Slashdot Mirror
NetBSD 2.0 Released
Quique writes "NetBSD 2.0 is the tenth major release of the NetBSD Operating System, and has just been released. It can be downloaded from one of the mirror sites.
NetBSD is widely known as the most portable operating system in the world. It currently supports fifty four different system architectures, all from a single source tree, and is always being ported to more.
NetBSD 2.0 continues the long tradition with major improvements in file system and memory management performance, major security enhancements, and support for many new platforms and peripherals." The release announcement is also available.
Any reason I should test it out on another partition? Is it great for servers or what?
Normally it escapes in a wild burst of savage, demonic power. This time they had to keep proding it until it eventually slouched away.
Beep beep.
LOL, at least you'are consistant. deflin39
Only in Soviet Russia.
Everywhere else, NetBSD 2.0 confirms it... Netcraft is dead!
Sure, but will it run on my toaster?
DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
Dude. You didn't even *try* to be funny.
This post was just plain pathetic. You
could have done something like a 'In Soviet
Russia, NetBSD...', etc. Or perhaps tried
to pick up on a recent headline or draw
some parallels with other news.
But no. Instead you treated us to your
complete lack of imagination.
does it support SMP efficiently yet?
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
And Linux is an illegal hacker OS :p, what's the point?
At least he didn't cry like a little bitch having his candy taken away.
But also, About time! Original ETA of Launch was May. Still nice to have a new release of this wonderfully portable OS. Hopefully the ddefault kernel install includes filesystem crypto.
v2sw7CUPhw5ln6pr5Pck4ma7u7LFw0m6g/l7Di5e6t5Ab6TH.
I find it interesting that a grep on the page of supported architectures does not get any hits for some of the more mainstream "modern" architectures being used in mobile space. No hits for OMAP or PXA families which are well supported by Linux. Sure there are some old boards (eg StrongARM) but this hardly suggests an OS that is being adopted in mainstream usage in mobile space like Linux is.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I can see many microcontrollers going this route. One of the cheapest (and oldest) ways to get a u-controller up and running was to buy one of the 8086 based mini-boards and program it with the old Borland Turbo C.
Now with NetBSD, the same kind of boards could have a mini BSD OS, that could use all the free tools to have a more robust design. I'm not incredibly familiar with NetBSD, but I imagine they do have "real-time" control software for these small processors. Great job. And now of course the choice of processors is very large.
"I see a vacant seat," replied the Ghost, "in the poor chimney-corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved. If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, *BSD will die."
"No, no," said Scrooge. "Oh, no, kind Spirit! say it will be spared."
"If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race," returned the Ghost, "will find him here. What then? If it be like to die, it had better do it, and decrease the surplus operating system population."
Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief. It was sad to see any operating system die, even one so obviously flawed and useless as *BSD.
God bless us, every one.
Since when is Spanish a dead language?!?!
Or use an AC to followup to a criticism of his post...
I just finished instaling NetBSD 1.6.2, and opened a new browser window on my iMac to look up how to install packages..... and what do I see on the front page of Slashdot? NetBSD 2.0 released. The same thing happened with OpenBSD a while back.
:-P.
Maybe I should install Windows XP on one of my computers... Then maybe Longhorn would come out as I opened an IE window to get FireFox
-- TheMadRedHatter
while(1)
{
}
Ah, the story of life.
It is alive and well on South Korea, where is the most used by oldies.
NetBSD is _the_ most underrated free OS project.
Do not be distracted by the fact that it can run on most every architecture. This is only a side effect of an uncompromisingly elegant design and clean implementation.
NetBSD is quite performant on modern hardware. It keeps pace with other operating systems in most areas, and exceeds in others. Remember, NetBSD was probably the first 64-bit clean open source operating system. It had USB support before Linux. It had IPv6 before... well... anybody.
NetBSD makes a great all around OS. NetBSD tends to be willing to break with tradition where others aren't. Proof is in things like its re-engineering of the BSD init system. It's so simply correct, that I can barely remember the traditional BSD inits. Hence, FreeBSD (and OpenBSD?) have adopted it.
So, run. Don't walk. Download, install, and enjoy.
-Peter
P.S. NetBSD's pkgsrc is only thing that comes close to a truly cross platform package management/build system. It supports Irix, Solaris, NetBSD, Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, OS X, and (to a lesser degree) AIX. I'm sure I'm leaving out a few.
. Penguins Surely Ca
Here's a direct link to the torrent for the x86 Binary ISO.
Looks like rsync over NFS is one of the ways to download it. Pretty cool.
Sure NetBSD is the most ported OS but does it have a cool song???
Didn't think so.
Sign me up for OpenBSD because of the groovy tunes!
Now I'll be just Waiting for the mirrors to catch up with isos.
Six minutes before I noticed it and started downloading....
No wonder the transfer is so slow.
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
Not to flame, but I've often wondered how true this statement is. It seems as if a whole bunch of the archs are "quasi-archs". Meaning the under-lying core is still based on a fairly standardized CPU arch. An example is hpcram, which is based on the StrongARM cpu ...
Also, the offical release says 48 archs, not 54 as in the slashdot story
And finally, some asshole named Zafer Aydogan stole my NetBSD Toaster dmesg. Real original can be found at the NYCBUG *BSD dmesg project. (Very funny read!)
Cool, enough random crap from me, heh
Sunny Dubey
It's sort of ironic that a story about a dead operating system was submitted by someone with whose user name comes from a dead language...
Is it? Maybe I'm not laughing because I just don't understand the constant need to disrespect everyone else's favorite Linux/BSD distro.
For many architectures there is no other modern operating system available, let alone a powerful open source Unix-like system. I think that NetBSD, although it has a relatively small user base, plays an important part in the open source community in this respect. Can't we all appreciate the fact that such a ported and portable open source operating system like NetBSD exists?
I wonder what sort of insecurities you have about your own operating system fuel your need to trash a such a benign project.
Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
Proof of performance (Coralized for politeness) http://bulk.fefe.de.nyud.net:8090/scalability/
The benchmarks on this page are a year old, but still show a very interesting picture of network socket performance.
I'm not dead yet!
I'm getting better.
I think, by definition, 2.0 is the second major release, no?
I just installed NetBSD 2.0 about 1 hour ago, and I must say, I am quite impressed! Check this out:
$ uptime
8:40PM up 67 days, 1:56, 14 users, load averages: 1.02, 0.42, 0.35
Since Esperanto!
n/t
Do not feed the troll...
Unless she's nekkid...
Really?
You might want to take a look at http://www.rpm.org/platforms/.
--Bruce Fields
Oh....AC + Troll == Assclown. Sorry, shouldn't have bothered to respond.
I just found FreeOS...
http://www.freeos.com/ lists NetBSD as supporting 30 platforms. Perhaps this is now even more with the v2.0 release? That's amazing!
Read the article below for comparisons of free operating systems...
http://www.freeos.com/compare/
--I smoked my sig.
So that means I have have every single device in my household (toaster included) running a dead OS!
It's sort of ironic that a number of people don't see the irony in a dead operating system that isn't dead, and in a dead language that isn't dead.
DONATE HARDWARE!!!!!!!! Time would help, too. (As someone pointed out, you could look a little harder at what's available, but no reason to miss a chance to plug for more hardware and more hands.)
They choose to implement console scrollback, with something as simple and elegant as Shift+Pgup that Linux provides.
Until then, of course my systems don't run NetBSD; OpenBSD is just fine, sorry.
No thanks. This year's bondage poseur quotient has been met. Leather's been out since '98 - hair weaves and big 'ol booties are in. It's the "new" black.
AC + Troll. Do not feed the trolls...
openbsd had ipv6 first noob!
No.
Irony is an incongruity between what's to be expected and what actually happens. If NetBSD truly were a dead operating system, what's so incongruent about a fan of a dead language posting an article about a dead operating system? I vaguely recall something about "birds of a feather" banding together and forming small social orders based on similarities or something like that, so there's nothing surprising about a fan of an alleged dead language posting an article about an alleged OS.
Or were we playing buzzword-bingo and I missed the part where they handed out the game charts?
ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/iso/2.0/i386live.i so.torrent
...and you might want to take a look at the page you just linked.
Quote:
Causation can cause correlation
Who cares how many OSes have the RPM command implemented to them. What the grandparent is talking about is a CVS controlled tree of source patches that make a consolidated dependency-keyed build system. That builds with the same scripts on all architectures of NetBSD seamlessly.
What RPM has is a framework that all sorts of people roll out on all different sorts of OS architectures, all alike only in the base package structure.
Your claim is like arguing that the TAR command is a cross-platform build system because a lot of different systems can build source code that is stored in tarballs.
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
Wouldn't 2.0 be the second major release? You know, given that its major version number is 2.
Why is anything anything?
No, OpenBSD has not adopted their new BSD init system. The project doesn't agree its quite "so simply correct" as you let on.
The moving cursor writes, and having written, blinks on.
Thu. 9 Dec. 2004 - Looks like Daemon News's support forum site has been hacked. Anyone know anything about it? No, not about the NetBSD logo change exactly, but it IS a logo change of sorts, no? ;)
No offense, but its just a bland nothing OS. Linux, FreeBSD and OpenBSD all offer their own strengths and weaknesses, netbsd doesn't, its just a driver writing project for the other 2 BSDs.
It's sort of ironic that a story about a dead operating system was submitted by someone with whose user name comes from a dead language...
I didn't know Quique was French...
The site tells you how many archs, and how many CPU families that is. You still have to do the work porting to a different arch with the same CPU type, as the booting is different, there are different devices, etc.
And the real problem is that 90% of these arches are not really supported, they just have some untested code that has been cross-compiled on x86. Actually attempting to use most archs netbsd "supports" is a sad experience.
In South Korea, old people use in in their electric wheelchairs....
OpenBSD and Linux are both just as portable as netbsd, and frankly freebsd is getting closer now that they've started supported a few different archs. There is a big difference between being portable, and being ported. NetBSD may be the most ported OS, but its certainly nothing special from a portability standpoint.
Probably because it's near goddamned impossible to install. It's the only OS I've ever not been able to get a *fully* working installation.
If I wanted to use NetBSD on OMAP I'd still have to do the chip support stuff (or pay to get it done). PXA250 is an obsolete part - where's the support for current PXA27x parts which are very different.
With Linux I can download OMAP and PXA27x support off the www.
NetBSD has some ports to VAX and Apollo - both 1980's hardware. Very useful I'm sure.
NetBSD isn't under GPL which I guess is a good reason why ports to things like OMAP and PXA27x are not in the public domain.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
If this computer had a bigger address space maybe we could port it? :)
I second that that emotion, I can't stand that attention wh0r3.
In closing f-ceren, and no, not in that way.
&&7
Really? I love the new installer and I'm not alone in this. It's actually good to have a logical and simple installer that still does everything an installer should. What, you'd rather do Gentoo? Please.
Sam ty sig.
well your a moran LOLZ
What does all that cleanliness translate into? How does it make my computing life easier?
Let's compare this to Linux. Linux runs where I want it to run. It's open source, has lots of drivers, lots of user-mode programs, and several package systems to choose from. It seems to run reasonably close to hardware speed under normal conditions. Its init scripts may not be as clean as NetBSD's, but they seem to get the job done. Where is the big improvement in NetBSD over Linux that would make me switch?
Something like Plan9 might be tempting from my point of view because it really does offer some pretty advanced additional functionality. But the differences between Linux and *BSD just don't seem particularly big.
The benchmarks are a year old, the system used is even older. Anyway, what's your point? They didn't bother with scalability until recently. You'd be amazed at what NetBSD 2.0 can do. Go try it yourself. Condemning an OS based on not being scalable at one point in time is just stupid. Linux wasn't scalable until 2.6, have you condemned that too? "Look at these benchmarks from 2 years ago - it shows a very interesting picture of Linux sucking".
On a related note, it isn't just NETWORK socket performance, since you can use sockets over loopback too. In NetBSD, being so supportive of systems which need as much space as possible, can even compile a replacement pipe mechanism which uses sockets to be smaller but slightly slower.
Sam ty sig.
I have two questions that others might have too, when shown the 54-arches NetBSD supports:
(1) Does it support ALL these arches completely, with every driver and package? I know NetBSD's driver system is awesome, where drivers are made endian-free and attached to PCI or ISA etc busses instead of arches in Linux. Sure not all devices will work with all arches, but if the electrical, performance, mechanical etc attributes work, can the NetBSD kernel drive the device in all arches that support that bus?
(2) If 54 have been conquered, how many are left? I'm more interested in knowing about 32-bit and 64-bit cpu types than architectures, since there are many architectures holding the same cpu... like IBM pSeries and iMac. Is there a 32-bit cpu that NetBSD cant be ported to because gcc/binutils do not support it well enough?
As for architectures themselves, there are just too many of them, think of all ARM evaluation boards.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
You really mean BSD in general... or at least the 3 free BSDs. I was thinking of that a while ago about OpenBSD after I installed it on a Pentium3 to replace a much more expensive harware firewall, and a compromised windows2000 firewall(!). It was so clean and clear, still hasnt required maintenance ONCE.
I just think NetBSD is underrated precisely where it is portable.... Why in the world isnt it THE OS for embedded systems? Look at the effort going into Linux to take it anywhere. BSD follows clean design and Linux follows hacker culture, but the hacker culture must be built on strong grounds, and BSD's design impressed me, since I tried to crosscompile Linux and netbsd kernels for sparcstations on an Athlon. Kegel's crosstool scripts bombed out and I had to fix things here and there, and for netbsd, you have build.sh, which still didnt work, but the effort and design to make it possible (Linux isnt nearly as proactive about portability since its aims are general) impresses me.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
how about "In Soviet BSD, Netcraft confirms old koreans are dead"
Never fear. As of this afternoon I was running 1.6.2 too and tonight I'm on 2.0 with minimal effort.
I used bittorrent to download the new 2.0 ISO image, I checked the MD5 sig, I burned a CD, I booted the CD, I choose "upgrade existing install", and I hit the enter key through a few minor dialogs... and voila! With less than an hour total effort (I didn't stay to watch the install) I'm back up and running with no noticeable glitches (YMMV). And, all that with absolutely no reading of any documentation whatsoever on my part. Amazing. Simply simple. Gotta love NetBSD.
If you're going to insult someone, at least check your spelling.
Of course we all know *BSD lived in the end and because of it the world was a better place.
I just think NetBSD is underrated precisely where it is portable.... Why in the world isnt it THE OS for embedded systems?
Because it isn't as good as others in some areas. It can't run on systems without an MMU, for example.
Look at the effort going into Linux to take it anywhere.
Yes, and it is paying off. It runs on about 50% more CPU architectures than NetBSD. NetBSD doesn't even run on ppc64 (POWER4, POWER5, G5), or IA64.
BSD follows clean design and Linux follows hacker culture, but the hacker culture must be built on strong grounds, and BSD's design impressed me, since I tried to crosscompile Linux and netbsd kernels for sparcstations on an Athlon. Kegel's crosstool scripts bombed out and I had to fix things here and there, and for netbsd, you have build.sh, which still didnt work, but the effort and design to make it possible (Linux isnt nearly as proactive about portability since its aims are general) impresses me.
Actually, it is. It is more portable than NetBSD.
Yes.
No comment.
the spelling is intentional. IE "go usa. get a brain morans."
He then goes on to question why anyone would want to do this, and then goes so far as to "wish these people would use their talents for productive things..." Now I really don't want to come off as rude, but maybe they do it because they want to. Maybe overcoming the challenge of porting their software to obscure hardware gives them a thrill. In the end, since this is free software and this AC is not their boss, it really doesn't matter what more productive things he would rather see them spend their time and energy on.
Then comes a minor slam against its ease of use, but all is not lost there. Not only does he hate NetBSD, he indicates that he would rather see it more popular among users and hackers.
After this we are treated to a not so brief run down of architecture history and economics (I think anyways, I saw a dollar sign, but was already bored enough to skip to the end).
He finishes weak with what could be either be a joke or a troll, I am not sure which. Somehow RISC is dead along with *BSD. I am not sure where RISC comes into all of this, maybe it was in the part about architecture that made me wish I had narcolepsy, but who knows? Either way, with all the BSDs that are still in development by active communities (including a successful commercial outfit, you can find their website here) I find it hard to believe that the blanket statement "*BSD...[is] dead" holds any water. I give this AC post a -1, though I am not sure whether it is not insightful, or not informative.
In fact, maybe tack on another -1 for posting this dreck as AC. If you have an opinion at least be man enough to back it with your name.
Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.
There are so many differences between pkgsrc and RPM is isn't even funny. They're in completely different domains. I realize you have a very low userid, but that doesn't stop you from sounding like a "me too" drone when you bring up RPM. It's like those schmucks claiming a minimalist window manager as the equivalent of a complete desktop.
I use FreeBSD, which is listed as one of the platforms for RPM in your link. But there are native RPM packages for FreeBSD. It's only used for installing some *Linux* binaries. But with pkgsrc I get everything I need. I can even forego the native ports and rely exclusively on pkgsrc should I wish.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The benchmarks are a year old, the system used is even older. Anyway, what's your point? They didn't bother with scalability until recently. You'd be amazed at what NetBSD 2.0 can do. Go try it yourself. Condemning an OS based on not being scalable at one point in time is just stupid. Linux wasn't scalable until 2.6, have you condemned that too? "Look at these benchmarks from 2 years ago - it shows a very interesting picture of Linux sucking".
Actually, Linux 2.4 is more scalable than NetBSD or FreeBSD, for that matter.
I think the last time I used IE (at home, not work) was 3 or 4 years ago. I always partition my drive so I have a windows drive (which gets formatted 3 or 4 times a year) and another drive with everything else including install files for netscape, mozilla, firefox....etc. I tend to use firefox to download the newest version of firefox ;-)
I install it for 5 minutes just to download a newer version.
I have the iso for RC5, is 2.0 basically the same or are there any major fixes done to it?
In Soviet Russia, you are dead and and my language is ironic. Touche
NetBSD isn't under GPL which I guess is a good reason why ports to things like OMAP and PXA27x are not in the public domain.
Do you know what "public domain" even is? Any software under the GPL is specifically *NOT* in the public domain.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I'm building a new embedded device. It needs an OS. What goes there? Hint: an OS that is demonstrably easy to port, with good docs for doing so.
.
I'm building a new piece of hardware. What platform provides the most robust system for developing a reference driver. Hint: One that doesn't create and licencing problems, and has a system designed to make drivers work across archetectures.
I'm teaching OS design in a graduate program - what OS do I use for examples? Hint: One that has a focus on cleanliness of design, architecture independence, and frees my students to use its code in whatever post graduate work they do, regardless of licence?
I could keep going . .
That's the same old page Linux zealots, desperate to find some self affirmation in something so unimportant as their choice of OS, trot out time and again as a "proof" of the supposed performance superiority of Linux vs. the BSDs.
No. All that I conclude from that page is that, at the time of these tests, *both* Linux 2.6 and FreeBSD scaled really well (and presumably continue to do so). How do you know that the set of benchmarks chosen is representative? Maybe there were two benchmarks that, if they had been attempted, would have favored FreeBSD over Linux 2.6. Maybe they could have favored Linux 2.6, for that matter. The two systems, however, clearly did a lot better than NetBSD and OpenBSD (back then; I hear NetBSD has improved dramatically since).
Adn while we're at, see how in a a few of the tests, FreeBSD has a jump down in the graphs around the 3,000 sessions point, indicating special optimizations for very heavy loads.
"NetBSD 2.0 is the tenth major release of the NetBSD Operating System, and has just been released."
And not only that, but it has also been released.
What could I expect in terms of driver support on NetBSD?
Will it run on my toaster?
Don't Crease the Weasel!
NetBSD 2.0 is the tenth major release of the NetBSD Operating System
Er, I'd argue that as the major version number is 2, this would make it only the second major release.
The BSD world has a perverse definition of scalable which means "Runs on the 486 donated to me by Goodwill".
But it makes me wonder why people would expend effort banging their heads against old obsolete junk that no one is ever going to run? Old VAXStations and VMEBus junk? What masochist would even bother trying to get that stuff to run?
I use a VAX as a reverse proxy. It has a very reliable hardware once you replace the disk. I mean it's basically unkillable and does not need particular cooling. It has never crashed yet, so it just provides always-on services which I don't have to worry about.
Moreover, there are not many exploits for those architectures, and people who have sufficient skills to write them are very rare. For this reason, it does nearly never need any upgrade, and it's just a server which lives by itself.
So I hope that my vax will still be supported for at least 10 years from now.
Willy
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
I just think NetBSD is underrated precisely where it is portable.... Why in the world isnt it THE OS for embedded systems?
There are plenty of proprietary BSD forks in the embedded world, and it might be "the" OS except that vendors have no motivation to work together. The Linux forces the openness that tend to make people group around one version.
BSD follows clean design and Linux follows hacker culture, but the hacker culture must be built on strong grounds...
Huh? You based your entire design assessment on how well an OS crosscompiles on one platform?
I've watched Linux development for quite a while now, and its really a lot less hacker culture than it was in the past. During the 2.3 series everything really changed as companies got involved and developers could make a living writing Linux. Nowadays, most of the top developers are paid for their work, companies are testing the heck out of Linux on all sorts of systems, and verification tools are even being applied to the codebase (Ex: Stanford checker, Linus's "sparse"). The only hacker element left that I can tell is the joint review/roasting that occurs whenever anyone posts a patch, but I think that's a good feature -- not a line of code goes in to Linux that isn't looked at by a few people at least. This is not to compare Linux's development in any way with NetBSD, whos developers I'm sure are good. However Linux is hardly what I'd call the product of hacking... at least not anymore.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
You don't use pkgsrc. I know you use FreeBSD's native ports system, fucktardo.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
You're forgetting a couple of things. First Linux has tons of payed people working on it, and it's backed by SGI and IBM. NetBSD is 90% volunteer driven with some of the committers being Wasabi employees. Thats' a huge difference because Linux is only a kernel, NetBSD is the whole thing. And still, they've managed to make one of the finest Unix-like operating systems.
Like I've said, Linux is just the kernel. You need the GNU libc guys to port their machdep code to a new arch as well. How many distros support all those arches anyway? I know the Debian guys do support most of them but none of the mainstream distros do. So, in effect, running NetBSD might be more practical, since those versions are more actively supported. Running MMU-less is almost useless, since you lose memory protection, you might as well just run FreeDOS then.
--
HawkinsOS, kicking Smorgrav in the ass since 2004.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
Verified Exec verifies a cryptographic hash before allowing execution of binaries and scripts. This can be used to prevent a system from running binaries or scripts which have been illegally modified or installed. In addition, Verified Exec can also be used to limit the use of script interpreters to authorized scripts only and disallow interactive use.
I've been looking for something like this for Linux but I haven't found anything.. Anyone know if it is possible?
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Its nice to see you are concerned, but NetBSD doesn't have feline leukemia, it was vaccinated by its responsable pet owners.
I think I heard about it somewhere else on /.
Maybe poke around on Google? Failing that ask on a mailing list.
Or, the obvious, just run NetBSD.
Sam ty sig.
You're unlucky. I built an entire system for sgimips on an i386 (well, a Pentium 3, but you get the idea) with a one-liner build.sh, and there wasn't a single problem. It didn't require any external software or version mangling, it all just worked from the toolchain in the source tree. Same for the kernel.
You can just set your fastest machine on the network, regardless of architecture, to compile distributions for all the other systems and install over NFS.
People forget that portability isn't just about booting on architectures. NetBSD provides an operating system everywhere it goes; and it provides all the tools in-tree to build and serve for these systems, even diskless installs or even roots. Is there even a single Linux distribution that can do this? And yes, it does have to be all in-tree, no redundancy or external software.
Sam ty sig.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
The GPL is, of course, as restrictive as proprietary software. He was just pulling your leg.
Soviet Union = Dead, BSD = Dead.
Netcraft confirms it: BSD is dying.
Is NetBSD sufficiently similar in structure to FreeBSD that I can use this book to set up and understand my machine? Or is there just to much difference?
If anyone can point me to printed documentation on NetBSD, that would be very welcome indeed.
z i n k p u t (a t) h o t m a i l . c o m
!ERR: Signature not found.
Fact: *BSD is dying
A long time ago NetBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavor you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimize doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
Maybe Im not as pollitical as some, but surely, a free and open OS is going to thrive in Russia, even under a capitalist government
Why UNIX?
I would say that bsd is like a dead cat which died from a disease.
Like I've said, Linux is just the kernel. You need the GNU libc guys to port their machdep code to a new arch as well.
What are you talking about? Could you explain what the "machdep" code is, and why the Glibc maintainers need to port it for you?
Porting Glibc to a new architecture is a simple process. Very little of the code is arch. dependent and ithe guys who port the kernel also port Glibc themselves. They couldn't properly test their kernel without out.
This situation is identical to NetBSD and the NetBSD libc.
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.
Bah! In Korea, only old people use NetBSD
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
About a year and a half ago, Gartner Group and IDC both released studies in the same week which showed a dramatic decline in market share for the free BSD operating systems. That decline seems to have continued to this day. Other than a couple of mom and pop shops, there is no support available for BSD anymore.
You've obviously never tried to shoehorn it onto a VAX with no CD-ROM drive!
Net booting (via "MOP") is an interesting exercise...once.
TDz.
Unfortunately no G5 support yet. I figured it would support that before Linux. Oh well. Now it's a race between OpenBSD and NetBSD to see who gets it first.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
It is my opinion that BSD is dead. C'est la vie, c'est le mort.
For example, if network socekt performance (for example) as tested here is so important, please measure and show me how this affects Apache page-serving speed.
When I was young it was fun to do stuff like that.
It would still be fun if I had the time -- and the space.
You must be an extremely *stupid* fuck, then. It is the most simple and straightforward install ever, assuming you know how to use a keyboard.
We've all seen it. BSD is hanging on by its fingernails, and has been for ages. You can deny it until the cows come home, but for all intents and purposes, BSD is dead or dying.
The Linux-style Shift+PgUp/PgDn has been in OpenBSD (and enabled by default, too) at least since 3.4, if not prior to that (3.4 was the oldest release I'd used).
Nevertheless, it is an annoyance that NetBSD doesn't have that supported OOB. I installed NetBSD (on an old i386 box) to play around with and promptly ditched it after I found I couldn't scroll the console. Good to know you can enable it though.
Funny that OBSD has it (in the default conf) and NetBSD doesn't. Usually code flows Net->Open rather than the other way around (although I don't know the particular history of this feature; it is entirely possible that OpenBSD got the code from NetBSD, and just enabled it first).
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
OK, I've read the pkgsrc web page now and admit I was confused. I'd assumed it was yet another rpm or dpkg. But it looks like the better analogy would be to something like a ports collection or an apt archive?
--Bruce Fields
(PS: 5-digit uid's are "very low" now? Weird.)
It is very much like the ports collection (build from source or install from binary package).
However, as I pointed out in my original post, Pkgsrc is unique in that it supports so many platforms with one source tree--including some *cough* problem platforms where building my favorite Open Source utilities is a major pain in the ass.
It sounds like after visiting their web site, you have a better idea of why pkgsrc is so useful. I encourage you to give it a try!
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
What an embarrassing typo. Although I am generally also quite "anti-diluvian", here the correct word is "antediluvian".
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
You people are so funny. READ THE PAGE!
It states that Linux 2.6 and NetBSD are the best performers! What part of my post (posting proof of performance in response to a person expousing the virtues of FreeBSD) leads you (in a general sence) to to belive that I'm a Linux Zelot? Three responses to my post, all very defensive.
Personally, before reading that page, I was under the impression that OpenBSD was for security, FreeBSD was for performance, and NetBSD was for portability. This shows very clearly, that (as of a year ago) NetBSD is no slouch in the performance category.
I'd think that those poor, put upon BSD proponents would be HAPPY to show off this page. So what if it's a year old (which I stated in my original post)? That just means performance has likely improved even more. So what if the hardware is old? New hardware is not going to adjust the ratio of performance.
In a story announcing the release of NetBSD, you'd think that a link to a site that shows how well it performed (a year ago) would be greated with a bit less hostility.
Whatever.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
P.S. NetBSD's pkgsrc is only thing that comes close to a truly cross platform package management/build system. It supports Irix, Solaris, NetBSD, Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, OS X, and (to a lesser degree) AIX. I'm sure I'm leaving out a few.
Don't forget cygwin, too! That means indirectly, pkgsrc supports Windows, too!
I don't moderate anymore. Karma penalty for 90% fair mods? Can I mod that unfair?
Mr. Hawkins,
I'm one of your several Fortune 100 customers.
I know you enjoy trolling on slashdot, but we kinda need some assistance here.
We deemed you trustworthy enough to make our Fortune 100 company migrate to your OS - a decision that has been very easy for us to make, since you're such a reliable person and such a skillful programmer - but enough is enough.
We paid you a lot of money. I have no doubt that *your* HawkinsOS is worth every penny, and that those BSD alternatives are just pieces of junk since they don't have your "patches", but now it's time to come back to work.
Sincerely,
Mr. Joe Moron
HawkinsOS user
Fortune 100 company CEO
Damn
Elegant
And
Dependable
D.E.A.D. I tell you!
Spread the word!
MD
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
I was looking for NetBSD 2.0 for so long now, mainly because I though it will fix some issues with DMA and my DVD drive. Which it didn't. But that is not the showstopper for me. What is more serious, is that my Realtek-based (probably crappy) network chip doesn't work anymore. Which it did in 1.6. The only thing I always get are 'watchdog timeouts' whenever I try to activate the interface.
So NetBSD will still not become my everyday-work-OS.
Roman Kennke
Prove otherwise. Your links don't do it.
gg nextmap
I wish there was Xbox support! Seems like a conspicuous absence. I work with a university in a developing country, and at least half my CS students cannot afford a computer at home. I thought Xbox running something FOSS might meet their hacking* needs at a bargain price. (It's just a mind-experiment at the moment, since I'm now stuck in the USA for a few months and don't even know if they sell Xboxes there. It's probably a USA-only product, eh?) Linux is a great environment but I guess I'm a bit of a snob and would prefer BSD for teaching purposes. If I weren't so lazy I might try porting it myself.... * in the classical sense
$META_SIG_JOKE
Once upon an OS dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and mounted volume of forgotten core,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
`'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door -
Only this, and nothing more.'
Take thy code out of my box, and take thy ISOs from off my floor!'
Quoth the raven, `*BSD is nevermore.'
Of course we all know *BSD lived in the end and because of it the world was a better place.
Not in this story, because Mike Smith (who is Scrooge in this tale) abandoned *BSD and went to work for Apple instead.
And poor tiny *BSD died.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
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.
from the OpenBSD crowd, with your hollow pompocity and pseudo rapier wit. Gee, did you cut and paste your response to misc@openbsd.org so that your other buddies can get a wiff of your mental flatulence? Wow.
-- I speak only for myself
hey, i'm thinking about installing it as my regular everyday dektop.. i have a laptop, but no other computers (im poor, fourteen without a job) right now im running slackware. would it be a good idea to try it on my laptop first? is it even useful for regular desktop operations?
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://www.netbsd.org/gallery/in-Action/t s.html
http://www.netbsd.org/gallery/in-Action/screensho
The galleries are outdated - that means now it's better. :)
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
At the last EuroBSDCon, BSD evangelist Jordan Hubbard abjectly noted in his speech that NetBSD is not a player in the embedded market. Hubbard emphasized the point that NetBSD does not have the ability to run on most PDAs and mobile phones because NetBSD can't run without an MMU. He essentially admitted that when it comes to embedded consumer devices, Linux has the market sewed up. NetBSD is not an option unless the target architecture has an MMU.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
Elitism has taken its toll on FreeBSD too. FreeBSD is literally coming apart at the seams. KSE is hosed. SMP sucks. The best experts have quit the FreeBSD project.
Hey guys, our biggest enemy is ourselves. Can't we all just get along?
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
Have you ever seen an animal backed into a corner and fighting for its life? That is the exact situation BSD finds itself in. The BSD fans are in a state of desperation, and even the mildest criticism of their hobby horse results in wild and paranoid outbursts from the faithful. They will find an alibi and excuse for everything. Truth has nothing to do with it. The truth is too painful for the BSD crowd.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
Time for a dose of the truth, fellas. At the recent EuroBSDCon, BSD evangelist Jordan Hubbard abjectly noted in his speech that NetBSD is not a player in the embedded market. Hubbard emphasized the point that NetBSD does not have the ability to run on most PDAs and mobile phones because NetBSD can't run without an MMU. He essentially admitted that when it comes to embedded consumer devices, Linux has the market sewed up. NetBSD is not an embedded option unless the target architecture has an MMU.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
A little thought, and soon you'll realize that irrefutably BSD ís Dyíng.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
*BSD is like a problem child dying of some rare incurable disease.
It is quite possible. The hashes are loaded into the kernel before the system becomes networked. The main difference between an out and out file hash compare vs. an in kernel one is that the in kernel check happens all in kmem. To load it you need a pseudo device to toss the table file over the fence and into the kernel at boot time. The drawback is (of course) after updating any binaries that are checked, you need to update the hasfile and either reload it (you may not be able to depending on your run level) or reboot.
The BSD license allows proprietary software to "steal" source code and use it. The combination of these problems leads BSD to be a somewhat inferior OS.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
Many folks who want to benefit from the law of reciprocity contribute each month to the 700 Club. I would recommend that you start watching the 700 Club on you television and decide for yourself it it is for you.
God wants you to be prosperous. A popular book titled The Prayer of Jabez shows you how to claim the prosperity which God holds in store for you. Your library might have a copy. It is definitely worth a read.
DeForest Kelley's great observation:
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
The simple truth that nobody here will seem to accept is that BSD simply can not possibly move to the forefront of the Free Software / Open Source movement. The second it is, Microsoft (or IBM or Sun or whoever the Evil Empire of the Day is) will simply rip it off and create their own, which will sell to the PHB crowd like hotcakes. If (when?) this happens, all of everyone's hard work will be undone.
But, entirely separately, if we want to reach an OSS-dominant situation at any point, it is imperative that we stop duplicating our efforts and immediately focus on one project. We cannot afford to have BSD bleeding developers and code away from Linux (which has far more momentum behind it), likewise for KDE and GNOME, and so on. Moves like this strike me as attempts to split up and hamstring the Open Source effort, and I don't like the smell of this one bit. BSD is a lost cause.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
It's dead, Jim.
WordPerfect is dead!
Simple answer: It doesn't. I don't think one person notice OpenBSD, for instance, scaled badly in their use. It takes literally thousands of iterations before the problems become really apparent (except some really flaky cases, let's not mention those) and getting under that kind of load is pretty rare for what most people need. I hate when people say "my 2-user file server will be much faster under Linux, look at those benchmarks!" when the non-scalable solution is faster for low load than the scalable one (programmers, think how much it takes to fill the first ten spaces in an array, versus the same data into a binary tree).
But nevertheless, I was impressed by Linux 2.6 having consistently fast and scalable results for those tests; while that doesn't impress me enough to want to use it for anything serious, it's nice to know they're wasting time on that instead of getting a code cleanup and audit done. Gotta have someone do 'software engineering' the Wrong Way, right?
Sam ty sig.
Are you a Nazi? "Why waste valuable oxygen on Jews and gays when Germans have so much more... consonants in their language". There's a blessing to variety. BSDs have something Linux doesn't; engineering. Momentum isn't everything. I could run for miles and just die on the spot afterwards. Or I could walk forever and get a lot of things done on the way. You think about it and post again with what you think momentum is good for.
Sam ty sig.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
*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.
I've been an avid follower of the developments in FreeBSD, but my overview of the entire history of "glue that binds" FreeBSD together isn't fully complete. That said, I've come to be a bit disappointed at how events in the last 18 months or so seem to be pushing the project in a direction that has made things more difficult, instead of more successful, that has shown disdain for experience and quality and made FreeBSD a platform for large ego's to push their personal projects down everyone's throat.
This statement alone is enough to qualify your post. :)
I mean qualify as bullsh*t, of course.
About the "illusory hope for innovation coming from there":
Spotlight on Solaris Zones Feature
"The Solaris Zones feature is based on the same basic concepts as FreeBSD Jails."
About the "useless for research":
30 Sep 2004 - NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record
"NetBSD was used once more due to the scalability of its TCP code"
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
hahahahhahahahahah...
:)
.. Since I develop on BSD, stuff I create can be imported and/or reimplimented on other systems. A win all around.
1. In many ways, BSD is *more free* than Linux and other GPL code.. so perhaps its already "at the forefront" as you put it.
2. Microsoft, IBM, Sun, etc already DO utilize a lot of BSD code in their products. BSDers just ask for some acknowledgement, but do not impose limitations of usage like the GPL. Heck, check out Mac OS X lately? Lots of BSD there..
3. Duplication of effort is a *good thing*. It promotes creativity, different implimentations and so forth. Without it, the first "good enough" version of something would stick. No one would question it and people would live with it. Stagnation would result.
In addition, having diversity is GREAT for open source. It provides many projects that different contributors can put forth effort. I find hacking on BSD a lot of fun.. I didn't have as much fun on Linux. If Linux was the only system, I'd probably NOT spend nearly as much time developing on it
Besides, if there was one obvious answer, then other projects would slowly fade away. Since BSD is as strong as ever (even WITH all the attention toward Linux) -- perhaps people working on Linux should pay attention and see what the deal is.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
If you really want to be objective, you realize that BSD is going nowhere. It spins its wheels year after year. Some would say that BSD is dead.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
Okay, nearly 24 hours later I am still modded a troll for complementing NetBSD with the words "elegant" and "dependable" in an attempt to re-purpose the extremely tired "BSD is dead" cowardly tirade that appears in response to every BSD article on /.
The moderator appears to require a further explanation of the "Damn Elegant And Dependable - D.E.A.D. joke. Here goes:
I admit the word "damn" defaults to a negative connotation but it also appears in the North American lexicon in phrases such as "Damn Small Linux" (damnsmalllinux.org) and Damn good pork rinds!" I also admit that "damn" could have a satanic connotation but it was intended to evoke the traditional BSD "daemon" logo. Until recently, the NetBSD logo was comprised of a number of daemons raising a flag in the sprit of the iconic WWII moment in Iwo Jima. Given the > 1 number of daemons, I trusted that "damn" would not be taken to represent the singular satan and thus offend those in "the red states."
The word "elegant" is arguably subjective but is used several times in the other posts in response to the article. I suggest you either take user's word for it or do some testing yourself.
Okay, okay, I confess, I was not comfortable capitalizing "and" perhaps in response to its unsightly and usually inappropriate placement at the beginning of a sentence.
Then comes "dependable." I consider this a far less subjective choice than "elegant" and there are numbers to back it up. If you use the Internet, I guarantee that a significant number of the packets you send and receive pass through NetBSD-derived TCP/IP code, even on certain versions of Windows. You see, the TCP/IP specification was published and, correct me if I'm wrong, the BSD team were the first to implement it on top of AT&T's UNIX. The code was so good that companies started requesting that Berkeley release it separately. This led to the BSD Net/1 release and later the NetBSD project. The world "net" is not decorative. If you use TCP/IP, you surrender your right to discredit the BSD's, ESPECIALLY NetBSD. Likewise, if you use OpenSSL/OpenSSH or a web site that employs them, you should show your respect to the OpenBSD team that developed and maintains them. Does your Linux distribution include this BSD code?
I hope this begins to clarify things to the Anonymous Coward(s) who spam the "BSD is dead" mantra and the Moderator who mistook a joke about a running troll for a troll. As for "BSD is dying" - enough already. You failed to make your point the first time and failed this time. Every user that "Switches" to Macintosh switches to BSD. Every time you use OpenSSL, you use BSD. Every time you post this troll, you most likely use BSD in the process.
"BSD is dying" is dead.
MD
The canonical location for that benchmark is:
http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/
not the phish-alike mirror you provided.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
If you would like to see the supported hardware for x86, here is the link. It might save someone a few seconds if you just want to see what the current state of drivers is. And, in my case, it was good: they support both cardbus ethernet adaptors in my laptop, which is what I was looking for. :)
NetBSD is the slowest of the BSD systems. And all of them are very slow relative to modern computer systems.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
Objectively speaking? The NetBSD so-called desktop is about 5 or 6 years behind the times. The NetBSD desktop in reality (as opposed to the hype) is nothing more than a copy of emacs running in an twm xterm. With a little luck you should be able to get xclock and xclipboard running so as to enhance your NetBSD "desktop".
Facts:t ml
http://netbsd.org/gallery/in-Action/
http://netbsd.org/gallery/in-Action/screenshots.h
And the galleries are old, so they don't even reflect the software now available.
I greatly support your post, except that OpenSSL is not a BSD project (at least not the OpenSSL we know today). Firstly, its code is measurably filthy, but more importantly, it's under an Apache-style license (which is pretty evil compared to a BSD license). OpenSSH IS BSD however.
Right now I'm very ticked off at reality. Every OS I've used has at least some huge flaw which makes me want to run another, which leads to yet another huge flaw. Yes, even NetBSD 2. Said flaws wouldn't even be hard to fix, but it's as if the world just won't allow any one system to be perfect, and toys with the minds of developers and corporations to prevent such a thing happening.
Sam ty sig.
Uh.. I really don't see "flaming BSD zealots", I just see FUD-spreading GNU/trolls. But.. whatever. Shoot.
Care to explain why?
Moreover: if BSD did, the academical and technical aspect of Open Source software would finally prevail over the political anti-proprietary crusade. That would be a Good Thing, IMHO.
At present, Linux is favoured because many corporations (IBM, Novell, etc) are using it to fight the Microsoft monopoly. But as soon as the monopoly ends (as soon as possible, I hope) the market wouldn't benefit any more from a communistic anti-proprietary crusade.
1) Nobody can "rip off" any BSD code. You can *use* it, but you can't claim it's your own, and you *must* give proper credits to the author. The only ones having trouble to grasp this simple concept (or, I should say, the only ones actually *stealing* code) seem to be some GPL programmers.
2) Microsoft won't certainly be the only one to *use* BSD code. Its competitors do it as well, and the smaller they are, the more benefit they can draw out of it. Apple uses BSD code extensively. Linux can use it too, of course - again, as long as proper credits are given.
BSD, if anything, is *contributing* to the end of the Microsoft monopoly.
3) "All of everyone's hard work" will be *acknowledged*, not "undone".
Some people seem to have trouble to understand that not every Open Source programmer is out on a crusade against proprietary software...
1) People can focus on the same project only if they have the same objectives, I don't think this is the case.
2) If you really wanna avoid duplicated efforts, start by looking at the myriads of gnu/linux distributions out there...
Ehm... BSD is older than Linux. So, Linux would be the one sucking away developers and code... but I don't think this is the case - again: *different objectives*.. BSD has an academical spirit, Linux is loaded with politics.
Wow, that's really gross..
Do you like the smell of the FUD that you GNU people are spreading over BSD??
Oh, I forgot: basically, what you say is "Yeah, it's a disgusting thing to do, but it's for a good cause".
This calls for a mandatory question: where would you GNU people draw the line between what is legitimate to do in the name of your "cause" and wha
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
The second link was actually this:
The MyDoom Effect: Crossing the Line into Terrorism
(I fell into the long-post temptation again..)
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
*BSD Obituary
*BSD, 27, of Berkeley, CA died Monday, Dec. 6, 2004. Born July 3, 1976, it was the creation of a cluster of pot-smoking hippies who went to Illinois and came home with a reel of tape. Rather than smoke the tape, they uploaded it and hacked on it a little.
*BSD was known for its C shell and early TCP/IP implementation. After being banished from UC Berkeley, it was ported to the x86 platform, where it fell into the hands of heavier pot-smokers who liked to argue. Soon, the project had splintered into 12 different Balkanized projects. Until its death, there was almost constant fighting in and amongst these groups, sometimes degenerating into out-and-out fistfights. One developer had his jaw permanently wired shut.
*BSD is survived by its superior, Linux, as well as several commercial unix implementations. It may be missed by some who knew it, although most of them are said to be mere OS dilettante dabblers.
A funeral will be held at 2 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 9, at the Berkeley Chapel on the UC campus, with interment to follow via the burning of the original *BSD tapes and scattering of the ashes over the San Francisco Bay. The Rev. Lou "Buddy" Stubbs will officiate.
The family will receive friends from 7 to 8 p.m. Wednesday, Dec. 8, at the funeral home.
You have been mod-trolled! You have lost. Have a nice day.
Yet another sickening blow has struck what's left of the *BSD community, as a soon-to-be-released report by the independent Commision for Technology Management (CTM) after a year-long study has concluded: *BSD is already dead. Here are some of the commission's findings: Fact: NetBSD, which claims to focus on portability (whatever that is supposed to mean), is slow, and cannot take advantage of multiple CPUs. "That about drove the last nail in the coffin for BSD use here," said Michael Curry, CTO of Amazon.com. "We took our NetBSD boxes out to the backyard and shot them in the head. We're much happier running Linux." Fact: the *BSDs have balkanized yet again. There are now no less than twelve separate, competing *BSD projects, each of which has introduced fundamental incompatibilities with the other *BSDs, and frequently with Unix standards. Average number of developers in each project: fewer than five. Average number of users per project: there are no definitive numbers, but reports show that all projects are on the decline. Fact: X.org will not include support *BSD. The newly formed group believes that the *BSDs have strayed too far from Unix standards and have become too difficult to support along with Linux and Solaris x86. "It's too much trouble," said one anonymous developer. "If they want to make their own standards, let them doing the porting for us." Fact: DragonflyBSD, yet another offshoot of the beleaguered FreeBSD "project", is already collapsing under the weight of internal power struggles and in-fighting. "They haven't done a single decent release," notes Mark Baron, an industry watcher and columnist. "Their mailing lists read like an online version of a Jerry Springer episode, complete with food fights, swearing, name-calling, and chair-throwing." Netcraft reports that DragonflyBSD is run on exactly 0% of internet servers. Fact: There are almost no FreeBSD developers left, and its use, according to Netcraft, is down to a sadly crippled .005% of internet servers. A recent attempt at a face-to-face summit in Boulder, Colorado culminated in an out-and-out fistfight between core developers, reportedly over code commenting formats (tabs vs. spaces). Hotel security guards broke up the melee and banned the participants from the hotel. Two of the developers were hospitalized, and one continues to have his jaw wired shut.
Fact: *BSD has no support from the media. Number of Linux magazines available at bookstores: 5 (Linux Journal, Linux World, Linux Developer, Linux Format, Linux User). Number of available *BSD magazines: 0. Current count of Linux-oriented technical books: 1071. Current count of *BSD books: 6.
Fact: Many user-level applications will no longer work under *BSD, and no one is working to change this. The GIMP, a Photoshop-like application, has not worked at all under *BSD since version 1.1 (sorry, too much trouble for such a small base, developers have said). OpenOffice, a Microsoft Office clone, has never worked under *BSD and never will. ("Why would we bother?" said developer Steven Andrews, an OpenOffice team lead.)
Fact: servers running OpenBSD, which claims to focus on security, are frequently compromised. According to Jim Markham, editor of the online security forum SecurityWatch, the few OpenBSD servers that exist on the internet have become a joke among the hacker community. "They make a game out of it," he says. "(OpenBSD leader) Theo [de Raadt] will scramble to make a new patch to fix one problem, and they've already compromised a bunch of boxes with a different exploit."
With these incontroverible facts staring (what's left of) the *BSD community in the face, they can only draw one conclusion: *BSD is already dead.
Yet another sickening blow has struck what's left of the *BSD community, as a soon-to-be-released report by the independent Commision for Technology Management (CTM) after a year-long study has concluded: *BSD is already dead. Here are some of the commission's findings:
.005% of internet servers. A recent attempt at a face-to-face summit in Boulder, Colorado culminated in an out-and-out fistfight between core developers, reportedly over code commenting formats (tabs vs. spaces). Hotel security guards broke up the melee and banned the participants from the hotel. Two of the developers were hospitalized, and one continues to have his jaw wired shut.
Fact: NetBSD, which claims to focus on portability (whatever that is supposed to mean), is slow, and cannot take advantage of multiple CPUs. "That about drove the last nail in the coffin for BSD use here," said Michael Curry, CTO of Amazon.com. "We took our NetBSD boxes out to the backyard and shot them in the head. We're much happier running Linux."
Fact: the *BSDs have balkanized yet again. There are now no less than twelve separate, competing *BSD projects, each of which has introduced fundamental incompatibilities with the other *BSDs, and frequently with Unix standards. Average number of developers in each project: fewer than five. Average number of users per project: there are no definitive numbers, but reports show that all projects are on the decline.
Fact: DragonflyBSD, yet another offshoot of the beleaguered FreeBSD "project", is already collapsing under the weight of internal power struggles and in-fighting. "They haven't done a single decent release," notes Mark Baron, an industry watcher and columnist. "Their mailing lists read like an online version of a Jerry Springer episode, complete with food fights, swearing, name-calling, and chair-throwing." Netcraft reports that DragonflyBSD is run on exactly 0% of internet servers.
Fact: There are almost no FreeBSD developers left, and its use, according to Netcraft, is down to a sadly crippled
Fact: *BSD has no support from the media. Number of Linux magazines available at bookstores: 5 (Linux Journal, Linux World, Linux Developer, Linux Format, Linux User). Number of available *BSD magazines: 0. Current count of Linux-oriented technical books: 1071. Current count of *BSD books: 6.
Fact: servers running OpenBSD, which claims to focus on security, are frequently compromised. According to Jim Markham, editor of the online security forum SecurityWatch, the few OpenBSD servers that exist on the internet have become a joke among the hacker community. "They make a game out of it," he says. "(OpenBSD leader) Theo [de Raadt] will scramble to make a new patch to fix one problem, and they've already compromised a bunch of boxes with a different exploit."
With these incontroverible facts staring (what's left of) the *BSD community in the face, they can only draw one conclusion: *BSD is already dead.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
For example, in one of those 2 articles he says: :) - a Pro really wants as much choice as possible. So, the SCO lawsuit to a Pro is somehow a pain in the ass no matter what.
"The Pros are platform agnostic. They just want to get the job done, [...]"
True.
But then he tries to manipulate the reader by saying:
"The Pros generally see things like the SCO legal action as someone else's problem and have done their best to distance themselves from any related issues."
False.
How on earth can a Pro consider the SCO issue as someone else's problem, when 1) SCO's threatening to sue his customers whenever he should choose to deploy a particular OS and 2) SCO's trying to hinder the use of that OS, that is one of the tools he can choose to get the job done?
And then: why shouldn't a Pro be interested in the end of Microsoft's monopoly? He would benefit from the end of the monopoly *more* than anybody else, because to a Pro, the more tools are available, the better.
Finally, when he's suggesting that Pros should do "their best to distance themselves from any related issues".. he's actually suggesting to drop Linux completely (surprise, surprise). While that would be more than fine most times - since there's BSD
No, after reading the articles a second time, those 2 links definitely weren't worth posting: I apologize for that. Besides some well-founded concerns, they contain too much dishonest Microsoft propaganda for my taste.
But, let's make it clear, this takes nothing away from the lack of ethics of the GNU/Linux advocates.
The proof is all the FUD spread on this very board.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
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 *BSD brought to your life might help give you some closure, and having a keepsake to honor *BSD 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 *BSD around. It may seem like you'll never feel better, but eventually you will. Take some comfort in the wisdom of the old saying, "Time heals all wounds," and remember that *BSD will always be with you in your heart.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=120607&cid =10163704
[nt]
FWIW, the phish-alike mirror, is a feature... http://www.scs.cs.nyu.edu/coral/.
I posted the link pretty early, and was unsure of how much traffic it would generate. Coralizing links seems to be a farily good option for slashdot traffic, as much of it originates from US universities.
*shrug*
Thanks for pointing it out all the same.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
Yeah, Linux has something like this. It's basically a hack to the ELF linker/loader or something like that. I think they're still working on it, though, as support doesn't seem to be ready yet.
Exploit the default running services on OpenBSD. Oh, you can't? Then I guess netbsd turning them off isn't more secure is it? NetBSD is less secure because their idea of security is turning everything off. Then if you want to actually use the system, you are vulnerable and its your fault for not leaving everything turned off. NetBSD is just as secure and useful as a machine with no power.
Using gcc-ssp optionally is meaningless. The entire system, including kernel is protected in OpenBSD, by default, in an ordinary binary install. Plus, all software you compile uses propolice unless you explicitly disable it.
And read your own link, NetBSD has nothing like W^X, they just made the stack and heap non-exec. OpenBSD ensures that no memory is ever both writable and executable. There is a big difference. Hooray for NetBSD's half assed approach to security, just make it sound secure and morons will think it really is.
This isn't rocket science. There are a number of different implementations in various hardened patches, and there have been around for a while.
It isn't in the Linux kernel proper though...
IT IS OFFICIAL; WIRED NEWS CONFIRMS: LINUX IS SUPERIOR TO *BSD
*BSD is Dying, Says Respected Journal
Linux advocates have long insisted that open-source development results in better and more secure software. Now they have statistics to back up their claims.
According to a four-year analysis of the 5.7 million lines of Linux source code conducted by five Stanford University computer science researchers, the Linux kernel programming code is better and more secure than the programming code of *BSD.
The report, set to be released on Tuesday, states that the 2.6 Linux production kernel, shipped with software from Red Hat, Novell and other major Linux software vendors, contains 985 bugs in 5.7 million lines of code, well below the average for *BSD software. NetBSD, by comparison, contains about 40 million lines of code, with new bugs found on a frequent basis.
*BSD software typically has 20 to 30 bugs for every 1,000 lines of code, according to Carnegie Mellon University's CyLab Sustainable Computing Consortium. This would be equivalent to 114,000 to 171,000 bugs in 5.7 million lines of code.
The study identified 0.17 bugs per 1,000 lines of code in the Linux kernel. Of the 985 bugs identified, 627 were in critical parts of the kernel. Another 569 could cause a system crash, 100 were security holes, and 33 of the bugs could result in less-than-optimal system performance.
Seth Hallem, CEO of Coverity, a provider of source-code analysis, noted that the majority of the bugs documented in the study have already been fixed by members of the Linux development community.
"Our findings show that Linux contains an extremely low defect rate and is evidence of the strong security of Linux," said Hallem. "Many security holes in software are the result of software bugs that can be eliminated with good programming processes."
The Linux source-code analysis project started in 2000 at the Stanford University Computer Science Research Center as part of a large research initiative to improve core software engineering processes in the software industry.
The initiative now continues at Coverity, a software engineering startup that now employs the five researchers who conducted the study. Coverity said it intends to start providing Linux bug analysis reports on a regular basis and will make a summary of the results freely available to the Linux development community.
"This is a benefit to the Linux development community, and we appreciate Coverity's efforts to help us improve the security and stability of Linux," said Andrew Morton, lead Linux kernel maintainer. Morton said developers have already addressed the top-priority bugs uncovered in the study.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=132239&cid =11067413
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=132239&cid =11067413
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=132239&cid =11067413
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=132239&cid =11067413
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
AgainstFUD is a troll, pay no attention.
d =11067413
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=132239&ci
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
If it's so correct then tell me this: Did they rename creat() to create()??
I am NOT a troll!
d =11067413
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=132239&ci
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=132239&cid =11067413
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
Pretty impressive work, good job. Defending trolls, and ragging on people who tell trolls to stfu is definately astoundingly stupid.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=132239&cid =11067413
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
When the condition ended, he joined a touring stage company, singing a lusty baritone in Friml and Romberg musicals. In 1932 his troupe came to Chicago where Franklyn fell in love with radio, a medium well suited to his dramatic experience and golden voice.
Incredibly, destiny was to see him not only overcome his misfortune, but go on to become a well-known personality on Chicago's WGN radio, where for almost forty years, he filled the air for Chicago's night crowd with a quiet blend of soft music, nostalgic poetry and tranquil patter.
Sadly, Franklyn MacCormack and BSD are both dead. Rest in peace, dear hearts.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
You know.. there might be other more plausible explanations. ;)
(I know, I know, don't feed the troll and stuff, but on this one I couldn't resist)
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
Theo? Is that you?