Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FreeBSD Foundation Passes '04 Small Donation Needs

Posted by timothy on from the next-year-donate-through-your-many-children dept.

MTS writes "Thanks to the generous contributions of over 800 donors, a combination of both first-time donors and existing supportors, the FreeBSD Foundation has met and exceeded its fund-raising goal necessary to qualify for the 1/3 'public support' goal required to maintain its 501(c)3 status with the IRS. Your continued donations will help to support a broad variety of FreeBSD activities, including critical development, developer collaboration, testing, and involvement in standards processes." Convoluted tax laws meant that FreeBSD's success in attracting larger donations had threatened the organization's tax-free status.

84 comments

  1. Official statement URL by timshea · · Score: 2, Informative

    The official statement is here: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/

    1. Re:Official statement URL by BossMC · · Score: 0

      I found this hilarious, but the moderators clearly didn't. What a bunch of babies. Perhaps I should copy the grandparent poster's logic to get high moderated posts to get my karma back!

  2. More about the "quota"? by agent+dero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will this quota of 1/3 of public donations need to be held every year from now on? Or is this just to _acquire_ non-profit status.

    None the less, woohoo for the foundation, help make FreeBSD 6.0 even better ;)

    --
    Error 407 - No creative sig found
    1. Re:More about the "quota"? by cperciva · · Score: 1

      Will this quota of 1/3 of public donations need to be held every year from now on?

      IANA tax lawyer, but I believe the "public support" test needs to be met each year on the basis of the totals for the preceeding 48 months.

      --
      Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
    2. Re:More about the "quota"? by compass46 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Audigy support is already in 5.3. It was not in 5.2.1 though. I'm using an Audigy on 5.3 right now.

    3. Re:More about the "quota"? by molnarcs · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Don't take this guy too seriously. Some sample from his articles:

      His SUSE 'review' His FreeBSD 'review'

      Some gems (pun intended) from the latter:

      FreeBSD 5.x enjoyed an excellent head start in the fully 64-bit AMD64 operating system arena, but now trails the pack, with only Windows XP 64-bit behind it in speed and completeness.
      The bold parts are hyperlins to articles that supposed to show how "slow" AMD64 under FreeBSD 5.3 is supposed to be does in no way even mention FreeBSD and in fact only tests SuSE and Fedora Core along with Windows XP SP1. Same with 'completeness'. On the other hand, I remember his amd64 review of FreeBSD 5.2.1 - which was an excellent and well detailed review. I guess he didn't even try FreeBSD on amd64 since then.

      And don't even start me on his 'new feature list'. Forgets to mention important things like backports of many features of ULE to SCHED_4BSD, inclusion of pf and altq framwork in the base system (for sysadmins, this is perhaps one of the most important features), multithreaded network stack (although he mentions it elsewhere, but not under new features!), etc. He is even wrong in his pathetic attempt at humour (if it was that) about the naming of ULE:

      The ULE (which is not an acronym; its full name is SCHED_ULE as opposed to the older SCHED_4BSD) scheduler continues to have stability and performance problems and was totally disabled instead of being made the default process scheduler in 5.3 as planned.
      Well, yes, ULE might not be an acronym, and no, its name is not SCHED_ULE ... name is ULE, SCHED_ULE is the configuration option you put in your kernel file.

      I would take this guy's comments with a grain of salt, except for his older work, which I think was excellent (I don't have problems with criticism, and his old amd64 review was quite critical. I have problems with FUD and unsubstantiated claims and badly written articles). What happened to this guy?

    4. Re:More about the "quota"? by archen · · Score: 1

      With the current model that FreeBSD uses, I doubt 6x will be any more usable than 5x. While I don't claim to know the guts of FreeBSD, I'm starting to see validity in why DragonFly forked the code. Much of the current code is just to complex, and I think that FreeBSD pushing back stable so long supports that theory. There's a lot of good things in 5.3, but some stuff that sucks too. Either way I'm not worried, either FreeBSD will get it together, or DragonFly will catch up with 5x (but with better code).

    5. Re:More about the "quota"? by pbnagel · · Score: 5, Informative

      The 1/3 test has nothing to do with the foundation's Section 501(c)(3) charitable status. There are actually two kinds of Section 501(c)(3) organizations -- "publicly supported organizations" and "private foundations." Private foundations are subject to greater restrictions on their activities (prohibitions against self-dealing, required annual distributions, stricter limitations on owning businesses, and the like), as well as lower limits on the deductibility of contributions, and so avoiding private foundation status is always desirable.

      To become a publicly supported organization, a charity must show that it enjoys broad support from the general public, as opposed to having its funding concentrated in a small number of donors. One of the publicly supported organizations tests requires that 1/3 of the organization's funding come from individuals, corporate and foundation grants, and other public charities, and amounts from any one source (except other public charities or the government) in excess of two percent of the organization's total support do not count for these purposes. This 1/3 test is performed each year, but is based on the average received over the previous four years.

      If an organization cannot meet the 1/3 test, it may still qualify as a publicly supported charity so long as its "good" support (grants and contributions that pass through the two-percent filter) amount to more than ten percent of its total revenue and it can show that it is engaged in a continuous fundraising program, has a board representative of the community, and satisfies other factors. The BSD Foundation appeared to have been on the verge of falling just shy of the 1/3 test, but probably would have had little difficulty satisfying the alternate 10-percent-plus-facts-and-circumstances test and therefore probably would have remained a publicly supported charity even without its recent plea for donations. Nonetheless, every new Section 501(c)(3) organization is given a five-year test period in which to attempt to meet either test, and at the end of that period must send in a worksheet to the IRS showing how it did, which means that some official in the IRS actually will take a look at the foundation's public charity status.

      All publicly supported Section 501(c)(3) organizations must complete a schedule on their annual tax returns (Form 990) that demonstrates their on-going compliance with the public support test. Interestingly enough, though, the IRS simply does not seem to have the computer or personnel resources to do anything about an organization that files a 990 disclosing that it has unquestionably failed the public support test, and there are many charities that have survived the initial five-year probationary period, that have subsequently filed 990's showing that their public support is well below even the minimum 10 percent, and yet that remain classified by the IRS as a publicly supported charity, and not a private foundation.

    6. Re:More about the "quota"? by Ded+Bob · · Score: 2, Informative

      FreeBSD's SK/Yukon LAN driver stopped working properly between 5.2.1 and 5.3

      I can attest that it has been working in 5.3-STABLE for over a month on my ASUS A7V880 board.

  3. Re:Heh by setagllib · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's so strange about that? In capitalism you need money to get anything useful done. But open source is an attempt at communist ideals emulated within a capitalist reality. It doesn't work out without money.

    Don't complain about open source, go complain about governments making it so hard to MAKE anything for free.

    --
    Sam ty sig.
  4. Re:Heh by VVelox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It has nothing to do with communist ideas or even being free. Open source easily fits in with capitalism as well or any other economics system.

    Open Source just means that you can easily view the source code and generally possibly to modify it.

    If you want to talk about ideas, you should talk about different groups and the like, but not generalize like that.

  5. 47$ Donations by Delita · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For those that care, the average donation amounts to about 47$. Even the smallest of donations were quite helpful here. I do wonder if anyone actually donated the 8000$ max...

    1. Re:47$ Donations by MikeCapone · · Score: 1

      Small donations are really a wonderful thing. I'd donate to Wikipedia, EFF and the NRDC before FreeBSD, but if I had the money I'd definitely encourage them with a little something.

      --
      Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
  6. I support FreeBSD with subscriptions by mabu · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a long time FreeBSD user and supporter, it should be noted that many of us support the effort with our auto-subscriptions, where we pay $25 for each new release. On many of my servers I'm still running old versions, and I'm aware that I don't need the CDs for the latest versions mailed to me, but this is my way of supporting their efforts by kicking back money each time they have a major release. I urge all FreeBSD users to subscribe and provide the project with a solid source of recurring revenue that helps keep their project going.

    While the funding drives are helpful, it's important to give the team a more substantive commitment and ongoing revenue they can bank on. It's a small price to pay. Subscribe and make a difference!

    1. Re:I support FreeBSD with subscriptions by MikeCapone · · Score: 1

      Especially since at 25$ it would take you years to give as much as what Windows would cost you (and I'm not even talking about Office, Photoshop, whatever..).

      --
      Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
    2. Re:I support FreeBSD with subscriptions by tigga · · Score: 1
      As a long time FreeBSD user and supporter, it should be noted that many of us support the effort with our auto-subscriptions, where we pay $25 for each new release.


      You subscribed to FreeBSDMall.

      They donate part of your subscription fees to FreeBSD Foundation and from state's point of view FreeBSDMall contribute money, not subscribers...

  7. Not that it is going to apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because most of you dirty hippies probably don't make enough money to itemize, but if you do, there are still a few days left to lower your taxable income by donating to a charity (hint, hint.)

    1. Re:Not that it is going to apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dirty hippies? I just showered today and the day before and so on. Hey, want to know something funny?

      You paid for:
      http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documenta tion/W indowsServ/2003/standard/proddocs/en-us/Default.as p?url=/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/st andard/proddocs/en-us/copyright.asp

      Yes, you paid for MS to use *BSD source code. Did you realize that you could get a complete OS' for free / low cost.

      Well, I cannot really complain:
      I don't have 80,000 virus' on my platform
      I don't have spyware
      I don't have what ever else you all have.

    2. Re:Not that it is going to apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't make enough money to itemize

      Itemizing is about what you SPEND. If you paid cash for your home and have no morgage and pay less than $4000 in property taxes, its hard to get to a Sched. A form

      Guess that makes me a dirty hippy who has a home that has 'tripled' in 'value' and with the 2nd home I paid cash for will put me in Sched. A land due to land taxes.

    3. Re:Not that it is going to apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please don't play political games with BSD. Let others do that as we all know one OS doesn't solve all problems or meet everyone's needs. BSD is technically superior, but users should choose for themselves.

    4. Re:Not that it is going to apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bloody hell. The _ONLY_ BSD code used in modern Windows versions is the FTP client, which equates to approximately 0.00000000001% of the source tree.
      Using an old, tiny CLI program to promote the BSD family of operating systems is crazy.

  8. Requiem for the FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    ... facts are facts. ;)

    FreeBSD:
    FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (Jun 2004)
    "FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
    Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (Jun 2004)
    "[FreeBSD] has a secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003."
    What's New in the FreeBSD Network Stack (Sep 2004)
    "FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."

    NetBSD:
    NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004)
    NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (30 Sep 2004)

    OpenBSD:
    OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004)
    Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004)

    *BSD in general:
    Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004)
    "The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
    ..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;)

  9. Re:Heh by dn15 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    open source is an attempt at communist ideals emulated within a capitalist reality
    While this may appear to be the case at first glance, it is not true. Take the BSD license -- while the code is free, it is reusable in commercial software and changes need not be released. Effectively it allows a publicly created resource to be used in a private or commercial venture. This type of openness is a far cry from any license a Communist would use.

    The is one thing that I believe makes the BSD license a beautiful thing. The same code, created under the same license, can be freely reused in something totally open (such as Linux), partly open (such as Mac OS X), or totally closed (such as Windows XP.) Communist? Hardly.
  10. Same old FUD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Same old FUD, that has been disproved countless times...

  11. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some users of *BSD:

    Micrsoft
    Apple (OS X)
    Sun (SunOS)

    If those companies aren't bastions of capitalism, then I don't know what is.

    Well if you doubt the MS proof, here is a link:

    "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors."

    http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation /W indowsServ/2003/standard/proddocs/en-us/Default.as p?url=/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/st andard/proddocs/en-us/copyright.asp

  12. Re:FreeBSD is Dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ahhh.... Yes *BSD is dying. I guess that is why their source code is used in:

    Microsoft:
    http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d ocumentation/W indowsServ/2003/standard/proddocs/en-us/Default.as p?url=/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/st andard/proddocs/en-us/copyright.asp

    Apple (OS X)
    Sun (SunOS)
    Nokeia (check point)
    Juniper Routers (JunOS)
    Linux

    Yep, all is dead in the world of BSD. Well... with all of those folks using BSD then how can it be dying? Must not be true... Ahhh... you must be a cluess troll...

    O'well, debunked another myth.

  13. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    >Must not be true... Ahhh... you must be a clueless troll...

    Pretty much, and he/she/it's a big one, considered what Netcraft actually says. ;)

    Oh, and btw: Netcraft runs on FreeBSD servers!

  14. Re:Lessons from the Ashes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Not only does the poster below point out:
    http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1311 09&cid =10951312

    The orginally story is from 1994. Dont forget that ext2 was based on BSD FFS. And ofcourse that since its 10 years old, no mention of softupdates or FFS2.

    So, I guess that there is plenty of innovation happening in the BSD Labs. O'wait, don't forget the porting of XFS and someother file systems to *BSD.

    Yes, yes, there are plenty of good files systems out there and the *BSD's take the cream of the crop.

    I guess, folks forget to mention some of those things.

    Long live *BSD.

  15. Re:Heh by BossMC · · Score: 0

    It's interesting to see Luigi Rizzo credited on that page as well. Perhaps it's some IPFW code?

  16. Re:Heh by sean23007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually open source ideals are much more in line with free-market, small-scale capitalism, rather than any form of communism. In fact, it's all much closer to Smith than to Marx. Perhaps you should read them and not spit McCarthyisms at people who might actually know something.

    --

    Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
  17. Re:Fuckin' morons! Support D-fly! FreeBSD IS DEAD! by MikeCapone · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, if you ask so nicely... How can I resist?

    --
    Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
  18. Re:Heh by MikeCapone · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Open Source/Free Software is about cooperation instead of competition, because the current capitalist market is deeply flawed and it's often impossible for good ideas to see the light of days because the market is pretty much totally dominated by multi-billion dollars corporations.

    The only way to survive, to not be driven out of business, to not be bought, is not to try to compete on their terms, not to be for sale and not to be a business.

    --
    Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
  19. Re:Fuckin' morons! Support D-fly! FreeBSD IS DEAD! by Brandybuck · · Score: 0, Troll

    I was thinking of trying out DragonFly, but all these moronic trolls convinced me otherwise. It might be the best thing since sliced bread, but no way am I ever going to associate myself with the assholes promoting it.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  20. I donated $20 by kiwirob · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have been using FreeBSD on my desktop for years (since 4.2 or 4.3 I think) and this was the first money I've ever paid to support it.

    While I feel good that I helped a little I kinda feel a little bad I've never done anything else before!!!

  21. Re:Fuckin' morons! Support D-fly! FreeBSD IS DEAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've used FreeBSD 4.x it's about the same thing for most purposes. Dragonfly seems a bit faster but there is little to differenciate it aside from the many changes under the hood (which some of us don't really care about since 4.x works just fine). One thing that is EXTREMELY nice is the DragonFly installer. I'm sure we'll be seeing that used in the other BSDs in the future.

  22. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see that we have moderators with shares in multi-billion dollars coporations.

  23. Dispelling some more FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ... facts are facts. ;)

    FreeBSD:
    FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (Jun 2004)
    "FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
    Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (Jun 2004)
    "[FreeBSD] has a secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003."
    What's New in the FreeBSD Network Stack (Sep 2004)
    "FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."

    NetBSD:
    NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004)
    NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (30 Sep 2004)

    OpenBSD:
    OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004)
    Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004)

    *BSD in general:
    Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004)
    "The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
    ..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;)

    1. Re:Dispelling some more FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux scales better than BSD

    2. Re:Dispelling some more FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're quite close. OTOH, FreeBSD routes *much* better than Linux.

    3. Re:Dispelling some more FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's bullshit though. Linux can route much more than 100Kpps with that sort of processor.

    4. Re:Dispelling some more FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you provide some evidence? I believe Oppermann knows what he's talking about.

    5. Re:Dispelling some more FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here is a simple post showing Linux can do 1.3 Mbps on a dual opteron of similar capacity. Even if Linux is not as fast as FreeBSD in routing, it shows that Oppermann is talking out his ass when it comes to Linux performance. Where did that 100kpps figure come from? Absolutely no basis for the claim whatsoever.

    6. Re:Dispelling some more FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least I see you acknowledge the fact that FreeBSD is faster than Linux in routing.

      But of course you didn't provide any of the evidence I asked for. In the post you linked there's absolutely *nothing* that is in the slightest disagreement with what Oppermann said.

    7. Re:Dispelling some more FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't done or seen testing of both, but I have heard FreeBSD is a bit faster. Of course, that is not based on the crap Opperman says.

      Oppermann said Linux can't do much more than 100Kpps. He didn't even qualify that statement with the type of hardware, he flat out said Linux couldn't do much more than 100Kpps.

      The poster said he had Linux doing 1.3Mpps.

      here is one showing Linux doing about 500Kpps on practically identical hardware. So I wouldn't trust anything that troll Oppermann says about Linux.

      By the way, there is a patch for Linux floating around that implements packet prefetching for the e1000 driver (something that BSD does) which allows it to push 60B packets at wire speed and would surely help with routing. Unfortunately it also exposes some hardware bugs, but FreeBSD typically trades off speed for stability. Linux doesn't have that luxury, unfortunately.

      Oh, another thing, FreeBSD is only faster when doing fast forwarding between interfaces (Linux doesn't do that). If the host CPU actually has to examine the packet, then you can't do fast forwarding... and FreeBSD is slower then. On a real world router, you usually can't do fast forwarding.

    8. Re:Dispelling some more FUD by ulib · · Score: 1

      [This is my last reply (not anonymous and karma-free) to this name-calling AC]

      That one by Oppermann was a mailing list post, in which he was implicitly referring to a Xeon. Not surprisingly, the submitter of the /. story understood that. In fact he says:
      "Andre claims that FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."

      Notice the "on a 2.8GHz Xeon" part... *Both* the numbers (1 Mpps and "not much more than 100kpps") are referred to one particular architecture.

      And, I repeat, there's *nothing* in the post you linked that either disproves that, or justifies your previous claims. The 1.3 Mpps figure is *not* referred to the same architecture. About the Xeon, the post you linked just says "Our numbers on Xeons are less than 1Mpps".

      I think that's enough to acknowledge that if there is a troll, that would definitely be you.

      One more thing about the "can't do much more than 100kpps" part: even if it were an underestimate, and the actual figure turned out to be 300, 400 or even 500 kpps, it's still hardly relevant compared to FreeBSD's 1 Mpps.

      Not to say that FreeBSD is without weak points, of course (just like every OS, and the devs are surely working on those), but it routes much better than Linux.
      And underlining this fact, in the one place (/.) where trolls have been spreading the "BSD is dying" FUD for *years*, is more than appropriate. :)
      --
      Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.

    9. Re:Dispelling some more FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, I repeat, there's *nothing* in the post you linked that either disproves that, or justifies your previous claims. The 1.3 Mpps figure is *not* referred to the same architecture. About the Xeon, the post you linked just says "Our numbers on Xeons are less than 1Mpps".

      Read the .pdf I linked to. That has a 2.8 Xeon doing 500 Kpps.

      One more thing about the "can't do much more than 100kpps" part: even if it were an underestimate, and the actual figure turned out to be 300, 400 or even 500 kpps, it's still hardly relevant compared to FreeBSD's 1 Mpps.

      I said I knew Linux was slower in this test (from the 3rd hand info I gathered)... But there is a *lot* of difference between an order of magnitude slower, and just half as slow.

      Hey, by your weird version of english, FreeBSD can't do much more than 100Kpps either, right? No need to worry about some small rounding errors between friends.

      Here is an exact mirror example for you: Linux process creation is about twice as fast as FreeBSD. But do I go around saying "FreeBSD barely manages 1/10th the process creation speed of Linux"? According to you that would be OK, but actually no, I would start the third world war if I said something like that.

    10. Re:Dispelling some more FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, just one minor correction:

      Not to say that FreeBSD is without weak points, of course (just like every OS, and the devs are surely working on those), but it routes much better than Linux.

      s/better/faster

      link,

      Oh, but you can't actually do much useful with the packet if you want to keep up that speed advantage - just in one interface and out the other (fast fowarding).

      Oh yeah, and don't even bother with SMP and lots of network interfaces.

  24. A revival of the funniest troll on earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I bet those two FreeBSD developers are laughing their asses out at this Hawkins person.
    .. and who doesn't? Come on.. have a look for yourselves.
    To sum it up for the lazy: in his own words, he sold 2,000 copies of an OS that doesn't exist. :-D Oh, and he also says there are several Fortune 100 companies among his customers!

    In conclusion: It's not nice that this Hawkins guy is targeting some top-notch FreeBSD developers, but come on... when someone's so funny, he can say whatever he wants. :-D



  25. Private message for Mr. Hawkins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Dear 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 these BSD alternatives are just pieces of junk since they don't have your enhancements, but now it's time to come back to work.
    Sincerely,

    Mr. Joe Moron
    HawkinsOS user
    Fortune 100 company CEO

  26. Re:Fuckin' morons! Support D-fly! FreeBSD IS DEAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those Linux users disguised as DragonFly BSD trolls sure have you fooled!

  27. Re:Fuckin' morons! Support D-fly! FreeBSD IS DEAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    > Those Linux users disguised as DragonFly BSD trolls sure have you fooled!

    It could have been like that, indeed, but not this time.
    This time it was simply Hawkins, disguised as Hawkins. :)

  28. Yeah ... Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what a fucking load of shit.

    Next you'll be telling me that Windows is bloody secure.

    You, Sir, are a troll.

  29. Yeah ... Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows security sucks, as we all know.

    The mere fact that you don't like what you read is hardly enough to call the poster names.

  30. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually open source ideals are much more in line with free-market, small-scale capitalism, rather than any form of communism.

    As opposed to the FSF's "Free software" ideals and GPL copyleft. Although maybe they're more Kibbutz than Communism.

  31. Re:*BSD is dying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If mentality = financial reward. Then you sir, are a popper and could not afford the nickel.

  32. This could be good for freeBSDs future donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When people donate money to a place they generally don't see any immediat impact that they made. With this they saw some and may be more likely to donate again in the future. Good stuff.

  33. Re:I donated $68 by itedo · · Score: 1

    Ya dito. Usually i don't donate but this had to be done and i feel good about it!

    Cheers & a happy new year, fellowes

  34. Re:Heh by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Open source software is nothing more than a libertarian flavor of capitalism implemented within the software market.

    That is, essentially, lots of private individuals are contributing -- not for profit -- to a privately-organized collection of code which is re-released back to the public under a set of rules (defined in the license) by a private entity's terms.

    In essence, nearly the entire operation is privately-run. Is there an exchange of money for software? No.

    But the software is developed mostly privately, without the assistance of the government -- meaning it's largely non-socialist. And because property rights -- in the form of copyrights -- are retained by private holders, the so-called "communism" of the open-source system is privately-held -- meaning it's not communism at all, but rather, capitalism of an intellectual-property variety. The property rights backing copyrighht law, on which even the GPL relies, ensures that this system is based on property rights -- rights which are fundamental to any capitalist system, and purely antithetical to communism in any form, as communism rejects private property rights.

    Hence, open source is actually a very capitalistic system, contrary to the beliefs of both some propoents and detractors...

    There are exceptions. The NSA's security contributions are a socialist contribution to Linux. Contributions to Linux or FreeBSD from NASA or DARPA are socialist contributions. But by and large, most code is written by private individuals, and in any case, the decision as to whether the code is included into the source tree is made usually, if not entirely (as with Linus Torvalds) by 1 or more private entities.

    Thus, the developement of open-source software is largely a private -- and therefore, non-communist, non-socialist, and therefore, by elimination of all other current economic models, capitalist -- affair.

    So long as the rights of copyright remain in private hands, OSS is a largely-private, capitalist affair. Change the rights of copyright to a more community-oriented set of rights, and then we'll talk...

    Now, does open-source require money to operate? It surely requires money or time. But OSS tends to receive one of those 2 resources from private individuals, just as it always has, and nothing under a privately-owned system of individually-controlled capitalist economics prevents this from occurring. Ayn Rand would disapprove, but she disapproved of anybody who worked for free, calling them a "slave" to charitable causes. Most sane people -- even staunch free-marketeers like myself -- would disagree with that view, seeing such work as the product of the emotions of the individual felt for another person... Rand's failure was to factor in the non-objective, debateably less-rational parts of human behavior into her system of worldview...

    --

    Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
  35. Re:Fuckin' morons! Support D-fly! FreeBSD IS DEAD! by setagllib · · Score: 1

    Actually, it doesn't have a journalling file system YET, but the foundations are mostly in place. Read the mailing lists or at LEAST justin's blog.

    At this rate give them a month or two to get something usable in, at the most. Brilliant developers.

    --
    Sam ty sig.