Slashdot Mirror


FreeBSD Foundation Passes '04 Small Donation Needs

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. Don't forget... by SCO$699FeeTroll · · Score: -1, Troll

    ...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

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

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

    1. Re:Official statement URL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Thanks for copying the link posted in the original article. That's helpful.

    2. 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!

  3. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    void open_source( void ) {

    printf( "Software should be free....but wait, we need money.\n" );

    open_source();
    }

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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

    5. 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?

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

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

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

    9. 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.

    10. 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...

  4. a *BSD carol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    "Spirit," said Scrooge, with an interest he had never felt before, "tell me if *BSD will live."

    "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.

  5. 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 Shut+the+fuck+up! · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      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.

      What part of 'maintain' don't you understand? Are you fucking stupid or have they just not gotten to 'big' words in your class yet? A little advice, use the five-finger rule: If there are five words on the page that you don't understand, then it is too grown-up for you.

    2. 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.

    3. Re:More about the "quota"? by ValourX · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      How about "help make FreeBSD 6.0 useable" after the disaster that was 5.3-RELEASE. I donated, but I don't use FreeBSD anymore because through some hidden magic of development, FreeBSD's SK/Yukon LAN driver stopped working properly between 5.2.1 and 5.3, and I'm sick of having to patch the source tree to get Audigy support. Don't even get me started about all of the problems the AMD64 port has.

      -Jem

    4. 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.

    5. 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?

    6. 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).

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

  6. FreeBSD is Dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait
    It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

    Fact: FreeBSD is dying

    1. 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.

  7. Deconstructing *BSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    When it comes to the subject of operating systems, most of us can agree on at least one thing, and that is the simple plain truth that *BSD is dying. But the deeper question is why? Why did *BSD fail?

    Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personae?

    The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. That hope is long gone, replaced by an inconsolable despair. A mournful, plaintive nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.

  8. 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.

  9. 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..).

    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...

  10. 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.

  11. Developer laments: What Killed FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    The End of FreeBSD

    [ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]

    When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.

    Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.

    FreeBSD 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 endeavour 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 legitimise 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.

    So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

    Discussion

    I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.

    From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.

    There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.

    Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.

    Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?

    Shouts

    To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

    To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It

  12. 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. ;)

  13. Lessons from the Ashes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    What We Can Learn From BSD
    By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0

    Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.

    Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.

    These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.

    As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.

    Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.

    The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.

    1. 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.

  14. Same old FUD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

  15. 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!

  16. Fuckin' morons! Support D-fly! FreeBSD IS DEAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    FUCKIN' MORONS! Donate money to DragonFly project, FreeBSD is DEAD! Don't you fuckin' morons get it??

    1. Re:Fuckin' morons! Support D-fly! FreeBSD IS DEAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      HawkinsOS pwnz j00!

      --
      Smorgreff

    2. Re:Fuckin' morons! Support D-fly! FreeBSD IS DEAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      I tried DragonFly BSD. Hated it, FreeBSD 5.3-STABLE is MUCH better. The only time my server and desktop (both on FreeBSD 5.3-STABLE) have been down is when I purposely took them down to upgrade from RELEASE to STABLE.

      DragonFlyBSD will die easily, its a fork of a legacy OS.

    3. Re:Fuckin' morons! Support D-fly! FreeBSD IS DEAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      FreeBSD 5.3 sucks. DragonFlyBSD now has a journaling filesystem, multithreaded TCP stack, LWKT kernel, message passing API and, the most important feature: is 100% free of assholes like Smorgrav and Poul-Henning Kamp.

      --
      DragonFlyBSD, kicking those FreeBSD assholes in the ass since 2004.

    4. Re:Fuckin' morons! Support D-fly! FreeBSD IS DEAD! by MikeCapone · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    5. Re:Fuckin' morons! Support D-fly! FreeBSD IS DEAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      most important feature: is 100% free of assholes like Smorgrav and Poul-Henning Kamp.

      But it's not free of assholes like you...

    6. 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!
    7. 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.

    8. Re:Fuckin' morons! Support D-fly! FreeBSD IS DEAD! by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Now I know that DragonFlyBSD is truly one of the BSD pantheon.

      It has zealotous trolls.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    9. Re:Fuckin' morons! Support D-fly! FreeBSD IS DEAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      No, instead you associate yourself with the assholes that run FreeBSD, namely Smorgrav and Poul-Henning.

    10. 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!

    11. 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. :)

    12. 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.
  17. Private message for Mr. Hawkins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    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 "patches", but now it's time to come back to work.
    Sincerely,

    Mr. Joe Moron
    HawkinsOS user
    Fortune 100 company CEO

  18. Re:Fuckin' morons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    You are a fucking retard, who wants to put the FreeBSD and DragonFlyBSD projects against each other.

    I hope this is clear enough to everybody...

  19. FreeBSD is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait
    The End of FreeBSD

    [note: former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]

    When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.

    Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.

    FreeBSD 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 endeavour 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 legitimise 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.

    So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

    Discussion

    I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.

    From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.

    There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.

    Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.

    Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?

    Shouts

    To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

    To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the

  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. Emily Dickinson Mourns *BSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    Because I could not stop for Death,
    He kindly stopped for *BSD;
    The carriage held but just our bad code
    And Immortality.

    We slowly drove, he knew no haste,
    Passing Linux, we dared salute, a foe superior
    My coding work was but a-waste,
    Doomed OS a triviality.
  22. YHBT FOAD HAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Jesus god you're a faggot.

  23. FreeBSD Passes On by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Fact: *BSD is dead

  24. 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
    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.

  25. 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



  26. 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

  27. *BSD is dying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    .. I won't donate 5 cents to them - the dead don't appreciate gifts.

    BSD is dying.

    1. 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.

  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. 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.

  31. 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

  32. Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    If you want to donate to the FreeBSD foundation, the best way to do so is by PUTTING THEM IN YOUR WILL. Not only are you supporting the foundation, but you're also sending a message to the trolls that BSD will still be around long after we're all dead.