Slashdot Mirror
NetBSD Branches pkgsrc-2005Q1
jschauma writes "NetBSD's Alistair Crooks has
announced the availability of the new stable branch pkgsrc-2005Q1 of the
NetBSD Packages
Collection (aka pkgsrc). This branch
includes all the updates to the thousands of existing and additions of
hundreds of new applications since the hereby obsoleted pkgsrc-2004Q4 branch.
Some noteworthy infrastructure changes applicable to all 13 operating systems
for which pkgsrc is available include the support for multiple digests to
check the integrity of the distribution files as found on the Internet
(triggered by the recently-found
problems with the SHA-1 algorithm) and the so-called alternates
framework."
I care a lot.
We run all our servers on blah blah and it's like blah stable blah uptime blah not Linux blah blah not Windows 2003 blah blah.
Same old GNU/Linux FUD, that has been disproved countless times..
In short: the MIT research is *11 years old*, and that Rice study on the TCP/IP stack uses FreeBSD *2.2.6*.
Where are the binary packages for pkgsrc-2005Q1? I can't find them on ftp.netbsd.org.
IT IS OFFICIAL; WIRED NEWS CONFIRMS: LINUX IS SUPERIOR TO *BSD
*BSD is Dying, Says Respected Journal
Linux advocates have long insisted that open-source development results in better and more secure software. Now they have statistics to back up their claims.
According to a four-year analysis of the 5.7 million lines of Linux source code conducted by five Stanford University computer science researchers, the Linux kernel programming code is better and more secure than the programming code of *BSD.
The report, set to be released on Tuesday, states that the 2.6 Linux production kernel, shipped with software from Red Hat, Novell and other major Linux software vendors, contains 985 bugs in 5.7 million lines of code, well below the average for *BSD software. NetBSD, by comparison, contains about 40 million lines of code, with new bugs found on a frequent basis.
*BSD software typically has 20 to 30 bugs for every 1,000 lines of code, according to Carnegie Mellon University's CyLab Sustainable Computing Consortium. This would be equivalent to 114,000 to 171,000 bugs in 5.7 million lines of code.
The study identified 0.17 bugs per 1,000 lines of code in the Linux kernel. Of the 985 bugs identified, 627 were in critical parts of the kernel. Another 569 could cause a system crash, 100 were security holes, and 33 of the bugs could result in less-than-optimal system performance.
Seth Hallem, CEO of Coverity, a provider of source-code analysis, noted that the majority of the bugs documented in the study have already been fixed by members of the Linux development community.
"Our findings show that Linux contains an extremely low defect rate and is evidence of the strong security of Linux," said Hallem. "Many security holes in software are the result of software bugs that can be eliminated with good programming processes. Unfortunately, we don't find a lot of good practices in NetBSD. Mostly we just find in-fighting and security holes. I can conclusively say that NetBSD is dying."
The Linux source-code analysis project started in 2000 at the Stanford University Computer Science Research Center as part of a large research initiative to improve core software engineering processes in the software industry.
The initiative now continues at Coverity, a software engineering startup that now employs the five researchers who conducted the study. Coverity said it intends to start providing Linux bug analysis reports on a regular basis and will make a summary of the results freely available to the Linux development community.
"This is a benefit to the Linux development community, and we appreciate Coverity's efforts to help us improve the security and stability of Linux," said Andrew Morton, lead Linux kernel maintainer. Morton said developers have already addressed the top-priority bugs uncovered in the study.
Would Linux 2.6 be where it is if it had been conservatively developed on from 2.4? Short answer: No. Long answer: Definitely not.
Branching lets people use a continuing product with one development model while another version of the same product is worked on with another development model. After a certain agreed-upon stage of development, the roles change. For instance, the unstable branch gets to a stage of maturity, and it is made the stable branch.
That's why BSDs always have something stable and typically something getting new tech, and are going exactly where they should be. Meanwhile Linux has unbelievable numbers of bugs (Coverity alone found almost 1000 in 2.6.8, and 5 in NetBSD -current) and constant ABI incompatibilities - NPTL changes, IPSec changes, changes that mean old NVidia video drivers don't work any more, and so on. Why? No good reason. And it's all done in a 'stable' branch because Linus doesn't see a need to fork right now. So people are actually using an active development branch that is labelled a stable branch, and are surprised when something breaks or requires rebuilding significant userland components.
Sam ty sig.
To: Bill Joy, Creator of *BSD
March 10, 2005
Dear Mr. Joy:
I am joining my colleague DragonFlyBSD in submitting my resignation from the list of living operating systems (effective immediately) because I cannot in good conscience compete with Linux.
I have failed:
--To support SMP
--To generate media attention
--To spawn a professionally managed distribution
--To innovate
--To be relevant.
Throughout the globe *BSD is becoming associated with in-fighting and sloppy coding. My disregard for views of other operating systems, borne out by my neglect of technical competence, is giving birth to an anti-BSD century.
I joined the operating system world because I love technology. Respectfully, Mr. Secretary, I am now bringing this calling to a close, with a heavy heart but for the same reason that I embraced it.
Sincerely,
*BSD
Dead Operating System