Slashdot Mirror
NetBSD Status Report January - March 2005
jschauma writes "The NetBSD Foundation published its first quarterly
status report in 2005, covering the months January through March of 2005.
Among many other things, this status report covers the addition of TCP/SACK
and PAM support, the opening of the Foundations Online Store, the new stable
pkgsrc branch and various port-specific items."
On a saturday afternoon, on a BSD story, which is probably why it's not as gratifying.
So BSD isn't dead? Does Netcraft confirm it?
*BSD is dying anyway. FUCK YOU CMDRTACO. COWBOIKNEEL IS A FAT HOMOSEXUAL HA HA HA HA # Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
We need to move to a better neighborhood where there aren't so many spooks.
BSD is dying....
:D
just kidding, but sounded on topic
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
likely huh? the real crooks continue to be the phonIE fauxking bullshippers on wall street of deceit?
'automatic' stock markup FraUD billyonerrors?
takes all of the personal responsibility to 'investors' out of the equation?
31-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 4,191 Automatic Sale at $180.48 - $180.78 per share. $757,0002
31-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 8,237 Automatic Sale at $180.21 - $180.47 per share. $1,485,0002
31-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 7,001 Automatic Sale at $179.16 - $179.48 per share. $1,255,0002
31-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 4,598 Automatic Sale at $177.89 - $179.14 per share. $821,0002
31-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 169 Automatic Sale at $180.80 - $181.25 per share. $31,0002
31-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 347 Automatic Sale at $180.21 - $180.47 per share. $63,0002
31-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 293 Automatic Sale at $179.49 - $179.84 per share. $53,0002
31-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 198 Automatic Sale at $177.89 - $179.14 per share. $35,0002
31-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 1,224 Automatic Sale at $180.80 - $181.25 per share. $222,0002
31-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 2,112 Automatic Sale at $179.85 - $180.2 per share. $380,0002
31-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 2,076 Automatic Sale at $179.16 - $179.48 per share. $372,0002
31-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 1,364 Automatic Sale at $177.89 - $179.14 per share. $243,0002
30-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 4,192 Automatic Sale at $180.97 - $181.38 per share. $759,0002
30-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 6,522 Automatic Sale at $180.67 - $180.96 per share. $1,179,0002
30-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 15,889 Automatic Sale at $180.38 - $180.66 per share. $2,868,0002
30-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 11,975 Automatic Sale at $180.09 - $180.37 per share. $2,158,0002
30-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 3,637 Automatic Sale at $179.78 - $180.08 per share. $654,0002
30-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 181 Automatic Sale at $180.97 - $181.38 per share. $33,0002
30-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 271 Automatic Sale at $180.67 - $180.96 per share. $49,0002
30-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 671 Automatic Sale at $180.38 - $180.66 per share. $121,0002
30-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 508 Automatic Sale at $180.09 - $180.37 per share. $92,0002
30-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 148 Automatic Sale at $179.78 - $180.08 per share. $27,0002
30-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 1,236 Automatic Sale at $180.97 - $181.38 per share. $224,0002
30-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 1,930 Automatic Sale at $180.67 - $180.96 per share. $349,0002
30-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 4,704 Automatic Sale at $180.38 - $180.66 per share. $849,0002
30-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 3,545 Automatic Sale at $180.09 - $180.37 per share. $639,0002
30-Mar-05 SCHMIDT, ERIC E.
Chairman 1,085 Automatic Sale at $179.78 - $180.08 per share. $195,0002
for each of the creators' innocents harmed, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available.
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."
On boxers:
1. If there was a woman planning to remove one's boxers quivering in anticipation, that'll pretty much end in the planning phase once she sees those.
2. They should have put the flag over the fly, so purchaser could at least believe that the prostitute's laughter was related to the logo placement.
PAM has been available on Linux for ages. And it doesn't look as a very complicated thing either.
Just curious, have there been problems with the adoption of PAM, or it just wasn't a priority?
arrgh, it's flamebait no matter what I say.
WTF is wrong w/ the parent? nice sig! HA
NETCRAFT!
I like my [i]dead[/i] meat, medium rare.
... and so, as you can see, BSD is on it's way to being legendary -- AUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!
I refuse to believe any BSD status report without a Netcraft link confirming its accuracy.
Regarding Xen support, is it robust enough to "jail" applications like web servers or ftp servers? Or, at least, can it be used to provide multiple personal "servers" as we have seen with VMware? -LLM
Annoy a Conservative...
you mean:
I like my [i]dead[/i] meat, medium rare.
...what are the differences between the various BSDs, out of curiosity?
OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG!
It's so FUNNY! So hillarious! Haha! Get it? Netcraft! Haha! They confirmed BSD being dead and it wasn't. Haha! It's so funny!
But I thought....????
-d
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
It's dead. We...Think?
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
in soviet russia bsd confirms your death...
Get your torrents...
TCP SACK was introduced in 1996. Linux introduced it some time between 2.0 and 2.2 (that is, around 1999-2000). It's quite useful if you have a high-bandwidth link with some packet loss, since you can now retransmit only those packets that actually did get lost.
:)
Good to see that the we-are-the-defacto-internet-standard-tcpip-stack people are finally catching up. NetBSD does get some very impressive single-CPU TCP/IP benchmarks though. Oh. They forgot fine-grained locking in their network stack. I suppose performance with those quad Opterons sucks. Too bad. Well. they do have the long distance record tho, guess how many cpus those boxes had.
And yes. PAM is a pile of dung, even on non-BSD systems. But it does let you easily authenticate off just about anything adding just a few lines to your config files. That means RADIUS logins for local users or those that are just accessing some random web page served by Apache that you want to add some access control to. Or LDAP or Kerberos or NIS or NIS+ or a customized SQL database.
[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. I
NetBSD's old niche of extreme portability and purity is now overshadowed by these commercial interests. Too bad.
So fork it and do better.
OBITUARIES
*BSD of Berkeley, CA
*BSD, 28, of Berkeley, CA died Monday, April 6, 2005. Born July 3, 1976, it was the creation of a cluster of pot-smoking hippies who went to Illinois and came home with a reel of tape. Rather than smoke the tape, they uploaded it and hacked on it a little.
*BSD was known for its C shell and early TCP/IP implementation. After being banished from UC Berkeley, it was ported to the x86 platform, where it fell into the hands of heavier pot-smokers who liked to argue. Soon, the project had splintered into 12 different Balkanized projects. Until its death, there was almost constant fighting in and amongst these groups, sometimes degenerating into out-and-out fistfights.
*BSD is survived by its superior, Linux, as well as several commercial unix implementations. It may be missed by some who knew it, although most of them are said to be mere OS dilettante dabblers.
A funeral will be held at 2 p.m. Thursday, April 9, at the Berkeley Chapel on the UC campus, with interment to follow via the burning of the original *BSD tapes and scattering of the ashes over the San Francisco Bay. The Rev. Lou "Buddy" Stubbs will officiate.
The family will receive friends from 7 to 8 p.m. Wednesday, April 8, at the funeral home.
!DSB evil gnoL !daed s'DSB
... 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 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, for When Portability and Stability Matter (Oct 2004)
NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004)
NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (Sep 2004)
OpenBSD:
OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004)
Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004)
OpenSSH (OpenBSD subproject) has become a de facto Internet standard.
*BSD in general:
..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;)
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."
BSD Success Stories (O'Reilly, 2004) (pdf) ~ from Onlamp BSD DevCenter
"The BSDs - FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin, and others - have earned a reputation for stability, security, performance, and ease of administration."
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
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: *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 this pitiful OS at this late date. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
This Pam? What took the BSD guys so long?
Yet another sickening blow has struck what's left of the *BSD community, as a soon-to-be-released report by the independent Commision for Technology Management (CTM) after a year-long study has concluded: *BSD is already dead. Here are some of the commission's findings:
.005% of internet servers. A recent attempt at a face-to-face summit in Boulder, Colorado culminated in an out-and-out fistfight between core developers, reportedly over code commenting formats (tabs vs. spaces). Hotel security guards broke up the melee and banned the participants from the hotel. Two of the developers were hospitalized, and one continues to have his jaw wired shut.
Fact: the *BSDs have balkanized yet again. There are now no less than twelve separate, competing *BSD projects, each of which has introduced fundamental incompatibilities with the other *BSDs, and frequently with Unix standards. Average number of developers in each project: fewer than five. Average number of users per project: there are no definitive numbers, but reports show that all projects are on the decline.
Fact: X.org will not include support *BSD. The newly formed group believes that the *BSDs have strayed too far from Unix standards and have become too difficult to support along with Linux and Solaris x86. "It's too much trouble," said one anonymous developer. "If they want to make their own standards, let them doing the porting for us."
Fact: DragonflyBSD, yet another offshoot of the beleaguered FreeBSD "project", is already collapsing under the weight of internal power struggles and in-fighting. "They haven't done a single decent release," notes Mark Baron, an industry watcher and columnist. "Their mailing lists read like an online version of a Jerry Springer episode, complete with food fights, swearing, name-calling, and chair-throwing." Netcraft reports that DragonflyBSD is run on exactly 0% of internet servers.
Fact: There are almost no FreeBSD developers left, and its use, according to Netcraft, is down to a sadly crippled
Fact: NetBSD, which claims to focus on portability (whatever that is supposed to mean), is slow, and cannot take advantage of multiple CPUs. "That about drove the last nail in the coffin for BSD use here," said Michael Curry, CTO of Amazon.com. "We took our NetBSD boxes out to the backyard and shot them in the head. We're much happier running Linux."
Fact: *BSD has no support from the media. Number of Linux magazines available at bookstores: 5 (Linux Journal, Linux World, Linux Developer, Linux Format, Linux User). Number of available *BSD magazines: 0. Current count of Linux-oriented technical books: 1071. Current count of *BSD books: 6.
Fact: Many user-level applications will no longer work under *BSD, and no one is working to change this. The GIMP, a Photoshop-like application, has not worked at all under *BSD since version 1.1 (sorry, too much trouble for such a small base, developers have said). OpenOffice, a Microsoft Office clone, has never worked under *BSD and never will. ("Why would we bother?" said developer Steven Andrews, an OpenOffice team lead.)
Fact: servers running OpenBSD, which claims to focus on security, are frequently compromised. According to Jim Markham, editor of the online security forum SecurityWatch, the few OpenBSD servers that exist on the internet have become a joke among the hacker community. "They make a game out of it," he says. "(OpenBSD leader) Theo [de Raadt] will scramble to make a new patch to fix one problem, and they've already compromised a bunch of boxes with a different exploit."
With these incontroverible facts staring (what's left of) the *BSD community in the face, they can only draw one conclusion: *BSD is already dead.
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. But NetBSD's developers don't follow these processes, which is why we can safely predict that the project 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.
So NetBSD took its time and finally integrated PAM (OpenPAM in this case) and a hue and cry arose.
It was still a very quick merge compared to the continous saga of SMP. People can say lots of nice things about NetBSD and compare it to the messiness of FreeBSD but FreeBSD (and DragonFlyBSD) have better SMP support than NetBSD.
What is the status of NetBSD's SMP support, support for ACLs, MAC, (i.e. TrustedBSD features), UFS2, etc.
Long live NetBSD!
BLBLBLBLBLARGGLALALBLABLALBLHLHLBLBLHFLBHG.
asdfl;kjasdfl;aksdjfl;kasdjfl;kasdjffdsjkl;asdf
If you want people to reply to your journal entries maybe you should fucking enable comments. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I've seen that picture before.
If you find this post offensive, don't read it! THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING! I am what I am because of how apes behave.