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."
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.
Some things in life you have to buy. For everything else, there's FreeBSD.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.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.