Posted by
michael
on from the thanks-for-all-the-fish-screensavers dept.
Nirbo writes "FreeBSD switches to X.Org, The 'HEADSUP' can be found here, and on the -x11, -current, and -ports mailing lists. Very good news for those FreeBSD users who have either changed to X.Org in anticipation, or have been waiting in hope for this momentous change."
428 comments
So what will become of xfree?
by
drinkypoo
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Everyone seems to be moving to xorg now. Where does this leave xfree? Not that I'm worried about it or anything.
-- "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:So what will become of xfree?
by
wfberg
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Everyone seems to be moving to xorg now. Where does this leave xfree?
Xfree86 will be featured on an upcoming episode of a new MTV hit-show presented by Ashton Kutcher, entitled "FORK'D!".
Re:So what will become of xfree?
by
SquadBoy
·
· Score: 0
Close but no cigar. When they get done with X they well return it all tricked out to the Xfree86 people. X gets tricked out and the Xfree86 people get tricked. Yes it is overhaulin.
--
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics.
Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Re:So what will become of xfree?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Screw XFree86. What I want to know is what are freedesktop/X.org's plans. I'm curious about the progress of XCB/etc.
Re:So what will become of xfree?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You have no use for XCB, since you are only an armchair techie.
Re:So what will become of xfree?
by
gnu-generation-one
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Where does this leave xfree?"
It leaves XFree86 with the world's most complex configuration file, and as the source of most of the linux-related problems people have.
Re:So what will become of xfree?
by
tiger99
·
· Score: 1
The simple answer is that it will die, and quite soon now.
Re:So what will become of xfree?
by
drinkypoo
·
· Score: 1
While I think the XFree config file is somewhat out of control, I believe it strikes a reasonable balance between machine readability and human readability. The only thing you could do to really improve its editability would be to split it out into multiple files. Take a look at a monitor.inf file, look up all the windowing system-related registry entries on windows, and try and tell me that the xf86config is too complex again. Okay, so you will succeed, but the fact is that its complexity is not out of line with what it does.
Also, if you think the xf86config is more complex than sendmail.cf, I've got a PCI to ISA bridge to sell you. It's harder to generate the X config, granted, but it's a lot less complicated.
-- "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:So what will become of xfree?
by
MemoryDragon
·
· Score: 1
You hit the nail on the hand there are certain parts which are only machine readable.
AcceleratedX does it the right way, sort of, it has a nice config program which lets you adjust the whole thing easily and then it has a simplistic config file.
The way X-Free should go...
Split everything apart.
99.999% of the users dont really need refresh line settings and other stuff.
Add a good config program which works both on the command line with ncurses and graphically and add a separate config file with the more complicated stuff, which almost nobody touches anyway (and add warnings to that) and you are basically set.
automatic configuration
by
bcrowell
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
As a FreeBSD desktop user, I'm happy about this simply because of the easier configuration of X windows, regardless of the political aspects. (Well, I'm happy about that, too, since the licensing change of XF86 seemed bogus.) Configuring X has been one of the few remaining big barriers for both Linux and FreeBSD on the desktop.
Too bad that you can't upgrade an existing system without using portupgrade, though. I hate to see portupgrade drifting closer and closer to being a required part of the system. I've had a lot of bad (system-breaking) experiences with it.
Too bad that you can't upgrade an existing system without using portupgrade
O_o
What ever do you mean? I still to this day have not used portupgrade and all my systems are up-to-date.
Re:automatic configuration
by
bcrowell
·
· Score: 1
What ever do you mean? I still to this day have not used portupgrade and all my systems are up-to-date.
Oops! I was about to tell you to RTFA, but then I re-RTFA myself, and realized I'd mis-RTFA. Actually it says you can't do it with portupgrade. My bad:-)
All I meant about portupgrade in general is that there are a lot of situations where you upgrade a library, and recompiling all the affected applications and libraries becomes difficult unless you use portupgrade, but often portupgrade botches the process and you end up hosed.
Re:automatic configuration
by
xanadu-xtroot.com
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
emerge -e world
It's not that hard. Yea OK, it might take a while on slower systems, but it's not hard or "system breaking".
-- I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Re:automatic configuration
by
noselasd
·
· Score: 1
Does Xorg do configuration any diffrent than XFree on FreeBSD ? I see no diffrence on the configuration on the Xorg linux distros I've tried. (Then again most linux distro also provide their own high level config tool as well, no sweat.. )
Re:automatic configuration
by
bcrowell
·
· Score: 1
emerge -e world
Are you talking about FreeBSD, or Gentoo?
Re:automatic configuration
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I hate to see portupgrade drifting closer and closer to being a required part of the system. I've had a lot of bad (system-breaking) experiences with it.
Examples??
I manage 10's of important production FreeBSD machines and I use portupgrade all the time. It's a godsend.
Do you do the following?
1. always read/usr/ports/UPDATING
2. always use -rR flags, e.g, "portupgrade -rR widgetpro". (This is like emerge -Du widgetpro for you gentoo folks).
Actually I can't imagine upgrades working properly *without* portupgrade. e.g., let's say you install package Foo and it depends on Bar v1.1, but you only have Bar v1.0, the FreeBSD ports system will just install both Bar's and confuse you. Then you uninstall Bar v1.0 and it breaks everything that compiled against it. With portupgrade you can either 1) upgrade the whole dependency graph or 2) remove Bar v1.0 *but* keep the.so files in a special directory so your existing stuff doesn't break until you recompile it. Nice!
Plus using portupgrade means you have Ruby installed, and the portupgrade config files are Ruby scripts (e.g., you can read the categories to ignore straight from/usr/sup/refuse if you want instead of hard-coding them, or do all kinds of wild dynamic stuff).
> the FreeBSD ports system will just install both Bar's and confuse you. Then you uninstall Bar v1.0 and it breaks everything that compiled against it.
Well, except for the fact that it won't install bar 1.1 normally, rather, it will tell you that an older version of bar is already installed, and give a suggestion about how to upgrade it.
Exceptions to this exist there where bar 1.0 and 1.1 can coexist peacefully and where there would be a good reason for them to coexist.
Re:automatic configuration
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How was the license change "bogus"? They changed it to the same license that the rest of FreeBSD uses. Its not like BSD has a GPL-compatibility requirement like Debian does.
Re:automatic configuration
by
cerberusss
·
· Score: 1
. . . FreeBSD desktop user . . . X windows . ..
If you're a FreeBSD user, you should know enough about *nix to know that it's either 'X' or 'The X Window System'.
-- 8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
> They changed it to the same license that the rest of FreeBSD uses.
Oh really?
The XFree86 1.1 license has an advertisement clause, the new BSD license (which is what Free/Net/OpenBSD use) does not, so it is definitely not the same.
> Its not like BSD has a GPL-compatibility requirement like Debian does
That is true, and I doubt this was the issue here really.
Re:automatic configuration
by
Mad+Marlin
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you're a FreeBSD user, you should know enough about *nix to know that it's either 'X' or 'The X Window System'.
You are forgetting however, that as a FreeBSD user, he isn't going to be an ass-hat about that sort of thing.
Speaking as a (l)user with an nVidia Riva128 video card (yes, I know
it's old and it sucks and I should get a new one; you may be seated), I
have experienced frustration in the recent past, when XFree86 4.3.x was
limping toward 4.4.0: XFree86 4.2.x had annoying bugs which
unfortunately I can't now remember; the Riva128 driver in the 4.3.99
prerelease packages was broken, and the only way to get a working one
was to use a CVS snapshot; but getting the CVS snapshots working with
any sort of stability was, to put it politely, a challenge.
From the small amount of correspondence I had on the XFree86 mailing
list, the devs seemed rather frustrated at the way things were dragging
along, and not just with a video driver for a ratty little video card
that three people still use. While I'm still mainly using XFree86 for
the moment, I'm definitely watching Xorg with interest.
You know something I dont understand is how is the Xfree licenance un free? Just becouse someone chooses not to use the GNU dosent make it wrong. I believe the BSD licenance is the true meaning of freedom becouse it dosent place silly restrictions on software. In the end I believe the baderging of developers wrong and they should get the credit they deserieve for there hard work.
-e:1:in `decode64': _deprecated_base64 is deprecated; use Base64._deprecated_base64 instead/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/base64.rb:126:in `_deprecated_base64': super: no superclass method `_deprecated_base64' (NoMethodError)
from -e:1:in `decode64'
from -e:1
I do. I use NetBSD---one of the few organizations that had enough [of something] to import XFree 4.4. There's really nothing wrong with the license, despite what the GNU team thinks.
> There's really nothing wrong with the license, despite what the GNU team thinks.
I do not see them saying it is wrong, I see them saying it is incompatible with the GNU GPL.
To quote their statement on it:
"This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, incompatible with the GNU GPL because of its requirements that apply to all documentation in the distribution that contain acknowledgements."
They believe it is a very bad idea to make licenses incompatible with the GPL, but there it ends. If GPL compliance is not relevant for you (as it is in the case of *BSD) there is no issue (well, except when you are called Theo maybe).
A much better reason to move to X.org is that it quite looks like most development moved to X.org as well.
You do a LFS system then? Because pretty much every distribution out there comes with x.org now, not xfree86.
x.org IS xfree86, there was a licensing change, they just grabed the version with the old license to get around it. Unlike xfree these guys are actually doing development, and lots of it. There is even serious talk about an opengl x, which of course offloads all the x processing onto the video card (all of which are highly optimized for opengl thanks to quake benchmarks being industry standard).
That means a snappier gui, and faster system since it won't be bogged down doing the calculation everytime you move a window.
That's just one of a number of things, and it's still aways off yet, but alot of other changes aren't. Take a good look at x.org, because xfree is dead.
So, what major linux distributions, BSD variants, or other operating systems are still using the XFree86 code base? Is the transition essentially complete?
Re:Who's Left?
by
Homology
·
· Score: 4, Informative
So, what major linux distributions, BSD variants, or other operating systems are still using the XFree86 code base? Is the transition essentially complete?
OpenBSD is still using the latest XFree86 4.4 release candidate with the old license+drivers. And
NetBSD incorporated XFree86 4.4 with the new license.
Mac OS X's X Server is still based on XFree86.. That might change with Tiger though.
--
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
Re:Who's Left?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Uhhh, OpenBSD was the first BSD to announce plans to switch.
Re:Who's Left?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, OpenBSD has brought in changes from freedesktop.org into their copy of the X sources. They've always maintained a local modified version anyhow, and they have already said nothing else will come from xfree86, just freedesktop and local work.
The OpenBSD team specifically said they wouldn't be moving to the XFree86 4.4 *release* because of license issues, which OpenBSD is the most fanatical about amongst the *BSDs. Perhaps they will maintain their own fork, like they did with Apache.
Re:Who's Left?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's only natural to mourn the death of FreeBSD.
Dealing with the death of an operating system close to you can be one
of the most traumatic experiences of your life, and you're bound to go
through a range of emotions. While you may be able to work through those
feelings on your own, it's often helpful to talk to a friend, a family
member, or a counselor. You might also seek out a support group for people
who are grieving.
Grieving is a process, and it's totally normal
to go through feelings of shock, sadness, anger even guilt. The healing
process is different for everyone. It might take you six weeks to move on,
or it might take you six years. Don't beat yourself up because you're
not "over it" yet. It takes time to heal wounds.
So what else can
you do to feel better? It might sound corny, but try writing a letter,
making a collage, or planting a tree in memory of the operating system
you've lost. Remembering and celebrating all the good things FreeBSD brought
to your life might help give you some closure, and having a keepsake to
honor FreeBSD may help you get through some tough times in the future when
you'll be missing it.
It's true that life won't be the same without
FreeBSD around. It may seem like you'll never feel better, but eventually
you will. Take some comfort in the old saying, "Time heals all wounds,"
and remember that FreeBSD will always be with you in your heart.
Debian is still living in the past it seems... even unstable does not have xorg yet. I have a feeling that it will be coming soon. Untill then I can just compile my own.
I suspect that OpenBSD will not switch to x.org until after the release of 3.6 in november (and hence go x.org in 3.7, 1st of may). Why? At the moment x.org looks promising, but really hasn't released anything substantial. And since OpenBSD by tradition (and goal) is quite conservative when it comes to importing third party software, I think it will probably take a while.
Another thing is that OpenBSD has developed a few handy patches for X11, like privilege separation (something I hope will be ported to x.org's distribution) and with OpenBSD's security goal I don't think they will give that up in a whim. OTOH, periodically merging with XFree or merging with x.org is probably the same amount of work...
The lesson of X11....
by
evenprime
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The lesson of X11 is that you can be the most popular piece of software on every distribution, and it still doesn't give you the power to play dictator with your licence. If you put unneccessary restrictions in your licence, someone will fork your code and the community will embrace them, not you. You would think that people would have figured that out after the ssh/openssh split. Now we have another example in windowing systems....
--
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's the beauty of OSS and a prime example why I embrace it over proprietary systems.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Daniel+Ellard
·
· Score: 1
If you put unneccessary restrictions in your licence, someone will fork your code...
Not unless they can get the source in the first place and the license permits it. Otherwise we probably would have a fork of windows dating back to about 1988.
But I'm curious what restrictions the XFree people added and why it caused all this ruckus. It doesn't seem to have made any difference to my ability to get the source or play with it. What am I missing?
-- Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Thew new X license blocks anyone from linking a GPL program to it.
So they basically assed out gnome and even freebsd doesn't want to dump gnome so some asspuppy at X can have his ego stroked when there is a fine alternative.
If you had ever compiled the Xfree yourself you would know that - compared to other build systems - Xfree was (is) a mess, the license issue was just the last bit of annoyances needed for most Distros to switch to something better/make something better themselves.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
edhall
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I don't think this shift is entirely a license issue.
I was chatting with one of the FreeBSD core team guys
around the time the decision was being made, and he felt that the frustration of getting fixes fed back into the XFree86 code base in a timely manner was a big part of the motivation. And this certainly isn't the first time I've heard complaints of XFree86 foot-dragging by the FreeBSD folks.
I guess you might say it's all of a piece -- the XFree86 user community simply didn't find the developers responsive (whether on license or technology), and when X.org proved a viable alternative, they voted with their feet.
-Ed
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Daniel+Ellard
·
· Score: 1
The new X license blocks anyone from linking a GPL program to it.
I concur that this sucks.
But this raises a further question -- can they really do that? And why?
I thought the main contribution of XFree was the server, which people don't link to anyway. The X11 libraries are non-trivial, but there are other forks of the original X consortium code so it seems stupid to even attempt this kind of restriction.
-- Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
cortana
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
People have been sick of the way xfree86.org have fucked up X11 development for years. The licensing issue was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.:)
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Daniel+Ellard
·
· Score: 1
If you had ever compiled the Xfree yourself you would know...
I guess I'm just lucky and/or the FreeBSD ports people do a great job, but I've never had a problem rebuilding XFree86 (except for the fact that it takes overnight to compile on my slow system...)
-- Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
nathanh
·
· Score: 5, Informative
But I'm curious what restrictions the XFree people added and why it caused all this ruckus. It doesn't seem to have made any difference to my ability to get the source or play with it. What am I missing?
They added an advertising clause. Similar to the old BSD license.
There's a reasonable argument that the license change by itself didn't cause the exodus. It was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. There has been friction between the XFree developers and the rest of the FLOSS community for quite some time. There has even been considerable friction within the XFree team which led to the infamous "eviction" of Keith. But until recently there haven't been any realistic alternatives to XFree.
It remains to be seen whether Xorg can deliver better than XFree. Initial signs are promising; the codebase is being broken up and autotooled, cutting edge extensions like Xcomposite are being integrated, some of the best and brightest have committed themselves to Xorg instead of XFree, the distributions are backing Xorg over XFree, and (most important of all) the Xorg developers are COMMUNICATING with the rest of freedesktop.org (eg, the projects that build upon X11/XFree/Xorg). Those changes alone are a significant improvement over XFree.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
J.+J.+Ramsey
·
· Score: 1
"I guess I'm just lucky and/or the FreeBSD ports people do a great job, but I've never had a problem rebuilding XFree86 (except for the fact that it takes overnight to compile on my slow system...)"
That's not the issue. The problem is that the XFree86 build system is such that to compile one little bit of X, the whole of the X source tree has to be rebuilt. Right now, Xorg has that same problem, but its developers are working on fixing it.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
mrchaotica
·
· Score: 1
The licensing change was the "straw that broke the camel's back" -- until then, all anybody did was talk about forking
--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
XO
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Although definitely not like any other build procedure I have ever seen in the free software world, X is probably the one piece of software that I have never had ANY problems whatsoever in building, re-building, installing, re-installing, etc.
Though I did have a big ass problem with Debian refusing to let apt do it's things the right way when I "broke" the X installation by installing a source-built XFree 4.3.0 over the then-Debian-supplied XFree 4.2.0. This is when I discovered that (a) dpkg sucks (b) Debian's X installation is a spaghetti mess (c) it's virtually impossible to remove XFree packages from a Debian installation and not remove every other program that uses X on the system, which is why I had to just plain install source-built XF over the top of the Debian installed one.
On the bright side, every time apt- would hork the XFree installation by changes having happened to the Debian files during an apt-get, a simple "make World" made my entire X installation back to the way it was supposed to be.
Now, on the other hand, I've never even cracked the bindings of XFree source. I imagine, that it's probably a myriad of horrible hacked crap dating back 10-15 years or more in several places. I imagine that it's a completely unmaintainable nightmare. And I also completely understand that there was virtually NO development happening beyond bug fixes and the occasional tweak type enhancement to XFree. XF 4 was a major update but that was still like 2 years ago. 4.1, 4.2 were mostly bug fixes, 4.3 completed some of th features for 4.0, and fixed more bugs.
I'm really curious as to if there are any differences between X.org and XFree86 in th software, yet?
-- "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!"
http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
But that's hardly surprising since the fork is still fairly new. It's basically the same code. I'm looking forward to see how they progress in the next year or two because they could make a really good system if the keep on the right track.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
pinkocommie
·
· Score: 1
Hey
I tried googling for it but wasnt able to turn up anything. Just wondering what happened with ssh? (Sorry for being a pain / am sortofa newbie regarding following the industry n all:D)
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
MikeCapone
·
· Score: 1
Yes, well; the important thing now is to keep X.org moving and innovating (unlike what XFree86 has done recently).
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Rasta+Prefect
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Though I did have a big ass problem with Debian refusing to let apt do it's things the right way when I "broke" the X installation by installing a source-built XFree 4.3.0 over the then-Debian-supplied XFree 4.2.0. This is when I discovered that (a) dpkg sucks (b) Debian's X installation is a spaghetti mess (c) it's virtually impossible to remove XFree packages from a Debian installation and not remove every other program that uses X on the system, which is why I had to just plain install source-built XF over the top of the Debian installed one.
Generally, building from a source package or building your own package (not that difficult if you're up to compiling from source anyway) works a _lot_ better.
At one point a lot of people were complaining that the GPL was better because GPLed software was less likely than e.g. BSD to fork. Perhaps this is the reason...
-- Look out!
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The root problem is that FreeBSD suffers from a couple of serious process flaws -- it is an
operating system which is truly at home neither in the open-source nor
the proprietary markets primarily because, although the source
is open, the development team is not. Furthermore the license
allows proprietary software to "steal" source code and use it.
The combination of these problems leads to a somewhat inferior OS.
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 as FreeBSD becomes more marginalized, I don't think that it
will die outright. It will most likely outlive Netware, for example.
I was surprised to hear that FreeBSD was switching to Xorg. Wasn't the main reason that most Linux distros switched because of a (minor) GPL licence conflict? I'd be surprised if there was any conflict with the new XFree86 license and BSD. My coarse understanding of the BSD licence is: "I'm licensing this code in the most minimal and least obtrusive way because I don't care about licenses, only writing good code. Do whatever you want with it. Enhance it a bit, add your own logos, claim it as your own work and sell it back to me even, I just don't care."
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/03/22/142623 6&tid=99 http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02 /16/021720 9&tid=93 http://slashdot.org/articles/01/02/16/02 17209.shtm l
> That's not the issue. The problem is that the XFree86 build system is such that to compile one little bit of X the whole of the X source tree has to be rebuilt. Right now, Xorg has that same problem, but its developers are working on fixing it.
That is not entirely true.
First of all, the FreeBSD port of XFree86-4 is split up in multiple seperate parts that can be built independently, Second, I am rather sure I have rebuilt small parts manually after changing some code.
If you want to do it it is rather messy, agreed, but it is far from impossible really. (hint, you can tell the build process to not rebuild all makefiles... that is a very good start towards partial rebuilds, however, you will have to build them at least once to get anythign working at all)
I did this quite a bit in the early days of XFree86 4.0 to test things out. My machien back then was too slow to do full rebuilds for some small changes really.
AT any rate, I agree that the build process is messy, and the whole source tree is messy.
> The root problem is that FreeBSD suffers from a couple of serious process flaws
Just wondering... what the fuck does this have to do with them moving to X.org?
> Furthermore the license allows proprietary software to "steal" source code and use it. The combination of these problems leads to a somewhat inferior OS.
Ah, all clear, GPL zealot. GO push your agenda somewhere else if you do not have any relevant information to add.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
runderwo
·
· Score: 4, Informative
(c) it's virtually impossible to remove XFree packages from a Debian installation and not remove every other program that uses X on the system, which is why I had to just plain install source-built XF over the top of the Debian installed one.
You're talking crazy talk. The client-side libraries are the only thing that X clients depend upon. You can have X applications installed on a Debian system with _no_ X server. An X application only needs the client libraries to talk to whatever server it feels like.
I've never even cracked the bindings of XFree source. I imagine, that it's probably a myriad of horrible hacked crap dating back 10-15 years or more in several places.
No, actually most of the code (excepting the display drivers) is quite clean, modular, and well-documented. But you couldn't be bothered to look before spouting off a sensational opinion, could you now?
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It wasn't just a BSD advertising clause; the licensing change requires redistributors to put a notice that was similar to the old BSD license's at the beginning or on the help page, in the usual places, without being specific about what is usual.
It could be something innocuous, it could be some obnoxious requirement, like putting it in the title of the derived work (as precedent, Free-, Net-, and OpenBSD, as well as BSD/OS did this; BSDI even put it in the name of their company!). So maybe now you have to do this to redistribute XFree86 code; who knows?
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A motivation for BSD to switch was that they would be the only ones left. With the Linux camp moving, it gave the BSD pepole a chance to move to a better-support X implementation.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The real long-term X development isn't going to happen on the X.Org server so much as freedesktop.org's other, experimental server.
To make things more confusing, freedesktop.org also hosts the X.Org server.
Basically:
X.Org server: XFree86 before license change, with improvements. Hosted at freedesktop.org.
Freedesktop.org server: The "other" server. Not based on XFree86. Will separate server from libraries, clients and drivers, so that everything can be maintained separately. Will have new libraries like XCB (X C Binding), which will be more efficient than Xlib. Plus other improvements like some of Keith Packard's extensions... Has a lot of famous X people working on it.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
As somebody who has been using Debian for a while, uses apt-get and dpkg a lot, and who has compiled programs from source (including XFree86) many times, I can just say that your posting tells more about you than about Debian.
Oh, and about "horrible hacked crap dating back 10-15 years or more". How old do you think most of/bin/ls and/bin/grep are? In open source software, old does not mean bad. Most likely the opposite, because it lasted that long without being replaced by anything better.
The problem with XFree86 was not specific badness the source, but the relatively closed structure of the conservative development team that controlled it.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
And I also completely understand that there was virtually NO development happening beyond bug fixes and the occasional tweak type enhancement to XFree. XF 4 was a major update but that was still like 2 years ago. 4.1, 4.2 were mostly bug fixes, 4.3 completed some of th features for 4.0, and fixed more bugs.
Are you crazy? Sure, the XF folks were a bit slow to include changes from others and too conservative about major architural changes, but to suggest there was "virtually no development happening beyond bug fixes" and tweaks is simply false. The fork was definitely a Good Thing, but to belittle the work that had been done prior to the fork is just insulting a bunch of open source contributors.
As I tried to express in my original comment, it's not just the license, though that's probably a factor.
Although there's no conflict here, per se, BSDers tend to prefer licenses with as few restrictions as possible. For example, this means that, all things being equal, they'll choose a BSD-style license over the GPL.
But in my experience pragmatism rules -- if the GNU tool is better than a BSD-licensed one, the superior tool is generally the one chosen. And I suspect that if XFree86 were technically better than X.org, this switch wouldn't be happening (though that's just my opinion based on conversations I've had).
The interesting thing is that the original BSD license was quite similar to the new XFree86 license.
The FSF (and others) objected to the original license since it had an "advertising clause" that read a lot like the new clause in the XFree86 license. The old BSD license read in part:
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of
California, Berkeley and its contributors.
Although you'll still find BSD software here and there with this clause, the trend has been to eliminate it wherever possible.
Thus XFree86's move to add san advertising clause is seen by many as a step backwards.
> claim it as your own work and sell it back to me even
No.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
maximilln
·
· Score: 1
As much as you're technically correct I have to agree with the parent. In terms of "what do I see on my hard drive and what files is apt going to update" the Xfree86 collection of packages is a spaghetti mess.
That said, however, I did the same thing the parent did for as long as it took for me to use Sid. I installed a homebrew Xf86 4.3.0 over Woody's 4.1.0. It took one update before I learned to freeze packages. Problem solved.
You do understand your NOT supposed to "build" software on a binary distribution, at all, ever. Right?
If you absolutely have to have something you should have built binary packages and then installed those. Preferably by downloading the source packages and patching them to the new version and rebuilding.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Amen. The imporovemnent in dealing with xorg development over XFree86 is already wildly apparent in the CygWin world. The XFree86 team actually did the rest of us a service by becoming so full of htemselves they insisted on using the old BSD "you have to include our personal label on every piece of software" licensing. That old licensing led to software that required 50 or more copyright notices for a simple include file, and it just became ridiculous to support.
GPL, baby, or LGPL, just to keep our lives simple.
While it's nice to see someone on/. get it right for a change, I'm a bit irritated at the tiny number of people that actually read it. The whole thing is shorter than the GPL's preamble.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Fact: FreeBSD is dying.
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Brandybuck
·
· Score: 1
until then, all anybody did was talk about forking
Actually there was forking going on before that.
-- Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:The lesson of X11....
by
Brandybuck
·
· Score: 1
This is all a myth. The new XFree86 license incompatibility is a red herring. First, you're only linking dynamically, so no "copying, distribution and modification" is occuring. Second, the X11 API and protocol is wide open with no restrictions whatsoever on using it.
If you're not hacking or distributing XFree86, the license change does not affect you.
-- Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:lack of second side of the coin... again
by
gabbarbhai
·
· Score: 1
Add one more example: running debian..
Who is left...?
by
bogaboga
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yes, Slashdotters, which among the major distros is left? Anyone know whether X.org is doing anything about the [horrible] Linux fonts found in major default Linux installs? I have always had to install M$ fonts or run the webfonts.sh script to get decent fonts. This is shameful! The Linux gurus create a world class OS but have not yet made fonts for Linux? What do you think?
Well, the bitch is that the GOOD fonts aren't free. So those nice versions of Arial and Times New Roman and Courier and all the standards that your'e used to in Windows and MacOS? Not free to distribute. Not at all.
Haven't you ever noticed that the only free fonts you can get are generally "novelty" fonts? Everything that looks good for everyday use is copyrighted to hell and back.
So don't expect good fonts to come with Linux any time soon.
Re:Who is left...?
by
gabbarbhai
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The free Bitstream fonts are not all that bad for the desktop..
well that just how things are these days. anything looking, sounding or similar that is anywhere near good is patented, copyrighted or in other ways pay pr use/access/consume/view...
I like Luxi fonts, but for some reason they anti-alias like shit on Gentoo, meaning that I can't use them for daily use.
Irritates the ass out of me, it does.
-- By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Re:Who is left...?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Bitstream released an excellent set of fonts that are bundled with most linux distros now. I'm not sure what their motives were, but they really are good, pro-quality fonts.
For some benighted reason, they're not always the default, but just select "bitstream vera" and you're away. The worst offender, IMHO is KDE on Debian, which for some reason defaults to a pig-ugly Serif font. Turn on antialiasing, use the bitstream font, and kde is fine.
Out of curiosity, are you saying that Bitstream Vera is not good enough, or just that you've never heard of it?
Because I haven't seen an ugly font on my linux box in quite a while.
Re:Who is left...?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Not at all. Maybe not 1st class but I can live with this: * media-fonts/artwiz-fonts
Latest version available: 2.4
Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
Size of downloaded files: 35 kB
Homepage: http://fluxbox.sourceforge.net/docs/artwiz-fonts.p hp
Description: Artwiz Fonts
License: GPL-2
* media-fonts/freefonts
Latest version available: 0.10-r2
Latest version installed: 0.10-r2
Size of downloaded files: 2,366 kB
Homepage: http://www.gimp.org
Description: A Collection of Free Type1 Fonts
License: freedist
* media-fonts/intlfonts
Latest version available: 1.2.1
Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
Size of downloaded files: 23,789 kB
Homepage: http://www.gnu.org/directory/intlfonts.html
Description: International X11 fixed fonts
License: GPL-2
* media-fonts/lfpfonts-fix
Latest version available: 0.82-r1
Latest version installed: 0.82-r1
Size of downloaded files: 13 kB
Homepage: http://dreamer.nitro.dk/linux/lfp/
Description: Linux Font Project fixed-width fonts
License: public-domain
* media-fonts/lfpfonts-var
Latest version available: 0.83
Latest version installed: 0.83
Size of downloaded files: 353 kB
Homepage: http://dreamer.nitro.dk/linux/lfp/
Description: Linux Font Project variable-width fonts
License: public-domain
* media-fonts/sharefonts
Latest version available: 0.10-r1
Latest version installed: 0.10-r1
Size of downloaded files: 732 kB
Homepage: http://www.gimp.org/fonts.html
Description: A Collection of True Type Fonts
License: public-domain
* media-fonts/urw-fonts
Latest version available: 2.1
Latest version installed: 2.1
Size of downloaded files: 3,710 kB
Homepage:
Description: free good quality fonts gpl'd by URW++
License: GPL-2
It is a wonderful feature of fonts that the shape of the glyphs themselves is well-nigh uncopyrightable. Which is the reason that Postscript fonts are programs -- the programs *are* copyrightable. The names of the fonts, as well, can be protected by trademark and potentially by copyright.
But there's nothing to prevent one from making a beautiful font that looks extremely like Palatino or Times Roman for Linux -- except that it would take a significant amount of effort.
I worked with the management of Bitstream back when they were creating their font library back in the mid eighties. They hires famous font designers to recreate things that looked a lot like familiar fonts. They had something called "Swiss" which looked a lot like the normal "Helvetica" (Helvetica is latin for Switzerland). They hired Zapf to create their version of Palatino. Bitstream, of course, made beautiful fonts on their own, too -- most notably the Lucida family.
Thad Beier
-- I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
I think you're a dork. If you have ugly fonts on your system and you are using a recent install then you didn't read any of the documentation that came with your setup or you blew the partition away to give more room to XP. X.org uses the same font architecture and layout as XFree does. There are pleny of lovely fonts out there to install as you see fit. SuSE 9.0 (yeah the last one) installs plenty of pretty fonts for you as I believe Mandrake does. Slack puts things in different places but the parts are largely the same and supports anti-aliasing just like the other distros. Why are you still whineing about this now? See:
With the nice gift of the Vera font family to the community, default fonts on most recent distros looks very nice, even preferrable to windows. For web page viewing, still prefer to install the MS core fonts, though. Maybe distro makers should have the webfonts.sh script run during install to fetch the fonts for you.
Fonts are much, much harder to do than simple software. I'd sooner not have cheap Times New Roman knockoffs in my distro, thank you very much. There are folks out there who make fonts, and some are very good. Maybe they will donate them, like bitstream did, to the community for use by all. Fonts are one of the last bastions of proprietarism, although in theory you can copy font shapes all you want.
Well, Debian is still using XFree86 but they aren't switching to X.org at all. Instead they're going with freedesktop.org's modular trees (xlibs/xserver/xapps) sometime in the future.
As for fonts, I personally like Nimbus Sans and Andale Mono -- free Adobe PS look-alike fonts.
-- "The number of Unix installations has grown to ten, with more expected." (Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd ed.; june 1972)
...and there is no way to write a program that would scan the display and make a high res SVG out of the fonts then create a font form the SVGs? I know little to nothing about graphics programming but with everything I have seen done with the gimp and script-fu it seems like there would be a way to import the fonts into inkscape (diffrent program I know) and generate SVGs that could then be hand verfied rather quickly and generate a font out of them?
-- Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Who is left...?
by
Jah-Wren+Ryel
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I haven't looked at the SVG spec for a long, long time, but last I remember it was simply a way to specify vectors. The other reason that postscript fonts are programs and not just tables of vectors is that they really work is in the "hinting" such that a font rendered at 9 points needs to look substantially different from the same font rendered at 72 points.
The good postscript fonts "know" things about human perception and thus render themselves in different fashions based on that knowledge. Simple vectors can't do that because vectors aren't just for fonts and human perceptual tricks that apply to fonts don't necessarily apply to other kinds of vectorish information.
Unless I have the easily installable choice of X.Org, I'll have to switch distros. It sounds like a compatibility nightmare to me. Like or not, I have to use the nvidia drivers and occaisionally binaries from other systems. It looks very much to me that X.Org is the defacto Linux standard now.
From a pure architecture point of view, what Debian proposes sounds beautiful. But you still need to be able to run what everybody else is running. From what I understand, those modular trees don't even have 2D accelleration for most video cards. WTH are these guys doing?
Now if I can just apt-get install xorg and cause no dependency troubles with the rest of the apps then that is fine.
No, they're terrible. The Bitstream fonts only look half-way acceptable if you anti-alias any and all definition out of them. Anti-aliasing is screenshot-pretty, but for actual use, it makes me want to scratch my eyes out. The only fonts that look really good on X11 are Microsoft's (fantastic) webfonts, and even they aren't hinted properly by Freetype.
Well, except the Bitstream Vera Sans (and Mono) fonts are pretty good. I'll admit the seriffed font sucks majorly, especially because of the lack of an italic font...
I'm afraid you're wrong. PostScript uses declarative font hinting, putting the intelligence in the rasteriser. The fonts are not programs (OK, type 3 fonts are, but they are generally not used for high quality typography).
The hints available in older PostScript font formats (read: Type 1) are not very complete (H and V stems, plus font- and family- wide BlueZones), but have been extended in the Compact Font Format to include hint masks and counter hinting. There is still no facility for hinting diagonals.
Good PostScript fonts "know" nothing about human perception. (Before you mention Multiple Master fonts, which can have a size axis designed it, let me point out that Adobe dropped development of them a few years ago.)
I have always had to install M$ fonts or run the webfonts.sh script to get decent fonts. This is shameful!
Why is it shameful? Microsoft donated their fonts to the world at large just like OSS developers have donated their work. (...even if they now wish they hadn't and have stopped distributing the fonts themselves. However, the cat is out of the bag.) There is no problem if you take advantage of their largess. From the font EULA:
Installation and Use. You may install and use an unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distribute an unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided that each copy shall be a true and complete copy, including all copyright and trademark notices, and shall be accompanied by a copy of this EULA. Copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be distributed for profit either on a standalone basis or included as part of your own product.
You have to go through a small extra step to comply with their not-for-profit condition, but many distros have totally automated that. I always set my systems to use Verdana by default. It's unequaled for comfortably reading text on a computer monitor.
Either way - and I'll admit to not having worried about ps fonts for close to a decade now - that hinting is stuff that isn't common with much, if any, other kinds of vector data so isn't likely to be easily specified in a generalized vector image format like SVG.
Out of curiosity, are you saying that Bitstream Vera is not good enough, or just that you've never heard of it?
Meh. I don't like the Bitstream Vera Sans Serif font. It looks way too big, ugly, and spaced out.
Before I installed the ttf-bitstream-vera package, I really liked the Sans Serif font I had--it looked like something halfway between Luxi Sans and Helvetica. But I heard good things about BV, so I installed it. After installation? The big, ugly BV Sans Serif font replaced the nice one I had, forcing me to switch all my system fonts to Helvetica.
And the fonts still look off on my system--Helvetica isn't quite like the font I had, but it's closer to what I had than Bitstream Vera Sans Serif. Luxi Sans actually looks more like the Sans Serif font I had than Helvetica does, but there's something wrong with either the kerning or the height (maybe both), something that neither my old Sans Serif nor Helvetica had, and it's extremely distracting, so I'm using Helvetica.
Shame, as except for that distracting aspect, Luxi Sans is virtually identical to my old Sans Serif--Helvetica has a different appearance from both (but not too different), but it's not as distracting as LS is (or BV Sans is, for that matter), and that's more important, IMO.
Re:Who is left...?
by
Quattro+Vezina
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Anti-aliasing is screenshot-pretty, but for actual use, it makes me want to scratch my eyes out.
Thank you. Finally, there's someone else here who can't stand to read antialiased fonts.
I'm pretty obsessive about not having my fonts antialiased. I've turned off AA in KDE's Fonts control centre dialog. I've grepped/etc for the variable GDK_USE_XFT (cd/etc && grep -R GDK_USE_XFT *), and set each occurence of it to 0. I always compile Firefox with the moznoxft USE flag.
You're also right in that AA is good for one thing: screenshots. I find screenshots of OS X, antialiased fonts and all, to be quite pretty. But I would never want to actually use a system with antialiased fonts--they're horribly grating on the eyes if you're doing anything but looking at a screenshot.
The first part of your post might be why I can't stand the Bitstream Vera Sans Serif font--if the BV fonts only look good when antialiased, and I go out of my way to not have antialiased fonts, then logically, the BV fonts would look ugly.
*looks up at the parent again*
Dear Zod, why is your post at 0? Someone mod this guy up!
Funny, as I used to use a Sans Serif font that was almost identical to Luxi Sans (I'll get to the ``almost'' part later), and I loved it. Btw, I'm also a Gentoo user, but I hate antialiasing and keep it disabled all the time.
Then, one day, I emerged ttf-bitstream-vera because I heart people talking about how good it was. Not only did I find the BV fonts ugly, but the BV Sans Serif font clobbered my existing Sans Serif font. I don't know how to restore it (I tried unmerging ttf-bitstream-vera, didn't work--I ended up re-emerging it in case I needed it). I look through my font lists, and saw two similar fonts to my old Sans Serif: Luxi Sans and Helvetica.
Luxi Sans looks virtually identical to my old Sans Serif font, except for one aspect (either the height, the kerning, or both) that just looks off, making it highly distracting to read.
Helvetica, while similar, is different from my old Sans Serif font, and by extension, Luxi Sans. However, it doesn't have the issue Luxi Sans has (that my old Sans Serif font didn't have), and thus doesn't distract me.
So, my choice came down to ``similar in glyph shape'' or ``similar because it's not distracting''. Since easiness of reading is more important, I went with the latter and chose Helvetica.
Btw, my preferred fonts are from a hodgepodge of families--I don't use just one. I mostly use Helvetica as my sans-serif font, tho Luxi Sans isn't distracting in some areas, so I use it in some apps. I use Lucida Typewriter as my main monospaced font, tho I use Fixed (the version that says Misc, not Sony or GNU) for my terminal. I use Times and Courier as Firefox's serif and monospaced fonts, respectively (Helvetica remains the sans-serif font, of course). Looks like my font choices are a tad biased towards Adobe, however (Helvetica, Times, and Courier).
Part of the problem with fonts is that there aren't a whole lot of freeware fonts out there that have complete character sets. Font design is pretty specialized area of graphic design and not everyone has the skills to do it well.
Sure, anyone can bung together a font face in an hour or two or perhaps a day with the (very expensive) tools out there, but to create quality fonts requires a whole lot of dedication.
The fonts that ship with Linux distributions are most likely the ones that are free of licensing issues, unlike the majority of the fonts out there which are commercial or shareware.
-- To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Ack. I knew I was forgetting something. For some reason, after I replaced XFree86 with Xorg, Luxi Sans morphed into a completely different font, one that happens to be quite ugly. I'm still trying to figure out how in the blue hell that happened.
So that whole thing about how Luxi Sans was almost identical to my old, damn good Sans Serif font isn't always true, depending on your configuration. I'm not sure what changed it--it happened right around the time I replaced XFree86 with Xorg, but I might've upgraded another package or two then, like freetype (it's been a while, so I don't remember).
And that's an example of a case where open source clashes with capitalism. Except for the Bitstream fonts (as noted by other posters), default fonts suck.
Making fonts demands a lot of work, especially now that we have Unicode and more than 10k glyphs. There's no economic benefits from releasing complete font families into Linux and we'll have to keep using Windows fonts. Sheesh.
Now that put it that way, sure. Usually on my LCD (its a nice high-res IBM laptop screen that I had to walk the street to pay for), with no smoothing and full hinting, stuff looks good. I just (finally!) installed the Debian packages x-ttcidfont-conf, defoma (already there) and msttcorefonts, and stuff has started to look way better.. Thanks for pointing this out, made me take a good look at the font system perhaps for the first time in four years. Someone mod parent up, I can't mod and post:-)
Re:Who is left...?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
(without any spaces put there by Slashdot) yields: Artwiz Fonts
The other links in your post may be created in a similar manner.
Re:Who is left...?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So those nice versions of Arial and Times New Roman and Courier and all the standards that your'e used to in Windows and MacOS? Not free to distribute. Not at all.
The Microsoft web fonts fonts ARE free to distribute, and even Debian does so. (Google is your friend.)
I like AA fonts on my main desktop.. but one really good use for them is on laptops. Using sub-pixel rendering it really makes fonts very clear compared to their normal smooth or normal cousins.
The only disadvantage I've seen with smoothed fonts is with really small text. It's impossible to read them, but I believe there is a cut-off point that forces these small fonts to be rendered normally.
Is it just me or does this make absolutely no sense whatsoever:
You're also right in that AA is good for one thing: screenshots. I find screenshots of OS X, antialiased fonts and all, to be quite pretty. But I would never want to actually use a system with antialiased fonts--they're horribly grating on the eyes if you're doing anything but looking at a screenshot.
What exactly is the difference between looking at a screenshot of a screen and looking at the... um, screen? Hello? I don't get it. If it looks good on a screenshot, why doesn't it look good on your screen? Please elaborate.
Not that I would be particularly worried about them breaking Debian any time soon, when you consider their pace of development. Who knows, by the time the next "stable" comes out, FreeDesktop's server might be final, and Duke Nukem Forever might be out.
--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
I run Unstable for desktops. That is comparable to Gentoo, Fedora, or any other "current" desktop distro you care to name.
Re:Who is left...?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
X.Org is only a temporary solution and I think anybody who knows anything about X development on Linux should realize this. Debian is just thinking a little bit further ahead. Probably, the guys at Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, etc., are all thinking this too, they just haven't talked about it yet. Or, if they have talked about it, it hasn't made Slashdot.
fd.o's experimental server/libraries is the long-term solution. It's where the real innovation will happen. However, it's not ready for prime time yet. Thus, distros will probably ship X.Org for a year or two before switching to fd.o.
Once fd.o is THE mainstream Linux solution (and it will be), nvidia and others will probably support it.
When you glance at the screenshot, antialiased fonts look very pretty. When you try to read a huge amount of text on screen (like while editing/browsing long pages etc.) after a while all that smoothing makes your brain hurt. Its because the high-res part of our perceptual system (people including myself think; I study human vision) likes crispy stuff to look at, and too much smoothing is stressful because the the visual system has to continuously 'deblur' the text while processing it.. therefore, its a pain to read a lot of diffuse text. kind of like looking at models photographed using soft-focus lens vs. watching an out of focus projected movie..
Lucida is a Bigelow & Holmes design. Was Bitstream their client?
-- -Tom Duff
Re:Tobes Of Hades Lit By Flickering Torchlight
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Good News Everyone!
Mike Smith now works for Apple, who's OS is based on BSD.
Check it out: www.lemis.com/~grog/msmr.html
and at: daemonnews, under "BSD at Apple"
He didn't like the direction that v5 was taking so he quit and starting writing BSD code for Apple.
Portupgrade neither necessary, nor sufficient
by
wirelessbuzzers
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Too bad that you can't upgrade an existing system without using portupgrade, though. I hate to see portupgrade drifting closer and closer to being a required part of the system.
No. It says in the post:
To upgrade, you must remove your XFree86 ports and install the xorg ports. It couldn't be done with portupgrade, unfortunately, because we are keeping the XFree86 ports around.
In other words, you cannot automatically upgrade all the ports using portupgrade.
As for portupgrade becoming necessary, I don't know what you're talking about. While I use it (to keep my -CURRENT current), this is merely for convenience: I haven't seen any ports that depend on it.
-- I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Uninformed or troll, there is Bitstream Vera
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
For some time Bitstream Vera TTFs are avaliable and they're acceptable. Of course, they aren't original Helvetica nor Arial (which is a clone of Helvetica to avoid paying rights, btw).
Re:lack of second side of the coin... again
by
strabo
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
bad news for those who are to lazy to rtfm.
If you want to keep the old XFree86 on -current, simply set X_WINDOW_SYSTEM=xfree86-4 in make.conf
Name change...
by
CaptainPinko
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I know this is stupid but I'm glad for the name change of the X-server that ever is using. Because it always seemed weird to be running XFree86 on a PPC It's nice that the new standard has an architecture neutral name. I'm assuming the 86 came from x86.
-- Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
Yeah. The "Free86" is supposed to be a word play on "386". You know how these OSS guys like to put double meaning in their names;) So you're right. XFree86 sounds a bit weird on a PPC.
-- Silly rabbit
Re:Name change...
by
jbardell
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The start of the project to develop a 'free' version of the X server was called X386, named after the target CPU. The re-name became a play on this, XFree86. Getcherself a copy of the book 'Rebel Code' and enjoy all of the interesting little tidbits within.
Is this the place?
by
iamdrscience
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I don't know if this is the best place to mention this, but I like to pronounce "X.org" like it was all one word, i.e. sounding like "Zorg". It sounds like some futuristic GUI monster that would crush towns at its whim. This alone is enough to justify Xorg the Conqueror's rising popularity and XFree86's decline. I mean, XFree86 sounds kind of like a fighter jet, which while kind of cool, would be useless against Xorg. He would use an XFree86 fighter jet to pick his teeth! All hail Xorg!
Re:Is this the place?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I for one would like to welcome our new Xorg overlord.
Re:Is this the place?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I was expecting many things from this thread, your comment was not one of them. I'm sure the name will go down well with the MS folk who pronounce SQL as "sequel", "Run XORG, drool and click on random graphics!" In XORG Microsoft have found an enemy with an evil sounding name, poor XORG.
I checked the/etc/resolv.conf file, it contains only IPs belonging to my ISP. But I found the reason : Firefox goes to google when the site does not exists, then find lemonde.fr;-) I checked with lynx : you are right it does not resolves.
im just a common freebsd user, free86 works fine for me.I guess X.org will to.Are there any major implications for us unknowing users??
I guess thats what most normal users are concerened about.
I switched a while back on gentoo, and nope, none at all. The same conf file can be kept, and it is invisible to the user. It should work fine.
Re:whats the difference?
by
mrchaotica
·
· Score: 1
The major implication is that the new project organization and stucture will allow actual development to happen -- the big problem with XFree was that the people in charge sucked, and didn't allow many improvements to get in. Hopefully now we'll see stuff like 3d acceleration in the main codebase.
--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You mean there were alternate source code trees that had patches to do 3D acceleration?
The last I heard, the patches would be submitted, but never acknowledged and integrated.
Too bad a patchset for xfree86 didn't spring up that followed the latest releases.
Oh well, we have XOrg now so it's a moot point.
-- There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.
Re:whats the difference?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
yeah. 6.7.0 is like the same as xfree 4.4.0. cvs is a little more different. i think they are working in the modularization (spliting librarys, programs, xservers). and they are going to add some extensions like Fixes, Damage, Composite which i think is already in CVS but im not sure.
i think they are going to improve X more in some years. way to go
Re:whats the difference?
by
compass46
·
· Score: 1
Just read/usr/ports/UPDATING and the note about the xorg ports. In it are the commands for handling the conversion with portupgrade. The conversion will only directly affect you if you are running the -CURRENT CVS branch.
If you are using a release point (4.10, 5.2.1, etc.) or the -STABLE CVS branch then this will not directly afect you. That is unless you decide to force your release to use xorg over the XFree86 ports. If you're running one of these versions and are concerned about doing the update, just leave well enough alone and you will be fine.
Re:whats the difference?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
funnest comment I have.ever.seen
Re:whats the difference?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
FreeBSD is dead. What part of dead don't
you understand?
I'm getting laid !!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Good font design is difficult, time consuming and not very exciting for the "Linux guru". There is the Bitstream Vera font family available. It's been covered on/. twice: announcement and release.
By the way, fonts are fonts really. You've got TrueType and PostScript mainly and they tend to work cross platform. There's no need to have "Linux" fonts. Now if you meant "open source" fonts, that would be a different matter.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
aristotle-dude
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Why? I like the XNU kernel and kernel extensions. I thought the last thing we wanted was a monoculture? Aren't we all trying to escape the monoculture of MSFT? Why advocate creating a new one?
Now that Gentoo has been ported to OSX, we have Darwin ports, fink and Gentoo Portage. Do you understand that Linux is just a kernel? We already have the userland BSD "and" GNU (what you seem to think is linux) on OSX so I don't see the point of switching kernels.
Apple contributes to KDE KHTML, BSD and various other open source projects. What is it exactly that you are complaining about again?
-- Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, the BSD license isn't viral like the GPL.
You're right. M$ wouldn't have been able to steal it if it was GPL'ed.
Anyone for the Fifth Element?
by
GumphMaster
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Been done before I'm afraid. The 'evil monster' in The Fifth Element is Dr. Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg.
-- Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
Re:Anyone for the Fifth Element?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
australian rules football is my god
Re:Who is left...?like
by
marcello_dl
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I agree on the AC post about bitstream vera fonts. They look very good on the notoriously unforgiving notebook screens. I prefer them over the standard ms fonts i had to install to check compatibility of web page layouts. Try them for yourself.
-- ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Setting aside the license diffrence, could anyone objectivily give a brief summary on the current status of Xorg vs XFree ? (e.g. what's better/newer/fixed in one vs the other), and are there any future goals that differs greatily between them (what's planned for Xorg, what's planned for XFree)?
Re:Xorg vs XFree86
by
Lisandro
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As it is, X.Org is not at all different from the latest "non-crippled" XFree release - i'm running it in my Gentoo box and besides beeing just a tad faster, it's the same. It has minor patches applied and a few configuration files names changed. The upgrade is as painless as it can be; even my nVidia linux bnary drivers worked perfectly.
The thing with XFree it's been the attitude of it's developers (David Dawes in particular, do a google search of Usenet groups for some fun) - and this translated to the project in being very hard to submit codes or patches and had them approved. XFree has then been quite stagnant in the recent past; the licence fiasco was simply the cherry on the top.
X.Org has a much more open developement and i expect it to become quite different (advanced) of XFree in the future; stuff like Cairo and other X extensions (check http://www.freedesktop.com/) will at some point be incorporated onto X.Org giving us a nice, nifty OpenGL accelerated desktop.
Can't wait for that myself.
Re:Xorg vs XFree86
by
erikharrison
·
· Score: 3, Informative
This is semi objective. I have a very minor presence in the X.org mailing lists.
XFree86 seems to be mostly listing, with it's major focus being drivers. It was always easier to get new extensions in XFree than in the reference implementation, but that was still hard, so driver's and performance were much of it's force and they seem to think that it still will be. XFree seems to think that they will be the application that people upgrade to from X.org for their value added improvements. Short term assessment, this is a load of crap. People are moving from distro's X.org and XFree ONLY for stability concerns, and those are easily assuaged.
X.org is all about two things. One, take the protocol to the next level, through the judicious use of extensions. X.org has support from Sun and HP, for example, Sun is moving much of their Looking Glass work into the tree.
Second, get the implementation out of the stone age. Modularize the build, and use a more modern build system. Clean up the DDX (device dependent X) get extensions playing well with each other, havea faster release cycle and get security and bug fixes from vendors incorperated more quickly. All of this seems to be happening. Hop on the X.org mailing lists and take a look.
Re:The Cautionary Tale of XFree86
by
PeterPumpkin
·
· Score: 1
Is X.org going to use the MIT/X license, or are they going to move to GPL?
Re:The Cautionary Tale of XFree86
by
dwheeler
·
· Score: 2, Informative
To my knowledge, they'll continue to use the original MIT/X license. It's known to be GPL-compatible (the main point of contention), and it's the license they've been using all along in general. It's certainly the direction of least resistance.
It turns out a few files have slipped in with licenses other than the MIT/X licenses.
My appendix links to a detailed license analysis
(I didn't do the analysis, kudos to the person who did!). But there aren't many such files, and it wouldn't take much to fix them. It's likely that some weren't even intentional, and contacting the authors would be all that's needed in some cases.
I very much doubt that they'd move to the GPL. This is a project shared between GPL'ed operating systems, *BSDs, proprietary X vendors, and proprietary OS vendors; a GPL move would break that. I guess it's conceivable they'll later move parts to the LGPL, particularly easily separable parts (like a sound server). Mesa was originally LGPL, for example. And the commercial environment has changed since X was started; some projects like Wine have decided to switch from MIT/X/BSD-like licenses to the LGPL, because they believed that too many commercial companies would take but not give back otherwise (rendering the project unable to continue). So you could argue that the changed environment might encourage them to use a different license to keep the project more viable. But I suspect that won't happen, at least in the short term. Most people seem to be interested in keeping the "status quo" MIT/X license, and more interested in rearchitecting and adding new features. I don't speak from special authority, just as someone who occasionally follows the discussions.
Re:The Cautionary Tale of XFree86
by
dmaxwell
·
· Score: 1
Unless I am mistaken, they are going to stick with the license used before XFree86 changed it. Changing the license to GPL would cause disruption for little good reason.
OSF is not "monoculture".
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Linux was once managed by a dictator, Linus Torvalds. An army of volunteer programmers write code for the OS.
Linus has, long since, transferred control of the code to the Open Source Development Lab (OSDL). There is no monoculture. Consensus among competing interests determines what enters Linux.
Personally, I would have preferred transferring control of Linux to CMU or MIT, but OSDL is cool. There is no monoculture. Nonetheless, there is no need for more than 2 OSes: Windows and Linux. Fragmenting the market into multiple OSes puts a burden on software developers. Developing and supporting multiple versions of software for a hundred different OSes is a waste of programmer effort.
Re:OSF is not "monoculture".
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Linus has, long since, transferred control of the code to the Open Source Development Lab (OSDL). There is no monoculture. Consensus among competing interests determines what enters Linux.
I don't think you understand what a 'monoculture' is. It is a culture where everything is the same, and has nothing to do with the structure of Linux development. Therefore, if everyone were to run Linux, it would be a monoculture, even if the project were run democratically (like, for example, FreeBSD).
Incidentally, Linus Torvalds still owns the 'Linux' trademark, so still has ultimate control over Linux.
Nonetheless, there is no need for more than 2 OSes: Windows and Linux.
Nonsense. There are many areas in which neither Windows nor Linux is the best specific implementation of a system for a particular task, nor even the best general implementation of a system.
Fragmenting the market into multiple OSes puts a burden on software developers. Developing and supporting multiple versions of software for a hundred different OSes is a waste of programmer effort.
Linux has always been an attempt to implement certain POSIX standards. Conformation to those POSIX standards, or the freely-available UNIX standards which have largely superceded POSIX, is what matters, not a single code base.
If there were only one implementation of POSIX/UNIX, all POSIX/UNIX users would be forced to accept the decisions of the people managing that implementation. This would mean no competitive development, hindering evolution of systems, and that any flaw or vulnerability in that system would allow viruses and worms to immediately propagate to all POSIX/UNIX systems. It would be a huge step backwards.
At the end of the day, adherence to open standards is what matters, both for developers and for end users. From an evolutionary perspective, as long as open standards are followed, the more systems the better.
Well, since X.org is very similar to XFree86, they could probably do it with a patch on Panther and have it included in Tiger. If you check their website, you see that their current release corresponds to 4.3. Since they didn't upgrade to 4.4 with the license change (which happend quite a while ago), they may be preparing to do this.
Re:What about Apple?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
The consistent interface is not a property of the proprietary GUI - they could have built a similarly consistent interface on top of X or X+DPS, like, er, NeXTSTEP did. X is much lower level than such concerns, and specifies mechanism, not policy (mostly... the one thing that always gets me is the "one mouse pointer" rule... I used to _like_ Amiga hacks providing multiple mouse pointers...).
The beautiful eye candy is partially as a result of the absolute control apple exercise over their GUI, but there is no technical reason why similar eye candy isn't possible with development of X extensions, as freedesktop.org is demonstrating. Whether it would have been in apple's interest to go in the X direction is another matter - basically, they would have ended up paying for X's enhancement.
In summary: Don't confuse X and the toolkits on top of X...
Re:What about Apple?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Of all the dumbasses in the world, the sarcastic ones are the funniest.
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Microsoft didn't steal it. That's the nature of the BSD license. We don't care if you, Microsoft, or anybody else is using the code for commercial purposes.
It's a strength, not a weakness.
Re:FreeBSD is dead
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Good News Everyone!
Turns out that *BSD is stronger than ever!
According to an Inernetnews article, Netcraft has confirmed that *BSD has "dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
There has been a steady increase in *BSD developers over the past decade.
There are currently 307 FreeBSD developers as of the 2004 core team election.
You can read more about FreeBSD
here
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
brilinux
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You know, I was going to make a similar joke, but seriously, competition is always good. My laptop runs Gentoo, my desktop runs FreeBSD and WinXP. Why? Because Linux is good for a lot of desktop stuff and programming that I would be doing for school, I need XP on my desktop for gaming, and when I am not doing that, FreeBSD is something different that is nice and fast, a great server, and something that runs familiar programs that I normally run under Linux. So, do I need FreeBSD instead of Linux? No. But it serves purposes that are often different from the ones served by Linux and it is more specific in its direction and use.
They wanted out..
by
mnemoth_54
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I think they wanted this to happen. Search old/. stories for 'xfree86' and see what I mean.
The license change was really just a way of prompting everyone to move on, while not completely abandoning them.
Thats all just my guess, take it or leave it.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
drinkypoo
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
We need FreeBSD so that we can keep the developers who are interested in developing an operating system under a BSD-type license, but who are not interested in writing code under a GPL license, busily writing code that benefits us all.
Competition is good for everyone but the losers, and in a certain sense it's good for them too - as a wake-up call. Competition can be a major driving force, even if you're only competing against yourself. For example, I'm on everything2, and when I see a writeup that I think sucks and I say "I can do better than that" it's a strong motivator to me to outdo the existing writeup. So, someone implements something on Linux, and some BSD type says "I can do that! Shit, I can kick that thing's ass!" Next thing you know the feature in Linux is being upgraded or replaced because its author wants it to be the best tool of its type, or someone else wants features which are in the BSD version.
So even if you don't think it's important for what it can do in and of itself, BSD is important for the same reason as the lower class - to scare the shit out of the middle class.
-- "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Anyway,
Scanner: Install SANE. If it doesn't work, google for the workaround, it is out there.
Modem: Get broadband and a router.
Printer: Install CUPS. If it doesn't work, google for the workaround, it is out there.
If you want bragging rights, you at least gotta try.
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
nope, not viral;) however, the advertising clause from the old license bears some resemblance to the reason why sequoias die - they accumulate too much dead weight.
Re:Tobes Of Hades Lit By Flickering Torchlight
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That daemon news posting is from August 2001!
Re:Linux sucks. Here's why.
by
westyvw
·
· Score: 1
Dumbass: Recognized.
Nuff Said.
There is no XFree...
by
gwalla
·
· Score: 4, Funny
-- "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Isn't it annoying rebooting twice for every time you play a game? Or maintaining servers in both operating systems so that your users aren't at a loss every time you want to play BF1942?
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This weakness made it possible for IBM, Sun, HP, etc. to proprietize Unix and make many incompatible versions that only run on their hardware.
The GPL was only created because of the lessons learned from the whole Unix-fiasco.
If the BSD-license would work so great as the BSD-fans claim, the whole Unix-breakup would have never happened and there would have never been a reason to even create the GPL.
Netcraft confirms it.
by
Dwonis
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Thanks. Sane, CUPS and broadband & router were installed. All not recognized / installed.
Got any useful advice instead of displaying your arrogance?
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
useosx
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
BSD is important for the same reason as the lower class - to scare the shit out of the middle class.
That is the most absurdly ignorant, hateful statement I have ever read. You're telling me you think that lower class people strive every day to make enough to live on--often at the sacrifice of their own health--and that is important because it motivates the middle class to work harder at their dumb ass job they hate. You, drinkypoo, are a huge asshole. I mean, unless you're a millionaire, why the fuck are you advocating for a system that continuously fucks you over?
People walk around throwing out phrases like "laws of nature," "human nature," "the way of the world," "that's the way the world works," like there's some sort of fucking truth. You give us your cute little scenario about Linux hackers vs. BSD hackers like it's some kind of truism, like it proves something. Please.
Think about how many different cultures there are throughout the world and how different they have been throughout history. It doesn't have to be this way, folks. Want to get educated? Read a book. Want to do something? Go work for a labor advocacy group.
Buyer beware :-)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>> (07.23.2004 @ 1620 PST): Rossam Souza da Silva said, in 1.3K: << > > Hi people, the nvidia-driver package works ok with X.Org? > > Rossam. >> end of "Re: HEADSUP: X.Org conversion" from Rossam Souza da Silva <<
Worked fine for me a couple weeks ago when I did the switchover.
I fried my motherboard about 6 hours later, but I maintain it was something unrelated.
The lesson of X11 is that you can be the most popular piece of software on every distribution
XFree86 is just an implementation of X11, one of dozens, and not even the only one that runs on linux (athough metro-X and the others stalled a few years back).
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
rsidd
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You're telling me you think that lower class people strive every day to make enough to live on--often at the sacrifice of their own health--and that is important because it motivates the middle class to work harder at their dumb ass job they hate.
No, he's saying the middle class shouldn't get too smug in their middle-class comfort, because in today's equal-opportunity world, the lower classes will not stay down there forever. And similarly, even if Linux is ahead in a lot of things, the BSDs will catch up (in fact, it wasn't long ago that the BSDs were ahead in most aspects of stability and performance and Linux was the "lower class" playing catch-up, and in many respects the BSDs are still ahead.) And I didn't understand very much else in your rant.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
HanzoSpam
·
· Score: 0, Troll
That is the most absurdly ignorant, hateful statement I have ever read.
Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and we'll be glad to mail you a hankie - a nice pink one to go with your politics!
--
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
What modem do you have? Some software modems (aka winmodems) are recognized, but given a non-standard serial port name in/dev. Couple that with pppd frontend clients that are too stupid to look for them...
A little nosing through your/dev and the configs for your pppd frontend should get it working.
-- Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Name anything freebsd actually does better than linux?
Well, for one, my mouse actually works. And so does USB. Oh! And my zip drive works! And I don't randomly lose files in a crash! And my programs are more responsive. And my system stays up longer. And I'm hacked less. etc. etc. etc.
There are more advantages to an OS than just ticks on a "supports this feature" list. Supporting a feature is not the same as supporting it well. The FreeBSD guys usually don't add a feature until it's supported well. The Linux guys add the feature, then improve after everyone tells them it's broken. Both camps have their advantages and disadvantages.
BSD is running on fumes of hype right now, once people wake up and realize it sucks it will be all done.
Do a 's/BSD/Linux/g' and you're getting pretty close. Modern Linux systems tend to be highly unstable with large numbers of known issues and overall poor testing. This is done intentionally to help Linux reach a competitive stage more quickly. But one does have to wonder: Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months? The whole reason of ditching windows was to get away from reinstalling, DLL hell, and system instabilities. So we've made things better by replacing these 'problems' with reinstalling, RPM hell, and system instabilities.
That's not progress!
Progress is something like Mac OS X: build a system that is MORE usable, and MORE feature-rich than the competitor. Yet what people like you seem to miss, is that Linux is not about building a "better" system! Linux is about building a system that is "free" in Stallman and Linus's definition of the word. If that is what you want, than Linux is a great choice. If you want a "better" end-user OS than Windows, then you're going to need to compromise some of the principles on which Linux is based. Take your pick, because these goals are mutually exclusive.
...But how many people really care? Xfree and Xorg just provide the x server. All that means is just something for our nice window managers to connect to. You can use Gnome, kde, xfce, ice, and many other window managers to suit your taste and that's what matters.
Of course the backend is important, but to most it's not important enough to care about. The distros are converting because xfree killed itself because of the license issue and lack of development.
Hell, most linux users won't ever know they're running xorg until they have to edit their xorg.conf to get those NVIDIA drivers working.
I hope in the future xorg makes the x server faster, but I doubt it will be magically faster that the average user will notice.
Re:Not to troll or anything
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If it's really not that important, why don't you try running your "Gnome, kde, xfce, ice" without Xfree or Xorg?
Re:Not to troll or anything
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, this is exactly the FreeBSD position. The folks at FreeBSD don't care which you use.. The position I've heard is: x11 is 3rd party software. You get a knob. You get to pick whichever floats your boat
Re:Not to troll or anything
by
TheRaven64
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Of course the backend is important, but to most it's not important enough to care about.
...
Hell, most linux users won't ever know they're running xorg until they have to edit their xorg.conf to get those NVIDIA drivers working.
These sentences seem to contradict slightly. You know Linux is just a kernel, right? As in as far to the back end as it's possible to get without touching actual hardware?
Some distros suck at recognizing some configurations, while another distro will recognize it without problems. A pain in the butt, but go figure.
You didn't mention which distro(s) you tried, but first try the Knoppix live CD here or here. Its hardware recognition is very good and if it recognizes your hardware, it takes about 20 minutes to install to your hard drive (YMMV).
Regarding printers. Some printers are better supported under Linux than others. Go here to see how well your printer is supported. Go here for more help.
Check your scanner compatibility here. And find more help here.
If you still can't get Linux to work, stick with windows, it's not that bad.
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
neurojab
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
>This weakness made it possible for IBM, Sun, HP, etc. to proprietize Unix and make many incompatible versions that only run on their hardware.
So would you say that made UNIX less successful? Anyway, you're spouting nonsense. IBM and Sun were never forked from BSD. They were forked from derivations of AT&T Unix, a proprietary product.
>The GPL was only created because of the lessons learned from the whole Unix-fiasco.
Unix, arguably the most sucessful operating system ever, was a fiasco? Surely you jest.
The GPL was created for those who believe that software should always be free. Believe it or not, there are those of us in the industry that are totally comfortable with closed-source software as well. For those of us that don't MIND that a large company might make money off software that we freely write, the BSD license is a good fit.
YBHT! FAKELSTEIN!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Bite! Bite! Got one! Got 'im, Got 'im, SCORE!!!
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
XNU also has an advantge over Hurd in that it actually exists.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Nah,
It was just a dime store George Carlin rip-off.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah, except Linux actually does so many REAL THINGS better than BSD.
BSD doesn't even have a journaling freakin' fielsystem...and you gonna use that for enterprise? YEAH RIGHT!
Completely wrong, it is THE ONLY REASON why different operating systems, OSS or not, speak the same protocols on the internet.
> This weakness made it possible for IBM, Sun, HP, etc. to proprietize Unix and make many incompatible versions that only run on their hardware.
You may not like that, BSD people actually like that, but it has nothign whatsoever to do with right/wrong untill the moment you have the agenda to make all software "free". An agenda some GPL zealots have, most BSD peopel have not.
Freedesktop.org, not .com (nt)
by
LuSiDe
·
· Score: 1
Linux is less than perfect because it's not an operating system. It's a kernel that doesn't even have proper source control, on top of which a million organizations and companies pile unrelated software plagued with arbitrary dependencies.
Hence, why we are in the BSD section of Slashdot.;-)
FreeBSD has the entire core system in CVS and has a flexible ports system for package management, as well as pre-compiled packages for those who want it.
If I derive from a GPLed work, my work is automatically GPLed as well, not only the parts that I used from the GPLed work, but also those parts that I added.
This is why it is considered viral, and is a desired effect of the GPL.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
> Why do we even need FreeBSD when we have Linux? The developers of FreeBSD should abandon it and migrate over to Linux.
Because WE NEED CHOICE.
There is no reason whatsoever to turn Linux into the enxt monoculture, that in fact is one of the most important things to prevent.
Besides the fact that FreeBSD is better at specific things, but you as home linux zealot are extremely unlikely to have a need for those else you'd have known about them already and not have asked this utterly stupid question.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
> Listen: Freebsd is for amateur tinnkerers and college kids.
So Yahoo and hotmail are college kids?
> Only some old fart who started working in the 90s would still use BSD for anything important.
Lets turn that around, only people who have too little experience workign would skip on it.
> The last time FreeBSD was ahead of linux in anything was what? 1996? maybe 1998?
2004 actually, but never mind, you have your mind set already anyway.
> Name anything freebsd actually does better than linux? There is never anything specific basked up by facts. It's always just some "well it's like more robust or something..."
Yeah, some crap which is incidentely believed by for example Juniper and other makers of routers, Yahoo and such.. I'm sure they love wasting their money on such things.
> crap which means nothing and is not even true. BSD is running on fumes of hype right now, once people wake up and realize it sucks it will be all done.
You know what? go stick your head in a pig or something.. (not that it matters really, you don't seem to be able to use it anyway)
You're all wrong. It is subjective, you're far from objective, and the subject in question has been food for many flamewars.
Completely wrong, it is THE ONLY REASON why different operating systems, OSS or not, speak the same protocols on the internet.
Silly wabbit! They don't. Many proprietary protocols, GPL protocols, etc have been cloned or reverse engineered even when they were standard. However not ALL. With GPL, one is able to port say GIFT to a proprietary UNIX and run it there. Voila, not any harder than that the software was BSD licensed.
To say TCP/IP never happened with one GPL implementation is a statement which isn't based on any solid grounds. The source is open, so people are at least able to learn from it if they don't wanna contribute to the GPL version. Makes way for GPL, proprietary and PD, BSD, etc just fine and more so than proprietary protocols. It does recommend GPL though because you can use the foundation itself which is already there. Fact is you want to use push license as much as you whine on GPL zealots. Pot, meet kettle.
-- WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
For those of us that don't MIND that a large company might make money off software that we freely write, the BSD license is a good fit.
Hi BSealoD,
For those of us that don't MIND that a large company might make money off software that we freely write, the GPL is a good fit.
The GPL is not anti-commercial, the GPL is anti-proprietary. What you are saying is actually that the source plus additions is to be made proprietary (for profit, or not). The issue is freedom, not price.
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
bubkus_jones
·
· Score: 1
It's not that software should be free, it's that credit should be given to those who create the code, and when distributed, all code that is under the licence should be made available to those who use the software.
No the GPL doesn't always fit with people's intentions, but neither does the BSD licence (not that I'm saying you said it did). Some people aren't comfortable with allowing code they write and distribute "freely" to be used by people who don't have the same values in regards to software.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Codifex+Maximus
·
· Score: 1
> Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every > three months? The whole reason of ditching windows > was to get away from reinstalling, DLL hell, and > system instabilities. So we've made things better > by replacing these 'problems' with reinstalling, > RPM hell, and system instabilities.
Begin-Shameless Gentoo Plug- Well, I just login as root, type: emerge sync; emerge world. Pretty much does what I need. End-Shameless Gentoo Plug-
Now, I will say this: I don't mind the BSD cathedral standing in the Linux Bazaar. Ports/Portage... it's all good.
-- Codifex Maximus ~
In search of... a shorter sig.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
> See it's only these silly amateurs who think BSD is so freaking exciting.
And with that one comment you have proven yourself to be utterly and completely clueless with regards to the subject.
*BSD is not about being exciting, it is about doing its job well. That is very boring actually, nothing exciting there.
> Linux has superior support for USB
Since when? Linux USB support is such an amazingly horrible hack that it is surprising it does anything at all. I suggest you go read the source instead of posting bullshit.
only on very recent Linux versions things like my USB mouse and sd card reader started working (2.6 series kernel on gentoo) while it has worked out of the box on FreeBSD for the last 3 or 4 years at least.
> Linux actually has journaling filesystems so you don't lose files in a crash where as BSD still fails to have one,
Hrm, there exists a JFS implementation for BSD, but I would not use that for any production work. More promissing sounds the porting of XFS.
At any rate, Reiser has caused me way more problems then FFS ever did (while I have a lot more data on FFS)
I hear the same from everyone here who has seriously tried both.
Besides, you seem to be a bit clueless once more.. journaling filesystems do not prevent data loss, they prevent situations where your data and meta data is out of sync, and they provide for a rollback to resync those in case they do end up being out of sync still.
You can still lose data with that, but you will not get a filesystem that is in a inconsistant state... normally.
Now, unlike traditional ufs and filesystems like ext2fs, the FFS filesystem does not write data and metadata asynchroneously, so the inconsistancy between those two is extremely unlikely.
That said, a production quality journalling filesystem would be nice to have
I'd rather want to have FFS2 snapshop functionality to go with that tho.
> RPM hell only existed on distros that used RPM and even then it has been fixed for years with tools like urpmi, up2date and yum.
Last time I checked RPM is part of the LSB but you are right here, it is not used by every distro, and not even part of "Linux" itself.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Most of us have come to realize that FreeBSD suffers from a couple of serious process flaws -- it is an
operating system which is truly at home neither in the open-source nor
the proprietary markets primarily because, although the source
is open, the development team is not. Furthermore the license
allows proprietary software to "steal" source code and use it.
The combination of these problems leads to a somewhat inferior OS.
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 FreeBSD completely dying. I think the developers are less
into competition and more into a sort of idealized cooperation. As a
result, even as FreeBSD becomes more marginalized, I don't think that it
will die outright. It will most likely outlive Netware, for example.
"So those nice versions of Arial and Times New Roman and Courier and all the standards that your'e used to in Windows and MacOS? Not free to distribute. Not at all."
You couldn't be more wrong. The MS font pack ie corefonts etc are all FREE to distribute. Yes you read that right. The original terms under which these fonts were available explicitly allows you to redistribute these in their orginal form as long as its not for commercial use. From Microsoft's own FAQ.
# Anyone can download and install these fonts for their own use. # Designers can specify the fonts within their Web pages. Our guide to specifying fonts in Web pages explains how to do this. # You may only redistribute the fonts in their original form (.exe or.sit.hqx) and with their original file name from your Web site or intranet site. # You must not supply the fonts, or any derivative fonts based on them, in any form that adds value to commercial products, such as CD-ROM or disk based multimedia programs, application software or utilities. See Microsoft's permissions site for more details.
So there you go. There are excellant Free as in Beer fonts available for the world to use for whatever OS they want. I don't even know that Microsoft could prevent one of the Free distros from including them with their base distro. Then again just downloading them after install like most of us do is probably the smarter move.
Free high quality Fonts available here. I thought everyone already knew about this? http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/
-- If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Xorg says...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Imona Live Forever!!!
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Heh. That brought a smile to my face. Keep up the good work.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SirTalon42
·
· Score: 1
You do realize that hotmail runs on Windows 2000, right?
Netcraft's list goes back to 01 and all say Windows 2000 (except for 1 day it was reported as Unknown)
You do know Microsoft owns Hotmail, right?
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 1
I know who owns hotmail, and I know that their backend mail servers and webservers are running a different OS. I also know that netcraft only tells you what the webserver is running. I'll leave the rest to you.
I suggest you google around a bit for 'hotmail operating system' or such.
Re:lack of second side of the coin... again
by
Nirbo
·
· Score: 1
FreeBSD-STABLE still defaults to XFree-4.3, and the option is still open to -CURRENT users... while there won't be as many, there's still a strong choice:D
I wouldn't be suprised if someone does go ahead and throw XFree86-4.4 into the ports tree in the future (and they most certainly cannot in the past.) OpenBSD uses 4.4, and to my knowledge, FreeBSD isn't too concerned about the liscence changes bringing pain and suffering all those on this Earth who use open source software:D (I'm kidding:D Please don't flame me:O)
> Some distros suck at recognizing some configurations, while another distro will recognize it without problems. A pain in the butt, but go figure.
Which of course is somewhat interestign seeign how the actual drivers are part of Linux and not added by the distribution normally.. Of course it is upto the distribution what they enable by default and how.
> You didn't mention which distro(s) you tried, but first try the Knoppix live CD here or here. Its hardware recognition is very good and if it recognizes your hardware, it takes about 20 minutes to install to your hard drive (YMMV).
Interestingly, when I personally tried Knoppix early this year, the most recent version failed to recognize: - my broadcom onboard gigabit ethernet chipset - any usb device whatsoever
I still have to see the broadcom chipset work correctly with Linux, I did get USB to work.
Booting from a FreeBSD 5.2 live CD on the other hand got all hardware recognized (not configured in all cases, it didn't contain sane or such for the scanner which I happen to have)
> Regarding printers. Some printers are better supported under Linux than others. Go here to see how well your printer is supported. Go here for more help.
How well a printer is supported has usually more to do with what features of a printer you can use, not with failure of the system to recognize that a printer is connected to a usb port.
> Check your scanner compatibility here. And find more help here.
That is the most tricky one, alltho the usb drivers should be able to tell that I have an usb scanner connected even if it is unable to actually do somethign with the device. This is simply a consequence of how USB works.
> If you still can't get Linux to work, stick with windows, it's not that bad.
I suggest trying FreeBSD instead (that is, if you wat a Unix like environment and want a better chance of 'supported' hardware actually workign out of the box)
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
strategygeek
·
· Score: 1
I haven't seen an official statement from Apple on this, but I believe OS X as we know it is possible only on a BSD foundation for legal, rather than technical, reasons. This is why--if I'm right--you will never see the OS X core moved to a Linux distro.
The GPL used by Linux is a bit too restrictive and "public" for Apple's purposes. For instance, the GPL won't allow you to modify open source code and then close the source, whereas the BSD license will. I don't have specific knowledge of Apple's decision process for choosing FreeBSD as the foundation for OS X, but I assume that at best Apple would have to walk on eggshells under the GPL, and at worst would have to completely restructure their business model.
I've seen well-known commentators make statements similar to yours, so maybe the answer is not this obvious. Anyone have the goods to confirm or refute my assumptions?
P.S.: Don't get it twisted--FreeBSD certainly has enough merits that the decision could have been based on technical considerations alone. From a stability standpoint, consider Netcraft's Uptime Survey. Of the 50 web servers with the longest uptime (time since last reboot) as of 25 July 2004, 1 runs Linux, 1 runs Windows, and the other 48 run a BSD variant. Not unassailable testimony, but still damn impressive.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
bsd_usr
·
· Score: 1
Do you count having USB support first being ahead? If so, then FreeBSD was ahead. That wasn't that long ago.
What about Firewire? Does Linux have that yet? I really don't know that answer, but I do know that FreeBSD has it.
How about easy of maintenance? That would put it ahead too (although, that's quite subjective). CVSup is a great tool for staying up-to-date. CVSup and compile and you're on your way. That's the Unix way. To some, the Unix way is just too hard. I'm quite comfortable with editing files and using the command line.
You know, this arguement will go on forever. It's like the Chevy vs Ford flame wars. Or the Jap-scrap vs Euro-trash auto wars. It will just go on forever.
Who gives a flying fuck what other people use, just use what you like.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
bsd_usr
·
· Score: 1
Yes, and they [Microsoft] still admits to using FreeBSD on some servers. Look it up for yourslef if you want.
> It's not that software should be free, it's that credit should be given to those who create the code,....
Interestingly enough, that was the exact argument given for the license change of XFree86;P
>.... and when distributed, all code that is under the licence should be made available to those who use the software.
And the difference is in believing that last little bit, not in if credit should be given.
> No the GPL doesn't always fit with people's intentions, but neither does the BSD licence (not that I'm saying you said it did). Some people aren't comfortable with allowing code they write and distribute "freely" to be used by people who don't have the same values in regards to software.
Which is really fine, use what you think best for your situation.
I have used both, and am likely to keep usign both, depending on what I am making.
I may find it more important that everyone, proprietary or not, can use some kind of interface, and I want to encourage peopel in doing so.. a BSD license achieves that much better then the GPL.
I may also find it more important that things derived from my work are available to me and others, and I will use the GPL.
Both happen.
The problem is some people on both sides believign that their way of doign is the only possible way.. well, just like with programming languages.. there is no silver bullet.
Woah -- an American/capitalism-hating Chomskyite posting on Slashdot? Color me surprised.
Re:Tobes Of Hades Lit By Flickering Torchlight
by
sabat
·
· Score: 1
"who's" = "whose"
>> He didn't like the direction that v5 was taking so he quit and starting writing BSD code for Apple
Yeah, that's what so many people complain about: if you were actually going to use a BSD, which one? Seems like every 5 minutes someone gets pissed off, quits, and starts a new incompatible project.
-- I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
You have to be some kind of a retard
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
USB doesn't work under linux? Files are randomly lost under linux?
Hasn't happened on any of the dozens of linux workstations and servers that I administer.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hey, that's the way the world works. It's human nature. That's the fucking truth.
Slashdot and FreeBSD have confirmed it, XFree86 is dying. With even the venerable FreeBSD jumping ship, joining the ilk of Red Hat and Debian, we can expect XFree to go out of business momentarily. This, folks, is what becomes of the administrators of a free software project when they mess with the license, screwing the community in the process. May the ill-ridden tale of XFree86 serve as a warning to us all. Requiescat in pacem.
(I know, bad joke)
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
cubic6
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for stating what many of us are thinking. It's good to hear a voice of sanity in this world.
-- Karma: Contrapositive
HUH??? spoken like a newcomer
by
keepper
·
· Score: 1
SunOS 4.X and previous?/usr/ucb in later version, plus many other sprinkles? most of the newer parts of the original ATT code base WERE taken from BSD, aka, the USL lawsuit settlement..
Most other unixes have a LOT of BSD based userland... Not only by taking directly from the bsd releases, but by the mere fact that ATT ITSELF took some of the parts of the BSD releases.
But, replying to the prent above, that IS the whole point of BSD. This was PUBLIC university research, and as such, ALL tax payers, even corporations, are allowed equal access. A simple fact most of the GPL zealots forget. Public money, Public domain ( well, it should at least, lets not go into details.. hehe )
Re:HUH??? spoken like a newcomer
by
cpghost
·
· Score: 1
Re:HUH??? spoken like a newcomer
by
neurojab
·
· Score: 1
>Not only by taking directly from the bsd releases, but by the mere fact that ATT ITSELF took some of the parts of the BSD releases.
I'm not denying that. I was replying to the previous poster that had suggested that SunOS, HP/UX, and AIX were "forked" from BSD, and that the BSD license was the cause of the forking. That is clearly not the case. These proprietary unicies were "forked" from other proprietary versions of UNIX that were NOT BSD licensed. Therefore the BSD license did not cause the forking. QED.
Yes, there's plenty of code overlap. Yes, these unicies did benefit immensly from BSD. But there's a difference between benefiting from BSD and being a direct fork of it.
Re:HUH??? spoken like a newcomer
by
keepper
·
· Score: 1
Well, while not code forks per say.. the Berkley releases contributed much more than userland back to bell labs.. VM, tcp stack, scheduler, and so on...
Re:HUH??? spoken like a newcomer
by
RoLi
·
· Score: 1
Public money, Public domain.
If that's true, public institutions must not buy any proporietary software because with public money spent on proprietary software, the public gets nothing.
> Silly wabbit! They don't. Many proprietary protocols, GPL protocols, etc have been cloned or reverse engineered even when they were standard. However not ALL. With GPL, one is able to port say GIFT to a proprietary UNIX and run it there. Voila, not any harder than that the software was BSD licensed.
Yes it is harder because you can directly use the BSD code while you can only do that with the GPL code if you are willing to publish your source with the binaries. That is a desirable effect maybe, but those who want to keep their software proprietary disagree. Result, they can directly use BSD code, they can only indirectly use GPL code.
> To say TCP/IP never happened with one GPL implementation is a statement which isn't based on any solid grounds. The source is open, so people are at least able to learn from it if they don't wanna contribute to the GPL version.
The TCP/IP implementation that was initially used by Linux, that is still part of the basis of that of WIndows, and is obviously the basis for that in Free/Open/NetBSD was BSD (old 3 clause version) licensed.
If it were GPL licensed, it is extremely likely that it would not have been adopted widely as it is because doing so would have been more expensive for proprietary software makers. The 'proof'? Point me at any proprietary network protocol that is implemented as widely as TCP/IP. Why proprietary? because untill recently, there were very few companies even willing to consider using GPL licensed code, and when havign to write their own code anyway, they want to make some money on it directly.
> Makes way for GPL, proprietary and PD, BSD, etc just fine and more so than proprietary protocols. It does recommend GPL though because you can use the foundation itself which is already there. Fact is you want to use push license as much as you whine on GPL zealots. Pot, meet kettle.
Uh?
First of all, you have the source regardless of GPL or BSD.
THe difference CAN be with derived works where you may not get the sources if the original was BSD licensed while you will if it was GPL licensed.
I do not want to push license, and I use both, and I will use what is appropriate for the situation.
Fact is that GPL imposes a restriction which is at times desirable, at times not.
window managers under X.org's release?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So will the same window managers working under XFree86 also work under X.org's release?
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm sorry, but BSD is more robust. I'm mostly a Linux user, but BSD is a joy to work with because it is much more consistently and thoughtfully designed.
If you did any serious work, you might notice that.
Linux development is very short-term oriented and not well coordinated. BSD is in it for consistency, and the long haul.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 1
> I haven't seen an official statement from Apple on this, but I believe OS X as we know it is possible only on a BSD foundation for legal, rather than technical, reasons. This is why--if I'm right--you will never see the OS X core moved to a Linux distro.
I believe this has more then just legal reasons. It probably has a lot to do with Apple buying NeXT, which was using a BSD style userland on a microkernel... not that different from OS X in setup, and had been doing that way before Linux would have been a viable alternative.
So they have the skills and experience and had a setup that worked but needed a more modern userland while they wanted to concentrate on the gui.. Those things together would for me result in one option only (tho NetBSD and OpenBSD are catching up, for a while their userland felt like that of FreeBSD from half a decade ago.. and to many of your Linux people, the FreeBSD one probably already looks somewhat achaic..
At any rate.. I doubt there are technical reasons to use one or the other that are very relevant to Apple, in either case they won't be using the kernel, and the kernel is where most of the technical differences between Linux and FreeBSD are. A FreeBSD userland is organized differently from a Linux one (usually that is... with the 100+ linux distributions you can no doubt find oen that is almost identical..) and the legalities are different. From what I know you do get things like gcc with OS X so well.. the legalities of the GPL itself don't stop them it seems.. maybe that is different for things in their core OS? I somehow doubt it.. so I end up with their past experience, directly available skills and cost being the main arguments.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
1) Journal file system = soft updates 2) XFS is being ported. 3) do reasearch before putting mouth in gear.
Unix is a Monoculture
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A monoculture that killed many innovative operating systems, leaving with nothing but a poor copy of non-Unix ideas in Windows.
FreeBSD, Linux, or Sun, same shit, different package -- yer still in the vi/rc file ghetto. Thank god Bill Gates broke ties with AT&T and there's at least 1 popular non-Unix OS on the market.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
raodin
·
· Score: 1
Your problems with Linux (instability, RPM hell, constant reinstallation) are so widespread and horrible that I've never encountered any of them, or spoken with someone who has. Whatever works for you, I guess.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It probably has a lot to do with Apple buying NeXT, which was using a BSD style userland on a microkernel.
Correct. It wsa done for technical reasons, not goodness, but cheapness.
Back in the mid-80s, NeXT was not all that unsual -- virtually every unix was BSDish, and many used Mach.
However NextStep development really died in the early 90s. The rest of the Unix world moved on to System V, while NeXT stood still. When Apple picked up development 10 years later, they were stuck with ancient BSD4.4 crap. Moving to Free/Net BSD stuff was just the cheapest and easiest thing to do.
A real technical decision, on pure merit, wouldn't have chosen BSD/Mach in the late 90s. MacOS X is one of the worst performing OSes on the market (which fortunately doesn't matter much for Ghz desktop boxes).
It's a kernel that doesn't even have proper source control
Most developers (including Linus) use BitKeeper but that's another flamewar;)
Others (who don't want/need BK) use CVS or just send patches to the mailing list where they're disseminated. If the patch is good it may get merged into someone's tree.
I have nothing against FreeBSD. You like it: more power to you. I hope that you actually know the code somewhat rather than just relay messages regarding code management that somehow makes everything great. Revision control is a tool, not a panacea.
Cheers Stor
-- "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
"Yes it is harder because you can directly use the BSD code while you can only do that with the GPL code if you are willing to publish your source with the binaries. That is a desirable effect maybe, but those who want to keep their software proprietary disagree. Result, they can directly use BSD code, they can only indirectly use GPL code."
That's not the desirable effect and also such proprietary situation was already existing before GIFT [my example] even started.
"If it were GPL licensed, it is extremely likely that it would not have been adopted widely as it is because doing so would have been more expensive for proprietary software makers. The 'proof'? Point me at any proprietary network protocol that is implemented as widely as TCP/IP. Why proprietary? because untill recently, there were very few companies even willing to consider using GPL licensed code, and when havign to write their own code anyway, they want to make some money on it directly."
Doesn't proof anything to me as it doesn't proof something like that with GPL isn't possible. I do agree it is more _likely_, just not that it is impossible or unlikely. That we're using TCP/IP here as example is ofcourse a naughty one given its part of the kernel thus proprietary UNIX vendors cannot use this code because of CONTRACTS. They can't put it in their proprietary kernel and open up their kernel because of that _even_ when they'd like to do so.
"I do not want to push license, and I use both"
You're contradicting yourself. If you license your code under the GPL and the BSD license while you don't want to push licenses, you are pushing a license with the GPL by putting your code under the GPL.
You try to push it as a rule of thumb for protocols. As i argumented, not by definition true. Sometimes GPL code can't even used on a different platform. I really depends on the situation, and i don't see how Samba or GIFT would be more succesful when they were BSD licensed.
-- WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Modern Linux systems tend to be highly unstable with large numbers of known issues and overall poor testing. This is done intentionally to help Linux reach a competitive stage more quickly. But one does have to wonder: Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months?
Debian Stable for the most part addresses those concerns. As you say, the debian "unstable" release is updated very often "intentionally to help [it] reach a competitive stage [with msft]". Howver the stable release, not unlike BSDs, really is a very conservatively managed release that seems to be updated more like every three years rather than every three months.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
BrokenHalo
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If he's only used SillyHat or any of those rpm-based distributions he may well have had problems.
They tend not to arise with proper distributions.:-) I'll let you decide for yourself what is a proper distribution (mine's Slackware, but YMMV).
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I run both FreeBSD and Linux. Even Gentoo is generally behind FreeBSD in having the latest packages (I like staying on the bleeding edge).
Can Linux do remote kernel debugging over firewire? Stable, integrated IPv6 and IPsec? How long has it had a WiFi network framework?
It isn't unusual for there to be things that are marked "experimental" in the latest Linux versions or are available as third-party patches, which are already integrated and stable in some or all of the BSDs.
Often, I find hardware support in FreeBSD to be ahead of Linux (and sometimes vice versa); e.g. the gigabit LAN on my laptop. I actually used to assume that Linux had better hardware support all-around than FreeBSD; that was before I started running Linux on some of my machines.
There's also a lot of FreeBSD conventions that I strongly prefer. Consider the FreeBSD kernel configuration vs. Linux kernel configuration. Or the FreeBSD bootloader vs. the Linux bootloader. Or the FreeBSD documentation (good man-pages for all system commands, the handbook).
You may prefer Linux, which is fine with me, but you haven't provided any reasons why anyone else should.
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you think XFree is dead, then at least its
corpse is still warm.
On the other hand, BSD is stone cold dead. BSD is dead like the proverbial doornail. Bury the bitch already.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 1
> A real technical decision, on pure merit, wouldn't have chosen BSD/Mach in the late 90s. MacOS X is one of the worst performing OSes on the market (which fortunately doesn't matter much for Ghz desktop boxes).
Hmm. a real technical decision, on pure merit.. that would include a lot more then raw performance (or better said, lack of overhead).
A big advantage of mach and similar kernels is that all IPC is message based, which prevents the need for locking. This makes it really easy to scale it to more parallel environments and prevents quite a bit of complicated and bug prone code.
An operating system can't hate another operating system.
Dragonfly doesn't hate freebsd, it's forked from it. Openbsd doesn't hate Netbsd, it's forked from it. It's merely a difference in direction that the developers took, nothing more. It's a matter of "scratching an itch", not making some sort of social statement.
> That's not the desirable effect and also such proprietary situation was already existing before GIFT [my example] even started
Uh, this effect is quite desirable according to those people in their copy-left argument. Note, it is an effect desired by the people who wrote that license, and often by those who use it. If that applies to you personally is another matter.
> You're contradicting yourself. If you license your code under the GPL and the BSD license while you don't want to push licenses, you are pushing a license with the GPL by putting your code under the GPL.
Uh? that is not about pushign a license but about wanting a specific result for the code I wrote.
> You try to push it as a rule of thumb for protocols. As i argumented, not by definition true. Sometimes GPL code can't even used on a different platform. I really depends on the situation, and i don't see how Samba or GIFT would be more succesful when they were BSD licensed.
This is entirely because the original implementation is not licensed in a way that allows you to reuse its source code (even if you do have access to it)
The situation would be entirely different when the original implementations were available with a GPL or BSD license or similar. For a free software developer it wouldn't matter much which as logn as it would be compatible with his/her license of choice, but to proprietary software makers it would matter.
Releasing Samba with a BSD license would allow SCO to stick a modified version into their unix versions with help of MS and never make the changes available.. this would obviously not help anyone:)
At any rate.. the situation can be different when you are re-implementing an already existing proprietary protocol, but for newly developed protocols, I'd definitely decide on a BSD style license for a reference implementation if I want it to be widely used (and not just in Linux)
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Actually the GPL is made so that companies can give code to the public to use but if another company wants to make money off of the source code your company developed then they have to negotiate with you for a license. The point of the GPL is that you aren't giving away your copyrights to the software. You keep your copyrights, and in addition can make money off of companies that need your source code. Pretty much what I think is this, BSD is open source for suckers and there are a lot of them out there. Pretty much if you release under the BSD you will never see money for the work you did. Essentially the BSD license is the real license of communists and I think people like you who try to pretend its not are just pissed off because people won't give you a free ride. Pretending that the GPL is for people who want software to be free isn't a good way to make remarks. You should understand that the GPL is another way to restrict competition. If people steal your work you have legal options to sue for money. With BSD what can you do but pretend you like to give away your money for free when a company steals your work. So think of it like this, if a company wants to use your code which would you rather license your code with if you don't mind letting people use it for free (who don't have the money or don't plan to profit from your work) and still want to make money when larger companies want to use your code as their own? BSD doesn't work in this situation and never will.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So it performs poorly, but it can "scale". Do you happen to work for Sun Micro?
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 1
> So it performs poorly, but it can "scale". Do you happen to work for Sun Micro?
Considering the concept was used on 68k machines and was quite able to handle dozens of phone lines in realtime (something I have done with such hardware and software), I'd say it doesn't perform poorly, it does however have more overhead then for example a monolythic kernel with a unix style userland even when both concepts are perfected as far as technically feasable.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Now if only Gentoo didn't blow me where the Pampers is...
Say it with me folks, "Gentoo sucks."
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wake up, moderators. The parent post is -1, Offtopic, not +3 Insightful. The topic, in case you hadn't noticed, is X.Org. XFree, and FreeBSD, not Marxism vs Capitalism.
Re:Bad News Everyone?
by
JamesTRexx
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
One *BSD hates the other? Where did you get that idea? If it's just because some developers have their own idea on how to implement things, you might as well say that every GNU/Linux distro hates the other ones. Which does seem to be the case with all the distro zealots and their ranting on how only their choice is the good one.
-- I'm determined to reclaim my karma. Now, if I can only find a groundbreaking article and something witty to say....
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
*BSD is not about being exciting, it is about doing its job well. That is very boring actually, nothing exciting there. Yep, fully agreed, our servers are running on FreeBSD with huge uptimes and very few issues compared to the ones we had with Linux. I've worked at places where I've installed FreeBSD servers then left, gone back over a year later and its all still running fine (inet cafe router/cache, webservers).
Linux USB support is such an amazingly horrible hack that it is surprising it does anything at all. I suggest you go read the source instead of posting bullshit. I've read the source and I disagree, if you can pick up anything in particular then fine but you don't beat flames with more flames. My USB stuff worked fine in 2.4 so I'm assuming you're annoyed with the parents flamish tones, which I can agree with.
Reiser has caused me way more problems then FFS ever did Agreed, however FFS is a lot more mature than reiser so not entirely unexpected.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Erm, you just said exactly the same thing as he said: "the middle class shouldn't get too smug in their middle-class comfort, because in today's equal-opportunity world, the lower classes will not stay down there forever", or in other words, the lower classes are important because they scare the shit out of the middle classes. You can dress it up in optimism if you like by concentrating on the possibility of the working class people becoming middle class, but you're presenting the exact same argument as the one you claim not to be presenting.
Debian GNU/BSD port status?
by
The_Dougster
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Whats the word on Debian's port to the BSD kernel? Mainly I just like the feature-rich Debian platform and I don't give a rat's ass what kernel it runs on. Hell, even Debian/Hurd is a pretty sweet system if you can manage to get it work.
I, for one, would definately give Debian/BSD a spin around the block once its somewhat usable. Right now the Hurd is way more advanced than the BSD port.
The reason I don't currently use BSD is because of games. I am one of those 3L337 linux gamer dudes who not only has managed to get linux installed, but rather I have lots and lots of kickass games for it. Some I compile from CVS, some I buy, some run under Wine. Fact is, if I can move a game from Win2k to Linux, I do it. The only games I still have on Win2k are a couple Baldur/Icewind games and Fallout Tactics. The rest of the ones that don't work in Wine suck anyways and I never play them.
I am experimenting with Gentoo though. I'm currently rebuilding in the background in a chrooted environment from Debian. Trying to get a stable system, although I think it really might be the new Nvidia drivers that are causing the problems.
Gentoo is pretty cool, but its no Debian. It seems well suited to being a Linux gaming platform though. Its toolchain is great and it is highly optimized. Wine (compiled from CVS) on Gentoo runs faster than native windows does, whereas wine (compiled from CVS) runs like crap in Debian.
-- Clickety Click...
Re:Debian GNU/BSD port status?
by
TheRaven64
·
· Score: 1
Most Linux binaries, including games, run in the Linux binary compatibility layer (not an emulator, just a different ABI, so stuff runs at full speed) under FreeBSD. Wine runs fine under FreeBSD, so windows games that work under Wine will work fine on FreeBSD. Oh, and nVidia also release binary drivers for FreeBSD, so you'll even get 3D acceleration.
I stronly disagree with your statements...
by
Saem
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
BSD is the antithesis of competition. LGPL is the anti-competition, tis the ultimate of truces.
Look at the BSDs, their greatness is achieved through entities (the groups) pursuing goals which may produce overlap work. But they SHARE, with little ego for the most part.
If you think about it, it's not competition that drives them, it's cooperation and out right, striving, for the betterment of all that they can effect and themselves. There are more things, but currently, at least to my limited ability to express myself, remain ineffable.
Additionally, if not tangentially, how many different versions of Linux do we have, not distros or backported kernels for some of those distros, but actual, different kernels? Why is Linus' Linux basically the main one?
Re:I stronly disagree with your statements...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Additionally, if not tangentially, how many different versions of Linux do we have, not distros or backported kernels for some of those distros, but actual, different kernels? Why is Linus' Linux basically the main one?
This has a very simple answer: 'Linux' is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds, and so nobody can use the trademark (e.g. for their own fork of the Linux kernel) without his permission. As long as Linus Torvalds wants only a single Linux kernel, there will be only one.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Y'know, parent is currently sitting on the front page of AntiSlash.
interestingly, when I personally tried Knoppix early this year, the most recent version failed to recognize: - my broadcom onboard gigabit ethernet chipset - any usb device whatsoever
I still have to see the broadcom chipset work correctly with Linux, I did get USB to work.
hmm, both have worked fine for me since I go my new laptop. Jul 25 08:04:03 xxxxxxx kernel: eth0: Tigon3 [partno(BCM95702A20) rev 1002 PHY(5703)] (PCI:33MHz:32-bit) 10/100/1000BaseT Ethernet 00:0d:56:77:82:ec Jul 25 08:04:03 xxxxxxx kernel: eth0: HostTXDS[1] RXcsums[1] LinkChgREG[1] MIirq[1] ASF[0] Split[0] WireSpeed[1] TSOcap[1]
Notice that is a Broadcom chipset (gigabit), uses the Tigron3 driver, module name tg3.
As for the USB mouse, it's always worked for me since I got my new laptop, just plugged it in an it worked, no fuss no muss.
Jul 25 08:04:03 xxxxxxx kernel: input: USB HID v1.10 Mouse [Logitech Optical USB Mouse] on usb-0000:00:1d.0-1
I run debian unstable, just in case you were wondering.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Torne
·
· Score: 1
>Besides, you seem to be a bit clueless once more.. journaling filesystems do not prevent data loss, they prevent situations where your data and meta data is out of sync, and they provide for a rollback to resync those in case they do end up being out of sync still.
Actually, ext3 does prevent data loss in full data journalled mode. Also, a journalled FS will only ever have to roll back at most one transaction to recover; under all normal circumstances, not even that is neccecary as transactions can be replayed instead of undone.
I wonder how many people this will affect...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I wonder how many people this will affect...
I guess several distros might add it as an option, plus any 'hard-core' types, but for us 'users'?
See, take me for instance - I am fairly computer savvy but not enough to do any code hacking. I am knowledgable enough that I find compiling the Linux kernel very easy (Because it is;)).
However, while I have upgraded things like OpenSSH/L, the kernel, Midnight Commander, X-Chat etc. on a fairly frequent basis, I have never EVER upgraded X, KDE, my c libraries or in fact ANY core system code.
The upshot of this is that all the core system is still whatever Slackware 8.0 was.
I've had a couple of problems (OpenSSL/H has broken Konqurer for instance), but most of the stuff that's broken I never use anyway.
My point is, the core system has never been upgraded, and I suspect I never will upgrade it until I have a hard disk crash, then I'll probably try a totally different distro. The Linux disto on my main system was also Slack8.0, but I buggered it up not long ago and have been trying out Gentoo.
I am now too scared to compile X, KDE, etc. because it took me 2 days of downloading and compiling just to get a working system from stage1!
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
There Is No Such Thing As Equal Opportunities.
Opportunities is nice to those who have education. Education = Money. Lots of money. Equal opportunities is a lie.
Please don't tell me about ppl who made the American Dream. Born poor, now a millionaire. Of course they exist. But they are the exception, not the rule./rant. not to be taken as an offense, honestly.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
USB? Excatly opposite for me. Diva MP3 Player won't work with NetBSD-{current,stable} and FreeBSD-5.2.1RC. UFS2? Come on, it needs around 6 seconds to open my Maildir (3K e-mails), while it's just 1 second for ext3fs.
BSDs are dead from my end-user view. They, of course, are a nice codebase if you want to develop something commercial and closed-source. But nothing more.
one thing FreeBSD does good
by
kardar
·
· Score: 1
Generally speaking, FreeBSD is good, and Linux is also good. I think that they are both good, if you know how to configure them.
Linux is excellent when it comes to hardware that is not i386. That is one of Linux's greatest strengths. Also NetBSD's, but there are things about Linux and expensive cutting-edge hardware that are undeniably wonderful.
FreeBSD is best on the i386, perhaps the Alpha as well. I have not tried FreeBSD on Alpha, but FreeBSD on i386 is great. So are some Linux distributions on i386.
One thing that I like about FreeBSD is this: now that everyone has broadband, (well, not everyone) - but when it comes to installing an OS on your computer, broadband sure does help.
So I stopped downloading the ISOs and basically all you need for Debian, and FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Gentoo as well, I am sure that there are more like this - but I have tried all of those - you download and burn a small install CD-R - something like 50-100 megs or so, and then the installer downloads whatever else you want. That way an entire install with most of what you need to get up and running in terms of software is about 300-600 megs, or so, depending on what you want to install right off the bat.
A situation I ran into with Debian was this - come back later, say like a month later, and try to install an application that has dependencies (in my case it was K3B without having KDE on the machine) - and it doesn't work. Libraries and dependencies have been upgraded and are newer than what you have on your machine the older ones that would be appropriate for your install aren't available anymore - so you need to upgrade the system first. If you had a snapshot (i.e. if you had downloaded 3 or 4 isos and installed from that) you would be OK, you would just be getting slightly older everything by installing from the CDs you downloaded a month ago. But having done the net install, I had to upgrade the entire OS, which is probably not a bad idea, and is pretty easy to do anyway, but still... all I wanted to do was install one program and I have to upgrade the entire OS to be in sync with everything on the debian software archives. Not a big deal, but it kind of makes you think that sometimes it would be nice to have a snapshot.
This is the cool thing about the FreeBSD ports system. The ports system looks in various places for the source code of things - not a central binary archive that you set with Debian, for instance - and if you ever look at source code ftp servers and so on, you can find previous versions for perhaps even years later after newer versions have come out. So with the ports system, you essentially have a snapshot, and even though it may take longer, and the ports system might search many different places and experience timeouts when it tries to find source code for stuff a year after you originally installed it, chances are that it still might work. Certainly, you can upgrade the ports system via cvs anytime, and it's a good idea to do so, as well as upgrade your base system (which is, admittedly, a bit scary) but the nice thing is that you don't have to upgrade the ports every few weeks if you don't want to. So with FreeBSD you get to do a netinstall, save bandwidth and CD-Rs, yet still have what essentially amounts to a snapshot in time of additional software. There are also occasional advantages to building software from source in terms of legal issues, which all results in having more software available than you would when someone else has to take the source and repackage it up for you and redistribute it in binary form.
The other nice thing with FreeBSD is that it has a repository of binaries, which it hits up when you first do your install, to help speed things up. You can recompile everything from source later once you get your system up and running if you really want to. Get it running first.
I suppose you could do many of these things with Gentoo as well, in a similar fashion. One thing that Gentoo still needs is a good selection of binaries - I am sure t
Re:one thing FreeBSD does good
by
_krimson_
·
· Score: 1
The issue you run into with Debian and your libraries going out of date can be easily solved by running the stable branch.
When you run an unstable/development branch, you should expect development to happen and things to change...it's just the nature of the beast.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
javax
·
· Score: 1
I assume you have never heard of soft updates?
As long as you only do meta-data journaling, soft updates is an appropriate replacement. Its advantage is that you can use the proven FFS and have your meta-data in a defined state all the time. This is like having the compatibility advantage of ext3-journaling for ext2, though its as fast as e. g. reiserfs.
In other news, FreeBSD has the most machines in netcrafts top 10 uptime servers...
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
MrHanky
·
· Score: 1
No, he's saying the middle class shouldn't get too smug in their middle-class comfort, because in today's equal-opportunity world, the lower classes will not stay down there forever.
Oh, come on. That wasn't what he said. Interpreted as the best possible intended meaning, he could say that the lower classes has value first and foremost because they scare the middle classes into working harder: The member of the middle class doesn't want to fall down.
This is problematic for several reasons:
The lower classes' terrible wages keep prices low, and the comparable wealth of the middle class higher because a) they can afford more with the low prices b) they are much richer than the poor. That's the "value" of the lower classes for the higher classes: They are "funding" their wealth through poor wages.
Who cares if there are more reasons, the economic one triumphs every time in capitalist society, as in most (or all) other societies as well.
The idea that competition magically makes everything and everyone work better is contradicted by points 1 and 2. Competition under capitalism is like a game of poker where the owner of the deck of cards gets to decide which cards you can loan before you get to play. The game is rigged, and if the middle players are scared by the lower players, the only way he can compete 'better' is to play the game the way the dealer wants it to be played: The lower classes is valuable to the upper classes because it scares the middle classes.
What you're saying is even more stupid: Do you really think that today's lower classes are going to rise, within this so-called equal opportunity world? That the person that asks "Do you want fries with that?" will be more wealthy than the person that decides which time of night said burger-pusher has to work?
Of course, the McWorker could get a better job, but that makes no difference whatsoever for the rest of his class: The fact that some people can climb classes doesn't mean shit for the lower classes. I'm not saying all this because I want to advocate some some other ideology, I'm just pointing out that the current one is broken and shouldn't be defended.
Additionally, the analogy between class and software sucks: The competition between Linux and FreeBSD is not like class struggle in any known model. It's not even like competition between to companies: Both parts get to know exactly what the other part does. The competition between Linux and *BSD is more like competition between scientists: The one with most followers (developers) "wins"
Broadband? Everyone? No chance....
by
tiger99
·
· Score: 1
The majority of the world does not have broadband, in my case thanks to the incompetence and dishonesty of my local cable company.
Without broadband, and on a modem with a 2 hour limit, as most of the world has to put up with, not a sinle Linux distro is upgradeable with large patches, as often needed for security. I know, I have tried them all, and those I have paid good money for, such as Redf Hat, SuSe and Xandros, did not even bother to acknowledge my bug reports. It is utterly stupid, they have things like wget that can resume transfers but either they don't have that capability on the servers or their rotten update programs have been designed by a committee of idiots, as obviously was RPM. In the case of SuSE, Yast has now gone under GPL, but that is of zero help because there are masses of marginally commented files and it is not at all clear how it is supposed to work, otherwise I am so mad at it that I might try to fix it myself (says he as he nearly smashes his keyboard by pounding too hard....)I am mad about this, it has been going on for far too long, with insanely big patches like 130MB for a stupid binary kernel patch. These distros deserve to fade into oblivion, even the incompetent scumbags in Redmond can do better than that.
I have not tried major updates to BSD yet, hopefully it will be better, as presumably source patches are used, but the user interface is a total disaster, i.e. there is not one.....
As I keep saying, people with the expertise need to urgently turn their attention to basic useability things like this, or the Criminal Monopoly will deserve to wipe out FOSS, by actually having given more consideration to his customers. For instance, why has FreeBSD (which I like) not got a decent installer, such that a fairly fast worker like me still takes 6 hours to make package selections? can't they be grouped, and also take info from the previous config as a starting point? Even YaST manages that.
Come on developers, realise that everyone needs to apply patches, not 10% of users worldwide have broadband, the remaining 90% or so are living with bugs and security holes because you can't be bothered to attend to detail.
This is sure to attract flames, but jsut think about what I have said first, and if you can fix some of these things, or tell me how to fix them, please do. Lots of people including myself will be very grateful.
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah. Why should you be able to benefit from others (spare-time) work without giving anything back? Parasite!
Re:*BSD is dying
by
Anne+Thwacks
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
It may have been dead one, but now its the UNDEAD [cue blood curling screams and creaking doors]
Be afraid, be very afraid, indeed ye trolls, quake in your very boots, for hordes of undead BSD zombies will haunt you day and night, and not only that, probably serve your web pages and host your e-mail too!
If
I derive from a GPLed work, my work is automatically GPLed as well
Viruses don't ask for permission. Also it isn't automaticly GPLed, you can reject the GPL by not distributing the derived work.
-- Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Soft updates = cheesy hack NOT journaling.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
ScottGant
·
· Score: 1
Calm down...it's a George Carlin joke.
It goes a little like this:
"Upper class - Makes all of the money, does none of the work, pays none of the taxes.
Middle class - Does all of the work, pays all of the taxes.
Lower class - Well, we just keep them around to scare the shit out of the middle class."
It was ment to be funny and in no way ment to comment on what's right or whats wrong or whats political or not. I know you didn't know the reference and your indignation shows it. But come on, lighten up a little and we'll try to be a little more serious. Meet half way...
--
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
RLiegh
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I had a few issues with the latest slackware release; both of which I believe boil down to Pat jumping on the Xorg bandwagon before Xorg is honestly ready to be used widely (and as long as your computer freezes when you switch to console mode from X -- then Xorg is not ready).
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
RLiegh
·
· Score: 1
Consider the FreeBSD kernel configuration vs. Linux kernel configuration.
That would mean I'd have to think about Linux kernel configuration. *shudder* No. Thank. You.
Seriously, you have to have a CS degree just to configure a Linux kernel; but with BSD you simply have to be able to read and have a clue what you're looking for.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 1
> I've read the source and I disagree, if you can pick up anything in particular then fine but you don't beat flames with more flames. My USB stuff worked fine in 2.4 so I'm assuming you're annoyed with the parents flamish tones, which I can agree with.
Well, as mentioned elsewhere, untill 2.6, it did not manage to properly use my mouse and sd card reader. Judging from people around me as well as what I am reading on here and the rest of the web, I am far from unique in having had such problems. Both devices work with a generic kernel on FreeBSD 4.x and 5.x.
Of course that doesn't say much about the quality of the source code, I cannot point at one specific file that 'sucks', but while reading it and trying to fix it, I found the code very unfriendly to work with. (I have made private changes to both Linux and FreeBSD, and have the skills for it)
At any rate, it wasn't an unfounded flame or such, but my experience and an opinion based on it.
> Agreed, however FFS is a lot more mature than reiser so not entirely unexpected.
True, you'd think tho that ufs has at least the same level of maturity.. (point being that the reliability of ffs is a result of a few design decisions more then anything)
Well, I should try again then with a more recent kernel maybe.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 1
> Actually, ext3 does prevent data loss in full data journalled mode.
And? that still doesn't prevent incomplete writes. WHen you lose power in the muiddle of a write, that write is hosed, completely regardless of what filesystem you use.
> Also, a journalled FS will only ever have to roll back at most one transaction to recover; under all normal circumstances, not even that is neccecary as transactions can be replayed instead of undone.
As already mentioned, when you lose power in the middle of the actual write, that write is incomplete. You cannot replay an incomplete write.
This is also the only situation where ffs will ever lose data, so the difference is virtually none with regards to this.
A big difference is that neither ext3fs or reiser have to do a time consuming filesystem check to detect and recover from such things whereas ffs needs a fsck which takes its time usually (not much of a problem in FreeBSD 5.x due to snapshots and background fsck)
> Yeah. Why should you be able to benefit from others (spare-time) work without giving anything back? Parasite!
If your anoymnous shithead would bother to read, you'd see that I don't object to this property of the GPL, I state it as fact that the GPL has this property, and that as a result it 'infects' derived works. That is a statement of fact, and has nothign whatsoever to do with if that is desirable or not.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
BSD is running on fumes of hype right now, once people wake up and realize it sucks it will be all done.
Is that why 48 of the top 50 of the longest uptime servers are running BSD?
AH, so viruses have a property that is different from the GPL? well.. good.. doesn't change in any way that the GPL has virulant behavior with regards to other licenses in the context of derived works.
> Also it isn't automaticly GPLed, you can reject the GPL by not distributing the derived work.
You don't get the point, do you? I was not endorcing the GPL or objecting to it, I was STATING A FACT about its behavior in relation to other licenses. Of course I can reject it, or I can use it, that is simply completely besides the point here.
QUIT SPREADING LIES YOU FANBOY
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm sick of this superiority complex that you loser *BSD users have. Face it, you're worshiping a dying platform. Linux does EVERYTHING as well or better than any of your outdated stuff. Pick a non-sucky distro like Slackware and you simply cannot beat it. One day you fanboys will face the music: The trolls ARE right, *BSD IS DYING.
Re:QUIT SPREADING LIES YOU FANBOY
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Because Linux is gaining so much credibility this way. Whatever.
Re:QUIT SPREADING LIES YOU FANBOY
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
By pointing out the truth? Hell yeah. Go back to your primitive platform, fanboy. You've got nothing.
Re:QUIT SPREADING LIES YOU FANBOY
by
DashEvil
·
· Score: 1
Ah, I love people that try to tell me what OS to use.
Sure, sure. Linux is superior. I'm egotistical because I decided to install FreeBSD on my desktop rather than Linux. But man, the satisfaction out of so easily being able to piss you off just by using an OS that you don't like. Man, that shit is priceless.
--
-If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
dasunt
·
· Score: 1
Modern Linux systems tend to be highly unstable with large numbers of known issues and overall poor testing.
Are you ignorant? Or just a troll?
This is done intentionally to help Linux reach a competitive stage more quickly. But one does have to wonder: Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months?
Lets see -- the linux server behind me was installed Winter of 2001-2002. Probably around January, IIRC. Its been through one binary release upgrade, and will go through another one soon.
The whole reason of ditching windows was to get away from reinstalling, DLL hell, and system instabilities. So we've made things better by replacing these 'problems' with reinstalling, RPM hell, and system instabilities.
I don't reinstall. My distribution handles dependencies. As for instabilities, the only downtime that I (don't?) see is when the lights go out. I'm unsure what this "RPM" is that you speak of -- my distribution doesn't use it.
Free Clue #1: Windows is good. Linux is good. *BSD is good. They all have strengths and weaknesses.
Free Clue #2: Don't criticize a system you don't know.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 1
> USB? Excatly opposite for me. Diva MP3 Player won't work with NetBSD-{current,stable} and FreeBSD-5.2.1RC.
Thats interesting, tho I heard a similar experience from someone with a pen drive.
> UFS2? Come on, it needs around 6 seconds to open my Maildir (3K e-mails), while it's just 1 second for ext3fs.
Hmm, I don't use maildir based programs, but that factor 6 in interesting.. it is the same factor as mentioned years ago in benchmarks between ext2fs and ffs..
At any rate, did you turn on softupdates? I do have a 30.7MB large inbox with 1641 mails in there. Scanning it takes my mailer less then 2 secs.
> BSDs are dead from my end-user view. They, of course, are a nice codebase if you want to develop something commercial and closed-source. But nothing more.
Everyone his own opinion of course, but I think you should consider that *BSD is more server oriented then desktop oriented.
Also, if you think Apple is dead (has been proclaimed dead quite often) then fine, but so far it seems they are doing fine with their BSD derived OS..
I'd reconsider proclaiming something dead that quite consistently supports new hardware and is quite actively being developed and used.
If I'd follow your reasoning, we could as well proclaim Windows dead.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Ah. Another mindless linux zealot heard from.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
nothing to see here, move along.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Long haul? BSD has one foot in the grave. FreeBSD is practically dead. There ain't not
future in it. Sorry to bring you back to reality,
but them's the facts.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
drinkypoo
·
· Score: 1
Point the first: I am a member of the lower class. I am distinctly uncultured by the standards by which these things are measured (not being a fan of opera or theater) and I have very little money.
Point the second: I didn't create the system and I don't approve of it. My views on education and social services might surprise you, especially given your talent for knee-jerk assumption.
Point the third: Your rant about laws of nature, human nature, and the way of the world, et cetera, is completely misguided since I did not attempt to bring up any of those things, nor did I suggest that the current status quo is appropriate or natural. In fact, I believe it is completely artificial. But nonetheless you have made an astounding leap which would be quite impressive if you were a long jumper but will neither impress nor surprise anyone in a discussion on slashdot.
The fact is that your whinging has nothing to do with anything. You just wanted to go off half-cocked. I may be a huge asshole, but I am not advocating anything in the context of this post. I was using an example that I found humorous which apparently you failed to find humor in. The incongruity of our funny bones is neither my fault nor my problem.
In any case, I feel that our governments have something to gain by keeping society stratified. Namely, it keeps them (and those who pad their pockets) riding the crust of the shit sandwich which we must all bite. I believe that in most nations, a deliberate effort is made to keep the poor at a low economic level, and I think that one of those functions is to keep the middle class scared. Government controls us by keeping us divided so that we will not rise up as one in outrage and kick the "fat cats" out of their positions of power and glory.
This is clearly not a direct parallel to the linux vs. BSD situation, since at times BSD has been in a better position than Linux. Those days are currently over due to a comparative lack of interest in BSD development but they could be reversed at any time. The "battle" between BSD and Linux is really a battle between the BSDL and the GPL, however, and is probably not subject to external interference to the same degree as the world economic climate.
Instead of jumping to conclusions, perhaps you should consider reading the post and seeing what it actually says. I believe only one thing about human nature: Most people are either idiots, or too passionate to act logically, which amounts to basically the same thing in terms of my interactions with them, so if I have an agenda, I usually state it outright for the english-impaired.
Maybe next time I'll include some special disclaimers just for you.
-- "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
bubkus_jones
·
· Score: 1
>Interestingly enough, that was the exact argument given for the license change of XFree86;P
I didn't follow that whole shpiel, so I don't know what happened with it or why everyone's going against the XFree people, or why X.Org is getting popular. I just think it makes sense, you do the work, you get the credit. If someone wants to use your work in their project, they should ask permission, and use the code according to your wishes (via the licence you choose). If they don't want to use it, they can go somewhere else.
As far as I'm concerned with XFree, it's their right to change their licence and I don't care. If the new licence doesn't jive with the other licences of the software I'm using, I'll either stick to a version that does jive, or I'll find an alternative.
I haven't distributed much code, as I've mostly done the odd shell script to automate a few things (I made a little script that'll change the.xsession file depending on what windowmanager you want to use. It's been my most complex thing, so far, comprised of an echoed menu and a few if statements).
So, in the end, we agree, use what works best for each given situation.
> You were making a statement, that much I'll give you. Fact it is not.
I suggest you go read the GPL, it quite clearly states the conditions for usage in derived works, what I said is part of that, so unless you want to dispute the GPL, it is fact that the GPL behaves as described.
It seems your problem is that you do not like the usage of the word viral here, well, that is fine. You may want to keep in mind that people use the word that way and why they do so, regardless of if you agree personally. Alternatively, you can insist on misunderstanding people on purpose, whatever you like.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Torne
·
· Score: 1
Preventing incomplete writes is not the same as preventing data loss. If the OS tells the app that data is written to disk, and it is not, then data has been lost. This never happens with a fully data-journalled filesystem, because the OS will not claim that the write is complete until it's at least been recorded in the journal. The write might not be complete if power dies right then, but *nobody has been told that it was*.
This is vital for any kind of database, mail server, or other system in which the server process has to be able to tell the client that their data is 'safe'. For example, the mail RFCs forbid a server to reply to the DATA part of an SMTP transaction with a confirmation until the mail has been written to permanent storage; replying 200 means that you have taken responsibility for ensuring the mail's delivery. Without full-data journalling, this means you have to fsync() after writing but before confirming the write; this can be slow. With full-data journalling, you are assured that the write has been journalled and will be replayed.
Mail servers and databases running on FFS or any other non-data-journalled filesystem have to fsync() frequently to preserve data integrity. This is not neccecary on a data-journalled FS.
That's the difference.
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So for the benefit of the comunicatively disabled shithead hiding behind a silly_nickname.
I read. And I saw what you wrote. It didn't sound positive. "Viral" and "infectious" is hardly any positive words. Other people using those words... oh, you mean the marketing people over at Redmond!
Whatever your intentions where, you came of like some pissed jerk whom just found out that your plan to
1. Nick GPL:ed code 2. ??? 3. Profit!!!!!
wouldn't work, or at least has the possibility land you in hot water.
You may want to keep in mind that people use the word that way and why they do so
People call the GPL viral to discurage its usage. A common smokescreen tactic -- you associate whatever you don't like with something negative, make some swallow arguments to make the connection appear strong and hope that people won't look deeper into it.
Here is a rule of thumb for GPL sceptics: if in doubt treat the software as if it was proprietary.
-- Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
RWerp
·
· Score: 1
This is what I'v never understood: why do some people consider all distributions based on RPM package system as inferior to those employing a different package system? It's just a package system, man! Are.ZIP archived Windows programs systematically better to those packed with RAR?
-- "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
steffl
·
· Score: 1
I understand that you reply to an unreasonable post but that's no excuse to be unreasonbable yourself:-)
mouse problem: I looked at your question but you need to provide more details, it might be more useful to ask in distro specific forum
usb: it works fairly well in linux as well
loosing files after crash: you need journaling file system, how is this freebsd versus linux issue?
programs more responsive, system stays up longer, hacked up less: no substance... you can believe it if you want but bringing it up as an argument doesn't seem to make much sense... (without proof) BTW I am using freebsd at work, linux at home and can't tell the difference (i.e. there's about as much difference between slackware and debian as between debian and freebsd)
you wrote: "Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months?"
and in your journal: "I've decided that I want a Linux distro that works correctly out of the box, and needs minimal configuration."
perhaps you should ask yourself what you really want. from funny requirements comes funny result. usually. hint: if you don't want to reinstall your OS get a distro that is easy to maintain and upgrade, NOT the one that is easiest to install. I am not saying you should get debian but I have a debian install since about '98, constanlty upgraded, no rpm hell, (almost) no problems, constantly on the cutting edge (and this is fairly common, ask on debian mailing lists)
all in all, there's no need to make linux look bad for freebsd to look good!
-- ...all excited, don't know why...
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
steffl
·
· Score: 1
"What about Firewire? Does Linux have that yet?"
yes (and it also supports HFS+ so I can use iPod with linux)
"How about easy of maintenance?"
depends on distro, apt-get is easy enough (debian)
erik
-- ...all excited, don't know why...
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 1
mouse problem: I looked at your question but you need to provide more details, it might be more useful to ask in distro specific forum
If you read my Journal from the beginning, you'll find that the mouse problem is present on all distros and Linux kernel versions. My optical mouse works for awhile, then Linux forgets it exists.
usb: it works fairly well in linux as well
Fairly well, yes. But it has a lot of bugs and problems that keep popping up. My USB Optical Mouse problem is a perfect example.
loosing files after crash: you need journaling file system, how is this freebsd versus linux issue?
Journalling is not a guarantee of a stable file system. I was just speaking with a collegue of mine on JavaGaming.org about how his EXT3 filesystem went belly up. BSD's FFS is a well tested filesystem that has one of the highest levels of reliability in the industry.
you wrote: "Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months?"
and in your journal: "I've decided that I want a Linux distro that works correctly out of the box, and needs minimal configuration."
That's correct. I want a Linux system that I can install, run, and never actaully have to worry about again. While I can at least get to a Linux system that's easy to install (e.g. SuSE), they still release constant OS upgrades that require an upgrade reinstall. The only bright side to this is that your data files (hopefully) don't get deleted.
hint: if you don't want to reinstall your OS get a distro that is easy to maintain and upgrade, NOT the one that is easiest to install. I am not saying you should get debian but I have a debian install since about '98, constanlty upgraded, no rpm hell, (almost) no problems, constantly on the cutting edge (and this is fairly common, ask on debian mailing lists)
You'll note that Debian stable fails to meet most of the rest of my criteria. For example, lack of USB support means that my input devices don't work with the OS.
Remember, Debian stable is BEFORE Linux had USB support as part of the kernel. I still have a FreeBSD machine running from around that time that supports USB just fine.
all in all, there's no need to make linux look bad for freebsd to look good!
As I said, Linux has its ups and FreeBSD has its ups. I merely named some things that were important to me that FreeBSD met, that Linux doesn't.:-)
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 1
I am very aware of the difference and that a journallign filesystem is a better solution, but really, read up on ffs, unless you specifically configure it otherwise, it won't allow for the situation you describe and hence at the price of performance, gives virtually the same level of data integrity.
At any rate, as said, journalling filesystems provide a better solution, but are not needed for enterprice systems unless what you compare it with is a lot less reliable then ffs.
> I read. And I saw what you wrote. It didn't sound positive. "Viral" and "infectious" is hardly any positive words.
Indeed they aren't. I am aware of it being a desirable side effect of the GPL, but what you seem to forget is that that is a consequence of how copyright works, and it would actually be desirable to not need this effect at all.
Also, it is a very good way to make clear to the marketing people out there that they cannot take GPL code and put it into their own product without consequences. You may not like putting it that way, but I really don't care.
> Other people using those words... oh, you mean the marketing people over at Redmond!
It has been called viral by many people before Linux had any relevance to Microsoft, yeah, they use it as well.
> Whatever your intentions where, you came of like some pissed jerk whom just found out that your plan to
Why pissed? I explained something, and you do not like it, for all I can tell you are the one acting like a pissed jerk here.
> 1. Nick GPL:ed code 2. ??? 3. Profit!!!!!
*lol*
No, I will take code that is licensed in a way that allows that if I want to do that to begin with.
I do not know who you are, but I do know I am mentioned in the credits of Free/Open/NetBSD, I bet that is because I like to steal someoen elses code and keep it for myself eh? ANd no, it is not GPLed, so I allow others
My intention was to explain to you why people call it viral, if you can't understand that simple thing and have to go into paranoid mode, well, be my guest, but I'd suggest to go find some treatment for it, it doesn't make life fun at all.
> People call the GPL viral to discurage its usage. A common smokescreen tactic -- you associate whatever you don't like with something negative, make some swallow arguments to make the connection appear strong and hope that people won't look deeper into it.
Or to provoke a response and hope people do look deeper into it. Ar any rate, it is used in this way not just by people opposing the GPL for the simple reason that it makes the effect pretty clear. I'm rather sure the only people who will never use it in such a way are peopel who are fanatical about the GPL.
Viral may be a negative word, untill a marketing person discovers that it also applies to what they release, and protects them from competitors running off with it, all of the sudden it will be an 'advanced way of protection'.
> Here is a rule of thumb for GPL sceptics: if in doubt treat the software as if it was proprietary.
Just for the record, I am not a GPL sceptic, rather, I am aware of one important consequence of using GPLed code, and may decide to use alternatives when appropriate.
I have a little bit of GPLed code around, a bit more code with a BSD style license, I'll use what I find appropriate.
Re:Bad News Everyone?
by
jdog1016
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually, FreeBSD is increasing it's market share, as mentioned here,
here, and here. You really should know a little about what you're talking about before you talk about it.
As for one BSD hating another, that is utterly ridiculous to the point that I laughed at you when I read it.
Finally, I don't know what you define as "success" but the way I see it, microsoft still has the dominant desktop operating system in both quality (IMHO) and popularity (statistically) and IMHO FreeBSD still has the upper hand over Linux in the server department. So, if you follow that, that still leaves linux behind both of them.
Re:Linux sucks. Here's why.
by
torstenvl
·
· Score: 0
Uh. I say I prefer BSD in the BSD section of Slashdot and I'm marked as a troll? Somehow I think whatever moderator did that is a Linux zealot. I mentioned merely technical details, like dependency problems. You'd think someone with moderator status would have the maturity not to turn this into a religious war.:-|
Re:Tobes Of Hades Lit By Flickering Torchlight
by
NuShrike
·
· Score: 1
Are you talking about binary compatiblity, or source? *BSDs are fairly compatible with each other due to all the code sharing.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
There is such a thing as equal opportunities under democratic socialism, as practiced here in Europe. The state pays for education and health, and provides maintenance grants to students to cover living expenses. With education available to all, acquisition of skills is only a matter of time, ability and the desire to learn.
Naturally, all of the state services mean that taxes are much higher than in the USA (or even UK). As a result, it's very hard to become rich, but who would want to have so much more than their neighbours anyway? When everyone can live in relative comfort, without fear of losing access to health, education, and so on, the idea of hoarding money isn't so attractive.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The competition between Linux and *BSD is more like competition between scientists: The one with most followers (developers) "wins"
I don't think it is really a matter of winning or losing. For example, if I prefer the design philosophy of NetBSD over that of Red Hat (and I do), I can run NetBSD, even if Red Hat is 1000 times more popular. The popularity of Red Hat does not diminish NetBSD, and indeed to the extent that both are POSIX-compatible, can actually help it!
At the end of the day, it only takes a small number of skilled developers, writers and so on to create and maintain an operating system. As long as there are enough developers and writers for each component of the system, it will evolve.
In my view, what is truly dangerous is a monoculture. With multiple systems, the developers of each system can look at the ideas in the others, see which work and which don't and either imitate the best or try something new. Through this evolutionary mechanism, all systems can be improved. If, on the other hand, there is only one system, it will tend to stagnate, insofar as the accepted ideas will be implemented, and others (which might actually be better) will never see the light of day.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In any case, I feel that our governments have something to gain by keeping society stratified. Namely, it keeps them (and those who pad their pockets) riding the crust of the shit sandwich which we must all bite. I believe that in most nations, a deliberate effort is made to keep the poor at a low economic level, and I think that one of those functions is to keep the middle class scared. Government controls us by keeping us divided so that we will not rise up as one in outrage and kick the "fat cats" out of their positions of power and glory.
If that's true, it's very sad. Under democratic socialism, as practised in most of the EU, there is no great fear of poverty because the state provides the essential services to everyone. Marxists oppose democratic socialism because it removes the social friction that they feed on to generate revolutionary fervour. Capitalists oppose it because it makes it harder to hoard money (though I honestly can't understand why they want to do this). Nevertheless, I feel it works far better than any other system.
The "battle" between BSD and Linux is really a battle between the BSDL and the GPL, however, and is probably not subject to external interference to the same degree as the world economic climate.
Speaking only for myself, as one who has contributed to BSD, I do not see software development as a battle between anyone or anything. To me, software development is about implementing new ideas, with the aim of making software better for everyone.
BSD has included a lot of good ideas over the decades of its existence (especially sockets), which is why I admire it, use it and have contributed to it. The same, however, applies to GNU, Linux, Mach, plan9, System V, VMS, Windows NT and countless other systems (this list is alphabetical, not sorted by importance or anything else).
I feel this idea of a 'battle' is an unfortunate result of the fanaticism of Richard Stallman. Like the Marxists of the 19th and 20th centuries, the advocates of Stallmanism divide the world into good ('Free Software') and bad ('Non-Free Software'), and see everything in the context of a struggle between them. (Naturally, many who write GPL software, including Linus Torvalds, are much more moderate.)
In contrast to the Stallmanist view, many in the BSD community see progress for all as the goal. Like conservative democratic socialists, such people (including me) do not see an enemy in either commercial or GPL software. The BSD licence allows BSD software to be included in all, so we can help BSD, GPL and commercial software to evolve, which ultimately helps everyone.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Torne
·
· Score: 1
I've read plenty about ffs, including the source, and have used it for a long time. It does allow the situation I describe - while metadata is preserved correctly in all but the most tricky of cases, data is not committed to disk until fsync() unless you mount your filesystem in synchronous mode (which means you have to take the performance penalty for doing so, and you can mount *any* fs in sync mode to get that guarantee if you don't mind it being slow). If you believe otherwise, please, show me the documentation/code that explains its commit behaviour differently, and I'll apologise for claiming you are wrong.
A data journalled FS never needs to be fsync()ed, and appending to the journal is much faster than syncing. For 'enterprise' systems (what an arbitrary definition that is; as I pointed out, all mail servers everywhere are required to make all possible efforts to avoid losing mail they have committed to delivering) applications typically fsync() at the appropriate times without any consideration for the filesystem they are running on, which usually means that a data-journalled system will perform worse, not better, than something like FFS, because everything gets committed to disk twice immediately (instead of the non-journal commit being postponed until a better time). Data-journalling is not *needed* in any situation, except where an application does not fsync() and still trusts writes to be synchronous (to 'fix' these apps on FFS requires mounting synchronously again..), but it is a better solution than manually syncing.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
MrHanky
·
· Score: 1
I don't think it is really a matter of winning or losing. For example, if I prefer the design philosophy of NetBSD over that of Red Hat (and I do), I can run NetBSD, even if Red Hat is 1000 times more popular. The popularity of Red Hat does not diminish NetBSD, and indeed to the extent that both are POSIX-compatible, can actually help it!
Right. But consider the situation for even less popular (or less mature) OSes like OpenBeOS/Haiku and the Amiga. Most of the good developers have left the scene for *NIX. DragonflyBSD's Matt Dillon started out as an Amiga developer, for instance. BeOS has never really had that much of an OS developer community. The problems arise when it gets to the point where there are no active good developers left. The OS will die like the "science" of phrenology. A few good people still have to believe.
Agree 100% about the monoculture, though.
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, the BSD license isn't viral like the GPL.
The GPL isn't viral, it's just restrictive in a slightly deceptive way. Most restrictively-licensed code is not publicly distributed, and it's made very clear to anyone who licenses it that they can only use it in a particular way or ways.
The GPL encourages source code to be distributed, like earlier open-source licences (e.g. BSD, MIT, public domain), but unlike most, it forbids the use of GPL-licensed code in non-GPL products. I.e. it is similarly restrictive to a commercial licence that says any changes are owned by the owner of the original code. However, owing to the pre-GPL history of open source, some people naturally assume that if the source code is available, it can be used in any project (the slightly deceptive aspect of the GPL).
The reason the GPL isn't viral is that it cannot change the licence used by the author of a given bit of code. It may be incompatible with the licence used for that bit of code, meaning the two can't be combined and distributed, but that's simply because it's more restrictive than other open-source licences, not because it's viral.
The claim that the GPL is 'viral' is therefore no more valid than the claim that BSD code can be 'stolen' by commercial entities. BSD code used under the terms of the BSDL is being used, not 'stolen'. Those who use it are neither using it without permission nor depriving others of it, hence it cannot be said to have been 'stolen' in any way.
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>you seem to forget is that that is a consequence of how copyright works, and it would actually be desirable to not need this effect at all.
I'm not sure what you mean with this. If you mean that it would be desirable not to need hold a sword over the heads of people and companies using the code, I'm totaly with you. In an ideal world people that benefits from your work would send you back their improvements. It's common decency. I would never use someone elses code without sending back any improvements that I managed to code myself, because anything else is selfish and ungratius. I feel that I *owe* it, because without them I would have nothing. If they don't want my "improvements", it's their choice, I have offerd. However, not all have such moral standards, and then the GPL and the copyright law is an assurance against such immoral, greedy bastards.
>You may not like putting it that way, but I really don't care.
Fine. You think what you want to think, but don't act surprised when peopel attack you for spreading FUD.
>I explained something,
No, you didn't. You were spreading FUD and misinformation.
>one acting like a pissed jerk here.
Sure. I was the one starting the name-calling, right?
>I will take code that is licensed in a way that allows that if I want to do that to begin with.
I never accused you of any wrong-doing. I merely said that you sounded as somone up to no good getting you plans crossed.
>I do not know who you are,
Does that matter, really? It's one of the biggest fallacys there is. Somone must *be* someone to considered to have valid points or ideas.
>call it viral.
I understand why people call it that, but it doesn't make it right anyway.
personal, pointless insults deleted.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Right. But consider the situation for even less popular (or less mature) OSes like OpenBeOS/Haiku and the Amiga. Most of the good developers have left the scene for *NIX. DragonflyBSD's Matt Dillon started out as an Amiga developer, for instance. BeOS has never really had that much of an OS developer community. The problems arise when it gets to the point where there are no active good developers left. The OS will die like the "science" of phrenology. A few good people still have to believe.
Yes, this is true, and is the negative side of open standards. They make things easier for programmers writing above the OS level, but hinder the use of new ideas in the OS itself.
Rob Pike (of UNIX fame) complained some years ago about how UNIX has had a stagnating effect on OS research because the first thing any new OS does is implement the UNIX/POSIX APIs. While this doesn't necessarily prevent new ideas within the OS, POSIX adherence does reduce the scope for such ideas, and makes innovation at the API level extremely difficult.
All in all, I think BSD/UNIX/POSIX is good, but there is definitely a down side to standardisation at this level, just as there is with standardisation at the machine-code level (referring to the increasing dominance of the x86 instruction set architecture, which will probably be repeated with the amd64 architecture in 64-bit land).
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A data journalled FS never needs to be fsync()ed, and appending to the journal is much faster than syncing.
4.4BSD actually included such a file system, called LFS (the Log-Structured File System), which was originally implemented in the Sprite operating system, and added to 4BSD in the early '90s. The reason LFS never replaced FFS is that, while writing both data and metadata to a log (or journal) is faster than writing to a conventional file system, the resulting on-disk layout of the data is much less efficient for reads, hence it tended to be slower overall. Journalling file systems reacted to this by journalling only the metadata, thus allowing the data to be laid out in the traditional way.
The 4.4BSD LFS went ununsed for a long time, and was eventually dropped from FreeBSD. It's still in NetBSD, however, and some developers began cleaning it up a while back, so it is now available to NetBSD users as an experimental file system. From what I've heard, it's pretty fast on modern systems, with their large memories and so on.
Incidentally, do the 'data-journalling' systems you refer to use the journal as temporary storage for the data? I.e. do they write data first to the journal, then later to the final location? If not, it sounds like that's just a fancy new name for old log-structured file systems.:)
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Torne
·
· Score: 1
I know all about log-structured filesystems too; but there are very few modern implementations that are stable and complete. They work well for certain access patterns, and not for others. Data-journalling FSes do indeed temporarily write to the journal, then commit to the final locations. The temporary writes are all fast appends, and the final writes can be saved until the disk is less busy to be written in a nice order through the elevator algorithm. The result is a modest performance hit on writes in exchange for getting all the safety benefits of a log-structured FS, and with no problems with read performance later.
Re:Tobes Of Hades Lit By Flickering Torchlight
by
The+Analog+Kid
·
· Score: 1
AUG 4th, TWEETER CENTER in BEAUTIFUL CAMDEN, NJ.
Re:Tobes Of Hades Lit By Flickering Torchlight
by
HRH+King+Lerxst
·
· Score: 1
The Dallas show was excellent!
-- No one got beat up more often than the mimes of the old west!
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Interestingly, recent research has shown that the changes in disc characteristics since the early LFS work have allowed LFS performance to overtake that of traditional file systems in most cases, unless utilisation is very high (ca. 95%).
The NetBSD LFS is being worked on, so perhaps it will be stabilised/completed in the near future. It is more interesting to me than journalling, which has been in production systems like UNIX and Windows NT for more than a decade. Data journalling does sound interesting, and I had not been following it. It will be interesting to see how it compares with improved cleaning algorithms on LFS, as well as systems that combine an LFS with a traditional system (fairly similar to data journalling).
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 1
> It does allow the situation I describe - while metadata is preserved correctly in all but the most tricky of cases, data is not committed to disk until fsync() unless you mount your filesystem in synchronous mode (which means you have to take the performance penalty for doing so, and you can mount *any* fs in sync mode to get that guarantee if you don't mind it being slow).
And at least FreeBSD mounts ffs in synchronous mode by default (and has a strong warning about doing otherwise) so that IS the default you get (and if you read back my previous post, I mentiopned the performance hit already).
softupdates makes the performance hit a lot less problematic, tho at loss of a slight level of integrity.
At any rate, the theory is interesting, but reality is more interesting. I have experienced multiple cases of corruption of data and data loss on reiserfs as well as ext3fs (won't even talk about ext2fs), on multiple machines with different linux versions (tho did not try with 2.6 kernels), on systems configured by myself as well as by others. This for me means that I can be pretty sure that this is not caused by either some hardware defect or a specific configuration issue (either introduced by the distribution or by my particular way of configuring it)
I also experienced data corruption and data loss problems with ffs... ONCE.
Now, I use ffs a lot more then either ext2fs, ext3fs or reiser, and have been using it for a lot longer also.
Annecdotal evidence? definitely, but I know very few peopel who used all of those intensively who do not share this experience. For me this means that while in theory less good, its implementation is still better in real world situations.
> If you believe otherwise, please, show me the documentation/code that explains its commit behaviour differently, and I'll apologise for claiming you are wrong.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Torne
·
· Score: 1
Cool; I've been waiting for a stable LFS for a while. I'll hafta install NetBSD and have a fiddle.
> I'm not sure what you mean with this. If you mean that it would be desirable not to need hold a sword over the heads of people and companies using the code, I'm totaly with you. In an ideal world people that benefits from your work would send you back their improvements. It's common decency.
Please, before arguing about the GNU GPL, read what the peopel from GNU have to say about it, they are quite clear about what ideal they are aiming at, which is for all software to be free of copyright (hence the term copy-left). That would be the ideal situation and in that case they do not believe this measure is needed anymore.
It is not about giving back but about you being able to use someone elses work on the same terms as them using yours.
> No, you didn't. You were spreading FUD and misinformation.
If you'd care to read back the discussion, you'd see I was not the person making the GPL is viral claim, I responded to someone saying it wasn't with explaining while people see it as such.
Also, as I pointed out already, the use of the word is a problem, not the thign it stands for. Because the word is used anyway, and was used wayy before Microsoft and friends got involved, the GPL was already described in that way. It is being used, and we better explain why people call it that way then acting as if the 'issue' does not exist. That may also give you a good chance of explaining why it is actually not an issue but a tool that protects their investment as much as yours.
> Sure. I was the one starting the name-calling, right?
I don't know, but I do know that you are making a huge issue over the use of a word, a word that I didn't coin, that I wasn't the first one to mention in the discussion here either, and go as far as trying to say that the effect intended by the word viral with regards to the GPL is not there at all.
> Does that matter, really? It's one of the biggest fallacys there is. Somone must *be* someone to considered to have valid points or ideas.
When stating opinions as fact, you may get people wondering about who you think you are.. Anyway.. who you are doesn't matter for your point being valid, but with some 5 bilion people out there saying things, I care more about those who I know, or who provide reasoning or verfiable facts. It simply makes that you are being heard with your valid opinion.
At any rate, I should probably have asked if you have code out there because that was what I was interested in.
> I understand why people call it that, but it doesn't make it right anyway.
It may not be right in your opinion, it is in the opinion of others including me. Untill you provide actual reasoning beyond "I don't like it because it is a negative sounding word" I'll take note, but so far you didn't.
> personal, pointless insults deleted.
Maybe don't assume people are out to rip off the GPL and call them "pissed off jerks" when you really don't know? Typical case of pot and kettle I'd say.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Torne
·
· Score: 1
Ah; I did not realise that synchronous mode was the default, as I've always configured it to use softupdates before. If you have been talking about FFS synchronously mounted, then you are comparing apples to oranges; ANY fs mounted synchronously is safe, there's nothing special about FFS there.
I am rarely interested in reality of this kind of thing; implementation details are dull. Yes, it's entirely possible, probably even likely, that the FFS implementation is more stable and safe than many other filesystems - reiser in particular is notorious for having had many data-loss-inducing bugs in the past (though hopefully less at present). I have never lost data through an FS bug in any filesystem; my main systems variously use reiser, ext3 and FFS with softupdates. All the servers I run that require guarentees from the filesystem run on a filesystem which provides them: either reiser mounted synchronously, or ext3 with full data journalling.
So, from my personal experience, the implementations all work fine. I was never making a claim that any particular FS was better, merely correcting your original incorrect statement about the flaws in journalled filesystems. FFS has a fine history of reliability, but so does ext2 under normal use (i.e. when you always unmount cleanly). =)
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 1
> Ah; I did not realise that synchronous mode was the default, as I've always configured it to use softupdates before.
Softupdates and async mount are two seperate things. Combining both is possible (and I do so for some filesystems that contain scratch data anyway) but makes you lose most of the data integrity of sync mounts. Only using softupdates gives you a much better performance, and it is at times claimed to be even safer, tho in my experience (and from the theory, how to get things safer then using sync writes and writing data and metadata in one atomic operation?) it is slightly less safe. A lot safer then traditional UFS in async mode tho.
> If you have been talking about FFS synchronously mounted, then you are comparing apples to oranges; ANY fs mounted synchronously is safe, there's nothing special about FFS there.
Hmm, atomic writes of data + metadata do help a bit in case of ffs.. but good point there.
> I am rarely interested in reality of this kind of thing; implementation details are dull.
And yet this is the thing that matters when implementing a practical system today, which was what this discussion was about I thought?
I agree that the theory is more interesting technically, and it may also be more important depending on what you are doing. For me, implementing reliable server systems today is an important part of my job hence reality is of direct interest;)
> Yes, it's entirely possible, probably even likely, that the FFS implementation is more stable and safe than many other filesystems - reiser in particular is notorious for having had many data-loss-inducing bugs in the past (though hopefully less at present). I have never lost data through an FS bug in any filesystem; my main systems variously use reiser, ext3 and FFS with softupdates.
Yep. I'll keep watching reiser closely tho, it is a very interesting filesystem that offers some real benefits as soon as those issues are gone. Also ext3fs seems very interesting (alltho initially it feels rather hacky)
> All the servers I run that require guarentees from the filesystem run on a filesystem which provides them: either reiser mounted synchronously, or ext3 with full data journalling.
I've lost data on different filesystems over time, including reiser, xfs, ext3fs, ffs, ntfs, hpfs and fat (heh.. big surprise there) on a lot of different operating systems. In my case XFS and FFS have shown by far the lowest number of failures, both in total and in relation to usage. I didn't really lose the data tho, I am one of those insane people who makes backups;)
> So, from my personal experience, the implementations all work fine. I was never making a claim that any particular FS was better, merely correcting your original incorrect statement about the flaws in journalled filesystems.
Thanks for the explanation, it is appreciated. My understanding was and is that a journalling filesystem has the better theory behind it, but that there are filesystems out there that come extremely close in reliability.
> FFS has a fine history of reliability, but so does ext2 under normal use (i.e. when you always unmount cleanly). =)
*grin*
It just reminds me of a discussion with our local Linux 'guru' about power loss (yeah, we didn't have a ups back then) and if we'd have to goto the server room when power would come up again to ensure the servers would be starting ok.
He insisted on going there because of not trusting ext2fs on the linux servers to come up correctly. I felt it wasn't needed for our FreeBSD servers. Of course when we did experience power loss a few times, we ended up there (what is there to do without power anyway). It turned out we were both right. (now before someone goes off about it being possible that an automatic check of ffs fails, yeah, I know, and have had it happen, it is just extremely rare)
Of course this all has nothing to do with data loss as such.
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>For those of us that don't MIND that a large company might make money off software that we freely write, the GPL is a good fit.
Um, no. Ever tried to incorporate GPL code into your commercial program without the legal team going nuts? It's not going to happen. Sure, you can sell GPL software, but it means changing your business model. Despite what you may think, a developer in a software company cannot, based on wanting to use GPL code in an upcoming product, say "let's change our business model" and have everyone say "OK, lets".
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Torne
·
· Score: 1
I was never having a discussion about implementing practical systems today, just about the theory of journalling. Maybe someone higher up in the thread was, I dunno.;)
ext3 has the massive advantage (on Linux) of being based on ext2, and ext2 has been beaten on for so long by so many people in so many configs that it's pretty damn stable at this point. It's actually diverged a bit by this stage, though - its on-disk format is still 'ext2 with a journal' but the algorithms for allocation..etc have changed a little and work better in theory.
I'm an OS developer, so dwelling on implementation too much is bad for me. Gotta keep the idealistic goals in my sights, otherwise you just keep maintaining what's there instead of doign anything better =)
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
SillyNickName4me
·
· Score: 1
> I was never having a discussion about implementing practical systems today, just about the theory of journalling. Maybe someone higher up in the thread was, I dunno.;)
Ok. the thread started out with a comment that included claiming that journaling filesystems is a must for 'enterprise systems'. Looking back you didn't make that claim indeed.
> ext3 has the massive advantage (on Linux) of being based on ext2, and ext2 has been beaten on for so long by so many people in so many configs that it's pretty damn stable at this point. It's actually diverged a bit by this stage, though - its on-disk format is still 'ext2 with a journal' but the algorithms for allocation..etc have changed a little and work better in theory.
Yep, that is also the thing that makes that it feels somewhat 'hacky' to me.. but it has its advantages definitely.
> I'm an OS developer, so dwelling on implementation too much is bad for me. Gotta keep the idealistic goals in my sights, otherwise you just keep maintaining what's there instead of doign anything better =)
While I understand what you say, realize that what you make will be used by real people, reality is relevant if only to learn how to not do things.
FreeBSD is Dead
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure, but why? Why did FreeBSD
die? 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 personae?
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.
Re:FreeBSD is dead
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sure, everyone knows that *BSD is a failure, but why? Why did FreeBSD
die? 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 personae?
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.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well spoken, comrade, however when you follow the thought through to its logical conclusion you see that the European form of 'democratic socialism' seeks to reduce everyone to the same level. A homogenous world is not only impossible (as Orwell correctly said, there will always be some citizens that are more equal than others), it is boring.
American style democracies, while admittedly not perfect, do at least fill the basic human need for freedom to do what you want, including amass wealth if you want to (face it, greed is a defining human charactaristic).
Just my $0.02US.....
Re:So XFree Is Dead then
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>If you'd care to read back the discussion,
I have now, and I appolgise for not taking the time to do so before. I also read other posts by you in other subthreads, and added the information in them together, wich I admit gave a different picture. You see, your post to wich I originally responded can be read in at least two ways. Unfortunately I chose the wrong:(
>Also, as I pointed out already, the use of the word is a problem, not the thign it stands for.
The problem is all uninformed people mindlessly repeating microsoft market-speak. Exampel. A lot of people are calling the glp viral without ever having read it, but no one calls the bsd license a "steal-my-code-and-rape-me-in-the-ass" license. Wonder why, they are about as true both of them.
>When stating opinions as fact
I have done no such thing, with the exception of calling you a FUD:der.
>Maybe don't assume people are out to rip off the GPL
My friend, you are the one who makes assumptions. I never accused you of doing anything wrong. I said you gave the *impression* of a pissed of jerk. BIG difference. Maybe I worded it poorly, but then, english isn't my naitive language.. What I have said, and stand by, is that there are people who *will* steal and use your code without as much as a simple "thank you". There have been quite a few examples of that, KISS Technology A/S beeing one.
> I have now, and I appolgise for not taking the time to do so before. I also read other posts by you in other subthreads, and added the information in them together, wich I admit gave a different picture. You see, your post to wich I originally responded can be read in at least two ways. Unfortunately I chose the wrong:(
Ok, then that is cleared and appologies accepted.
Let me add that I quite understand why people who feel strong about the GPL will also strongly dislike the use of the word viral, and rightly so. But either insisting on using it, or insisting on not using it has to do with what you could call an agenda.
> My friend, you are the one who makes assumptions. I never accused you of doing anything wrong. I said you gave the *impression* of a pissed of jerk. BIG difference.
Ok, all clear then.
> Maybe I worded it poorly, but then, english isn't my naitive language.. What I have said, and stand by, is that there are people who *will* steal and use your code without as much as a simple "thank you". There have been quite a few examples of that, KISS Technology A/S beeing one.
Definitely, and I have no respect for doing that.
One reason which makes me a feeling rather strongly about this subject is that many people on Slashdot seem to be of the opinion that when that is done with BSD/MIT/X11 licensed code, that it also makes for 'stealing' while in many cases the authors of such code explicitly decided to allow that. Do this with GPLed code however and I inmediately agree that it makes for 'stealing'. (stealing quoted because it is strictly spoken not stealing but copyright infringement, but that one has been beaten to death on here;)
Reading your response now, I do not think you deserved such a strong response, my excuses for that.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Torne
·
· Score: 1
Nope, what I make is used by the product development team to build system images for particular machines. They're the ones who get to make things work =)
The GPL was only created because of the lessons learned from the whole Unix-fiasco.
The GPL was created because RMS didn't want to pay for software and didn't want software he couldn't modify and redistribute at will.
The purpose of the GPL is not to keep "your" code open - the BSD license or the public domain do that perfectly well already - it's to make *other people's* code open. Far too few GPL zealots understand this fundamental point and I'll say it again in a vain hope the message gets through - the GPL isn't about "your" code, it's about "their" code.
If the BSD-license would work so great as the BSD-fans claim, the whole Unix-breakup would have never happened and there would have never been a reason to even create the GPL.
You are very confused.
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
mdfst13
·
· Score: 1
"Linux actually has journaling filesystems so you don't lose files in a crash"
That's not what journalling does. It does not make you any less likely to lose files (actually, the increased complexity can make it *more* likely to lose files, since there are more things to go wrong). All journalling does is allow you to boot *faster* after a crash by skipping the fsck step.
First of all, calm down, relax! We all know Linux is your religion, but please calm down, and don't say anything about something you don't know. Well, FreeBSD is a very popular platform (especially on the server side). It is not dying. It's not a religion, there's no hype around it, etc. Let me tell you that some months ago I installed the latest STABLE release of FreeBSD (4.10 as of this writing) on a 486 PC (100MHz,48MB RAM, 1GB HDD,etc) and it the install was painless (a few minutes) and runs very fast (it boots up in about 1 minute). Currently, it's a Web/Mail/FTP server. It does the job. I have also tried to install Slackware Linux 9.1 and it took me a half day doing it. Slack is known for being speedy, but, despide that, it booted very very slowly (minutes). It would be impossible to install, let's say Fedora Core 2, on that machine (if I ever wanted to). Almost all Linux distroes are really bloated and are hardware-hungry today. They should all learn from FreeBSD (well, at least in this aspect). I have 4 OSes installed on my (desktop) computer, and FreeBSD is the fastest.
Peace
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
Hatta
·
· Score: 1
But one does have to wonder: Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months?
Don't be such a troll. In the 8 computer * years I've been using linux I've only reinstalled twice, once to try debian over mandrake (that's a keeper!), and once because of a hardware problem.
-- Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 1
It seems some threads never die.
Don't be such a troll. In the 8 computer * years I've been using linux I've only reinstalled twice, once to try debian over mandrake (that's a keeper!), and once because of a hardware problem.
In all that time, you've never had to do an upgrade install? Or are you still running the debian with no USB support? Or NVidia support? Or any other support for modern hardware, software, etc. I don't have to do that with my FreeBSD box. ALL the hardware I needed was supported when I made the install. I've seen no reason to upgrade to newer versions, because everything works just peachy.
<mutter>calling me a troll... ratsa fratsa... no good...</mutter>
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone seems to be moving to xorg now. Where does this leave xfree? Not that I'm worried about it or anything.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Too bad that you can't upgrade an existing system without using portupgrade, though. I hate to see portupgrade drifting closer and closer to being a required part of the system. I've had a lot of bad (system-breaking) experiences with it.
Find free books.
I wonder who still uses xunfree86?
This is only in -CURRENT. For those of you in 5.2.1, or 4.10, you can add:
/etc/make.conf. For those of you running -CURRENT that want the old X, make it:
X_WINDOW_SYSTEM=xorg
in
X_WINDOW_SYSTEM=xfree86-4
--If I said something interesting it probably wasn't correct
No, the BSD license isn't viral like the GPL.
So, what major linux distributions, BSD variants, or other operating systems are still using the XFree86 code base? Is the transition essentially complete?
The lesson of X11 is that you can be the most popular piece of software on every distribution, and it still doesn't give you the power to play dictator with your licence. If you put unneccessary restrictions in your licence, someone will fork your code and the community will embrace them, not you. You would think that people would have figured that out after the ssh/openssh split. Now we have another example in windowing systems....
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
Add one more example: running debian..
Yes, Slashdotters, which among the major distros is left? Anyone know whether X.org is doing anything about the [horrible] Linux fonts found in major default Linux installs? I have always had to install M$ fonts or run the webfonts.sh script to get decent fonts. This is shameful! The Linux gurus create a world class OS but have not yet made fonts for Linux? What do you think?
Good News Everyone!
Mike Smith now works for Apple, who's OS is based on BSD.
Check it out: www.lemis.com/~grog/msmr.html
and at: daemonnews, under "BSD at Apple"
He didn't like the direction that v5 was taking so he quit and starting writing BSD code for Apple.
Too bad that you can't upgrade an existing system without using portupgrade, though. I hate to see portupgrade drifting closer and closer to being a required part of the system.
No. It says in the post:
To upgrade, you must remove your XFree86 ports and install the xorg
ports. It couldn't be done with portupgrade, unfortunately, because we
are keeping the XFree86 ports around.
In other words, you cannot automatically upgrade all the ports using portupgrade.
As for portupgrade becoming necessary, I don't know what you're talking about. While I use it (to keep my -CURRENT current), this is merely for convenience: I haven't seen any ports that depend on it.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
For some time Bitstream Vera TTFs are avaliable and they're acceptable. Of course, they aren't original Helvetica nor Arial (which is a clone of Helvetica to avoid paying rights, btw).
bad news for those who are to lazy to rtfm.
I know this is stupid but I'm glad for the name change of the X-server that ever is using. Because it always seemed weird to be running XFree86 on a PPC It's nice that the new standard has an architecture neutral name. I'm assuming the 86 came from x86.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
I don't know if this is the best place to mention this, but I like to pronounce "X.org" like it was all one word, i.e. sounding like "Zorg". It sounds like some futuristic GUI monster that would crush towns at its whim. This alone is enough to justify Xorg the Conqueror's rising popularity and XFree86's decline. I mean, XFree86 sounds kind of like a fighter jet, which while kind of cool, would be useless against Xorg. He would use an XFree86 fighter jet to pick his teeth! All hail Xorg!
Bet you can't back that up.
Sorry shit-lick, people can't feed their families with free.
That's the shortest domain name I've ever seen.
I guess to beat that, you'd need to go with a country code domain.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
im just a common freebsd user, free86 works fine for me.I guess X.org will to.Are there any major implications for us unknowing users??
I guess thats what most normal users are concerened about.
Lord of the Binges.
That's right, I've switched to FreeBSD...
By the way, fonts are fonts really. You've got TrueType and PostScript mainly and they tend to work cross platform. There's no need to have "Linux" fonts. Now if you meant "open source" fonts, that would be a different matter.
Now that Gentoo has been ported to OSX, we have Darwin ports, fink and Gentoo Portage. Do you understand that Linux is just a kernel? We already have the userland BSD "and" GNU (what you seem to think is linux) on OSX so I don't see the point of switching kernels.
Apple contributes to KDE KHTML, BSD and various other open source projects. What is it exactly that you are complaining about again?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
No, the BSD license isn't viral like the GPL.
You're right. M$ wouldn't have been able to steal it if it was GPL'ed.
Been done before I'm afraid. The 'evil monster' in The Fifth Element is Dr. Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
I agree on the AC post about bitstream vera fonts. They look very good on the notoriously unforgiving notebook screens. I prefer them over the standard ms fonts i had to install to check compatibility of web page layouts. Try them for yourself.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Setting aside the license diffrence, could anyone objectivily give
a brief summary on the current status of Xorg vs XFree ? (e.g. what's
better/newer/fixed in one vs the other), and are there any future
goals that differs greatily between them (what's planned for Xorg, what's planned for XFree)?
More details on this story are in my appendix The Cautionary Tale of XFree86, part of my essay Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Linux was once managed by a dictator, Linus Torvalds. An army of volunteer programmers write code for the OS.
Linus has, long since, transferred control of the code to the Open Source Development Lab (OSDL). There is no monoculture. Consensus among competing interests determines what enters Linux.
Personally, I would have preferred transferring control of Linux to CMU or MIT, but OSDL is cool. There is no monoculture. Nonetheless, there is no need for more than 2 OSes: Windows and Linux. Fragmenting the market into multiple OSes puts a burden on software developers. Developing and supporting multiple versions of software for a hundred different OSes is a waste of programmer effort.
Will Apple follow FreeBSD's lead, or not?
Microsoft didn't steal it. That's the nature of the BSD license. We don't care if you, Microsoft, or anybody else is using the code for commercial purposes.
It's a strength, not a weakness.
Good News Everyone!
Turns out that *BSD is stronger than ever!
According to an Inernetnews article, Netcraft has confirmed that *BSD has "dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
There has been a steady increase in *BSD developers over the past decade.
There are currently 307 FreeBSD developers as of the 2004 core team election.
You can read more about FreeBSD here
If you would like to try out a BSD, you can download: FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, or DragonflyBSD
Enjoy!
You know, I was going to make a similar joke, but seriously, competition is always good. My laptop runs Gentoo, my desktop runs FreeBSD and WinXP. Why? Because Linux is good for a lot of desktop stuff and programming that I would be doing for school, I need XP on my desktop for gaming, and when I am not doing that, FreeBSD is something different that is nice and fast, a great server, and something that runs familiar programs that I normally run under Linux. So, do I need FreeBSD instead of Linux? No. But it serves purposes that are often different from the ones served by Linux and it is more specific in its direction and use.
I think they wanted this to happen. Search old /. stories for 'xfree86' and see what I mean.
First, XFree86 Core Team Disbands, then X.org and XFree86 Reform. Then a week later, XFree86 Alters License. I realise the 'merger' turned out to be more of an exodus, but I think the project was ready to die anyway.
The license change was really just a way of prompting everyone to move on, while not completely abandoning them.
Thats all just my guess, take it or leave it.
We need FreeBSD so that we can keep the developers who are interested in developing an operating system under a BSD-type license, but who are not interested in writing code under a GPL license, busily writing code that benefits us all.
Competition is good for everyone but the losers, and in a certain sense it's good for them too - as a wake-up call. Competition can be a major driving force, even if you're only competing against yourself. For example, I'm on everything2, and when I see a writeup that I think sucks and I say "I can do better than that" it's a strong motivator to me to outdo the existing writeup. So, someone implements something on Linux, and some BSD type says "I can do that! Shit, I can kick that thing's ass!" Next thing you know the feature in Linux is being upgraded or replaced because its author wants it to be the best tool of its type, or someone else wants features which are in the BSD version.
So even if you don't think it's important for what it can do in and of itself, BSD is important for the same reason as the lower class - to scare the shit out of the middle class.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hahaha n00b. :P
Anyway,
Scanner: Install SANE. If it doesn't work, google for the workaround, it is out there.
Modem: Get broadband and a router.
Printer: Install CUPS. If it doesn't work, google for the workaround, it is out there.
If you want bragging rights, you at least gotta try.
nope, not viral ;) however, the advertising clause from the old license bears some resemblance to the reason why sequoias die - they accumulate too much dead weight.
That daemon news posting is from August 2001!
Dumbass: Recognized. Nuff Said.
...only Xorg.
Oper on the Nightstar
Isn't it annoying rebooting twice for every time you play a game? Or maintaining servers in both operating systems so that your users aren't at a loss every time you want to play BF1942?
YHBT. HAND.
Wrong it is a very bad weakness.
This weakness made it possible for IBM, Sun, HP, etc. to proprietize Unix and make many incompatible versions that only run on their hardware.
The GPL was only created because of the lessons learned from the whole Unix-fiasco.
If the BSD-license would work so great as the BSD-fans claim, the whole Unix-breakup would have never happened and there would have never been a reason to even create the GPL.
XFree86 is dying. ;-)
the death of BSD, by AC
;-)
not that I necessarily agree, but may be this will deter AC from posting it.
nt
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Thanks. Sane, CUPS and broadband & router were installed. All not recognized / installed.
Got any useful advice instead of displaying your arrogance?
BSD is important for the same reason as the lower class - to scare the shit out of the middle class.
That is the most absurdly ignorant, hateful statement I have ever read. You're telling me you think that lower class people strive every day to make enough to live on--often at the sacrifice of their own health--and that is important because it motivates the middle class to work harder at their dumb ass job they hate. You, drinkypoo, are a huge asshole. I mean, unless you're a millionaire, why the fuck are you advocating for a system that continuously fucks you over?
People walk around throwing out phrases like "laws of nature," "human nature," "the way of the world," "that's the way the world works," like there's some sort of fucking truth. You give us your cute little scenario about Linux hackers vs. BSD hackers like it's some kind of truism, like it proves something. Please.
Think about how many different cultures there are throughout the world and how different they have been throughout history. It doesn't have to be this way, folks. Want to get educated? Read a book. Want to do something? Go work for a labor advocacy group.
>> (07.23.2004 @ 1620 PST): Rossam Souza da Silva said, in 1.3K: <<
>
> Hi people, the nvidia-driver package works ok with X.Org?
>
> Rossam.
>> end of "Re: HEADSUP: X.Org conversion" from Rossam Souza da Silva <<
Worked fine for me a couple weeks ago when I did the switchover.
I fried my motherboard about 6 hours later, but I maintain it was
something unrelated.
# Adam
I wonder why debian sid doesn't yet have xorg available. Sid's been sitting on 4.3 for a long time.
I think it's interesting that FreeBSD's test has xorg before debian sid does. Kind of unfortunate.
I suspect that debian sid will have it just shortly after sarge goes stable.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
No, he's saying the middle class shouldn't get too smug in their middle-class comfort, because in today's equal-opportunity world, the lower classes will not stay down there forever. And similarly, even if Linux is ahead in a lot of things, the BSDs will catch up (in fact, it wasn't long ago that the BSDs were ahead in most aspects of stability and performance and Linux was the "lower class" playing catch-up, and in many respects the BSDs are still ahead.) And I didn't understand very much else in your rant.
That is the most absurdly ignorant, hateful statement I have ever read.
Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and we'll be glad to mail you a hankie - a nice pink one to go with your politics!
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
What modem do you have? Some software modems (aka winmodems) are recognized, but given a non-standard serial port name in /dev. Couple that with pppd frontend clients that are too stupid to look for them...
/dev and the configs for your pppd frontend should get it working.
A little nosing through your
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Competition good, Zealots bad. drinkypoo (153816) wins.
Thanks. I have a D-Link DSL modem.
Name anything freebsd actually does better than linux?
Well, for one, my mouse actually works. And so does USB. Oh! And my zip drive works! And I don't randomly lose files in a crash! And my programs are more responsive. And my system stays up longer. And I'm hacked less. etc. etc. etc.
There are more advantages to an OS than just ticks on a "supports this feature" list. Supporting a feature is not the same as supporting it well. The FreeBSD guys usually don't add a feature until it's supported well. The Linux guys add the feature, then improve after everyone tells them it's broken. Both camps have their advantages and disadvantages.
BSD is running on fumes of hype right now, once people wake up and realize it sucks it will be all done.
Do a 's/BSD/Linux/g' and you're getting pretty close. Modern Linux systems tend to be highly unstable with large numbers of known issues and overall poor testing. This is done intentionally to help Linux reach a competitive stage more quickly. But one does have to wonder: Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months? The whole reason of ditching windows was to get away from reinstalling, DLL hell, and system instabilities. So we've made things better by replacing these 'problems' with reinstalling, RPM hell, and system instabilities.
That's not progress!
Progress is something like Mac OS X: build a system that is MORE usable, and MORE feature-rich than the competitor. Yet what people like you seem to miss, is that Linux is not about building a "better" system! Linux is about building a system that is "free" in Stallman and Linus's definition of the word. If that is what you want, than Linux is a great choice. If you want a "better" end-user OS than Windows, then you're going to need to compromise some of the principles on which Linux is based. Take your pick, because these goals are mutually exclusive.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
...But how many people really care? Xfree and Xorg just provide the x server. All that means is just something for our nice window managers to connect to. You can use Gnome, kde, xfce, ice, and many other window managers to suit your taste and that's what matters.
Of course the backend is important, but to most it's not important enough to care about. The distros are converting because xfree killed itself because of the license issue and lack of development.
Hell, most linux users won't ever know they're running xorg until they have to edit their xorg.conf to get those NVIDIA drivers working.
I hope in the future xorg makes the x server faster, but I doubt it will be magically faster that the average user will notice.
You know, that sounds exactly like what FreeBSD folks usually say about Linux.
Some distros suck at recognizing some configurations, while another distro will recognize it without problems. A pain in the butt, but go figure.
You didn't mention which distro(s) you tried, but first try the Knoppix live CD here or here. Its hardware recognition is very good and if it recognizes your hardware, it takes about 20 minutes to install to your hard drive (YMMV).
Regarding printers. Some printers are better supported under Linux than others. Go here to see how well your printer is supported. Go here for more help.
Check your scanner compatibility here. And find more help here.
If you still can't get Linux to work, stick with windows, it's not that bad.
>This weakness made it possible for IBM, Sun, HP, etc. to proprietize Unix and make many incompatible versions that only run on their hardware.
So would you say that made UNIX less successful? Anyway, you're spouting nonsense. IBM and Sun were never forked from BSD. They were forked from derivations of AT&T Unix, a proprietary product.
>The GPL was only created because of the lessons learned from the whole Unix-fiasco.
Unix, arguably the most sucessful operating system ever, was a fiasco? Surely you jest.
The GPL was created for those who believe that software should always be free. Believe it or not, there are those of us in the industry that are totally comfortable with closed-source software as well. For those of us that don't MIND that a large company might make money off software that we freely write, the BSD license is a good fit.
Bite! Bite! Got one! Got 'im, Got 'im, SCORE!!!
XNU also has an advantge over Hurd in that it actually exists.
Nah,
It was just a dime store George Carlin rip-off.
Yeah, except Linux actually does so many REAL THINGS better than BSD.
BSD doesn't even have a journaling freakin' fielsystem...and you gonna use that for enterprise? YEAH RIGHT!
> Wrong it is a very bad weakness.
Completely wrong, it is THE ONLY REASON why different operating systems, OSS or not, speak the same protocols on the internet.
> This weakness made it possible for IBM, Sun, HP, etc. to proprietize Unix and make many incompatible versions that only run on their hardware.
You may not like that, BSD people actually like that, but it has nothign whatsoever to do with right/wrong untill the moment you have the agenda to make all software "free". An agenda some GPL zealots have, most BSD peopel have not.
bla nt
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
Linux is less than perfect because it's not an operating system. It's a kernel that doesn't even have proper source control, on top of which a million organizations and companies pile unrelated software plagued with arbitrary dependencies.
Hence, why we are in the BSD section of Slashdot. ;-)
FreeBSD has the entire core system in CVS and has a flexible ports system for package management, as well as pre-compiled packages for those who want it.
As per hardware, consider:
- Cisco Aironet 350 AIR-PCM352: $53 used on eBay
- FreeBSD stickers to cover the Windows XP Badge and decorate my laptop: $3.00
- HP ScanJet 2200C: $50 on Froogle
- Being free from Microsoft: Priceless
Some things in life you have to buy. For everything else, there's FreeBSD.And you are an anonymous idiot.
If I derive from a GPLed work, my work is automatically GPLed as well, not only the parts that I used from the GPLed work, but also those parts that I added.
This is why it is considered viral, and is a desired effect of the GPL.
> Why do we even need FreeBSD when we have Linux? The developers of FreeBSD should abandon it and migrate over to Linux.
Because WE NEED CHOICE.
There is no reason whatsoever to turn Linux into the enxt monoculture, that in fact is one of the most important things to prevent.
Besides the fact that FreeBSD is better at specific things, but you as home linux zealot are extremely unlikely to have a need for those else you'd have known about them already and not have asked this utterly stupid question.
> Listen: Freebsd is for amateur tinnkerers and college kids.
So Yahoo and hotmail are college kids?
> Only some old fart who started working in the 90s would still use BSD for anything important.
Lets turn that around, only people who have too little experience workign would skip on it.
> The last time FreeBSD was ahead of linux in anything was what? 1996? maybe 1998?
2004 actually, but never mind, you have your mind set already anyway.
> Name anything freebsd actually does better than linux? There is never anything specific basked up by facts. It's always just some "well it's like more robust or something..."
Yeah, some crap which is incidentely believed by for example Juniper and other makers of routers, Yahoo and such.. I'm sure they love wasting their money on such things.
> crap which means nothing and is not even true. BSD is running on fumes of hype right now, once people wake up and realize it sucks it will be all done.
You know what? go stick your head in a pig or something.. (not that it matters really, you don't seem to be able to use it anyway)
It's a strength, not a weakness.
Wrong it is a very bad weakness.
You're all wrong. It is subjective, you're far from objective, and the subject in question has been food for many flamewars.
Completely wrong, it is THE ONLY REASON why different operating systems, OSS or not, speak the same protocols on the internet.
Silly wabbit! They don't. Many proprietary protocols, GPL protocols, etc have been cloned or reverse engineered even when they were standard. However not ALL. With GPL, one is able to port say GIFT to a proprietary UNIX and run it there. Voila, not any harder than that the software was BSD licensed.
To say TCP/IP never happened with one GPL implementation is a statement which isn't based on any solid grounds. The source is open, so people are at least able to learn from it if they don't wanna contribute to the GPL version. Makes way for GPL, proprietary and PD, BSD, etc just fine and more so than proprietary protocols. It does recommend GPL though because you can use the foundation itself which is already there. Fact is you want to use push license as much as you whine on GPL zealots. Pot, meet kettle.
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
For those of us that don't MIND that a large company might make money off software that we freely write, the BSD license is a good fit.
Hi BSealoD,
For those of us that don't MIND that a large company might make money off software that we freely write, the GPL is a good fit.
The GPL is not anti-commercial, the GPL is anti-proprietary. What you are saying is actually that the source plus additions is to be made proprietary (for profit, or not). The issue is freedom, not price.
It's not that software should be free, it's that credit should be given to those who create the code, and when distributed, all code that is under the licence should be made available to those who use the software.
No the GPL doesn't always fit with people's intentions, but neither does the BSD licence (not that I'm saying you said it did). Some people aren't comfortable with allowing code they write and distribute "freely" to be used by people who don't have the same values in regards to software.
> Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every
> three months? The whole reason of ditching windows
> was to get away from reinstalling, DLL hell, and
> system instabilities. So we've made things better
> by replacing these 'problems' with reinstalling,
> RPM hell, and system instabilities.
Begin-Shameless Gentoo Plug-
Well, I just login as root, type: emerge sync; emerge world. Pretty much does what I need.
End-Shameless Gentoo Plug-
Now, I will say this: I don't mind the BSD cathedral standing in the Linux Bazaar. Ports/Portage... it's all good.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
> See it's only these silly amateurs who think BSD is so freaking exciting.
And with that one comment you have proven yourself to be utterly and completely clueless with regards to the subject.
*BSD is not about being exciting, it is about doing its job well. That is very boring actually, nothing exciting there.
> Linux has superior support for USB
Since when? Linux USB support is such an amazingly horrible hack that it is surprising it does anything at all. I suggest you go read the source instead of posting bullshit.
only on very recent Linux versions things like my USB mouse and sd card reader started working (2.6 series kernel on gentoo) while it has worked out of the box on FreeBSD for the last 3 or 4 years at least.
> Linux actually has journaling filesystems so you don't lose files in a crash where as BSD still fails to have one,
Hrm, there exists a JFS implementation for BSD, but I would not use that for any production work. More promissing sounds the porting of XFS.
At any rate, Reiser has caused me way more problems then FFS ever did (while I have a lot more data on FFS)
I hear the same from everyone here who has seriously tried both.
Besides, you seem to be a bit clueless once more.. journaling filesystems do not prevent data loss, they prevent situations where your data and meta data is out of sync, and they provide for a rollback to resync those in case they do end up being out of sync still.
You can still lose data with that, but you will not get a filesystem that is in a inconsistant state... normally.
Now, unlike traditional ufs and filesystems like ext2fs, the FFS filesystem does not write data and metadata asynchroneously, so the inconsistancy between those two is extremely unlikely.
That said, a production quality journalling filesystem would be nice to have
I'd rather want to have FFS2 snapshop functionality to go with that tho.
> RPM hell only existed on distros that used RPM and even then it has been fixed for years with tools like urpmi, up2date and yum.
Last time I checked RPM is part of the LSB but you are right here, it is not used by every distro, and not even part of "Linux" itself.
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 FreeBSD completely dying. I think the developers are less into competition and more into a sort of idealized cooperation. As a result, even as FreeBSD becomes more marginalized, I don't think that it will die outright. It will most likely outlive Netware, for example.
"So those nice versions of Arial and Times New Roman and Courier and all the standards that your'e used to in Windows and MacOS? Not free to distribute. Not at all."
.sit.hqx) and with their original file name from your Web site or intranet site.
You couldn't be more wrong. The MS font pack ie corefonts etc are all FREE to distribute. Yes you read that right. The original terms under which these fonts were available explicitly allows you to redistribute these in their orginal form as long as its not for commercial use. From Microsoft's own FAQ.
# Anyone can download and install these fonts for their own use.
# Designers can specify the fonts within their Web pages. Our guide to specifying fonts in Web pages explains how to do this.
# You may only redistribute the fonts in their original form (.exe or
# You must not supply the fonts, or any derivative fonts based on them, in any form that adds value to commercial products, such as CD-ROM or disk based multimedia programs, application software or utilities. See Microsoft's permissions site for more details.
So there you go. There are excellant Free as in Beer fonts available for the world to use for whatever OS they want. I don't even know that Microsoft could prevent one of the Free distros from including them with their base distro. Then again just downloading them after install like most of us do is probably the smarter move.
Free high quality Fonts available here. I thought everyone already knew about this?
http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Imona Live Forever!!!
Heh. That brought a smile to my face. Keep up the good work.
You do realize that hotmail runs on Windows 2000, right?
Netcraft's list goes back to 01 and all say Windows 2000 (except for 1 day it was reported as Unknown)
You do know Microsoft owns Hotmail, right?
I know who owns hotmail, and I know that their backend mail servers and webservers are running a different OS. I also know that netcraft only tells you what the webserver is running. I'll leave the rest to you.
I suggest you google around a bit for 'hotmail operating system' or such.
FreeBSD-STABLE still defaults to XFree-4.3, and the option is still open to -CURRENT users... while there won't be as many, there's still a strong choice :D
:D (I'm kidding :D Please don't flame me :O)
I wouldn't be suprised if someone does go ahead and throw XFree86-4.4 into the ports tree in the future (and they most certainly cannot in the past.)
OpenBSD uses 4.4, and to my knowledge, FreeBSD isn't too concerned about the liscence changes bringing pain and suffering all those on this Earth who use open source software
> Some distros suck at recognizing some configurations, while another distro will recognize it without problems. A pain in the butt, but go figure.
Which of course is somewhat interestign seeign how the actual drivers are part of Linux and not added by the distribution normally.. Of course it is upto the distribution what they enable by default and how.
> You didn't mention which distro(s) you tried, but first try the Knoppix live CD here or here. Its hardware recognition is very good and if it recognizes your hardware, it takes about 20 minutes to install to your hard drive (YMMV).
Interestingly, when I personally tried Knoppix early this year, the most recent version failed to recognize:
- my broadcom onboard gigabit ethernet chipset
- any usb device whatsoever
I still have to see the broadcom chipset work correctly with Linux, I did get USB to work.
Booting from a FreeBSD 5.2 live CD on the other hand got all hardware recognized (not configured in all cases, it didn't contain sane or such for the scanner which I happen to have)
> Regarding printers. Some printers are better supported under Linux than others. Go here to see how well your printer is supported. Go here for more help.
How well a printer is supported has usually more to do with what features of a printer you can use, not with failure of the system to recognize that a printer is connected to a usb port.
> Check your scanner compatibility here. And find more help here.
That is the most tricky one, alltho the usb drivers should be able to tell that I have an usb scanner connected even if it is unable to actually do somethign with the device. This is simply a consequence of how USB works.
> If you still can't get Linux to work, stick with windows, it's not that bad.
I suggest trying FreeBSD instead (that is, if you wat a Unix like environment and want a better chance of 'supported' hardware actually workign out of the box)
Can't steal something that's free you jack ass.
I haven't seen an official statement from Apple on this, but I believe OS X as we know it is possible only on a BSD foundation for legal, rather than technical, reasons. This is why--if I'm right--you will never see the OS X core moved to a Linux distro.
The GPL used by Linux is a bit too restrictive and "public" for Apple's purposes. For instance, the GPL won't allow you to modify open source code and then close the source, whereas the BSD license will. I don't have specific knowledge of Apple's decision process for choosing FreeBSD as the foundation for OS X, but I assume that at best Apple would have to walk on eggshells under the GPL, and at worst would have to completely restructure their business model.
I've seen well-known commentators make statements similar to yours, so maybe the answer is not this obvious. Anyone have the goods to confirm or refute my assumptions?
P.S.: Don't get it twisted--FreeBSD certainly has enough merits that the decision could have been based on technical considerations alone. From a stability standpoint, consider Netcraft's Uptime Survey. Of the 50 web servers with the longest uptime (time since last reboot) as of 25 July 2004, 1 runs Linux, 1 runs Windows, and the other 48 run a BSD variant. Not unassailable testimony, but still damn impressive.
Do you count having USB support first being ahead? If so, then FreeBSD was ahead. That wasn't that long ago.
What about Firewire? Does Linux have that yet? I really don't know that answer, but I do know that FreeBSD has it.
How about easy of maintenance? That would put it ahead too (although, that's quite subjective). CVSup is a great tool for staying up-to-date. CVSup and compile and you're on your way. That's the Unix way. To some, the Unix way is just too hard. I'm quite comfortable with editing files and using the command line.
You know, this arguement will go on forever. It's like the Chevy vs Ford flame wars. Or the Jap-scrap vs Euro-trash auto wars. It will just go on forever.
Who gives a flying fuck what other people use, just use what you like.
Yes, and they [Microsoft] still admits to using FreeBSD on some servers. Look it up for yourslef if you want.
> It's not that software should be free, it's that credit should be given to those who create the code, ....
;P
.... and when distributed, all code that is under the licence should be made available to those who use the software.
Interestingly enough, that was the exact argument given for the license change of XFree86
>
And the difference is in believing that last little bit, not in if credit should be given.
> No the GPL doesn't always fit with people's intentions, but neither does the BSD licence (not that I'm saying you said it did). Some people aren't comfortable with allowing code they write and distribute "freely" to be used by people who don't have the same values in regards to software.
Which is really fine, use what you think best for your situation.
I have used both, and am likely to keep usign both, depending on what I am making.
I may find it more important that everyone, proprietary or not, can use some kind of interface, and I want to encourage peopel in doing so.. a BSD license achieves that much better then the GPL.
I may also find it more important that things derived from my work are available to me and others, and I will use the GPL.
Both happen.
The problem is some people on both sides believign that their way of doign is the only possible way.. well, just like with programming languages.. there is no silver bullet.
It's a kernel that doesn't even have proper source control
Of course it does. It's just not CVS.
FreeBSD has the entire core system in CVS
You're seriously trying to say that CVS is "proper" source control?
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
"who's" = "whose"
>> He didn't like the direction that v5 was taking so he quit and starting writing BSD code for Apple
Yeah, that's what so many people complain about: if you were actually going to use a BSD, which one? Seems like every 5 minutes someone gets pissed off, quits, and starts a new incompatible project.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
USB doesn't work under linux? Files are randomly lost under linux?
Hasn't happened on any of the dozens of linux workstations and servers that I administer.
Hey, that's the way the world works.
It's human nature.
That's the fucking truth.
Slashdot and FreeBSD have confirmed it, XFree86 is dying. With even the venerable FreeBSD jumping ship, joining the ilk of Red Hat and Debian, we can expect XFree to go out of business momentarily. This, folks, is what becomes of the administrators of a free software project when they mess with the license, screwing the community in the process. May the ill-ridden tale of XFree86 serve as a warning to us all. Requiescat in pacem.
(I know, bad joke)
Thank you for stating what many of us are thinking. It's good to hear a voice of sanity in this world.
Karma: Contrapositive
SunOS 4.X and previous?
Most other unixes have a LOT of BSD based userland... Not only by taking directly from the bsd releases, but by the mere fact that ATT ITSELF took some of the parts of the BSD releases.
But, replying to the prent above, that IS the whole point of BSD. This was PUBLIC university research, and as such, ALL tax payers, even corporations, are allowed equal access. A simple fact most of the GPL zealots forget. Public money, Public domain ( well, it should at least, lets not go into details.. hehe )
> Silly wabbit! They don't. Many proprietary protocols, GPL protocols, etc have been cloned or reverse engineered even when they were standard. However not ALL. With GPL, one is able to port say GIFT to a proprietary UNIX and run it there. Voila, not any harder than that the software was BSD licensed.
Yes it is harder because you can directly use the BSD code while you can only do that with the GPL code if you are willing to publish your source with the binaries. That is a desirable effect maybe, but those who want to keep their software proprietary disagree. Result, they can directly use BSD code, they can only indirectly use GPL code.
> To say TCP/IP never happened with one GPL implementation is a statement which isn't based on any solid grounds. The source is open, so people are at least able to learn from it if they don't wanna contribute to the GPL version.
The TCP/IP implementation that was initially used by Linux, that is still part of the basis of that of WIndows, and is obviously the basis for that in Free/Open/NetBSD was BSD (old 3 clause version) licensed.
If it were GPL licensed, it is extremely likely that it would not have been adopted widely as it is because doing so would have been more expensive for proprietary software makers. The 'proof'? Point me at any proprietary network protocol that is implemented as widely as TCP/IP. Why proprietary? because untill recently, there were very few companies even willing to consider using GPL licensed code, and when havign to write their own code anyway, they want to make some money on it directly.
> Makes way for GPL, proprietary and PD, BSD, etc just fine and more so than proprietary protocols. It does recommend GPL though because you can use the foundation itself which is already there. Fact is you want to use push license as much as you whine on GPL zealots. Pot, meet kettle.
Uh?
First of all, you have the source regardless of GPL or BSD.
THe difference CAN be with derived works where you may not get the sources if the original was BSD licensed while you will if it was GPL licensed.
I do not want to push license, and I use both, and I will use what is appropriate for the situation.
Fact is that GPL imposes a restriction which is at times desirable, at times not.
So will the same window managers working under XFree86 also work under X.org's release?
I'm sorry, but BSD is more robust. I'm mostly a Linux user, but BSD is a joy to work with because it is much more consistently and thoughtfully designed.
If you did any serious work, you might notice that.
Linux development is very short-term oriented and not well coordinated. BSD is in it for consistency, and the long haul.
> I haven't seen an official statement from Apple on this, but I believe OS X as we know it is possible only on a BSD foundation for legal, rather than technical, reasons. This is why--if I'm right--you will never see the OS X core moved to a Linux distro.
I believe this has more then just legal reasons. It probably has a lot to do with Apple buying NeXT, which was using a BSD style userland on a microkernel... not that different from OS X in setup, and had been doing that way before Linux would have been a viable alternative.
So they have the skills and experience and had a setup that worked but needed a more modern userland while they wanted to concentrate on the gui.. Those things together would for me result in one option only (tho NetBSD and OpenBSD are catching up, for a while their userland felt like that of FreeBSD from half a decade ago.. and to many of your Linux people, the FreeBSD one probably already looks somewhat achaic..
At any rate.. I doubt there are technical reasons to use one or the other that are very relevant to Apple, in either case they won't be using the kernel, and the kernel is where most of the technical differences between Linux and FreeBSD are. A FreeBSD userland is organized differently from a Linux one (usually that is... with the 100+ linux distributions you can no doubt find oen that is almost identical..) and the legalities are different. From what I know you do get things like gcc with OS X so well.. the legalities of the GPL itself don't stop them it seems.. maybe that is different for things in their core OS? I somehow doubt it.. so I end up with their past experience, directly available skills and cost being the main arguments.
1) Journal file system = soft updates
2) XFS is being ported.
3) do reasearch before putting mouth in gear.
A monoculture that killed many innovative operating systems, leaving with nothing but a poor copy of non-Unix ideas in Windows.
FreeBSD, Linux, or Sun, same shit, different package -- yer still in the vi/rc file ghetto. Thank god Bill Gates broke ties with AT&T and there's at least 1 popular non-Unix OS on the market.
Your problems with Linux (instability, RPM hell, constant reinstallation) are so widespread and horrible that I've never encountered any of them, or spoken with someone who has. Whatever works for you, I guess.
It probably has a lot to do with Apple buying NeXT, which was using a BSD style userland on a microkernel.
Correct. It wsa done for technical reasons, not goodness, but cheapness.
Back in the mid-80s, NeXT was not all that unsual -- virtually every unix was BSDish, and many used Mach.
However NextStep development really died in the early 90s. The rest of the Unix world moved on to System V, while NeXT stood still. When Apple picked up development 10 years later, they were stuck with ancient BSD4.4 crap. Moving to Free/Net BSD stuff was just the cheapest and easiest thing to do.
A real technical decision, on pure merit, wouldn't have chosen BSD/Mach in the late 90s. MacOS X is one of the worst performing OSes on the market (which fortunately doesn't matter much for Ghz desktop boxes).
It's a kernel that doesn't even have proper source control
;)
Most developers (including Linus) use BitKeeper but that's another flamewar
Others (who don't want/need BK) use CVS or just send patches to the mailing list where they're disseminated. If the patch is good it may get merged into someone's tree.
I have nothing against FreeBSD. You like it: more power to you. I hope that you actually know the code somewhat rather than just relay messages regarding code management that somehow makes everything great. Revision control is a tool, not a panacea.
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
"Yes it is harder because you can directly use the BSD code while you can only do that with the GPL code if you are willing to publish your source with the binaries. That is a desirable effect maybe, but those who want to keep their software proprietary disagree. Result, they can directly use BSD code, they can only indirectly use GPL code."
That's not the desirable effect and also such proprietary situation was already existing before GIFT [my example] even started.
"If it were GPL licensed, it is extremely likely that it would not have been adopted widely as it is because doing so would have been more expensive for proprietary software makers. The 'proof'? Point me at any proprietary network protocol that is implemented as widely as TCP/IP. Why proprietary? because untill recently, there were very few companies even willing to consider using GPL licensed code, and when havign to write their own code anyway, they want to make some money on it directly."
Doesn't proof anything to me as it doesn't proof something like that with GPL isn't possible. I do agree it is more _likely_, just not that it is impossible or unlikely. That we're using TCP/IP here as example is ofcourse a naughty one given its part of the kernel thus proprietary UNIX vendors cannot use this code because of CONTRACTS. They can't put it in their proprietary kernel and open up their kernel because of that _even_ when they'd like to do so.
"I do not want to push license, and I use both"
You're contradicting yourself. If you license your code under the GPL and the BSD license while you don't want to push licenses, you are pushing a license with the GPL by putting your code under the GPL.
You try to push it as a rule of thumb for protocols. As i argumented, not by definition true. Sometimes GPL code can't even used on a different platform. I really depends on the situation, and i don't see how Samba or GIFT would be more succesful when they were BSD licensed.
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
Debian Stable for the most part addresses those concerns. As you say, the debian "unstable" release is updated very often "intentionally to help [it] reach a competitive stage [with msft]". Howver the stable release, not unlike BSDs, really is a very conservatively managed release that seems to be updated more like every three years rather than every three months.
They tend not to arise with proper distributions. :-) I'll let you decide for yourself what is a proper distribution (mine's Slackware, but YMMV).
I run both FreeBSD and Linux. Even Gentoo is generally behind FreeBSD in having the latest packages (I like staying on the bleeding edge).
Can Linux do remote kernel debugging over firewire? Stable, integrated IPv6 and IPsec? How long has it had a WiFi network framework?
It isn't unusual for there to be things that are marked "experimental" in the latest Linux versions or are available as third-party patches, which are already integrated and stable in some or all of the BSDs.
Often, I find hardware support in FreeBSD to be ahead of Linux (and sometimes vice versa); e.g. the gigabit LAN on my laptop. I actually used to assume that Linux had better hardware support all-around than FreeBSD; that was before I started running Linux on some of my machines.
There's also a lot of FreeBSD conventions that I strongly prefer. Consider the FreeBSD kernel configuration vs. Linux kernel configuration. Or the FreeBSD bootloader vs. the Linux bootloader. Or the FreeBSD documentation (good man-pages for all system commands, the handbook).
You may prefer Linux, which is fine with me, but you haven't provided any reasons why anyone else should.
If you think XFree is dead, then at least its corpse is still warm. On the other hand, BSD is stone cold dead. BSD is dead like the proverbial doornail. Bury the bitch already.
> A real technical decision, on pure merit, wouldn't have chosen BSD/Mach in the late 90s. MacOS X is one of the worst performing OSes on the market (which fortunately doesn't matter much for Ghz desktop boxes).
Hmm. a real technical decision, on pure merit.. that would include a lot more then raw performance (or better said, lack of overhead).
A big advantage of mach and similar kernels is that all IPC is message based, which prevents the need for locking. This makes it really easy to scale it to more parallel environments and prevents quite a bit of complicated and bug prone code.
An operating system can't hate another operating system.
Dragonfly doesn't hate freebsd, it's forked from it. Openbsd doesn't hate Netbsd, it's forked from it. It's merely a difference in direction that the developers took, nothing more. It's a matter of "scratching an itch", not making some sort of social statement.
You really make too much out of nothing.
> That's not the desirable effect and also such proprietary situation was already existing before GIFT [my example] even started
:)
Uh, this effect is quite desirable according to
those people in their copy-left argument. Note, it is an effect desired by the people who wrote that license, and often by those who use it. If that applies to you personally is another matter.
> You're contradicting yourself. If you license your code under the GPL and the BSD license while you don't want to push licenses, you are pushing a license with the GPL by putting your code under the GPL.
Uh? that is not about pushign a license but about wanting a specific result for the code I wrote.
> You try to push it as a rule of thumb for protocols. As i argumented, not by definition true. Sometimes GPL code can't even used on a different platform. I really depends on the situation, and i don't see how Samba or GIFT would be more succesful when they were BSD licensed.
This is entirely because the original implementation is not licensed in a way that allows you to reuse its source code (even if you do have access to it)
The situation would be entirely different when the original implementations were available with a GPL or BSD license or similar. For a free software developer it wouldn't matter much which as logn as it would be compatible with his/her license of choice, but to proprietary software makers it would matter.
Releasing Samba with a BSD license would allow SCO to stick a modified version into their unix versions with help of MS and never make the changes available.. this would obviously not help anyone
At any rate.. the situation can be different when you are re-implementing an already existing proprietary protocol, but for newly developed protocols, I'd definitely decide on a BSD style license for a reference implementation if I want it to be widely used (and not just in Linux)
Actually the GPL is made so that companies can give code to the public to use but if another company wants to make money off of the source code your company developed then they have to negotiate with you for a license. The point of the GPL is that you aren't giving away your copyrights to the software. You keep your copyrights, and in addition can make money off of companies that need your source code. Pretty much what I think is this, BSD is open source for suckers and there are a lot of them out there. Pretty much if you release under the BSD you will never see money for the work you did. Essentially the BSD license is the real license of communists and I think people like you who try to pretend its not are just pissed off because people won't give you a free ride. Pretending that the GPL is for people who want software to be free isn't a good way to make remarks. You should understand that the GPL is another way to restrict competition. If people steal your work you have legal options to sue for money. With BSD what can you do but pretend you like to give away your money for free when a company steals your work. So think of it like this, if a company wants to use your code which would you rather license your code with if you don't mind letting people use it for free (who don't have the money or don't plan to profit from your work) and still want to make money when larger companies want to use your code as their own? BSD doesn't work in this situation and never will.
So it performs poorly, but it can "scale". Do you happen to work for Sun Micro?
> So it performs poorly, but it can "scale". Do you happen to work for Sun Micro?
Considering the concept was used on 68k machines and was quite able to handle dozens of phone lines in realtime (something I have done with such hardware and software), I'd say it doesn't perform poorly, it does however have more overhead then for example a monolythic kernel with a unix style userland even when both concepts are perfected as far as technically feasable.
Now if only Gentoo didn't blow me where the Pampers is...
Say it with me folks, "Gentoo sucks."
Wake up, moderators. The parent post is -1, Offtopic, not +3 Insightful. The topic, in case you hadn't noticed, is X.Org. XFree, and FreeBSD, not Marxism vs Capitalism.
One *BSD hates the other? Where did you get that idea? If it's just because some developers have their own idea on how to implement things, you might as well say that every GNU/Linux distro hates the other ones. Which does seem to be the case with all the distro zealots and their ranting on how only their choice is the good one.
home
Please, no...
I'm determined to reclaim my karma. Now, if I can only find a groundbreaking article and something witty to say....
*BSD is not about being exciting, it is about doing its job well. That is very boring actually, nothing exciting there.
Yep, fully agreed, our servers are running on FreeBSD with huge uptimes and very few issues compared to the ones we had with Linux. I've worked at places where I've installed FreeBSD servers then left, gone back over a year later and its all still running fine (inet cafe router/cache, webservers).
Linux USB support is such an amazingly horrible hack that it is surprising it does anything at all. I suggest you go read the source instead of posting bullshit.
I've read the source and I disagree, if you can pick up anything in particular then fine but you don't beat flames with more flames. My USB stuff worked fine in 2.4 so I'm assuming you're annoyed with the parents flamish tones, which I can agree with.
Reiser has caused me way more problems then FFS ever did
Agreed, however FFS is a lot more mature than reiser so not entirely unexpected.
Erm, you just said exactly the same thing as he said: "the middle class shouldn't get too smug in their middle-class comfort, because in today's equal-opportunity world, the lower classes will not stay down there forever", or in other words, the lower classes are important because they scare the shit out of the middle classes. You can dress it up in optimism if you like by concentrating on the possibility of the working class people becoming middle class, but you're presenting the exact same argument as the one you claim not to be presenting.
Whats the word on Debian's port to the BSD kernel? Mainly I just like the feature-rich Debian platform and I don't give a rat's ass what kernel it runs on. Hell, even Debian/Hurd is a pretty sweet system if you can manage to get it work.
I, for one, would definately give Debian/BSD a spin around the block once its somewhat usable. Right now the Hurd is way more advanced than the BSD port.
The reason I don't currently use BSD is because of games. I am one of those 3L337 linux gamer dudes who not only has managed to get linux installed, but rather I have lots and lots of kickass games for it. Some I compile from CVS, some I buy, some run under Wine. Fact is, if I can move a game from Win2k to Linux, I do it. The only games I still have on Win2k are a couple Baldur/Icewind games and Fallout Tactics. The rest of the ones that don't work in Wine suck anyways and I never play them.
I am experimenting with Gentoo though. I'm currently rebuilding in the background in a chrooted environment from Debian. Trying to get a stable system, although I think it really might be the new Nvidia drivers that are causing the problems.
Gentoo is pretty cool, but its no Debian. It seems well suited to being a Linux gaming platform though. Its toolchain is great and it is highly optimized. Wine (compiled from CVS) on Gentoo runs faster than native windows does, whereas wine (compiled from CVS) runs like crap in Debian.
Clickety Click
BSD is the antithesis of competition. LGPL is the anti-competition, tis the ultimate of truces. Look at the BSDs, their greatness is achieved through entities (the groups) pursuing goals which may produce overlap work. But they SHARE, with little ego for the most part. If you think about it, it's not competition that drives them, it's cooperation and out right, striving, for the betterment of all that they can effect and themselves. There are more things, but currently, at least to my limited ability to express myself, remain ineffable. Additionally, if not tangentially, how many different versions of Linux do we have, not distros or backported kernels for some of those distros, but actual, different kernels? Why is Linus' Linux basically the main one?
Y'know, parent is currently sitting on the front page of AntiSlash.
Surprised it got so many replies.
interestingly, when I personally tried Knoppix early this year, the most recent version failed to recognize:
- my broadcom onboard gigabit ethernet chipset
- any usb device whatsoever
I still have to see the broadcom chipset work correctly with Linux, I did get USB to work.
hmm, both have worked fine for me since I go my new laptop.
Jul 25 08:04:03 xxxxxxx kernel: eth0: Tigon3 [partno(BCM95702A20) rev 1002 PHY(5703)] (PCI:33MHz:32-bit) 10/100/1000BaseT Ethernet 00:0d:56:77:82:ec
Jul 25 08:04:03 xxxxxxx kernel: eth0: HostTXDS[1] RXcsums[1] LinkChgREG[1] MIirq[1] ASF[0] Split[0] WireSpeed[1] TSOcap[1]
Notice that is a Broadcom chipset (gigabit), uses the Tigron3 driver, module name tg3.
As for the USB mouse, it's always worked for me since I got my new laptop, just plugged it in an it worked, no fuss no muss.
Jul 25 08:04:03 xxxxxxx kernel: input: USB HID v1.10 Mouse [Logitech Optical USB Mouse] on usb-0000:00:1d.0-1
I run debian unstable, just in case you were wondering.
>Besides, you seem to be a bit clueless once more.. journaling filesystems do not prevent data loss, they prevent situations where your data and meta data is out of sync, and they provide for a rollback to resync those in case they do end up being out of sync still.
Actually, ext3 does prevent data loss in full data journalled mode. Also, a journalled FS will only ever have to roll back at most one transaction to recover; under all normal circumstances, not even that is neccecary as transactions can be replayed instead of undone.
I wonder how many people this will affect...
;)).
I guess several distros might add it as an option, plus any 'hard-core' types, but for us 'users'?
See, take me for instance - I am fairly computer savvy but not enough to do any code hacking.
I am knowledgable enough that I find compiling the Linux kernel very easy (Because it is
However, while I have upgraded things like OpenSSH/L, the kernel, Midnight Commander, X-Chat etc. on a fairly frequent basis, I have never EVER upgraded X, KDE, my c libraries or in fact ANY core system code.
The upshot of this is that all the core system is still whatever Slackware 8.0 was.
I've had a couple of problems (OpenSSL/H has broken Konqurer for instance), but most of the stuff that's broken I never use anyway.
My point is, the core system has never been upgraded, and I suspect I never will upgrade it until I have a hard disk crash, then I'll probably try a totally different distro.
The Linux disto on my main system was also Slack8.0, but I buggered it up not long ago and have been trying out Gentoo.
I am now too scared to compile X, KDE, etc. because it took me 2 days of downloading and compiling just to get a working system from stage1!
There Is No Such Thing As Equal Opportunities.
/rant. not to be taken as an offense, honestly.
Opportunities is nice to those who have education. Education = Money. Lots of money. Equal opportunities is a lie.
Please don't tell me about ppl who made the American Dream. Born poor, now a millionaire. Of course they exist. But they are the exception, not the rule.
USB? Excatly opposite for me. Diva MP3 Player won't work with NetBSD-{current,stable} and FreeBSD-5.2.1RC. UFS2? Come on, it needs around 6 seconds to open my Maildir (3K e-mails), while it's just 1 second for ext3fs.
BSDs are dead from my end-user view. They, of course, are a nice codebase if you want to develop something commercial and closed-source. But nothing more.
Generally speaking, FreeBSD is good, and Linux is also good. I think that they are both good, if you know how to configure them.
Linux is excellent when it comes to hardware that is not i386. That is one of Linux's greatest strengths. Also NetBSD's, but there are things about Linux and expensive cutting-edge hardware that are undeniably wonderful.
FreeBSD is best on the i386, perhaps the Alpha as well. I have not tried FreeBSD on Alpha, but FreeBSD on i386 is great. So are some Linux distributions on i386.
One thing that I like about FreeBSD is this: now that everyone has broadband, (well, not everyone) - but when it comes to installing an OS on your computer, broadband sure does help.
So I stopped downloading the ISOs and basically all you need for Debian, and FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Gentoo as well, I am sure that there are more like this - but I have tried all of those - you download and burn a small install CD-R - something like 50-100 megs or so, and then the installer downloads whatever else you want. That way an entire install with most of what you need to get up and running in terms of software is about 300-600 megs, or so, depending on what you want to install right off the bat.
A situation I ran into with Debian was this - come back later, say like a month later, and try to install an application that has dependencies (in my case it was K3B without having KDE on the machine) - and it doesn't work. Libraries and dependencies have been upgraded and are newer than what you have on your machine the older ones that would be appropriate for your install aren't available anymore - so you need to upgrade the system first. If you had a snapshot (i.e. if you had downloaded 3 or 4 isos and installed from that) you would be OK, you would just be getting slightly older everything by installing from the CDs you downloaded a month ago. But having done the net install, I had to upgrade the entire OS, which is probably not a bad idea, and is pretty easy to do anyway, but still... all I wanted to do was install one program and I have to upgrade the entire OS to be in sync with everything on the debian software archives. Not a big deal, but it kind of makes you think that sometimes it would be nice to have a snapshot.
This is the cool thing about the FreeBSD ports system. The ports system looks in various places for the source code of things - not a central binary archive that you set with Debian, for instance - and if you ever look at source code ftp servers and so on, you can find previous versions for perhaps even years later after newer versions have come out. So with the ports system, you essentially have a snapshot, and even though it may take longer, and the ports system might search many different places and experience timeouts when it tries to find source code for stuff a year after you originally installed it, chances are that it still might work. Certainly, you can upgrade the ports system via cvs anytime, and it's a good idea to do so, as well as upgrade your base system (which is, admittedly, a bit scary) but the nice thing is that you don't have to upgrade the ports every few weeks if you don't want to. So with FreeBSD you get to do a netinstall, save bandwidth and CD-Rs, yet still have what essentially amounts to a snapshot in time of additional software. There are also occasional advantages to building software from source in terms of legal issues, which all results in having more software available than you would when someone else has to take the source and repackage it up for you and redistribute it in binary form.
The other nice thing with FreeBSD is that it has a repository of binaries, which it hits up when you first do your install, to help speed things up. You can recompile everything from source later once you get your system up and running if you really want to. Get it running first.
I suppose you could do many of these things with Gentoo as well, in a similar fashion. One thing that Gentoo still needs is a good selection of binaries - I am sure t
I assume you have never heard of soft updates?
As long as you only do meta-data journaling, soft updates is an appropriate replacement. Its advantage is that you can use the proven FFS and have your meta-data in a defined state all the time. This is like having the compatibility advantage of ext3-journaling for ext2, though its as fast as e. g. reiserfs.
In other news, FreeBSD has the most machines in netcrafts top 10 uptime servers...
Oh, come on. That wasn't what he said. Interpreted as the best possible intended meaning, he could say that the lower classes has value first and foremost because they scare the middle classes into working harder: The member of the middle class doesn't want to fall down.
This is problematic for several reasons:
What you're saying is even more stupid: Do you really think that today's lower classes are going to rise, within this so-called equal opportunity world? That the person that asks "Do you want fries with that?" will be more wealthy than the person that decides which time of night said burger-pusher has to work?
Of course, the McWorker could get a better job, but that makes no difference whatsoever for the rest of his class: The fact that some people can climb classes doesn't mean shit for the lower classes. I'm not saying all this because I want to advocate some some other ideology, I'm just pointing out that the current one is broken and shouldn't be defended.
Additionally, the analogy between class and software sucks: The competition between Linux and FreeBSD is not like class struggle in any known model. It's not even like competition between to companies: Both parts get to know exactly what the other part does. The competition between Linux and *BSD is more like competition between scientists: The one with most followers (developers) "wins"
Without broadband, and on a modem with a 2 hour limit, as most of the world has to put up with, not a sinle Linux distro is upgradeable with large patches, as often needed for security. I know, I have tried them all, and those I have paid good money for, such as Redf Hat, SuSe and Xandros, did not even bother to acknowledge my bug reports. It is utterly stupid, they have things like wget that can resume transfers but either they don't have that capability on the servers or their rotten update programs have been designed by a committee of idiots, as obviously was RPM. In the case of SuSE, Yast has now gone under GPL, but that is of zero help because there are masses of marginally commented files and it is not at all clear how it is supposed to work, otherwise I am so mad at it that I might try to fix it myself (says he as he nearly smashes his keyboard by pounding too hard....)I am mad about this, it has been going on for far too long, with insanely big patches like 130MB for a stupid binary kernel patch. These distros deserve to fade into oblivion, even the incompetent scumbags in Redmond can do better than that.
I have not tried major updates to BSD yet, hopefully it will be better, as presumably source patches are used, but the user interface is a total disaster, i.e. there is not one.....
As I keep saying, people with the expertise need to urgently turn their attention to basic useability things like this, or the Criminal Monopoly will deserve to wipe out FOSS, by actually having given more consideration to his customers. For instance, why has FreeBSD (which I like) not got a decent installer, such that a fairly fast worker like me still takes 6 hours to make package selections? can't they be grouped, and also take info from the previous config as a starting point? Even YaST manages that.
Come on developers, realise that everyone needs to apply patches, not 10% of users worldwide have broadband, the remaining 90% or so are living with bugs and security holes because you can't be bothered to attend to detail.
This is sure to attract flames, but jsut think about what I have said first, and if you can fix some of these things, or tell me how to fix them, please do. Lots of people including myself will be very grateful.
Yeah. Why should you be able to benefit from others (spare-time) work without giving anything back? Parasite!
Be afraid, be very afraid, indeed ye trolls, quake in your very boots, for hordes of undead BSD zombies will haunt you day and night, and not only that, probably serve your web pages and host your e-mail too!
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Soft updates = cheesy hack NOT journaling.
Calm down...it's a George Carlin joke.
It goes a little like this:
"Upper class - Makes all of the money, does none of the work, pays none of the taxes.
Middle class - Does all of the work, pays all of the taxes.
Lower class - Well, we just keep them around to scare the shit out of the middle class."
It was ment to be funny and in no way ment to comment on what's right or whats wrong or whats political or not. I know you didn't know the reference and your indignation shows it. But come on, lighten up a little and we'll try to be a little more serious. Meet half way...
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Actually, I had a few issues with the latest slackware release; both of which I believe boil down to Pat jumping on the Xorg bandwagon before Xorg is honestly ready to be used widely (and as long as your computer freezes when you switch to console mode from X -- then Xorg is not ready).
That would mean I'd have to think about Linux kernel configuration. *shudder* No. Thank. You.
Seriously, you have to have a CS degree just to configure a Linux kernel; but with BSD you simply have to be able to read and have a clue what you're looking for.
> I've read the source and I disagree, if you can pick up anything in particular then fine but you don't beat flames with more flames. My USB stuff worked fine in 2.4 so I'm assuming you're annoyed with the parents flamish tones, which I can agree with.
Well, as mentioned elsewhere, untill 2.6, it did not manage to properly use my mouse and sd card reader. Judging from people around me as well as what I am reading on here and the rest of the web, I am far from unique in having had such problems.
Both devices work with a generic kernel on FreeBSD 4.x and 5.x.
Of course that doesn't say much about the quality of the source code, I cannot point at one specific file that 'sucks', but while reading it and trying to fix it, I found the code very unfriendly to work with. (I have made private changes to both Linux and FreeBSD, and have the skills for it)
At any rate, it wasn't an unfounded flame or such, but my experience and an opinion based on it.
> Agreed, however FFS is a lot more mature than reiser so not entirely unexpected.
True, you'd think tho that ufs has at least the same level of maturity.. (point being that the reliability of ffs is a result of a few design decisions more then anything)
Well, I should try again then with a more recent kernel maybe.
> Actually, ext3 does prevent data loss in full data journalled mode.
And? that still doesn't prevent incomplete writes. WHen you lose power in the muiddle of a write, that write is hosed, completely regardless of what filesystem you use.
> Also, a journalled FS will only ever have to roll back at most one transaction to recover; under all normal circumstances, not even that is neccecary as transactions can be replayed instead of undone.
As already mentioned, when you lose power in the middle of the actual write, that write is incomplete. You cannot replay an incomplete write.
This is also the only situation where ffs will ever lose data, so the difference is virtually none with regards to this.
A big difference is that neither ext3fs or reiser have to do a time consuming filesystem check to detect and recover from such things whereas ffs needs a fsck which takes its time usually (not much of a problem in FreeBSD 5.x due to snapshots and background fsck)
> Yeah. Why should you be able to benefit from others (spare-time) work without giving anything back? Parasite!
If your anoymnous shithead would bother to read, you'd see that I don't object to this property of the GPL, I state it as fact that the GPL has this property, and that as a result it 'infects' derived works. That is a statement of fact, and has nothign whatsoever to do with if that is desirable or not.
BSD is running on fumes of hype right now, once people wake up and realize it sucks it will be all done.
Is that why 48 of the top 50 of the longest uptime servers are running BSD?
Source: Netcraft
> Viruses don't ask for permission.
AH, so viruses have a property that is different from the GPL? well.. good.. doesn't change in any way that the GPL has virulant behavior with regards to other licenses in the context of derived works.
> Also it isn't automaticly GPLed, you can reject the GPL by not distributing the derived work.
You don't get the point, do you? I was not endorcing the GPL or objecting to it, I was STATING A FACT about its behavior in relation to other licenses. Of course I can reject it, or I can use it, that is simply completely besides the point here.
I'm sick of this superiority complex that you loser *BSD users have. Face it, you're worshiping a dying platform. Linux does EVERYTHING as well or better than any of your outdated stuff. Pick a non-sucky distro like Slackware and you simply cannot beat it. One day you fanboys will face the music: The trolls ARE right, *BSD IS DYING.
Modern Linux systems tend to be highly unstable with large numbers of known issues and overall poor testing.
Are you ignorant? Or just a troll?
This is done intentionally to help Linux reach a competitive stage more quickly. But one does have to wonder: Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months?
Lets see -- the linux server behind me was installed Winter of 2001-2002. Probably around January, IIRC. Its been through one binary release upgrade, and will go through another one soon.
The whole reason of ditching windows was to get away from reinstalling, DLL hell, and system instabilities. So we've made things better by replacing these 'problems' with reinstalling, RPM hell, and system instabilities.
I don't reinstall. My distribution handles dependencies. As for instabilities, the only downtime that I (don't?) see is when the lights go out. I'm unsure what this "RPM" is that you speak of -- my distribution doesn't use it.
Free Clue #1: Windows is good. Linux is good. *BSD is good. They all have strengths and weaknesses.
Free Clue #2: Don't criticize a system you don't know.
> USB? Excatly opposite for me. Diva MP3 Player won't work with NetBSD-{current,stable} and FreeBSD-5.2.1RC.
Thats interesting, tho I heard a similar experience from someone with a pen drive.
> UFS2? Come on, it needs around 6 seconds to open my Maildir (3K e-mails), while it's just 1 second for ext3fs.
Hmm, I don't use maildir based programs, but that factor 6 in interesting.. it is the same factor as mentioned years ago in benchmarks between ext2fs and ffs..
At any rate, did you turn on softupdates? I do have a 30.7MB large inbox with 1641 mails in there. Scanning it takes my mailer less then 2 secs.
> BSDs are dead from my end-user view. They, of course, are a nice codebase if you want to develop something commercial and closed-source. But nothing more.
Everyone his own opinion of course, but I think you should consider that *BSD is more server oriented then desktop oriented.
Also, if you think Apple is dead (has been proclaimed dead quite often) then fine, but so far it seems they are doing fine with their BSD derived OS..
I'd reconsider proclaiming something dead that quite consistently supports new hardware and is quite actively being developed and used.
If I'd follow your reasoning, we could as well proclaim Windows dead.
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
g_______________________________________________g
o_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o
a|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a
t|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t
s`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s
e_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e
x__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x
*___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*
g____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g
o______\_____\______//_________(_(__>__\___|____o
a_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>__|__/____a
t_______/\_|___C_____)/______\_(_____>__|_/_____t
s______/_/\|___C_____)__*BSD_|__(___>___/__\____s
e_____|___(____C_____)\______/__//__/_/_____\___e
x_____|____\__|_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__x
*____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*
g____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g
o___|______________/____|_____|__\____________|_o
a___|_____________|____/_______\__\___________|_a
t___|__________/_/____|_________|__\___________|t
s___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s
e__|_________/_/________|____|_______|_________|e
x__|__________|_________|____|_______|_________|x
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
g_______________________________________________g
o_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o
a|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a
t|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t
s`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s
e_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e
x__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x
*___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*
g____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g
o______\_____\______//_________(_(__>__\___|____o
a_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>__|__/____a
t_______/\_|___C_____)/______\_(_____>__|_/_____t
s______/_/\|___C_____)__GPL__|__(___>___/__\____s
e_____|___(____C_____)\______/__//__/_/_____\___e
x_____|____\__|_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__x
*____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*
g____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g
o___|______________/____|_____|__\____________|_o
a___|_____________|____/_______\__\___________|_a
t___|__________/_/____|_________|__\___________|t
s___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s
e__|_________/_/________|____|_______|_________|e
x__|__________|_________|____|_______|_________|x
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
g_______________________________________________g
o_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o
a|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a
t|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t
s`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s
e_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e
x__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x
*___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*
g____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g
o______\_____\______//_________(_(__>__\___|____o
a_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>__|__/____a
t_______/\_|___C_____)/______\_(_____>__|_/_____t
s______/_/\|___C_____)FreeBSD|__(___>___/__\____s
e_____|___(____C_____)\______/__//__/_/_____\___e
x_____|____\__|_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__x
*____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*
g____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g
o___|______________/____|_____|__\____________|_o
a___|_____________|____/_______\__\___________|_a
t___|__________/_/____|_________|__\___________|t
s___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s
e__|_________/_/________|____|_______|_________|e
x__|__________|_________|____|_______|_________|x
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
nothing to see here, move along.
Long haul? BSD has one foot in the grave. FreeBSD is practically dead. There ain't not future in it. Sorry to bring you back to reality, but them's the facts.
Point the first: I am a member of the lower class. I am distinctly uncultured by the standards by which these things are measured (not being a fan of opera or theater) and I have very little money.
Point the second: I didn't create the system and I don't approve of it. My views on education and social services might surprise you, especially given your talent for knee-jerk assumption.
Point the third: Your rant about laws of nature, human nature, and the way of the world, et cetera, is completely misguided since I did not attempt to bring up any of those things, nor did I suggest that the current status quo is appropriate or natural. In fact, I believe it is completely artificial. But nonetheless you have made an astounding leap which would be quite impressive if you were a long jumper but will neither impress nor surprise anyone in a discussion on slashdot.
The fact is that your whinging has nothing to do with anything. You just wanted to go off half-cocked. I may be a huge asshole, but I am not advocating anything in the context of this post. I was using an example that I found humorous which apparently you failed to find humor in. The incongruity of our funny bones is neither my fault nor my problem.
In any case, I feel that our governments have something to gain by keeping society stratified. Namely, it keeps them (and those who pad their pockets) riding the crust of the shit sandwich which we must all bite. I believe that in most nations, a deliberate effort is made to keep the poor at a low economic level, and I think that one of those functions is to keep the middle class scared. Government controls us by keeping us divided so that we will not rise up as one in outrage and kick the "fat cats" out of their positions of power and glory.
This is clearly not a direct parallel to the linux vs. BSD situation, since at times BSD has been in a better position than Linux. Those days are currently over due to a comparative lack of interest in BSD development but they could be reversed at any time. The "battle" between BSD and Linux is really a battle between the BSDL and the GPL, however, and is probably not subject to external interference to the same degree as the world economic climate.
Instead of jumping to conclusions, perhaps you should consider reading the post and seeing what it actually says. I believe only one thing about human nature: Most people are either idiots, or too passionate to act logically, which amounts to basically the same thing in terms of my interactions with them, so if I have an agenda, I usually state it outright for the english-impaired.
Maybe next time I'll include some special disclaimers just for you.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
>Interestingly enough, that was the exact argument given for the license change of XFree86
I didn't follow that whole shpiel, so I don't know what happened with it or why everyone's going against the XFree people, or why X.Org is getting popular. I just think it makes sense, you do the work, you get the credit. If someone wants to use your work in their project, they should ask permission, and use the code according to your wishes (via the licence you choose). If they don't want to use it, they can go somewhere else.
As far as I'm concerned with XFree, it's their right to change their licence and I don't care. If the new licence doesn't jive with the other licences of the software I'm using, I'll either stick to a version that does jive, or I'll find an alternative.
I haven't distributed much code, as I've mostly done the odd shell script to automate a few things (I made a little script that'll change the
So, in the end, we agree, use what works best for each given situation.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
You just don't get it do you?
The BSD license is all about not giving a rats ass what happens to the code you write. It's not about money. It's not about anything.
Nobody licensing their code under the BSD license -cares- if a big corporation uses it. If they did, they'd use GPL.
Shut the hell up and quit forking the thread, god damn trolls.
> You were making a statement, that much I'll give you. Fact it is not.
I suggest you go read the GPL, it quite clearly states the conditions for usage in derived works, what I said is part of that, so unless you want to dispute the GPL, it is fact that the GPL behaves as described.
It seems your problem is that you do not like the usage of the word viral here, well, that is fine. You may want to keep in mind that people use the word that way and why they do so, regardless of if you agree personally. Alternatively, you can insist on misunderstanding people on purpose, whatever you like.
Preventing incomplete writes is not the same as preventing data loss. If the OS tells the app that data is written to disk, and it is not, then data has been lost. This never happens with a fully data-journalled filesystem, because the OS will not claim that the write is complete until it's at least been recorded in the journal. The write might not be complete if power dies right then, but *nobody has been told that it was*.
This is vital for any kind of database, mail server, or other system in which the server process has to be able to tell the client that their data is 'safe'. For example, the mail RFCs forbid a server to reply to the DATA part of an SMTP transaction with a confirmation until the mail has been written to permanent storage; replying 200 means that you have taken responsibility for ensuring the mail's delivery. Without full-data journalling, this means you have to fsync() after writing but before confirming the write; this can be slow. With full-data journalling, you are assured that the write has been journalled and will be replayed.
Mail servers and databases running on FFS or any other non-data-journalled filesystem have to fsync() frequently to preserve data integrity. This is not neccecary on a data-journalled FS.
That's the difference.
So for the benefit of the comunicatively disabled shithead hiding behind a silly_nickname.
I read. And I saw what you wrote. It didn't sound positive. "Viral" and "infectious" is hardly any positive words. Other people using those words... oh, you mean the marketing people over at Redmond!
Whatever your intentions where, you came of like some pissed jerk whom just found out that your plan to
1. Nick GPL:ed code
2. ???
3. Profit!!!!!
wouldn't work, or at least has the possibility land you in hot water.
Here is a rule of thumb for GPL sceptics: if in doubt treat the software as if it was proprietary.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
This is what I'v never understood: why do some people consider all distributions based on RPM package system as inferior to those employing a different package system? It's just a package system, man! Are .ZIP archived Windows programs systematically better to those packed with RAR?
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
I understand that you reply to an unreasonable post but that's no excuse to be unreasonbable yourself:-)
mouse problem: I looked at your question but you need to provide more details, it might be more useful to ask in distro specific forum
usb: it works fairly well in linux as well
loosing files after crash: you need journaling file system, how is this freebsd versus linux issue?
programs more responsive, system stays up longer, hacked up less: no substance... you can believe it if you want but bringing it up as an argument doesn't seem to make much sense... (without proof) BTW I am using freebsd at work, linux at home and can't tell the difference (i.e. there's about as much difference between slackware and debian as between debian and freebsd)
you wrote: "Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months?"
and in your journal: "I've decided that I want a Linux distro that works correctly out of the box, and needs minimal configuration."
perhaps you should ask yourself what you really want. from funny requirements comes funny result. usually. hint: if you don't want to reinstall your OS get a distro that is easy to maintain and upgrade, NOT the one that is easiest to install. I am not saying you should get debian but I have a debian install since about '98, constanlty upgraded, no rpm hell, (almost) no problems, constantly on the cutting edge (and this is fairly common, ask on debian mailing lists)
all in all, there's no need to make linux look bad for freebsd to look good!
...all excited, don't know why...
"What about Firewire? Does Linux have that yet?"
yes (and it also supports HFS+ so I can use iPod with linux)
"How about easy of maintenance?"
depends on distro, apt-get is easy enough (debian)
erik
...all excited, don't know why...
mouse problem: I looked at your question but you need to provide more details, it might be more useful to ask in distro specific forum
If you read my Journal from the beginning, you'll find that the mouse problem is present on all distros and Linux kernel versions. My optical mouse works for awhile, then Linux forgets it exists.
usb: it works fairly well in linux as well
Fairly well, yes. But it has a lot of bugs and problems that keep popping up. My USB Optical Mouse problem is a perfect example.
loosing files after crash: you need journaling file system, how is this freebsd versus linux issue?
Journalling is not a guarantee of a stable file system. I was just speaking with a collegue of mine on JavaGaming.org about how his EXT3 filesystem went belly up. BSD's FFS is a well tested filesystem that has one of the highest levels of reliability in the industry.
you wrote: "Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months?"
and in your journal: "I've decided that I want a Linux distro that works correctly out of the box, and needs minimal configuration."
That's correct. I want a Linux system that I can install, run, and never actaully have to worry about again. While I can at least get to a Linux system that's easy to install (e.g. SuSE), they still release constant OS upgrades that require an upgrade reinstall. The only bright side to this is that your data files (hopefully) don't get deleted.
hint: if you don't want to reinstall your OS get a distro that is easy to maintain and upgrade, NOT the one that is easiest to install. I am not saying you should get debian but I have a debian install since about '98, constanlty upgraded, no rpm hell, (almost) no problems, constantly on the cutting edge (and this is fairly common, ask on debian mailing lists)
You'll note that Debian stable fails to meet most of the rest of my criteria. For example, lack of USB support means that my input devices don't work with the OS.
Remember, Debian stable is BEFORE Linux had USB support as part of the kernel. I still have a FreeBSD machine running from around that time that supports USB just fine.
all in all, there's no need to make linux look bad for freebsd to look good!
As I said, Linux has its ups and FreeBSD has its ups. I merely named some things that were important to me that FreeBSD met, that Linux doesn't.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I am very aware of the difference and that a journallign filesystem is a better solution, but really, read up on ffs, unless you specifically configure it otherwise, it won't allow for the situation you describe and hence at the price of performance, gives virtually the same level of data integrity.
At any rate, as said, journalling filesystems provide a better solution, but are not needed for enterprice systems unless what you compare it with is a lot less reliable then ffs.
> I read. And I saw what you wrote. It didn't sound positive. "Viral" and "infectious" is hardly any positive words.
Indeed they aren't. I am aware of it being a desirable side effect of the GPL, but what you seem to forget is that that is a consequence of how copyright works, and it would actually be desirable to not need this effect at all.
Also, it is a very good way to make clear to the marketing people out there that they cannot take GPL code and put it into their own product without consequences. You may not like putting it that way, but I really don't care.
> Other people using those words... oh, you mean the marketing people over at Redmond!
It has been called viral by many people before Linux had any relevance to Microsoft, yeah, they use it as well.
> Whatever your intentions where, you came of like some pissed jerk whom just found out that your plan to
Why pissed? I explained something, and you do not like it, for all I can tell you are the one acting like a pissed jerk here.
> 1. Nick GPL:ed code
2. ???
3. Profit!!!!!
*lol*
No, I will take code that is licensed in a way that allows that if I want to do that to begin with.
I do not know who you are, but I do know I am mentioned in the credits of Free/Open/NetBSD, I bet that is because I like to steal someoen elses code and keep it for myself eh? ANd no, it is not GPLed, so I allow others
My intention was to explain to you why people call it viral, if you can't understand that simple thing and have to go into paranoid mode, well, be my guest, but I'd suggest to go find some treatment for it, it doesn't make life fun at all.
> People call the GPL viral to discurage its usage. A common smokescreen tactic -- you associate whatever you don't like with something negative, make some swallow arguments to make the connection appear strong and hope that people won't look deeper into it.
Or to provoke a response and hope people do look deeper into it. Ar any rate, it is used in this way not just by people opposing the GPL for the simple reason that it makes the effect pretty clear. I'm rather sure the only people who will never use it in such a way are peopel who are fanatical about the GPL.
Viral may be a negative word, untill a marketing person discovers that it also applies to what they release, and protects them from competitors running off with it, all of the sudden it will be an 'advanced way of protection'.
> Here is a rule of thumb for GPL sceptics: if in doubt treat the software as if it was proprietary.
Just for the record, I am not a GPL sceptic, rather, I am aware of one important consequence of using GPLed code, and may decide to use alternatives when appropriate.
I have a little bit of GPLed code around, a bit more code with a BSD style license, I'll use what I find appropriate.
Actually, FreeBSD is increasing it's market share, as mentioned here, here, and here. You really should know a little about what you're talking about before you talk about it.
As for one BSD hating another, that is utterly ridiculous to the point that I laughed at you when I read it.
Finally, I don't know what you define as "success" but the way I see it, microsoft still has the dominant desktop operating system in both quality (IMHO) and popularity (statistically) and IMHO FreeBSD still has the upper hand over Linux in the server department. So, if you follow that, that still leaves linux behind both of them.
Uh. I say I prefer BSD in the BSD section of Slashdot and I'm marked as a troll? Somehow I think whatever moderator did that is a Linux zealot. I mentioned merely technical details, like dependency problems. You'd think someone with moderator status would have the maturity not to turn this into a religious war. :-|
Are you talking about binary compatiblity, or source? *BSDs are fairly compatible with each other due to all the code sharing.
There is such a thing as equal opportunities under democratic socialism, as practiced here in Europe. The state pays for education and health, and provides maintenance grants to students to cover living expenses. With education available to all, acquisition of skills is only a matter of time, ability and the desire to learn.
Naturally, all of the state services mean that taxes are much higher than in the USA (or even UK). As a result, it's very hard to become rich, but who would want to have so much more than their neighbours anyway? When everyone can live in relative comfort, without fear of losing access to health, education, and so on, the idea of hoarding money isn't so attractive.
I don't think it is really a matter of winning or losing. For example, if I prefer the design philosophy of NetBSD over that of Red Hat (and I do), I can run NetBSD, even if Red Hat is 1000 times more popular. The popularity of Red Hat does not diminish NetBSD, and indeed to the extent that both are POSIX-compatible, can actually help it!
At the end of the day, it only takes a small number of skilled developers, writers and so on to create and maintain an operating system. As long as there are enough developers and writers for each component of the system, it will evolve.
In my view, what is truly dangerous is a monoculture. With multiple systems, the developers of each system can look at the ideas in the others, see which work and which don't and either imitate the best or try something new. Through this evolutionary mechanism, all systems can be improved. If, on the other hand, there is only one system, it will tend to stagnate, insofar as the accepted ideas will be implemented, and others (which might actually be better) will never see the light of day.
If that's true, it's very sad. Under democratic socialism, as practised in most of the EU, there is no great fear of poverty because the state provides the essential services to everyone. Marxists oppose democratic socialism because it removes the social friction that they feed on to generate revolutionary fervour. Capitalists oppose it because it makes it harder to hoard money (though I honestly can't understand why they want to do this). Nevertheless, I feel it works far better than any other system.
The "battle" between BSD and Linux is really a battle between the BSDL and the GPL, however, and is probably not subject to external interference to the same degree as the world economic climate.
Speaking only for myself, as one who has contributed to BSD, I do not see software development as a battle between anyone or anything. To me, software development is about implementing new ideas, with the aim of making software better for everyone.
BSD has included a lot of good ideas over the decades of its existence (especially sockets), which is why I admire it, use it and have contributed to it. The same, however, applies to GNU, Linux, Mach, plan9, System V, VMS, Windows NT and countless other systems (this list is alphabetical, not sorted by importance or anything else).
I feel this idea of a 'battle' is an unfortunate result of the fanaticism of Richard Stallman. Like the Marxists of the 19th and 20th centuries, the advocates of Stallmanism divide the world into good ('Free Software') and bad ('Non-Free Software'), and see everything in the context of a struggle between them. (Naturally, many who write GPL software, including Linus Torvalds, are much more moderate.)
In contrast to the Stallmanist view, many in the BSD community see progress for all as the goal. Like conservative democratic socialists, such people (including me) do not see an enemy in either commercial or GPL software. The BSD licence allows BSD software to be included in all, so we can help BSD, GPL and commercial software to evolve, which ultimately helps everyone.
I've read plenty about ffs, including the source, and have used it for a long time. It does allow the situation I describe - while metadata is preserved correctly in all but the most tricky of cases, data is not committed to disk until fsync() unless you mount your filesystem in synchronous mode (which means you have to take the performance penalty for doing so, and you can mount *any* fs in sync mode to get that guarantee if you don't mind it being slow). If you believe otherwise, please, show me the documentation/code that explains its commit behaviour differently, and I'll apologise for claiming you are wrong.
A data journalled FS never needs to be fsync()ed, and appending to the journal is much faster than syncing. For 'enterprise' systems (what an arbitrary definition that is; as I pointed out, all mail servers everywhere are required to make all possible efforts to avoid losing mail they have committed to delivering) applications typically fsync() at the appropriate times without any consideration for the filesystem they are running on, which usually means that a data-journalled system will perform worse, not better, than something like FFS, because everything gets committed to disk twice immediately (instead of the non-journal commit being postponed until a better time). Data-journalling is not *needed* in any situation, except where an application does not fsync() and still trusts writes to be synchronous (to 'fix' these apps on FFS requires mounting synchronously again..), but it is a better solution than manually syncing.
Agree 100% about the monoculture, though.
The GPL isn't viral, it's just restrictive in a slightly deceptive way. Most restrictively-licensed code is not publicly distributed, and it's made very clear to anyone who licenses it that they can only use it in a particular way or ways.
The GPL encourages source code to be distributed, like earlier open-source licences (e.g. BSD, MIT, public domain), but unlike most, it forbids the use of GPL-licensed code in non-GPL products. I.e. it is similarly restrictive to a commercial licence that says any changes are owned by the owner of the original code. However, owing to the pre-GPL history of open source, some people naturally assume that if the source code is available, it can be used in any project (the slightly deceptive aspect of the GPL).
The reason the GPL isn't viral is that it cannot change the licence used by the author of a given bit of code. It may be incompatible with the licence used for that bit of code, meaning the two can't be combined and distributed, but that's simply because it's more restrictive than other open-source licences, not because it's viral.
The claim that the GPL is 'viral' is therefore no more valid than the claim that BSD code can be 'stolen' by commercial entities. BSD code used under the terms of the BSDL is being used, not 'stolen'. Those who use it are neither using it without permission nor depriving others of it, hence it cannot be said to have been 'stolen' in any way.
>you seem to forget is that that is a consequence of how copyright works, and it would actually be desirable to not need this effect at all.
I'm not sure what you mean with this. If you mean that it would be desirable not to need hold a sword over the heads of people and companies using the code, I'm totaly with you. In an ideal world people that benefits from your work would send you back their improvements. It's common decency. I would never use someone elses code without sending back any improvements that I managed to code myself, because anything else is selfish and ungratius. I feel that I *owe* it, because without them I would have nothing. If they don't want my "improvements", it's their choice, I have offerd. However, not all have such moral standards, and then the GPL and the copyright law is an assurance against such immoral, greedy bastards.
>You may not like putting it that way, but I really don't care.
Fine. You think what you want to think, but don't act surprised when peopel attack you for spreading FUD.
>I explained something,
No, you didn't. You were spreading FUD and misinformation.
>one acting like a pissed jerk here.
Sure. I was the one starting the name-calling, right?
>I will take code that is licensed in a way that allows that if I want to do that to begin with.
I never accused you of any wrong-doing. I merely said that you sounded as somone up to no good getting you plans crossed.
>I do not know who you are,
Does that matter, really? It's one of the biggest fallacys there is. Somone must *be* someone to considered to have valid points or ideas.
>call it viral.
I understand why people call it that, but it doesn't make it right anyway.
personal, pointless insults deleted.
Yes, this is true, and is the negative side of open standards. They make things easier for programmers writing above the OS level, but hinder the use of new ideas in the OS itself.
Rob Pike (of UNIX fame) complained some years ago about how UNIX has had a stagnating effect on OS research because the first thing any new OS does is implement the UNIX/POSIX APIs. While this doesn't necessarily prevent new ideas within the OS, POSIX adherence does reduce the scope for such ideas, and makes innovation at the API level extremely difficult.
All in all, I think BSD/UNIX/POSIX is good, but there is definitely a down side to standardisation at this level, just as there is with standardisation at the machine-code level (referring to the increasing dominance of the x86 instruction set architecture, which will probably be repeated with the amd64 architecture in 64-bit land).
4.4BSD actually included such a file system, called LFS (the Log-Structured File System), which was originally implemented in the Sprite operating system, and added to 4BSD in the early '90s. The reason LFS never replaced FFS is that, while writing both data and metadata to a log (or journal) is faster than writing to a conventional file system, the resulting on-disk layout of the data is much less efficient for reads, hence it tended to be slower overall. Journalling file systems reacted to this by journalling only the metadata, thus allowing the data to be laid out in the traditional way.
The 4.4BSD LFS went ununsed for a long time, and was eventually dropped from FreeBSD. It's still in NetBSD, however, and some developers began cleaning it up a while back, so it is now available to NetBSD users as an experimental file system. From what I've heard, it's pretty fast on modern systems, with their large memories and so on.
Incidentally, do the 'data-journalling' systems you refer to use the journal as temporary storage for the data? I.e. do they write data first to the journal, then later to the final location? If not, it sounds like that's just a fancy new name for old log-structured file systems. :)
I know all about log-structured filesystems too; but there are very few modern implementations that are stable and complete. They work well for certain access patterns, and not for others. Data-journalling FSes do indeed temporarily write to the journal, then commit to the final locations. The temporary writes are all fast appends, and the final writes can be saved until the disk is less busy to be written in a nice order through the elevator algorithm. The result is a modest performance hit on writes in exchange for getting all the safety benefits of a log-structured FS, and with no problems with read performance later.
The Dallas show was excellent!
No one got beat up more often than the mimes of the old west!
Interestingly, recent research has shown that the changes in disc characteristics since the early LFS work have allowed LFS performance to overtake that of traditional file systems in most cases, unless utilisation is very high (ca. 95%).
The NetBSD LFS is being worked on, so perhaps it will be stabilised/completed in the near future. It is more interesting to me than journalling, which has been in production systems like UNIX and Windows NT for more than a decade. Data journalling does sound interesting, and I had not been following it. It will be interesting to see how it compares with improved cleaning algorithms on LFS, as well as systems that combine an LFS with a traditional system (fairly similar to data journalling).
> It does allow the situation I describe - while metadata is preserved correctly in all but the most tricky of cases, data is not committed to disk until fsync() unless you mount your filesystem in synchronous mode (which means you have to take the performance penalty for doing so, and you can mount *any* fs in sync mode to get that guarantee if you don't mind it being slow).
And at least FreeBSD mounts ffs in synchronous mode by default (and has a strong warning about doing otherwise) so that IS the default you get (and if you read back my previous post, I mentiopned the performance hit already).
softupdates makes the performance hit a lot less problematic, tho at loss of a slight level of integrity.
At any rate, the theory is interesting, but reality is more interesting. I have experienced multiple cases of corruption of data and data loss on reiserfs as well as ext3fs (won't even talk about ext2fs), on multiple machines with different linux versions (tho did not try with 2.6 kernels), on systems configured by myself as well as by others. This for me means that I can be pretty sure that this is not caused by either some hardware defect or a specific configuration issue (either introduced by the distribution or by my particular way of configuring it)
I also experienced data corruption and data loss problems with ffs... ONCE.
Now, I use ffs a lot more then either ext2fs, ext3fs or reiser, and have been using it for a lot longer also.
Annecdotal evidence? definitely, but I know very few peopel who used all of those intensively who do not share this experience. For me this means that while in theory less good, its implementation is still better in real world situations.
> If you believe otherwise, please, show me the documentation/code that explains its commit behaviour differently, and I'll apologise for claiming you are wrong.
Cool; I've been waiting for a stable LFS for a while. I'll hafta install NetBSD and have a fiddle.
> I'm not sure what you mean with this. If you mean that it would be desirable not to need hold a sword over the heads of people and companies using the code, I'm totaly with you. In an ideal world people that benefits from your work would send you back their improvements. It's common decency.
Please, before arguing about the GNU GPL, read what the peopel from GNU have to say about it, they are quite clear about what ideal they are aiming at, which is for all software to be free of copyright (hence the term copy-left). That would be the ideal situation and in that case they do not believe this measure is needed anymore.
It is not about giving back but about you being able to use someone elses work on the same terms as them using yours.
> No, you didn't. You were spreading FUD and misinformation.
If you'd care to read back the discussion, you'd see I was not the person making the GPL is viral claim, I responded to someone saying it wasn't with explaining while people see it as such.
Also, as I pointed out already, the use of the word is a problem, not the thign it stands for. Because the word is used anyway, and was used wayy before Microsoft and friends got involved, the GPL was already described in that way. It is being used, and we better explain why people call it that way then acting as if the 'issue' does not exist. That may also give you a good chance of explaining why it is actually not an issue but a tool that protects their investment as much as yours.
> Sure. I was the one starting the name-calling, right?
I don't know, but I do know that you are making a huge issue over the use of a word, a word that I didn't coin, that I wasn't the first one to mention in the discussion here either, and go as far as trying to say that the effect intended by the word viral with regards to the GPL is not there at all.
> Does that matter, really? It's one of the biggest fallacys there is. Somone must *be* someone to considered to have valid points or ideas.
When stating opinions as fact, you may get people wondering about who you think you are..
Anyway.. who you are doesn't matter for your point being valid, but with some 5 bilion people out there saying things, I care more about those who I know, or who provide reasoning or verfiable facts. It simply makes that you are being heard with your valid opinion.
At any rate, I should probably have asked if you have code out there because that was what I was interested in.
> I understand why people call it that, but it doesn't make it right anyway.
It may not be right in your opinion, it is in the opinion of others including me. Untill you provide actual reasoning beyond "I don't like it because it is a negative sounding word" I'll take note, but so far you didn't.
> personal, pointless insults deleted.
Maybe don't assume people are out to rip off the GPL and call them "pissed off jerks" when you really don't know? Typical case of pot and kettle I'd say.
Ah; I did not realise that synchronous mode was the default, as I've always configured it to use softupdates before. If you have been talking about FFS synchronously mounted, then you are comparing apples to oranges; ANY fs mounted synchronously is safe, there's nothing special about FFS there.
I am rarely interested in reality of this kind of thing; implementation details are dull. Yes, it's entirely possible, probably even likely, that the FFS implementation is more stable and safe than many other filesystems - reiser in particular is notorious for having had many data-loss-inducing bugs in the past (though hopefully less at present). I have never lost data through an FS bug in any filesystem; my main systems variously use reiser, ext3 and FFS with softupdates. All the servers I run that require guarentees from the filesystem run on a filesystem which provides them: either reiser mounted synchronously, or ext3 with full data journalling.
So, from my personal experience, the implementations all work fine. I was never making a claim that any particular FS was better, merely correcting your original incorrect statement about the flaws in journalled filesystems. FFS has a fine history of reliability, but so does ext2 under normal use (i.e. when you always unmount cleanly). =)
> Ah; I did not realise that synchronous mode was the default, as I've always configured it to use softupdates before.
;)
;)
Softupdates and async mount are two seperate things. Combining both is possible (and I do so for some filesystems that contain scratch data anyway) but makes you lose most of the data integrity of sync mounts. Only using softupdates gives you a much better performance, and it is at times claimed to be even safer, tho in my experience (and from the theory, how to get things safer then using sync writes and writing data and metadata in one atomic operation?) it is slightly less safe. A lot safer then traditional UFS in async mode tho.
> If you have been talking about FFS synchronously mounted, then you are comparing apples to oranges; ANY fs mounted synchronously is safe, there's nothing special about FFS there.
Hmm, atomic writes of data + metadata do help a bit in case of ffs.. but good point there.
> I am rarely interested in reality of this kind of thing; implementation details are dull.
And yet this is the thing that matters when implementing a practical system today, which was what this discussion was about I thought?
I agree that the theory is more interesting technically, and it may also be more important depending on what you are doing. For me, implementing reliable server systems today is an important part of my job hence reality is of direct interest
> Yes, it's entirely possible, probably even likely, that the FFS implementation is more stable and safe than many other filesystems - reiser in particular is notorious for having had many data-loss-inducing bugs in the past (though hopefully less at present). I have never lost data through an FS bug in any filesystem; my main systems variously use reiser, ext3 and FFS with softupdates.
Yep. I'll keep watching reiser closely tho, it is a very interesting filesystem that offers some real benefits as soon as those issues are gone. Also ext3fs seems very interesting (alltho initially it feels rather hacky)
> All the servers I run that require guarentees from the filesystem run on a filesystem which provides them: either reiser mounted synchronously, or ext3 with full data journalling.
I've lost data on different filesystems over time, including reiser, xfs, ext3fs, ffs, ntfs, hpfs and fat (heh.. big surprise there) on a lot of different operating systems. In my case XFS and FFS have shown by far the lowest number of failures, both in total and in relation to usage. I didn't really lose the data tho, I am one of those insane people who makes backups
> So, from my personal experience, the implementations all work fine. I was never making a claim that any particular FS was better, merely correcting your original incorrect statement about the flaws in journalled filesystems.
Thanks for the explanation, it is appreciated.
My understanding was and is that a journalling filesystem has the better theory behind it, but that there are filesystems out there that come extremely close in reliability.
> FFS has a fine history of reliability, but so does ext2 under normal use (i.e. when you always unmount cleanly). =)
*grin*
It just reminds me of a discussion with our local Linux 'guru' about power loss (yeah, we didn't have a ups back then) and if we'd have to goto the server room when power would come up again to ensure the servers would be starting ok.
He insisted on going there because of not trusting ext2fs on the linux servers to come up correctly. I felt it wasn't needed for our FreeBSD servers. Of course when we did experience power loss a few times, we ended up there (what is there to do without power anyway). It turned out we were both right. (now before someone goes off about it being possible that an automatic check of ffs fails, yeah, I know, and have had it happen, it is just extremely rare)
Of course this all has nothing to do with data loss as such.
>For those of us that don't MIND that a large company might make money off software that we freely write, the GPL is a good fit.
Um, no. Ever tried to incorporate GPL code into your commercial program without the legal team going nuts? It's not going to happen. Sure, you can sell GPL software, but it means changing your business model. Despite what you may think, a developer in a software company cannot, based on wanting to use GPL code in an upcoming product, say "let's change our business model" and have everyone say "OK, lets".
I was never having a discussion about implementing practical systems today, just about the theory of journalling. Maybe someone higher up in the thread was, I dunno. ;)
ext3 has the massive advantage (on Linux) of being based on ext2, and ext2 has been beaten on for so long by so many people in so many configs that it's pretty damn stable at this point. It's actually diverged a bit by this stage, though - its on-disk format is still 'ext2 with a journal' but the algorithms for allocation..etc have changed a little and work better in theory.
I'm an OS developer, so dwelling on implementation too much is bad for me. Gotta keep the idealistic goals in my sights, otherwise you just keep maintaining what's there instead of doign anything better =)
> I was never having a discussion about implementing practical systems today, just about the theory of journalling. Maybe someone higher up in the thread was, I dunno. ;)
Ok. the thread started out with a comment that included claiming that journaling filesystems is a must for 'enterprise systems'. Looking back you didn't make that claim indeed.
> ext3 has the massive advantage (on Linux) of being based on ext2, and ext2 has been beaten on for so long by so many people in so many configs that it's pretty damn stable at this point. It's actually diverged a bit by this stage, though - its on-disk format is still 'ext2 with a journal' but the algorithms for allocation..etc have changed a little and work better in theory.
Yep, that is also the thing that makes that it feels somewhat 'hacky' to me.. but it has its advantages definitely.
> I'm an OS developer, so dwelling on implementation too much is bad for me. Gotta keep the idealistic goals in my sights, otherwise you just keep maintaining what's there instead of doign anything better =)
While I understand what you say, realize that what you make will be used by real people, reality is relevant if only to learn how to not do things.
*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 personae?
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.
*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 personae?
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.
Well spoken, comrade, however when you follow the thought through to its logical conclusion you see that the European form of 'democratic socialism' seeks to reduce everyone to the same level. A homogenous world is not only impossible (as Orwell correctly said, there will always be some citizens that are more equal than others), it is boring.
American style democracies, while admittedly not perfect, do at least fill the basic human need for freedom to do what you want, including amass wealth if you want to (face it, greed is a defining human charactaristic).
Just my $0.02US.....
>If you'd care to read back the discussion,
:(
I have now, and I appolgise for not taking the time to do so before. I also read other posts by you in other subthreads, and added the information in them together, wich I admit gave a different picture. You see, your post to wich I originally responded can be read in at least two ways. Unfortunately I chose the wrong
>Also, as I pointed out already, the use of the word is a problem, not the thign it stands for.
The problem is all uninformed people mindlessly repeating microsoft market-speak. Exampel. A lot of people are calling the glp viral without ever having read it, but no one calls the bsd license a "steal-my-code-and-rape-me-in-the-ass" license. Wonder why, they are about as true both of them.
>When stating opinions as fact
I have done no such thing, with the exception of calling you a FUD:der.
>Maybe don't assume people are out to rip off the GPL
My friend, you are the one who makes assumptions. I never accused you of doing anything wrong. I said you gave the *impression* of a pissed of jerk. BIG difference. Maybe I worded it poorly, but then, english isn't my naitive language.. What I have said, and stand by, is that there are people who *will* steal and use your code without as much as a simple "thank you". There have been quite a few examples of that, KISS Technology A/S beeing one.
> I have now, and I appolgise for not taking the time to do so before. I also read other posts by you in other subthreads, and added the information in them together, wich I admit gave a different picture. You see, your post to wich I originally responded can be read in at least two ways. Unfortunately I chose the wrong :(
;)
Ok, then that is cleared and appologies accepted.
Let me add that I quite understand why people who feel strong about the GPL will also strongly dislike the use of the word viral, and rightly so. But either insisting on using it, or insisting on not using it has to do with what you could call an agenda.
> My friend, you are the one who makes assumptions. I never accused you of doing anything wrong. I said you gave the *impression* of a pissed of jerk. BIG difference.
Ok, all clear then.
> Maybe I worded it poorly, but then, english isn't my naitive language.. What I have said, and stand by, is that there are people who *will* steal and use your code without as much as a simple "thank you". There have been quite a few examples of that, KISS Technology A/S beeing one.
Definitely, and I have no respect for doing that.
One reason which makes me a feeling rather strongly about this subject is that many people on Slashdot seem to be of the opinion that when that is done with BSD/MIT/X11 licensed code, that it also makes for 'stealing' while in many cases the authors of such code explicitly decided to allow that. Do this with GPLed code however and I inmediately agree that it makes for 'stealing'. (stealing quoted because it is strictly spoken not stealing but copyright infringement, but that one has been beaten to death on here
Reading your response now, I do not think you deserved such a strong response, my excuses for that.
Nope, what I make is used by the product development team to build system images for particular machines. They're the ones who get to make things work =)
The GPL was created because RMS didn't want to pay for software and didn't want software he couldn't modify and redistribute at will.
The purpose of the GPL is not to keep "your" code open - the BSD license or the public domain do that perfectly well already - it's to make *other people's* code open. Far too few GPL zealots understand this fundamental point and I'll say it again in a vain hope the message gets through - the GPL isn't about "your" code, it's about "their" code.
If the BSD-license would work so great as the BSD-fans claim, the whole Unix-breakup would have never happened and there would have never been a reason to even create the GPL.
You are very confused.
"Linux actually has journaling filesystems so you don't lose files in a crash"
That's not what journalling does. It does not make you any less likely to lose files (actually, the increased complexity can make it *more* likely to lose files, since there are more things to go wrong). All journalling does is allow you to boot *faster* after a crash by skipping the fsck step.
First of all, calm down, relax! We all know Linux is your religion, but please calm down, and don't say anything about something you don't know.
Well, FreeBSD is a very popular platform (especially on the server side). It is not dying. It's not a religion, there's no hype around it, etc.
Let me tell you that some months ago I installed the latest STABLE release of FreeBSD (4.10 as of this writing) on a 486 PC (100MHz,48MB RAM, 1GB HDD,etc) and it the install was painless (a few minutes) and runs very fast (it boots up in about 1 minute). Currently, it's a Web/Mail/FTP server. It does the job.
I have also tried to install Slackware Linux 9.1 and it took me a half day doing it. Slack is known for being speedy, but, despide that, it booted very very slowly (minutes).
It would be impossible to install, let's say Fedora Core 2, on that machine (if I ever wanted to).
Almost all Linux distroes are really bloated and are hardware-hungry today. They should all learn from FreeBSD (well, at least in this aspect). I have 4 OSes installed on my (desktop) computer, and FreeBSD is the fastest.
Peace
But one does have to wonder: Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months?
Don't be such a troll. In the 8 computer * years I've been using linux I've only reinstalled twice, once to try debian over mandrake (that's a keeper!), and once because of a hardware problem.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It seems some threads never die.
Don't be such a troll. In the 8 computer * years I've been using linux I've only reinstalled twice, once to try debian over mandrake (that's a keeper!), and once because of a hardware problem.
In all that time, you've never had to do an upgrade install? Or are you still running the debian with no USB support? Or NVidia support? Or any other support for modern hardware, software, etc. I don't have to do that with my FreeBSD box. ALL the hardware I needed was supported when I made the install. I've seen no reason to upgrade to newer versions, because everything works just peachy.
<mutter>calling me a troll... ratsa fratsa... no good...</mutter>
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade