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.
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.
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!
What are NetBSD's strengths?
Well, it's really good at dying, especially confirmed dying. It's been doing it for some time now, years even. In fact, I have never seen anything so good at dying.
NetBSD is often used in porting software and OSes to other processors, due to the wide range it runs on.
:p, whatever floats your boat. Hell, you could even use Windows 2003 Server if you've got a few thousand burnig a hole in your pocket and the server isn't too important :D
As a result of the massively postable code though, it has a footprint relatively smaller than most ofther OSes, and tends to be quite fast.
For servers, I'd stick with FreeBSD, and for ultra secure servers, OpenBSD...
Or Linux
does it support SMP efficiently yet?
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
And Linux is an illegal hacker OS :p, what's the point?
BSD is the mythical phoenix.... always dying and new version coming out of the ashes... No little mortal penguin can compete with that. ;)
Oh yeah and the daemonettes... so cute! *sigh*
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 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.
No hits for OMAP or PXA families which are well supported by Linux
Both the TI OMAP and the Intel PXA are ARM-architecture. The OMAP is pretty much a standard ARM-9, and the PXA is specifically mentioned on the evbarm page.
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.
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.
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 doubt many NetBSD folks would argue that it's more secure than OpenBSD. Rather, it's just as secure as OpenBSD, with the bonus that you don't get summarily pissed on if you have the audacity to ask for help on a mailing list or IRC.
I think, by definition, 2.0 is the second major release, no?
have I told you how much I love google images?
It's just as secure as OpenBSD, not more. I can't think of anything more secure then OpenBSD at the moment though.
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
Do not feed the troll...
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.
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.)
Both OMAP and PXA are ARM architecture. A trivial amount of research on your part would show how well supported ARM is in NetBSD. Just because LinuxDevices.com and Slashdot don't report design wins by NetBSD in the ARM market doesn't mean they don't exist.
AC + Troll. Do not feed the trolls...
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
How can you claim that there is no forking off and then compare it to a project that forked off of it?
Are you an idiot or do you just not know what you're talking about? Seriously, what's the deal.
-If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
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?
OpenBSD forked off of NetBSD and thus ceased to be NetBSD. That is different from certain other OSes, which are 'ported to other platforms' by creating forks that seldom merge back together ever again, yet are claimed to still be the same OS.
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
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.
I have never seen anything so good at dying.
Apple?
--saint
"It's just as secure as OpenBSD, not more."
:)
No, it's not.
-a great deal less of the privsep stuff
-no propolice
-no W^X
A number of vulnerabilities common to NetBSD and OpenBSD were mitigated by ProPolice on OpenBSD. That was 1.6... but I didn't see anything about propolice on the 2.0 release page.
"I can't think of anything more secure then OpenBSD at the moment though."
There are special cases where other OSes can be more secure, IMO. For example, on a big system where you have to let people in with permissions to do something interesting, rather than a firewall or a server spewing pages, the FreeBSD jail facility can make it more secure in practical terms.
There's usually a better OpenBSD way to do it, but that way is sometimes enough of a PITA that it doesn'thappen. For example, you can give someone root in a FreeBSD jail and just let them do their thing rather than screwing around with systrace on an OpenBSD machine. Jails are a very blunt tool, but they're very effective.
Apart from localized advantages such as that, OpenBSD is the most secure. I just didn't want anyone to think I was a zealot blind to the advantages of other OSes.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
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.
Alright, I'll give you that.
NetBSD's unified build process is quite brilliant as well.
-If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
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.
I thought the military sites used webstar running on classic macos, since it supposedly had no vulnerabilities?
Bypass Compulsory Web Registration -- http://bugmenot.com/
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.
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.
IIRC, they already have. Just press Scroll Lock and user Page Up and Down to scroll.
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.
It has many advantages over the others, they just aren't advertised much. Similarly it's also very balanced - modern and portable like Linux, faster than FreeBSD 5, security record almost as good as OpenBSD (in practice, just as good), and cleaner than all of them in every way that counts. NetBSD could be THE BSD since it appeals to more needs on more architectures than the others; its only shortcoming, really, being lack of corporate support (I wouldn't run Linux at all if there was a working NVidia driver for NetBSD).
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
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.
Yes.
No comment.
the spelling is intentional. IE "go usa. get a brain morans."
From the Daemon News faq:
What is your web server configuration?
We are currently running on an AMD K6 300 with 160MB of DRAM. It is running FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE. We are using the Apache web server with the PHP4 module. On the database side, we are using MySQL.
Well, no wonder they got h4x0r3d--I don't know what kind of exploits 4.6 has, but I know it is not supported by FreeBSD. Sounds like they could use an upgrade. Otherwise, the site runs pretty damn good for an AMD K6 300 with 160 MB of RAM.
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!
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?
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 . .
OBSD has developers enough to get things done. Where else would OpenSSH, OpenBGPD, PF, OpenCVS, etc. come from? You don't think Theo himself wrote all that? :)
Sure maybe some people don't have good manners, but hey look at slashdot. Anything you post here is just asking to get picked up and thrashed or moderated into negative infinity. I just care how the OS is and for me it's the best choice (BTW, NetBSD is a close second) for many reasons I don't want to ramble on about here.
Maybe BSD doesn't looks as hip, trendy and cool as Linux, but that's just superficial. I used Linux for a long, long time and finally switched to OpenBSD when I realized it could fulfill my needs better (both on servers and as desktop).
You are not quite right.
bus_space(9) and bus_dma(9) are kernel interfaces which achieve
NetBSD's extreme portability.
And although both FreeBSD and OpenBSD incorporated these interfaces
from NetBSD already, they haven't finished to convert all their
drivers to use these interfaces yet. Thus, the portability of
FreeBSD and OpenBSD is still limited, and isn't comparable with
NetBSD at this point.
Linux still don't have these abstractions.
Its portability is achived by i386 emulation (e.g. cli, inb, outb),
and very limited compared with *BSDs.
What could I expect in terms of driver support on NetBSD?
Will it run on my toaster?
Don't Crease the Weasel!
Note that NetBSD disables *ALL* services by default, but OpenBSD opens some services by default. Thus, obviously NetBSD is more secure by default.
> -no propolice
You can use gcc-ssp (newer version of proplice) on pkgsrc for any daemons you'd like
> -no W^X
You are just wrong. NetBSD 2.0 already has this. See below.
NetBSD supports PROT_EXEC permission
(depends on platform, though)
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
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
So who said you HAVE TO go by the most significant
number to make it a major release ?
1.3 was a major release, so was 1.4,.1.5, 1.6 etc. etc.
Actually in NetBSD it's Shift and Page Up/Down.
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.
This, folks, is an example of a clueless newbie insulting an operating system based on his own ignorance.
/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/conf/GENERIC:
# console scrolling support.
#options WSDISPLAY_SCROLLSUPPORT
It's not on by default because it's too new a feature. BSDs work on 'method of least surprise'. If you uncomment that and build a fresh kernel, it will use the Shift+PgUp/Down mechanism that Linux has, no worse.
Anything else you want to be owned on?
Sam ty sig.
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.
Sing one, then :)
Nobody would complain. OpenBSD has a more interesting community spirit; not happy just being technically excellent, they have to be culturally integrated as well. And thanks to Theo's work, software-politically too.
NetBSD seems less interested in that kind of thing, focusing more on the code. If anyone uses it for hype-inspiring projects (like the internet speed records), it's a help, but it's their choice.
Sam ty sig.
OpenSSH, PF, the TCP/IP stack that founded the internet... you're right, nothing out of BSD.
If anything, nothing comes out of Linux. BSDs are breeding grounds for world-changing software. Unless you mean to tell me that Linus and his buddies write all the software instead of getting it from GNU and other devs, GNU/Linux is much more of a hand-me-down collection than any given BSD, the latter containing some source that started in BSD and continues to be in BSD. Even some GNU tools (indent, for instance) were forks of BSD tools.
Sam ty sig.
Shame really, any real BSD follower (especially FreeBSD where it's arguably the easiest to upgrade, at least given the track record of virtually no failed compiles in -STABLE) would update his/her -STABLE very often, at least to deal with exploits... running 4.6 in this day and age, although stable, is not a good idea for a publicly available server.
I won't say much good about Apache either, which in its overcomplicates (yes you heard me) code has bred quite a few exploits. I'm just one of those guys writing his own microscopic web server (already does HTTPS) to save at least a few people from Apache's bloat.
Sam ty sig.
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.
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?
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.
No, sendmail is on by default. Try "netstat -a | LISTEN" after a fresh install. You need to put "sendmail=NO" to /etc/rc.conf if you don't need sendmail.
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.
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.
Rubbish. It's been dying for ages and it's still not dead. I'd say that makes it quite bad at dying...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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."
I don't blame you, especially since screen isn't available for NetBSD.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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.)
I'm also curious abou this...what are the main differences in the BSDs? NetBSD vs OpenBSD..etc. Is one better than the other for certain purposes?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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
What an embarrassing typo. Although I am generally also quite "anti-diluvian", here the correct word is "antediluvian".
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.
And your point is that these projects came out of Linux?
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?
"Note that NetBSD disables *ALL* services by default, but OpenBSD opens some services by default. Thus, obviously NetBSD is more secure by default."
The only externally accessible service running by default is ssh.
"You can use gcc-ssp (newer version of proplice) on pkgsrc for any daemons you'd like"
OpenBSD automatically uses stack protection for everything, including the kernel. As I said, this has mitigated vulnerabilities in otherwise identical code found on both NetBSD and OpenBSD.
"You are just wrong. NetBSD 2.0 already has this. See below.
NetBSD supports PROT_EXEC permission"
I stand corrected on this. I'd checked but obviously missed it.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Damn
Elegant
And
Dependable
D.E.A.D. I tell you!
Spread the word!
MD
"Well, it's really good at dying, especially confirmed dying. It's been doing it for some time now, years even. In fact, I have never seen anything so good at dying."
I would say Apple would beat it at that department.
Oddly what is not good at dying and just being dead all of the sudden is Apple's rival IBM.
What a strange world we live in.
http://saveie6.com/
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
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
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.
Dude, relax. It was a joke. The only thing funnier than jokes about BSD dying is the insecurity of BSD people when you joke about it dying.
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
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.
Does NetBSD have stackgap?
Personally, I hate people that claim their OS is more secure than OpenBSD when they aren't really educated about it. "NetBSD has no services enabled by default, OpenBSD has SSH, therefore NetBSD is more secure."
It's an insult to the fine people that work on OpenBSD to make claims that X OS is more secure than theirs without having any actual proof. To believe that OpenBSD security ends at a ProPolice, W^X, and disabled by default policy is idiocy. Security is a process, and Theo bases the OpenBSD development process around it.
-If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
-- 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?
That's one more than none, innit. But then we know ssh is secure - it says so right in the name. Because no one would ever discover a vulnerability in OpenSSH.
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131228&cid =10982290
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.
Of course. Didn't you know that all open source software initially starts in the Linux source tree and eventually grows out, but still has major contributions by Linus and all the corporate sponsors?
That's how media hype around "software for Linux" makes it sound, anyway. It's like everything open is immediately for Linux and somehow spawned by the same community.
Anyway, using any GPL-licensed software as a success story for Linux is ridiculous. They share a license so they're the same project?
Sam ty sig.
It's good to see you thwarting trolls, but a post as a grandson of the same post is probably overdoing it :)
Nevertheless you're doing BSD society a good favor and it's appreciated. Are you also the AC posting the same things? Or two separate entities?
You're a good man ulib, we need more like you.
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.
(only, slashdot automatically puts a blank space into the link and the copy-and-paste doesn't work)
After Christmas I'll have some spare time, hopefully I'll be able to use it to optimize the troll-thwarting process. ;)
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
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.
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.
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. :)
Ack, I had URL: in the first copy, but it didn't fit in so I had to remove other bits of the sig; now it should work. /. puts way too short a limit on sig length.
It's about time we make a single comment including references to all of those articles AND those that include benches, technical reports, and other useful things. Someone people manage to consider those articles 'not good enough'.
Sam ty sig.
Well, in fact they are good enough to disprove the worst FUD spread by the GNU people - that is, that BSD's {dead|dying|declining} - and that was my major point, since sadly this disgusting campaign has been going on for many years. Sure, such campaigns aren't effective in conditioning the choices of competent people, but these are always a minority: the majority is heavily influenced by mainstream choices and word-of-mouth. Moreover, the FUD campaign probably has driven some potential developers away from BSD ("I heard on slashdot it's dying?").
Sadly, to an extent, FUD works - unless you quickly dispel it.
Anyway, on the technical front: of course a collection of benchmarks and technical articles would be a great thing for a lot of reasons. Besides stimulating the competition among the projects, it would help us users to know the strengths and weaknesses of the OSs we're using and to choose the right tool for the job.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
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.
Well, BSDs were making claims about their superiority, GNU/Linux makes claims about everyone else's inferiority. It's the difference between a snob and an asshole, which is still a significant difference.
FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. BSDs don't spread that. They usually stick up for their own technical strengths, even if they aren't significant in the real world. BSDs are like that: has to be better during development, not necessarily use. Of course they have awesome use, but sometimes things just don't work out. They're not irrelevant or dead though, far from. Just not for everyone. I've heard a lot of "unsuccess" stories with BSDs, much less with Linux, which is disturbing but sensible; Linux has a much larger user and developer base, so problems tend to get resolved one way or another. People don't care if a solution is a hack or not, so long as it works for them.
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
The second link was actually this:
The MyDoom Effect: Crossing the Line into Terrorism
(I fell into the long-post temptation again..)
All this ranting feels tired to me. Do we really need this much fighting over what OS you want to use? If you are fooled by the ranting of anonymous idiots, then you are a fool in his/her proper place.
-If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
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'.
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.
See this is what I'm talking about. You all need to lighten up. I have no particular attachment to Linux. Over the years I've tried a variety of Unix OSs (just found a set of SCO Unixware disks the other day in fact). I use what works for me. If that's different from what other people use, fine.
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
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
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
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
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?