't done a single decent release," notes Mark Baron, an industry watcher and columnist. "Their mailing lists read like an online version of a Jerry Springer episode, complete with food fights, swearing, name-calling, and chair-throwing." Netcraft reports that DragonflyBSD is run on exactly 0% of internet servers.
Fact: There are almost no FreeBSD developers left, and its use, according to Netcraft, is down to a sadly crippled
Fact: *BSD has no support from the media. Number of Linux magazines available at bookstores: 5 (Linux Journal, Linux World, Linux Developer, Linux Format, Linux User). Number of available *BSD magazines: 0. Current count of Linux-oriented technical books: 1071. Current count of *BSD books: 6.
Fact: Many user-level applications will no longer work under *BSD, and no one is working to change this. The GIMP, a Photoshop-like application, has not worked at all under *BSD since version 1.1 (sorry, too much trouble for such a small base, developers have said). OpenOffice, a Microsoft Office clone, has never worked under *BSD and never will. ("Why would we bother?" said developer Steven Andrews, an OpenOffice team lead.)
Fact: servers running OpenBSD, which claims to focus on security, are frequently compromised. According to Jim Markham, editor of the online security forum SecurityWatch, the few OpenBSD servers that exist on the internet have become a joke among the hacker community. "They make a game out of it," he says. "(OpenBSD leader) Theo [de Raadt] will scramble to make a new patch to fix one problem, and they've already compromised a bunch of boxes with a different exploit."
With these incontroverible facts staring (what's left of) the *BSD community in the face, they can only draw one conclusion: *BSD is already dead.
How does that work?
hello. im new to this website. anyway - give me a call:
+447743552957
Does this mean we've broken the "station wagon loaded with DVD's" barrier yet?
We can now DoS sites at even faster speed !
This signature was left intentionally blank.
cleaning their pants out? I'm also dusting off the old BSDemon shirt.
-- the only good thing the French ever did was two chicks at one time
What is a petabit-meter? How is it a significant measure of transmission speed?
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
TCP may be flawed, but at least it's still scalable.
when UDP has so much less overhead?
Did they check for any inband compression? They data they're sending isn't randomised.
840GB/30 minutes = 466 MB/s, or 3,728 Mbps
SUNET Internet2 Land Speed Record: 69.073 Pbmps
Now give me my carma..
BSD isn't dying!!!!!!!!
Evolution or ID?
What was the slogan of the recent pro-piracy demo in Sweden? "Vi vil har sex, vi vil har sex, vi vil har 600MBit!"?
Somebody should show Valentini this, I wonder what he'd say...
Val: "You students transfered how much?"
Sunnet: "About 30 movies a minute"
Val: "Un-fucking beli-Oh wait, I already said that..."
..transferring 840 gb of swedish porn across the pond. ;)
Use Minidisc? Join the Minidisc.org forums.
When is this supposed to be available for the average joe to use?
Also, what measures (if any) have they taken to combat the current internet's limitations and vulnerabilities?
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
My guess is that it's petabits times meters (as in physical distance between the machines). Which seems kind of stupid -- if the distance makes any real difference, something is wrong. How about communicating with Voyager II -- then you could get some real numbers, even at modem speeds!
Plus, I'm betting it's not a "land" speed record, seeing as how the data probably jumps through the air (satillite/microwave transmissions) at one or more points. (Not to mention the fact that being on, over, or under the surface of land or water means nothing to a data cable.)
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
"According to the Internet2 LSR contest rule #5A, IPv4 TCP single stream"
vodka, straight up, thank you!
Considering how Sweden is nowhere even close to the size of the United States' Internet2.edu backbone, this is absolutely insignificant. When Swedish scientists transmit that much data across a country the size of the US, send me an email.
(((840*1024)/30)/60) = 477.86 MB/s or 3,823 Mbps
Sorry, but I've seen much higher rates of it than this.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
I've heard that joke, "never under estimate the bandwidth of a 78 chevy and a box of hard drives," but now I don't know about that one anymore.
Just wait till you see the bandwidth of my minivan loaded with backup tapes!
it a break,U if our ability to
So, is this just using a secure connection on our internet, or did they go ahead and string up an all new internet for no one but theirselves to be on? I don't really see the point of the latter - why not dump the money into vastly improving the current internet and stomping out spammers and things that make the place bad?
SecondPageMedia - Wha
Perhaps because they wanted the data to arrive reliably?
UDP just sends off the data without caring whether it actually arrives intact at the other end, you know. TCP, on the other hand, actually gives delivery guarantees...
Oh where, oh where is my BSD?
It was Beta 2.0 (Free).
It's gone to heaven, so I've got to be good,
So I can see the OS when I leave this world.
I'd started to load it, got the CD at last,
A Slashdot story said 'twas lightning-fast.
During the load, it crashed the heads,
the distro was stalled, *BSD was dead.
I couldn't stop it, so I yanked the cord.
I'll never forget, the sound , oh Lord--
the screamin' drives, the speaker's blast,
the painful scream that I-- heard last.
Oh where, oh where is my *BSD?
That load took it away from me.
It's gone to heaven, so I've got to be good,
So I can see *BSD when I leave this world.
When I woke up, the sparks were pourin down.
There were admins standin all around.
Some burned-out chips had fallen on the tiles,
but somehow I found my disc of files.
I lifted the CD, the devil winked and said,
"Load me darlin just a little while."
I held it close, I kissed the label--our last kiss.
I found the love that i knew i had missed
well now it's gone, even though I loaded it right
I lost my *BSD and the Dell-- that night.
Oh where, oh where is my *BSD?
I tried to load it yesterday.
It's gone to heaven so I've got to be good,
So I can see *BSD when I leave this world.
When I next went to Slashdot, where so many had trolled.
Any so many times "BSD's Dead!" was told.
Tears fallin' on the keyboard, I checked "Anonymous"
and I eulogized *BSD, in memory, of us....
When I logged on next, my post was modded down.
In my heartbreak and sorrow, treated like a clown....
No matter what the mods do, it's in my heart and head
We'll always know "*BSD IS DEAD!"
Oh where, oh where is my *BSD?
I tried to load it yesterday.
It's gone to heaven so I've got to be good,
So I can see *BSD when I leave this world.
We need to get to the point where the only limiting factor is the human in front of the computer. I hate waiting for my computer, whether its downloading a file or waiting 2 seconds for a web browser to start. Everything should be instant - I am excited for the day that nothing happens on a computer slower than I can think about it. A 2 hour HDTV movie is about 20 gigabytes - download it to me in less than a second and prompt me what to do next.
Re: your sig...
;)
To provide more relevacne for the band you might want to use something like the following:
Googling up my brother's Acid Metal band, Ahymsa
Google places more weight on the text that's actually inside the link
Read the Fucking Summary ;)
That depends on whether the DVDs are in cases or not I think.
At 9.4 GB per DVD (Assume single-layer double-sided DVD-R), and a travel time of 3 weeks from Sweeden to California (2 weeks on the boat, one week of driving), you'd need to get about 90,000 DVDs in your station wagon to get an effective 1680 GB/hr. That wouldn't be possible if they were in cases, but if it was just the DVDs, it's probably a close call. Might have to upgrade to dual-layer DVD's, or change the saying to "an SUV full of DVD's".
On the other hand, if you count the time to actually read the data off of the DVDs (even worse if you count the time to put the data on the DVDs too), the station wagon of DVD's barrier was broken long ago - you probably couldn't spin a DVD fast enough to get 9.4 GB of data off it in 20 seconds.
paintball
Everything should be instant
I bet you were a little shithead when you were a kid.
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a somewhat useless measure? I mean, I suppose that the longer a link is, the more interference, but really, seems like a rather pointless mesure to me.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
http://adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.10.2.33542 .4010.html
This was just node to node.. when they build a network that 1 billion users can simultaneously transfer data TO EACH OTHER at 100 Mbps (yes I'll be happy with Mbps) .. wake me up.
S.
if internet2 is so fast, then why do you want to replace internet4 by internet6 instead of internet2?
;)
It took me a few seconds to realize he was confusing IP with Internet. After that I said it was impossible to send email over internet2 and he seemed quite satisfied with the answer
sig(h)
It's dead, but it is fast? Click here to see another example of this.
Notice that you accidentally dotted an "a", you cursive-writing moron! If you would just print like a regular person, that would never happen.
True story.
still held by Norway
sulli
RTFJ.
Now I can get my Swedish Bikini team pictures faster than ever!
I2 isn't going to replace the Internet some day, it's more of an acedemic playground not a construction project.
is how quickly I can download the latest MS patch. Don't laugh too much, with an ADSL line it's around 2.6 Mb/s
Semper ubi sub ubi
Now we can download pirate proof movies and songs at even greater speed!
Of course we cant watch or listen to them, but man... hell of a download rate.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Man I hate to be on the recieving end of a Denial of Service attack on Internet 2. 900 gigabytes of data /30 min from multiple sourses would be crushing.
Veramocor
Actually google doesn't index a lot of /. because there aren't enough inter article links to find all the articles and because google just gets the default page setup a lot of comments are hidden, not to mention Google only indexes a certain amount of dynamic data from a particular site to avoid causing what was once called "the google effect" when a poorly designed web app on a slow server would be hammered as google crawled the catalog.
Click here. Order early, and order often!
How does that work?
Microsoft CPU sharing! It's the latest bug^h^h^hfeature
I remember the same thing being said about the actual Internet back in the mid-late 1980s. Academic playground, won't amount to much.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
well depends on how many tapes but a rough guess is... 10000 tapes * 20 GB / tape = 200000 GB 200000 GB * 8 bits/byte = 1.6 petabytes 1.6 petabytes * 30 m/s = 48 petabyte-meters/second
Cool, I live in Luleå, I actually have my internet connection supplied by the university. I wonder how long before I can get Internet that fast.
They Stole Sprint's DS-3 cards!
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
How different is the Linux stack that the *BSD stacks? Is there that large a performance difference?
And a better question, if NetBSD has a better stack, why doesn't Linux just adopt it? After all, it *is* BSD license..
Or is it just good old pride getting in the way again?
Rocket-powered corpses make very fast toboggans.
One of the biggest problems in networking is handling a large bandwidth-delay product (that's the amount of data in flight at once). Since distance increases the delay it is relevant.
If anyone cares, a connection with a large bandwidth delay product is sometimes called a long fat pipe. A good networking book should discuss this. I think Steven's TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1 has a section on it(my copy is at work.)
(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))
Any thoughts on why they chose to use Dell 2650s?
If the BSD stack is so secure then why isnt everyone using it?
So I have 100 peta-bytes of 0's I can compress into a few bytes (a number) then send over my 56k modem to Voyager and break all records in exsistance. What I'm getting at is I hope there is some kind of spec for the data they are transmitting, as compression can invalidate all results.
They might claim that NetBSD scales best, but it took some code changes to get it to do so (which have since been picked up and are included in the base).
:-)
The REAL reason for why they picked NetBSD is that Ragge (Anders Magnusson), the person doing a fair chunk of the testing, is heavily involved in the project and knows the code base. It was simply easiest to work with for him.
Why use DVDs in a station wagon when you can use the Creative Nomad Jukebox Zen Xtra (60 GB, arguably smaller size:storage ration) in a greyhound bus? hell, strap some rockets onto the bus and you can make it even faster.
Very impressive. I have few questions, though: how does it compare to quantum units? Could NetBSD be used as a basis for cheap routers in New York?
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Haven't the swiss already beating this?? CNET
Pff. They only have a tcpdump of the first 32 megs.
I wont believe it till i can see the whole thing.
Sweden to California? Just how have they routed this new Internet?
All the cool scientists are using Gibibytes ;)
" How about some evidence of that? Where is this 512 way smp machine running linux?"
Thought I was bluffing, did you? :-)
It's the SGI Altix. In a linux-kernel post just today, an Altix user says that "Overall, linux scales to 512p much better than I would have predicted." This system runs with Itanium-II processors BTW.
So there you go, Linux handling a 512-way box tolerably well. Linux screams on an IBM 64-way box, with Xeon or Power 4 processors.
This has got to be one of the worst arguments ever created by man. we would probably be a few hundrded years ahead in terms of technology if people didn't ever use this argument. Here is one: If Linux is so good why isn't everyone using it?
Creative Demolition
Take a look at readable tcp dump and you'll notice that it is just the ascii character set shifted continuously. Now if you NEVER need disk access then this could be usable (aka isp and router junction points) but once you hit disk you are bottlenecked. Even with U320 SCSI you can only hit 320 MB/s (~2.5Gbit/s) assuming linear reads at full cacity of your full array of disks.
Disk is limiting pretty much anything, such as playing raw 2K video (2048x1556) in real time (seconds is relatively easy but minutes is difficult). I could care less how fast your network speed as when 1 non-solid state device (ie. disk) is entered into the mix the network performance is notional compared to real performance.
"Survival of the fittest Max, and we've got the fucking gun!" - Pi
Hi, Anyone out here have any experience with TCP performance over CDMA1xEVDO link (1.2Mbps limit). I've been hearing a lot about W-TCP which improves the performance of TCP over wireless links like this...but never saw any implementation..anyone have any idea?
Do you really mean GigaBytes or are they really Gibibytes?
Phillip
Fortunately, the water speed record is still well out of reach with current technologies...
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
I think the 850GB was cheating.because the pc's harddrive and bus don't have such power,and maybe the cpu can't have such power and bandwidth.
,but the difference may be omitting
I think even a windows or linux may achive a high record,though yet even lower than it
Dumb terminal. See previous poster for detailed explanation.
Let's assume each DVD weighs 10 grams, then 90 000 of them weighs in at 900 kg, which is more than what a station wagon and even most SUV's can handle.
What did they transfer? random stuff? movies? porn? DV footage? Did they use any compression?
Did anyone else notice the latency of 276.138 ms? Sure, you could pump 1.5 Terabytes per hour, but can you plant the bomb in de_dust?
Go read RFC 1323 (or the post mortem on last weeks deployement fiasco here at work) on why distance matters.
anyone know what the byte-meters/second is of a station wagon doing 80mph full of hard drives?
Hello everyone!
You may know me as the "troll" that posts the "BSD IS DEAD" and all of the "FACTS" to every BSD story on Slashdot. Many people wonder why I do it. The answer is that BSD is detrimental to the open source community.
As a Linux advocate, I have taken upon myself the duty to convince Slashdot readers that BSD is dead and that Linux is the future. If BSD were to gain a bigger marketshare, corporations such as IBM, Oracle, and Sun may be distracted from their interest in Linux.
If you know any BSD users, you must convince them to convert to Linux. These people are slowing down open source developement because developers are distracted from working on Linux programs to make them work with BSD. Imagine how great Gnome/KDE, Mozilla, and Apache would be if the developers didn't have to waste precious time writing code so that it would run on BSD. We need the entire open source community to get behind a single operating system so that developers can focus on achieving our goal, OS dominance.
We can all agree that Microsoft has to go. We cannot allow any other proprietary operating system to take it's place. That narrows it down to the open source operating systems, of which the 2 major options are Linux and BSD. Since Linux already has the larger marketshare, we need to kill off BSD. Once we convert all the BSD developers to Linux, we will have a stronger army.
So what can you do to help? Easy. Find BSD users and developers and convince them to switch to Linux. Do so by any means necessary. You can start out being nice, but be persistent. Don't give up. In the end, they will thank you for enlightening them.
After we destroy BSD, we will need to focus on a single Linux distribution, Fedora. The other Linux distributions are wasting time and causing confusion. We need everyone to focus on Fedora so that it can be made the best operating system ever!
There can be only one open source operating system. Divided we fall. Together we shall rule.
As a great man once said, "Let us never forget the duty, which we have taken upon ourselves."
I think you must be a foolish bsd advocate to make this like a linux advocate did.what a pity and sucks ass
The same goes for doing a copy on transmission. BSD has generally hidden a software checksum and/or copy in the driver, because older hardware didn't support scatter-gather and checksum. Linux didn't hide it. Note that checksum comes free (seriously!) when doing a copy, since you need to access the memory anyway. Now that cards with scatter-gather and checksum are common enough to care about, Linux can take advantage of this feature for "zero-copy transmit". (obviously, the network transmit is itself a copy and the whole point of doing a transmit)
Zero-copy receive, in the BSD style, is a way to kill SMP scalability. It involves remapping pages, which leads to cross-CPU interrupts to invalidate the old mapping. It's cheaper to copy the data.
For a fast 64-way Xeon, of course you don't use Intel's lame interconnect. That won't go past 4 CPUs at any speed. You build your own crossbar interconnect. You do 4 CPUs per node using Intel's bus, then 16 nodes per box via your custom crossbar. The RCU code was originally tuned for boxes like this, with 23 to 64 processors. As you can see it needs some tuning for the 512-way boxes. That's no surprise, and no big deal.
You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day.
Trolled you have been. Lost you have. A nice day you should have.
Yet another sickening blow has struck what's left of the *BSD community, as a soon-to-be-released report by the independent Commision for Technology Management (CTM) after a year-long study has concluded: *BSD is already dead. Here are some of the commission's findings:
.005% of internet servers. A recent attempt at a face-to-face summit in Boulder, Colorado culminated in an out-and-out fistfight between core developers, reportedly over code commenting formats (tabs vs. spaces). Hotel security guards broke up the melee and banned the participants from the hotel. Two of the developers were hospitalized, and one continues to have his jaw wired shut.
Fact: NetBSD, which claims to focus on portability (whatever that is supposed to mean), is slow, and cannot take advantage of multiple CPUs. "That about drove the last nail in the coffin for BSD use here," said Michael Curry, CTO of Amazon.com. "We took our NetBSD boxes out to the backyard and shot them in the head. We're much happier running Linux."
Fact: the *BSDs have balkanized yet again. There are now no less than twelve separate, competing *BSD projects, each of which has introduced fundamental incompatibilities with the other *BSDs, and frequently with Unix standards. Average number of developers in each project: fewer than five. Average number of users per project: there are no definitive numbers, but reports show that all projects are on the decline.
Fact: X.org will not include support *BSD. The newly formed group believes that the *BSDs have strayed too far from Unix standards and have become too difficult to support along with Linux and Solaris x86. "It's too much trouble," said one anonymous developer. "If they want to make their own standards, let them doing the porting for us."
Fact: DragonflyBSD, yet another offshoot of the beleaguered FreeBSD "project", is already collapsing under the weight of internal power struggles and in-fighting. "They haven't done a single decent release," notes Mark Baron, an industry watcher and columnist. "Their mailing lists read like an online version of a Jerry Springer episode, complete with food fights, swearing, name-calling, and chair-throwing." Netcraft reports that DragonflyBSD is run on exactly 0% of internet servers.
Fact: There are almost no FreeBSD developers left, and its use, according to Netcraft, is down to a sadly crippled
Fact: *BSD has no support from the media. Number of Linux magazines available at bookstores: 5 (Linux Journal, Linux World, Linux Developer, Linux Format, Linux User). Number of available *BSD magazines: 0. Current count of Linux-oriented technical books: 1071. Current count of *BSD books: 6.
Fact: Many user-level applications will no longer work under *BSD, and no one is working to change this. The GIMP, a Photoshop-like application, has not worked at all under *BSD since version 1.1 (sorry, too much trouble for such a small base, developers have said). OpenOffice, a Microsoft Office clone, has never worked under *BSD and never will. ("Why would we bother?" said developer Steven Andrews, an OpenOffice team lead.)
Fact: servers running OpenBSD, which claims to focus on security, are frequently compromised. According to Jim Markham, editor of the online security forum SecurityWatch, the few OpenBSD servers that exist on the internet have become a joke among the hacker community. "They make a game out of it," he says. "(OpenBSD leader) Theo [de Raadt] will scramble to make a new patch to fix one problem, and they've already compromised a bunch of boxes with a different exploit."
With these incontroverible facts staring (what's left of) the *BSD community in the face, they can only draw one conclusion: *BSD is already dead.
Quantum Virtualization, aka QV (c)(tm) by me.
Now where did that cat go..?
On the other hand, it can't possibly be any worse than the original...CAN IT?! ;)
... at an OSS conference in Canada.
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.
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