Slashdot Mirror
Linux For Losers According To De Raadt
elohim writes "Theo has some scathing comments about Linux in his new interview with Forbes Magazine. From the article: 'It's terrible...Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, "This is garbage and we should fix it."'"
"Linux For Losers According To De Raadt"
Nowhere in that article does he say "Linux is for losers" or use that label. The headline of the story rhetorically asks that question, way to generate flamebait, Forbes & Slashdot editors!
Now I'm going to get a coffee and enjoy the comments which will probably not differ much from "Theo is teh ghey! L12nux r00lzzzzzz!!!"
Trolling is a art,
The article's author titled it "Is Linux for Losers?" There's a HUGE difference.
Sour grapes? Maybe.
No..!
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
he obviously isn't a unix user. Just because it doesn't copy windows doesn't mean its "crap".
You mean for once I am not a loser? I never thought I'd see the day when running Windows was... cool.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
3...2...1...Flame On!
More interesting than the fact that Theo is ragging on Linux is that Forbes interviewed him. Maybe they're looking for an anti-Linux view from another open source leader so they can generate some buzz and sell some more ads.
Lacking tact?
*shock*
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
From the article:
Torvalds, via e-mail, says De Raadt is "difficult" and declined to comment further.
I must say, Linus really comes across as a classy, quality person. It takes mature restraint to deal with "difficult" people like Theo, and Linus does so with class.
-5 Flamebait
Talk about throwing gasoline on the fire...why would DeRaat say such hateful things?
From TFA:
Ahh.
Here's another quote from TFA:
Apparently, you also do what you do because you hate Linux...
Don't be hatin'...
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I bet that in the end this article will feature 1000+ indignant, shocked and appalled posts. "How can he say something like that? Lunix is the greatest thing evar!!1!1one!onehundredandeleven!1"
Theo De Raadt Abrasive and Opinionated! Film at 11
I thought trolls were supposed to be modded down here? Isn't the best thing to do with an idiot like this to just...ignore him? Why is /. giving him attention?
He uses an iPod.
Torvalds, via e-mail, says De Raadt is "difficult" and declined to comment further.
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
The funny thing is he has never run Linux. Quoting this interview:
Theo de Raadt: I don't know. I have never run Linux.
#!/
Linux is for Lovers!
With the CD writing thing. I realise that has worked out well for most people, but for me and anyone else with a Cyberdrive CW058D it hasn't. It's a real pain. I also noticed with the whole reiser4 issue. Linux was always a kludge to get things running for a bit until hurd came out. Now that's starting to bite, as kludge is piled on kludge to get things running. Linus being dictatorial really doesn't help, because the rare times when he's boneheaded are far more harmful than the many times he's being sensible are helpful. If it's the right thing, almost everyone can see it's the right thing.
I am trolling
I'd be angry too. About how the Forbes article portrayed me as a raving lunatic out for blood, after giving what was probably a thoughtful interview.
All the article consisted of was trotting Theo out for choice quotes about how Linux sucks, and a tiny bit of BSD history. Only 2 out of the 16 paragraphs even started to cover *why* Theo thinks the way he does. The rest is tabloid-style trash-talk and what seems to be an ADD-inspired history lesson. There's nothing approaching a coherent argument.
I'm giving Theo the benefit of the doubt on this one- he probably gave a fleshed-out argument then Forbes eviscerated it. Even if that's not the case, they should have written a better article. This is awfully shitty journalism.
Why would anyone post this to Slashdot? Perhaps the pageview revenue was too good to pass up.
Linux is a winner inspite of a few glitches. By the way Windows is full of bugs but has managed to get paid for the trash. Linux is better, cheaper and sturdier.
Every winner has some weaknesses so we should work towards clearing up th mess rather than complaining.
My reckoning that it will generate a preponderance of flames, rather than flamebait.
Wikileaks, no DNS
In a NewsForge interview a couple of days ago de Raadt was asked about technical comparisons between Linux and BSD and replied, "I don't know. I have never run Linux."
? tid=152&tid=8&tid=2
http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/06/09/2132233.shtml
Suddenly, he's an expert on how bad Linux is?
...are the Slashdot editors.
Theo is teh ghey! L12nux r00lzzzzzz!!! :P
Oops... jumped the gun again. Damn those editors are good at getting me all hot and bothered...
So long, michael. Don't let the door hit you...
This is where you will find theo's words of encouragement and something related to Linux.
On OpenBSD, of course! Don't look for it in Linux.
If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all...
With that said: Would you like cheese with your whine, Theo?
War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
From the article: 'It's terrible...Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, "This is garbage and we should fix it."
And this is where he's completely wrong. Yes, Linux users add to the interface, yes, they add new utilities, but NO, it's NOT garbage! Linux is an excellent alternative to Crapple and Microshit, has a plethora of tools for productivity, analysis, and features stability that most other OSs can't offer. However, at the same time, I'm concerned about all the different flavors of Linux. This is something Microsoft got right. They limited their distros to 5 flavors of XP; Lite, Home, Pro, Corporate, DataCenter, and are making a killing in the market.
With Linux, there are what... a hundred or so? I have no idea what the others do, how they work, they vary in appearance and capabilites and offer so many "in-depth" tools that the common user won't know what the hell they're looking at! So, in one way, he's right, but I can't totally agree with his philosophy of Linux users being losers. He needs to pull his head from his ass and look at the world from our perspective. Journalists...
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
Theo is openbsd's greatest strength (a fanatical security coder) and their worst handicap (a PR nightmare)
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
because anyone who has ever run high throughput traffic through openbsd knows just how quick it'll kernel panic stock.
Oh, hell, there's nowhere to start. A start implies a finish, and I'm just not motivated enough to deal with all the hyperbole, straw-man arguments, logical fallicies, etc.
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
Dan's Resume
His work isn't being used by the masses. His ego is bruised. End of story.
I think the coverage for the BSDs is great. Really. I think it will help them in the corporate mindset. But, Dan Lyons, the person who has the byline, really should have had someone technical proofread his article. Only three open source BSDs? When did Solaris switch back to using a BSD kernel? That last one is particularly embarrassing given the amount of coverage Sun is getting with the whole opensolaris thing.
after linus's interview last week in which he states, "the linux kernel is good enough", i about sh1t my pants... i had never felt more shame for having once used linux.
THANK GOODNESS FOR THE BSD's!
Doing this on the older Sun hardware they claim to support is incredibly painful. Until Theo changes this one way or the other (preferably towards providing security patches in the same form as releases) I have to consider them a developer-only product, not a use-in-the-real-world one.
Oh yeah, and there's the wipe-and-reinstall mentality for each release too.
Ah, bitter dregs.
He openly moans about Linux, but admits that he's never used it.
I use linux, but I have the upmost respect for the BSDs.
I think the difference in popularity mainly comes down to the license. As I understand it: stuff you contribute to BSDs can be pirated by msft, and others, and put into their binary code. Whereas, the GPL offers a little more protection.
Sure, I'm not a linux or BSD guy. I run OS X, I'm out of all these loops. But get this quote:
I've tried never to say this on slashdot, but: LOL.
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
Linux has never been about quality. There are so many parts of the system that are just these cheap little hacks, and it happens to run."
As high as 85% of Linux users I know don't really care about the code. Linux works the way I expect it to work for me; let other's do the coding. As long as Linux works for me, I don't really care about it's quality. I tried switching to FreeBSD once but the damn thing refused to recognize my ext3 partitions. So, still glued to linux.
You really need to try OpenBSD before you dismiss this guy. Compared to Linux, OpenBSD is MUCH better designed. By this, I mean to say the whole system seems to be more coherently engineered, while every Linux distro I've used (and I've used all the big ones) seems to be much more thrown together than engineered. Linux is "good enough" to get the job done, and has more features and hardware support than OpenBSD, but it is not well architected at all.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
"Simon Lok, who holds a doctorate in computer science, took a close look at the Linux source code.
"You know what I found? Right in the kernel, in the heart of the operating system, I found a developer's comment that said, 'Does this belong here?' "Lok says. "What kind of confidence does that inspire? Right then I knew it was time to switch."
"
So he has a PHD in CS and he decided to change based on a comment? Not the actual code mind you but the comment?
I guess the idea that comments are for the developer and not for some teacher is lost on him. I often make comments like "There must be a better way to do this" in my code. They are markers for me to go back and see if I can clean it up or make it faster.
Frankly I am a little scared of using OpenBSD now... Sure it seems secure but can you trust developers that are sure there code is perfect and that everyone else produces crap?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
BSD users get laid so much more often.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
Remember folks, UNIX was fragmented and dying before Linux became mainstream. BSD and GNU were nothing but obscure academic projects. The popularity of Linux brought UNIX to a whole new generation of users, and BSD has benefited from the uprising as much as anyone. Even the big boys, like Solaris and AIX, are trying to be more like Linux.
And the whole quality thing is a myth. Linus approaches the kernel with the approach of an engineer, and the rest of Linux mirrors this approach. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to work. Theo thinks of himself as an artist, and his arrogance does as much to hurt BSD as it does to help it.
Theo has been (uncharacteristically) cautious with what he says in interviews lately, and particularly so when asked questions about other OS's such as Linux, so as to avoid headlines for trashing other peoples favorite OS (it's like insulting someone's religion). I hink he knew he'd said too much, and that Forbes would highlight anything he said that might cause controversy ... I doubt he will ever comment on another OS after this ... lesson learned.
I admit that I've often had similar complaints to his about Linux, but also, his bitterness kind of seems to have a source. From the article:
De Raadt says BSD could have become the world's most popular open source operating system, except that a lawsuit over BSD scared away developers, who went off to work on Linux and stayed there even after BSD was deemed legal. "It's really very sad," he says. "It is taking a long time for the Linux code base to get where BSD was ten years ago."
He sounds like he just wishes that BSD was as popular as Linux, and because it isn't, he's a little pissed off.
PS: Yes, this article was in its entirety flamebait. De Raadt makes no comment on the kinds of users Linux has, only (accurate) comments about the kind of coding it's built by.
Are we talking about Linux, or Microsoft? :-)
when it all comes down to it, its all still *nix. Doing stuff on the differnt systems is almost always the same, cause I don't have to do anything very advanced... Its all the same
I don't hate Microsoft, per se, mostly because when I want to play games or use standard Office-type stuff it's convenient. My company, however, has adopted Linux to develop its software on and it proves to be a constant headache because the "guts" of Linux change frequently and things break (even with Red Hat Enterprise).
I'd really like to see a de-Balkanization of the Linux universe to a large degree. I'm really tired of the RedHat/SuSE/Debian/ad infinitum battles. Is it really cool to make your own distro just because you don't like the way one developer does something?
OpenBSD people evidently do what they do because they hate Linux, NetBSD and FreeBSD and have a dismissive opinion of Windows. It always amazes me when someone like Mr de Raadt tries to claim that Linux is wholly driven by a deep dissagreeable nature, especially given his history with the Net BSD project. Maybe he could have proved that he was only motivated by love of UNIX if he managed to swallow his pride and cooperate with Net BSD and possibly held his tongue with respect to Linux. However he shows us time and time again that what he does is all for ego and to degrade other open OSs.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
The trolls have made it to the front page of Slashdot and got an article posted!
I do not care if it is windows, Lunux, BSD, unix or whatever OS you use, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I like both windows and *nix OS's depending on what I am trying to do. I would not go into an office and just put linux on every desktop just because "it is much better than windows." There are a lot of other things to consider such as training costs and is there an available port to any business critical programs. I am beginning to hate these "my OS is better than your OS" arguements.
This is a joke, right?
/usr/local/bin in your $PATH variable. You do know what that is, don't you?
/usr/local/apache[2]/. That's not BSD specific.
First off, just put
As for Apache, it installs (if compiling from source) into the same directory on ANY *NIX OS.
As for the interface names, Linux is in the minority by naming every ethernet card eth0, eth1, etc. Most use names that vary with the card type/make.
1. /usr/local. Everything that you add afterwards goes in there. It's just extra to type. And is apache config in /usr/local/apache/conf or /usr/local/etc/apache/conf ?
/usr/local is exactly where additional software, not included in the base OS, should be installed. More typing?? For what? /usr/local should be in your path and manually going to this directory should be rare.
Maybe a more experience sys admin can chime in here, but
There are many reasons why one might _not_ want to use BSD, but this is the silliest yet!
And that's about as much sense as this conversation makes.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
you are kidding about #1, right? Every once in a while, I have to sit down at a random linux box (tm), and change the settings of a given daemon. It's always a fun guessing game to see if it is at /etc /usr/local/etc /opt/etc /usr/etc... and so on. If I install any userland software from the ports tree on freebsd, I always know the /etc class file will be in /usr/local/etc . Any personal customizations (like if it's an irc client that takes a config file) is at /usr/local/examples/. How exactly is this difficult?
Ah, grasshopper... take a bath. Data hygiene is a good thing.
/usr/local, you can re-install the OS(e.g. partition corruption, junior admin fubar'ing, etc) without having to re-install your apps.
/usr/local , /opt is a good thing.
Funny, the default mixing of apps and OS in linux distros is what I dis-like the most about linux.
Keeping added apps seperate from the OS highlights the beauty of *nix over windows. With everything you installed after the OS in
Trust me, I've been there. Windows admin hoses OS, I re-install OS and I'm done. The needed apps are already in place & configured.
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
Its not for losers but i would say its nearly ready for lusers. ,i wont get drawn into a slapping war about this as i like *BSD aswell
De-Raadt says nothing about it being for losers but he does say its terrible and in my opinion he is wrong
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
At least
// does this belong here?
// what does this do?
is better than
We need to start a www.dailtywtf.com just based on OpenBSD source code... alone!
My computer just burst into flames...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Lok Technologies, a San Jose, Calif.-based maker of networking gear, started out using Linux in its equipment but switched to OpenBSD four years ago after company founder Simon Lok, who holds a doctorate in computer science, took a close look at the Linux source code.
"You know what I found? Right in the kernel, in the heart of the operating system, I found a developer's comment that said, 'Does this belong here?' "Lok says. "What kind of confidence does that inspire? Right then I knew it was time to switch."
So this guy switched from Linux to BSD not because he saw some poorly implemented code, but because of a comment?
That is absolutely insane.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
Simply put I think Forbes has a teensy little bias.
From the other Linux related stories box on the page:
Wind River Gets Smart
Peace, Love and Paychecks
Linux Scare Tactics
Kill Bill
Linux Loyalists Leery
Linux's Hit Men
IBM Refuses To Indemnify Linux Users
Red Hat's Mad Matt Vs. Humongous SCO Lawsuit
IBM Takes Linux To A New Level
Why You Won't Be Getting A Linux PC
The Limitations Of Linux
PeopleSoft Jumps On The Linux Train
The Cult Of Linux
Honestly, Forbes obviously is FUD central when it comes to Linux.
cat sig >
No matter what your endeavor is, blabbing about how bad your competitors are shows a lack of professionalism and class. If this is the prevailing mentality of the *BSD guys, I'll stick with Linux just BECAUSE they think it sucks.
"And now, Frank N. Furter, your time has come. Say 'goodbye' to all of this, and 'hello'... to oblivion!"
Disclaimer: I love Linux.
.com boom. We were in such a rush to get everything set up.. hurry hurry! we must get connected!!! hurry!..that we forgot about security. Now we're paying for that mistake, but it's quite interesting.
He has a point. We keep adding functionality and then we'll worry about going back and improving the code. Such is human nature however..
Look at the
But I think we should work in both directions. Old code, and new code. But who wants to fix someone else's code?
1. Are you familiar with TAB completion ? /usr/local/bin/ is a binary/shell script/perl/whatever installed by a port. You can be sure a file in /bin is a binary/shell script/whatever that came with the system.
/usr/local/etc/apache/httpd.conf
In BSD everything is organized according to its role. You can be sure a file in
p.s: apache conf is
2. Ye, really better to have eth0 and not knowning on the fly the card chipset, and wether you can enable polling, driver specific stuff, etc. What a silly idea to name all the interfaces eth0/eth1.
Fork, duh.
If you don't like what Linus does, do it your own way.
I'm waiting for the flood of posts that are about waiting for the flood of posts about OMGWTFKTHXBYE!?!?!111
Need I say more?
(...) Simon Lok, who holds a doctorate in computer science, took a close look at the Linux source code.
"You know what I found? Right in the kernel, in the heart of the operating system, I found a developer's comment that said, 'Does this belong here?' "Lok says. "What kind of confidence does that inspire? Right then I knew it was time to switch."
Without context, that seems just stupid. I've got comments like that in my code, it basicly means "I do this here, but is this really my (i.e. this source code's) job?" It might work 100%, but it will come up in a structural review.
Anyway, what it boils down to: Linux tries to be a huge, complex general purpose kernel. There's a penalty for that. OpenBSD have their core team, and since it is much more transparent, they get to coordinate better. It's easier to coordinate 60 people than 1000s.
The rest is just hilarious flamebait. IBM is using Linux hackers as free workers? Coming from the guy who lets everyone create closed-source embrace and extend derivates? That's not a pot calling the kettle black, that's a pot calling a slightly gray could black.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I really like OpenBSD, I buy most of the releases, I've donated hardware and I have a collection of shirts. It's very good software.
I normally stay out of the politics of this, but as a "customer" it annoys me to see a leader talk trash like this. This is one of the reasons why it's not more popular than it is. Honestly, it doesn't take a rocket appliance to learn some tact and basic diplomacy. You can still be candid without sounding like a school kid with a case of sour grapes.
Specifically, my hero and fellow Slashdot user (129189), CleverNickName. I have proof on DVD.
So there!
it seems that the interview itself is not linked :? tid=152&tid=8&tid=2
;)
http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/06/09/2132233.shtml
while reading it, it seems so strange how polite both linus (in previous interview) and Christos Zoulas (netbsd) can be - especially in contrast to raadt.
well, there are some poeple in companies that are never ever again allowed to speak publicly after a single sentence - not so if you own the company, i suppose
Rich
Linux ia a winner and all winners get noticed and their flaws discovered!
Welcome to India
You sure he didn't mean Windows when he said [e]veryone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is?
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
My guess is 75% of the responses will not be based on RTFA but blind support for Linux. Remember, on /. you are entitled to your opinion unless it in any way disparages Linux.
B O R I N G
To be fair, most, if not all, of Theo's problem's with Linux probably stem from the design and code of the Kernel. OpenBSD is very, very committed to clean designs and solid code. I've heard other members of the OpenBSD development team rant about how stupid they feel the /proc filesystem is for example, and I'm sure there are many other examples.
-Brendan
/usr/local is one of two places where I expect to find additional software, /opt is the other. One of the things I don't like about Linux is having to remember where things are installed. Per your example, looking for the Apache's config file in /etc just makes no sense to me.
"It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
the gist being that BSD guys are a lot like Linux guys, except they have kissed girls.
When did this start happening? I'm off to go load BSD.
Just avoid this article totally and moderate an actual discussion.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Great. That's all we need. Another flamewar curtesey of the Slashdot editors for the sake of ad revenue. How pathetic.
I haven't read it since the old man died. I keep hearing stories like this that make me think that old Malcom must be rolling in his grave seeing what jr has done with his Capitalist Tool.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
As I understand it: stuff you contribute to BSDs can be pirated by msft, and others, and put into their binary code.
The code is not pirated. The BSD license allows for distribution and modification of the code w/o the restrictions that the GPL places on code (namely that you must keep the code open).
I would be interested in finding out what O/S author Daniel Lyons is running. On the same page as this article are links to some of Lyons' previous articles, and many of them seem to be critical of Linux. I wonder if he's running OpenBSD or Mac OSX...
You can rename the interfaces in *BSD and Linux. Debian includes an 'ifrename' utility. In FreeBSD, you can use the name option in ifconfig, and I presume that the others allow the same.
OpenBSD's approach reminds me of "regular" CPU development, where all elements of the CPU have to just work. Linux's approach reminds me more of the new CPUs being worked on which are fault-tolerant, simply because there are many, average quality pieces in it, and the system as a whole can recover from some pieces failing.
I guess what I am saying is, what happens if a few of "Theo's 60" don't pull their weight anymore? What if some knock off? He has a problem. Linux does not have the same issues simply because there are so many people who are allowed to step in and fix things, even if they are not aces like "Theo's 60". I think in the long run, the Linux development model is better, and will enable Linux to survive long after the high-quality OpenBSD is dust.
BTW, I get to be the guy who coined the "Theo's 60" phrase ;)
naeem
This guy is one of the people behind Open BSD which wants to fill the gnu/linux niche and for various unfair ( and fair ) reasons missed the boat.
This is coming off as jealous in the article, like the girl ignored at the high school dance who decides to talk trash about the girl the guys are dancing with.
He comes off looking bad and were I involved with OpenBSD it would be my wish for him to stop talking as his behavior is a bad reflection on that good project.
He is acting like a child.
From the OpenBSD site:
In the beginning, Theo de Raadt spent more than $30,000 (CDN) to start OpenBSD, mostly due to expensive networking costs in Canada (due to USA crypto policies, it is not possible to move the project to the USA).
OK, this makes him sound like a kook. MS, Apple, and a bunch of Linux's manage to operate out of the US just fine.
Wow, Somebody's bitter about their open-source operating system being a failure... When BSD has the insans driver support that linux does, then maybe I'll make the switch (or maybe OpenSolaris will do it for me) either way, Linux is the only OS that is anywhere near ready to take on Windoze. (MacOS doesnt count, as it only runs on roughly 2.5% of all computers out there (and PearPC is SLOOOOW)).
gpl point of view protection = bsd point of view lack of freedom
Not all of us care about others using our code, we are concerned with solving problems. BSD mentality vs GPL mentality.
... well, keep in mind that actually a looser said that *g*. That guy seems to be angry of the Linux "boom". Go back playing with your code, dude.
/usr/local
/usr/local is where the things go that are not from the default install go. Everything else outside of that generally is maintained by BSD.
This is probably from not not understanding what BSD is or how its set up (no offense meant).
With BSD you get the whole works and not just the kernel with someones distribution of tools on top of it.
It's a way of keeping what extra things you have installed seperate from the OS.
interface names
You are right it is a little annoying when you replace a card with a different type. But then again you would have to tell the system in some file or by some link where the interface is so it's not much different that just configuing the interface card name directly.
-
One thing that BSD does that I like compared to a lot of the other UN*X systems out there is they recongize that the structure of the system should be a tree and not a bramble bush. It makes it very hard when you have to go from to file to track things down or following links all over.
You said:
/usr/local. Everything that you add afterwards goes in there. It's just extra to type. And is apache config in /usr/local/apache/conf or /usr/local/etc/apache/conf?
/usr/local/ -- local is all of 5 characters. If you are running *NIX you are typing already. 5 characters and you are complaining? Baaah that is lame.
/usr/local/etc/ - That is probably a port installed application.
/usr/local/*name_of_app* - That is a source installed application.
> 1.
Helps me understand the difference when it comes to upgrading, I don't always use ports, ah, this one requires portupgrade this one requires a source upgrade. Thank you.
> 2. The interface names change with the drivers of the card. em0? or fxp0. Who knows. What a silly idea.
ifconfig -a
Shows all the devices on your system. man the name, man em, man fxp, etc, gives you a driver detail on the device in question INCLUDING specific options that that driver supports! THANK YOU!
So far your ideas stem from a lack of use and/or understanding.
Baaah!
1. The reason most people use (and develop for) Linux is the GNU License. They can guarantee their work will be available to everyone and not be commercially exploited.
2. The reason the "quality" of the code of Linux is not the same as BSD, is the sheer number of patches added to the kernel in a short period of time. If the BSD folks had to manage the same amount of additions, they'd be in the same situation.
Yes, Linux has plenty of problems. Unfortunately, the alternatives (*BSD, Windows XP, Mac OS X, etc.) suffer from pretty much the same problems: big, monolithic kernels, use of a cumbersome and unsafe systems programming language, server code rife with security problems and buffer overflows, decades of legacy code everywhere, etc.
So, to me, all the UNIX-like systems (Linux, *BSD, etc.) are pretty much interchangeable. But because Linux+GNU+X11 has the most widespread adoption, the most software available for it, the best distributions, and the most drivers, I stick with it.
If Mr. De Raadt wants to do something about it, he should start a new operating system project from scratch, rather than tinkering with BSD.
What is he comparing in this article, the kernels or the applications that run under it? Also, when he talks about interfaces, is he speaking of the command line or the GUI interfaces?
Think of it, where would linux, sun and MS (and now Apple) be without the BSD pioneers? Just think of how much code originates from BSD.
;)
Theo can be a little harsh but that is how openbsd got started- when they kicked him out of freebsd. but most of you are two young to know the history so before you bash bsd think of who your daddy is
"GPL offers a little more protection"
What?? Mac OS X is one of the mose secure OS's around, and it wouldn't exist without FreeBSD and their associated BSD license. Now if everyone used Mac OS X, the computing world be much safer as a whole.
In fact, if you contribute code to BSD project and "msft, and other" use this code, that use is encouraged and not considered "pirated"!
What will Simon Lok do? He doesn't like what he finds buried in the Linux comments, so he switched to OpenBSD; will he now switch again because of Theo's public comments? Does Theo actually inspire confidence, that he is so angry all the time, and that he has time to spare to disparage the competition?
Sour grapes indeed.
Infuriate left and right
I use NetBSD, myself, because I prefer not to work with tantrum-spewing ranters. (It doesn't help that the platform I use with BSD--Amiga--is pretty retarded in OpenBSD but continues to struggle forward in NetBSD.) I also use Linux on an x86 server, because it works. I'm not sure what lil' Theo's on about. Code quality? OK, maybe. (Maybe not.) And if it runs, doesn't fall over, and is relatively secure (in a moderately robust multilayer security environment), abstract code quality is irrelevant.
Is the BSD core kernel better? I don't know; I like its incarnation on my Amiga, but every now and again I miss kernel modules rather than spending 8 hours recompiling /netbsd because I'm about to add a different network card. (It's an Amiga, remember... a 25 MHz 68030 Amiga. Yes, it's damn slow.)
Well, I'm ranting again. Not like De Raadt, of course. What the Hell did Forbes do, cage him and poke a stick at him until he started snarling?
Sheesh.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
if it comes from the distributor, i want it in /usr. it *i* built it from source, i want it in /usr/local.
Theo just doesn't work well with others. Which is why we have his own splinter BSD, OpenBSD. Time and time again this guy opens his mouth and says stupid crap and his little band of croonies reassure him that he is great. Too bad he doesn't have another multi-million dollar DARPA grant that could get pulled again.
Theo=arrogant
Well, *BSD is dying! So there!
Nyah!
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Is this the seafaring, raping, murdering pirate ?
Or the copyright infringement pirate ?
Or the license infringement pirate ?
You do realize that none of the above apply, right ?
If you contribute to a BSD under a BSD-style license then yes... others can use your code in their closed-source products.
Don't like it ? Don't release under that license.
As for the GPL.. crikey - which one ? which version ? There's too many of them out there already. You mean GPL 2.0, I take it - which doesn't stop a company from "pirating" your code by using it only internally on a webservice and just spitting out the results of the code. That's one of those things GPL 3.0 is supposed to address, I guess ? whatever
For the record, I agree with parent; /usr/local is a very good thing. Now, then. I'd just like to point out that the situation is worse in Windows. "But," you say, "Anything I install goes in C:\Program Files!" And this is true. Except for the configuration, which goes into The Registry (cue evil-sounding organ music). This here is probably the worst idea ever. "Hey, let's have a single place to throw all of the configuration data that needs to be completely parsed repeatedly (I.e., when right-clicking on the desktop), and have no simple, clean way to differentiate who owns what so that entries can be removed when the software is! GRRRRRRRRRRR-EAT!
The article doesn't impress me: BSD has some good features but some difficult deficiencies also.
However, BSD does seem to have a coherent design strategy, and from what I've seen of the internals, there is a discernable structure. The statement one poster made about LINUX having kludge piled on kludge comes close enough to the truth to make me VERY uncomfortable, and the exponential growth of code seems to lead to more severe complexity.
The good news is that companies like Sun, HP and IBM are behind LINUX. These companies have a history of turning out excellent software, and their contribution to LINUX might include best practices for software quality control.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
1. /usr/local has already debunked by others. Use $PATH
2. Ever had two NICs in a box running Linux located in such a way that it is very inconvenient to open the box? I have to locate which is eth0 and which is eth1 just to make sure I don't misconfigure things, adn the only way to separate them (even though they're a different make/model) is to find the bloody MAC address on it.
At least the BSD model narrows it down to the make/model of the NIC, so that ambiguous names are harder to come by.
I think most people can agree that there are cultural differences between BSD and Linux. Whats the problem? They attract different people and solves different problems. Why do I not run OpenBSD? I dont think it would have installed with all drivers on my laptop in 1998. Slackware did. However, if I was to set up a serious open source server, I would consider OpenBSD before linux, even if I have just installed it a few times and played very little with it.
People chose Linux BECAUSE they can hack on it, with other people, and get stuff working quickly.
People chose BSD because they know the system is developed in a structured and controlled way.
I run slackware on my current firewall. I first considered OpenBSD, then NetBSD, but ended up with Slack - why? Because I want a USB memory stick as disc, and I couldnt find a way to install BSD on such a "disc". However, a "cheap and dirty" kernel hack in Linux made it.
The important thing is that features, code and experiences in Linux can be contributed to BSD, and vice versa. I think authors of Linux code often are willing to let it go into BSD, despite the BSD/GPL-issues.
We all know the guy is a bit off. Why is it that the Linux community can't listen to criticism, tho?
You talk about usability. The Linux people come out with "just because it isn't like Microsoft doesn't mean it's wrong."
The excuses are rampant in the Linux world. Do I use Linux? Sure. When I can get it running. Even modern distros are kludgey and clunky. Half the time the GUI does nothing but provide useless and cryptic error messages. I have a Win2k print server. I have tried (easily) a dozen distros to get things working. One will see the network. One won't without downgrading Samba. One will, but can't access anything. One sees everything and accesses everything but can't print. Sound is the same way. Some have issues with setting resolutions on the video side, others have other problems.
There are too many distros all in it for themselves. Even the ones that use one of the main distros as their base. Debian, Red Hat, what have you, all are kludgey and unrefined.
I want Linux to work. Desperately want it to get out there and do good. But it isn't going to, especially if every response to criticism is not "okay, let me see if I can work on that" and continues to be "Its better than Crapple and Microshit!"
No one wants another Microsoft Windows, but some friggin' usability isn't going to hurt your cause, and you may even be able to swing it without giving up your anti-Microsoft rhetoric. You can be different and still be intuitive and intelligent.
Yep. Don't go for Theo, go for Dan LIEons and Forbes instead. Forbes is a rag, a pornrag for people obsessed with economic power. They're just doing what they do, shilling for the corps.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Like it or not, you probably do use BSD. About half the stuff in the common "GNU/Linux" userland actually originates from BSD, if you read the manpages. Perhaps we should call it "BSD/GNU/Linux"?! And guess where all the networking stuff in Windows XP -- you know, the stuff that actually works -- came from? Microsoft are even reckoned by some conspiracy theorists to have used BSD servers for their web sites, programmed to announce themselves as running some flavour of Windows NT.
/usr/local is a PITA, but you needn't suffer. Just mv everything out of /usr/local/etc/ into /etc/ and everything else out of /usr/local/ into /usr/, then rmdir /usr/local && ln -s /usr /usr/local && ln -s /etc /usr/local/etc.
I agree that
There probably is a historical reason for doing it that way. Not saying times haven't moved on though.
And Solaris is actually based on AT&T system V, which was the other tine of The Big Fork. SunOS used to be based on BSD; but when they changed the name, they switched kernels.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I read every last word of it. I looked for substance and couldn't find any. It's a lot of name calling and nothing resembling verifiable facts.
It's "fun" sometimes to enjoy the spirit of the conflict... the rivalry. But this is just plain ridiculous. What could he mean that Linux is just now where BSD was 10 years ago? Did they have all the stuff that is cutting-edge today 10 years ago? I'm not an expert in the slightest, but when I think of a kernel, I think of how it integrates and manages hardware. 10 years ago, the hardware was quite different. So from that perspective, I just can't see where it makes sense.
I hear a lot about multi-threading and all this sort of stuff but certainly never heard of it 10 years ago -- was that something BSD had back then? I don't know... I thought it was new. What exactly did BSD have 10 years ago that Linux only now has? I don't get it.
Torvalds said this guy De Raadt is "difficult" and from what I've read as a sample of his personality, I'd have to agree and I appreciate that Linus didn't have much else to say about it.
I always got the impression that BSD development was somewhat slow and Linux development was faster. There are pluses and minuses to each approach. But really, when you look at the relatively "slow" development of RedHat's enterprise package, you can appreciate where they step carefully with this one, adopting only the most stable and carefully selected things... a kind of best-of-both approach.
I think the two communities are different and that's just fine. The differing personalities are attracted to differing approaches and styles. That's just fine. But one this is certain -- no one will win more people to "their side" with that sort of attitude.
Sounds more like Windows than it does Linux. I have to aggree with a few in here on this, most Linux users dont care about the code, its all about functionality. Am I saying that BSD is a piece of crap? Nope. BSD for all its vaunt and ability is what it is. And its functional. For some it gets the job done, and it does not a bad job at all. In De Raadt's case it sounds like hes trying to have a mine is bigger than yours pissing match, or start one at least. Inflammatory comments, calling something useless and devoid of meaning, commonly spurns in return that which you are giving.
I mean honestly, lets go down the list of things that people hate about BSD, shall we?
The installer sucks. The Partitioner is counter-intuitive, especially for the common end user. Ports is hard to figure out for the end user as well. Ive heard that and more.
Might as well go out and install Linux or some other derivative. At least most of them are built around the end user and his ability to function.
But is BSD free of problems and things that need fixing? No. It has as much to fix as Linux does, both on the code level and on the visible level.
"God of Rock, thank you for this chance to kick ass. "
I started using FreeBSD three weeks ago on my desktop at work. Every day I use it I become more and more impressed by it, the integrated userland and kernel are like a breath of fresh air compared to linux. In fact, I'm having such a good experience with it, I already put it on a few sparc64 machines I'm setting up for an NSM platform. For anyone who's frustrated by the million linux distros and their slight incompatabilities, I'd suggest giving FreeBSD a try - it's really easy to get into, and you might just like it!
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
/usr/local is an accepted place to install software, and many packages set that as the default. Personally, I prefer to install some things into /opt, rather than /usr/local, such as OpenOffice and KDE. Slackware used to install gnome into /opt as well, but it became too difficult for Pat to do it (iirc). My reasoning is that I can build a server, put what I want into /opt, and export the whole directory to clients. As long as they had a working X server, they could run KDE how I choose, and not customize the shit out of it. They could run openoffice how I choose, etc.
But that is a silly reason to not use BSD.
I run linux because I develop for Nvidia cards. Nvidia support has been horseshit on BSD. I have a BSD install. In many ways I prefer BSD to linux. I love the ports collection and the greater stability of it. That could just be my installation.
But the community is with Linux, the hardware manufacturers are with Linux, and when you're talking about operating systems run by community and vendor support, you know what that means.
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
I realize it may be seen as flame bait, but the BSD licenses comes much closer to real freedom (i.e. public domain) than the GPL. Calling the GPL "free" is only possible due to some Orwellian corruption of the word.
You can appreciate what the GPL does, but don't make the mistake of calling software it protects "free", and certainly not freer than BSD.
...was who is this clown on Forbes bashing Linux? Then I saw it was an OpenBSD thing... and went, oh, nothing new there.
Then I felt dumb when I realized it was *the* OpenBSD guy. But I still didn't feel so bad.
The best part of the article was the mention of "In a sort of hacker equivalent of the Ford-versus-Chevy rivalry..." which is exactly what it boils down to.
So to add to the petty bickering, I've decided I like Linux more only because I've had more exposure to it, and I like the mascot more. Of course, here I was thinking it was the little Devil thing, but I guess thats just my confusion of the BSDs, eh?
FLR
Actually the worst part is that Theo is often right, which means you do have to actually listen to him rather than the easier just ignore him.
Reguardless of whether Theo is right or wrong he should not be such an asshat. Honestly have you ever dealt with the guy? If you don't see eye to eye with him he treats you like a giant turd. WTF? This is why it is good to have social skills and to know when to keep your mouth shut and when to open it. Theo from my experiance appears to have niether.
If he thinks that Linux sucks, he needs to try Solaris or the backend OS's use in most corperations.
Mainfraimes suck, SunOS sucks, Solaris Sucks, BSD sucks, Linux sucks.
So why is it used worldwide for critical things?
because its powerful, stable, and NOT designed for the general pc user.
I am really sure that Theo's comments are taken way WAY out of context. but everyone needs to remember that a GUI is an after-thought. 90% of what get's done in a Un*X or mainfraime has no need for a gooey nor is one even desired for one.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I recently took OpenBSD for a spin and I'm still working with it. It might be a secure OS, but it's not a desktop OS. To be even more specific it's not useful for the kinds of things people like us want to do:
1. Media Centers/PVRs
2. Gaming systems
3. Home Application Servers
True, as Theo said, they have a tough time getting the specs from the hardware manufacturers, but... so does the Linux camp. So what does a Linux developer do about drivers when someone won't open the spec? They reverse engineer. What do the BSD developers do? They mount a campaign to agressively persue the hardware manufacturer to the point of publically stating that the company sucks (I speak of the recent Adaptec fiasco). Neither approach is really going to make the hardware manufacturer happy. But, the Linux developer's approach is, at least, going to give the users something to actually use.
Why did I choose OpenBSD to play around with? Because it's supposed to be the most secure BSD. I want my desktop to be running on the most secure OS. Everyone should want that. But usability-wise, OpenBSD is just not there yet. It has no graphical installer and a bizarre double layered partitioning scheme. It doesn't support LVM (which all useful OSes should support these days). And recently, I was curious to see if I could get a Hauppague PVR-250 video capture card to work under OpenBSD... I wasn't able to find any info. But it's well supported under Linux thanks to the IvyTV project.
The point is that for those of us who got sick of Windows and it's problems, we moved to Linux because it was a lot easier than the BSDs and provided us with most of the same functionality of Windows without the problems. Linux now matches Windows in feature set 100%. Anything Windows can do, Linux can do. However, there is still one major limitation to Linux: you have to be VERY careful about what hardware you buy. Most of the time, the cheaper hardware won't work in Linux because half of it is implemented in software. I learned my lesson the hard way a few times and these days I check for Linux support before I buy. With OpenBSD the situation is worse. The supported hardware of OpenBSD is much smaller than that of Linux. This is not the fault of the Linux developers, it is the fault of the hardware manufacturers for not opening specs. While I respect Theo and all the work his crew has put into making a really secure OS, he needs to acknolwedge that fact that there are more things you can do with a computer than just running a secure server OS.
Personally, I'd even call for a project to fork OpenBSD so that there would be a desktop distro and an embedded distro. It's obvious that Theo is an angry guy. And rightly so. The hardware manufacturers should have no problem giving out specs in order to gain a much larger user base. But Theo needs to make sure that his anger is directed at the right people. The Linux crowd is not the reason that OpenBSD is having trouble getting hardware specs.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
for me, linux sucks a lot less than the alternatives for 90% of what I do. But I'm not much of a zealot, except for security which is where Windows shows its main weakness.
it's horses for courses:
Whenever linux gains some new and stable features, then I'll switch another server/service.
The title I submitted this with was "de Raadt Blasts Lunix in Forbes Interview"... Blame Zonk for the "Lunix For Losers" title.
"It's terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.'"
The bottom line is that it works better than commercial software. Anyone can look at the source code and see the comments, which are blunt about what needs fixing and how crappy the hardware is. Even commercial Linux rocks next to popular alternatives. For ease of installation, use, relative protection from mal and spyware, you can't beat a distribution like Mepis. Winners can step up to pure Debian, "losers" can fall all the way down to Caldera Open Linux and still do better than what 90% of the world uses.
There's also a difference in motivation. "Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix," De Raadt says. The irony, however, is that while noisy Linux fanatics make a great deal out of their hatred for Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ), De Raadt says their beloved program is starting to look a lot like what Microsoft puts out. "They have the same rapid development cycle, which leads to crap," he says.
That's what Micrososoft would have everyone believe, and so Microsoft is worth hating. People use Linux for freedom and the superior performance it brings. Study after study show this. Why people like Dan Lyons don't get it is beyond me, except that he might be a Fanboy.
Let's look back at other nasty junk he's written:
Dan Lyons, you are a shill. I dare you to make the entire tapes of your interview with Theo available. Anything less is second hand BS and the kind of thing the web makes obsolete.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html
It's tough to watch a system you consider inferior take over the world.
Sure, there are interesting efforts such as JNode, and people working on really cool new concepts like Zero-Install and Hans Reiser's vision of tomorrow's filesystem, but who is working to combine these and other concepts into something truly new and innovative?
Mac OSX isn't all that different from the !OpenBSD around...
Since I started this job as a techie, I do monitor some of the security mailing list, and there was a local root exploit published like 7 days ago.
I don't know Mr. De Raadt personally, maybe he's a bitch to work with, I don't konw, but his OS is one of the most secure around.
OSX is based on FreeBSD. If it was based on OpenBSD, it would've been slower because of all the crypto and even randomized PIDs.
"You know what I found? Right in the kernel, in the heart of the operating system, I found a developer's comment that said, 'Does this belong here?' "Lok says. "What kind of confidence does that inspire? Right then I knew it was time to switch."
Damn. Somebody remove that comment.
Banu
Don't you mean: Is Linux For Loosers?
Engrish. It is teh cofusing.
I'd be angry too. About how the Forbes article portrayed me as a raving lunatic out for blood, after giving what was probably a thoughtful interview.
Then maybe Theo shouldn't act like a raving lunatic out for blood, splinting projects at the slightest hint of differing opinion. Theo couldn't even keep his mount shut long enough to get his DARPA grant. So when you say they portray him as a lunatic, I reply "he sure as hell acts like one in public". Yes I know he might be a regular guy outside of the programming world, but honestly other then when his baby was born have you ever really seen him post nice things?
Apache uses autoconf/make AFAIK and can be installed where you want it to go.
Just because everyone uses vendor-specific names doesn't mean that is a good idea. Wether the Linux-style is optimal is another question.
Linux is not Windows
Is Theo demonstrating sour grapes? Perhaps a little.
Is Theo's criticism on target? Perhaps a little. He raises some good points about how Linux could be "corporatized" (like "nationalized").
Might the reporter have accentuated the differences between Linux and BSD to help generate controversy? Perhaps a lot.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
This is just a BSD v. Linux rant that has spilled over into a mainstream business mag. Big deal...
The exception to this is on OpenBSD, where Apache is run from a chroot environment by default, and so everything related to Apache is in /var/www, which adds to security.
I personally prefer having interfaces named after the driver, because it makes it easier to identify a particular interface. On Linux, you have to read the dmesg output (or similar) to know whihc eth0 and eth1 are. With *BSD, I can tell that rl0 is the cheap RealTek card I bought to connect to the cable modem, while fxp0 is the Intel card that connects to the Internal network. I previously had to tweak something on a Linux gateway which sat between 4 networks, and I had no idea whether it was eth0, eth1, eth2, or eth3 that connected to the outside world. Of course, as others have mentioned, it is possible to change the names to more sensible ones.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's because of the GPL that Linux is more popular.
% echo tongue | cat
%
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
That is where it's supposed to go. Read hier(7). AFAIK, before Linux, all *NIX variants used /usr/local in this way.
Actually, I prefer that to eth0 and eth1 magically switching places as has happened occasionally for me after rebooting Linux.
So what is the OS? Just the kernel? The minimum needed for a clean boot? Everything that happened to come on the vendor-CD?
Linux is not Windows
Could you imagine where we'd be if all that brain work had been done on top of ancient UNIX? Wow and goosebumps time, for me. [linebreak-as-if-pause] Microsoft probably wouldn't exist any more.
I would disagree. The development of the user interface stuff like KDE and GNOME and the addition of the desktop-friendly hardware stuff (hot-plugging USB and firewire, the like) would still have had the slow progress it had in the Linux development. It's also reasonable to claim that sense Windows Server is Microsoft's response to deployments of Linux-based server systems and given that people here are partisan toward the underdog and the free software they (may be/are) involved in creating, MS is still behind. So from both a home-/desktop-use and from a server-use perspective I disagree with your view.
However, I get what you mean about the development of mass-use free software system along the lines of the OpenBSD paradigm (of clean, reliable and secure software), free from the legacy of rpm hell and the rest of that teething-trouble jazz: that would be something special.
end besides dat, as everione nows
*BSD is dying !!1 666
!!!111 ^_^
kekekee
zeratul erulz starcraft ruulz
Bravado is never being wrong, even when you'd say someone else was if it were anyone else but you. It's never bothering to be introspective, to question yourself or your actions.
Confidence is knowing you'll get there eventually, even if you aren't there yet. You're allowed to ask questions along the way like "Should this be here?".
I would much rather rely on software that is like the latter, than I would the former.
Besides, I bet Simon Lok maintains a few hundred windows machines too, but since he can't read those comments at all...
"....We are not interested in the good of others ; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were- cowards and hypocrites...." George Orwell's 1984
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
BSD license -> negative freedom.
GPL license -> positive freedom.
You could argue that
|freedom(BSD)| > |freedom(GPL)|,
but there's no doubt that
freedom(BSD) < freedom(GPL)
since the former is negative and the later is positive.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Theo "I have never run linux" should maybe do a little fact checking before he shoots his mouth off. Not only does the following set of benchmarks show that OpenBSD sucks eggs relative to Linux, but it sucks eggs relative to the other BSD's as well. Yeah, sure, it's a few months old; but it certainly shows that there is no historical basis for Theo's hubris.
l k.fefe.de/scalability/
http://house.ofdoom.com/~hungerf3/mirror/scale/bu
Well, I guess Linux is not cool anymore.... Time to format my hda1 and turn it into wd0a ;)
I know little about the kernel details and differences between BSD and Linux. I run my gnome and I'm happy. If it were BSD underneath I don't think I'd care.
However, the difference with linux comes from the unified community behind it: Thousands of distros, hundreds of companies, one kernel.
Maybe its just my perseption but I don't see the same kind of unity from BSD. The true wonder of Linux is not necessarily it's technology, but it's ability corral the efforts of thousands into one goal.
This would be like Bill Gates saying linux is for losers.
Let's face it, Raadt is pissed off that linux has supassed OpenBSD in terms of userbase. A little resentment? I think so.
Although it's a matter of preference, I prefer to have all configuration files located in /etc/appdir/, or at the very worst /etc. It's easier for me to back up configurations that way. I take a snapshot of /etc/ and I know how the system was set up. I can take that snapshot and copy it to another machine and telinit 1, telinit 5 and have the thing back to where I want it. I can copy the entire /etc directory from mirrored machines and not worry about what I have forgotten.
If the developer isn't confident about even *where* some part of the code should be, and code from that confused developer actually made it into the kernel despite that confusion, why should a user have confidence in it?
A specific feature may be implemented in many ways. If there are several equivelent or nearly-equivelent ways, it makes sense to question your implementation decision. It does not necessarily imply the developer was unsure if "it" really belonged in that particular location; it is far more likely that the developer was unsure if there wasn't a better way of doing it that he was overlooking.
Sometimes writing code, something just doesn't feel right, even if you know your implementation is just fine. You have the feeling there's a better way. Usually, when you come back to it later, the better way is apperant. Often, the better way is simply cleaner code, not a better algorithm.
Comments like that are markers that welcome improvement, not an indication of lack of developer confidence.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
(but it IS cheap)
...
... that would be none ...
No, it really isn't.
Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger, £74.99 from amazon.co.uk. Granted, this is cheaper than a full copy of Windows XP Home, but it's still not *cheap*. I can feed my family of five for a fortnight for that.
Then add to that the wonga required for iLife 05 (£42.99), Photoshop Elements (£57.45), to get your Mac do to all the nice things that Macs do, and you're starting to get into serious money.
Contrast this with (as an example) SuSE Linux Professional 9.3 (£58.49) and then all the other packages I need to buy
er
To say nothing of the cost of the hardware it has to run on, which, despite the Mac Mini, is still considerably more expensive that equivalent x86 based kit.
This is not to be construed as a criticism of Apple, because I'd love a Mac, but to say it's cheap is ridiculous.
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
If I were Theo de Raadt, I'd change my name to something that didn't sound like "Theo the Rat" like some stool pigeon from Brooklyn.
Mr Theo De Raddt of course has no connections to another Unixy OS, and delivers a fair and unopinionated judgement.
Not. :)
Talk about a Journalist-as-troll article.
foo!
dimes
As soon as I saw Forbes, and I saw the headline, I thought must be a Dan Lyons article. Sure enough, I click on the Forbes link (which I had sworn to never do again) and here comes his name.
Dan has had it against Linux since the beginning of the SCO mess. He has shown to be a rather poor investigative/journalistic skills and Groklaw (etc) has not been shy about it. So now it's a personal vendenta I think.
I don't care what Theo said to who. I would not publicize Dan Lyons' drivel. No need to send more ad revenue to Forbes.
I've got mod points and I am tempted to mod this flamebait but somehow I don't think the metamods would get the joke....
I doubt if BSD architectMarshall Kirk McKusick has ever kissed a girl!
Anyway, the article's 100% correct. Linux sucks. BSD R00LZ. It's that simple.
Best Buy can have you arrested
If this were a windows fanboy thread, you'd have 20 dozen MCSE bootcamp graduates screaming that you should spend the next 6 months using regmon to figure out which keys are for the app, which aren't. You're also supposed to sacrifice a chicken or something during the folly.
Give me txt file configs any day of the week.
from tfa: "does this belong here?"
well in the spirit of distributed open source development it would let other developers know that that code might need some work.
I must have missed all the 'hateful things'. Where exactly are they in the article? He claims that Linux has a rapid development cycle (true) that the Linux community works for IBM for free (true) and that BSD's code quality is higher (hard to determine but hardly a hate-filled rant).
What on earth would a Linux zealot have to have in their minds in order to start yelling about 'hateful things' on reading that?
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
" That's funny. I don't use BSD because there are things I don't like about it."
Indeed, that is funny. The more I learn about BSD's and Solaris, the more "correct" they become over the implementations in Linux. Alternately, you could read this as: The more you fully understand about Unix, the less you'll like Linux and their way of accomplishing things.
In a sort of hacker equivalent of the Ford-versus-Chevy rivalry, BSD guys make fun of Linux on message boards and Web sites, the gist being that BSD guys are a lot like Linux guys, except they have kissed girls
Kissing your mother doesn't count...
Some settling may occur during posting.
readers@forbes.com
/*
The code is not pirated. The BSD license allows for distribution and modification of the code w/o the restrictions that the GPL places on code (namely that you must keep the code open).
*/
i.e. BSD, they can take your stuff legally. And how is this not developing code for free for commercial systems? Didn't this Rat guy also say the same thing about Linux?
I have respect for BSD and it's fine code and coders. They should stop giving away all their code and make em share.
Codifex posting anon.
Maybe a more experience sys admin can chime in here, but /usr/local is exactly where additional software, not included in the base OS, should be installed.
/usr/local is where any software not installed by the system's package management should go.
/sbin argument. At one time, /sbin was where you kept statically compiled versions of your utilities (hence the 's' for static) so that if your libc got hosed you could recover easier. Now it's pretty much reserved for 'superuser' binaries (ones that are only run by root, such as system configuration commands.)
/usr/local should be in your path and manually going to this directory should be rare.
/usr/local in your path (you'd need to put /usr/local/bin), and many pieces of software want to have their own directory tree under /usr/local (such as "foo" binaries in /usr/local/foo/bin, and configs under /usr/local/foo/etc) and if you have a lot of software that does this, your $PATH gets unweildy in a hurry.
There are two schools of thought - that's one of them.
The other is that
Now that package management is pretty mature, I'd say that the latter is my preferred way of doing things.
It's kind of like the old
More typing?? For what?
I understand where he's coming from. You can't actually put
I much prefer having a nice generic ethX over an interface named after the driver. (wlanX being an exception. (Anyone know why they changed hostAP to do wifiX and wlanX, instead of the old behaviour? C'mon, Mr. Tourelles (sp, sorry), I know you're out there.
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
1. Whenever anyone says something against or not supporting Linux, there is a serious backlash. Where is Tannenbaum or De Raadt. For a moment, can't we assume that these are quite intelligent people who may have a valid point regarding Linux?
2. OSS is all about choice. Why is it that we are blinded by our prejudices/faith and refuse to see anything other than linux?
3. Linux is just the core kernel, rest everything what we call Linux is basically usermode GNU tools. These are not specific to Linux and are the same in BSD or HURD too. I have to agree with Richard Stallman here. As one poster correctly pointed out, a typical machine running BSD or Linux, cant be differenciated unless you go to the shell prompt and search.
4. Why is it that nobody seems to mind the seemingly autocratic behaviour of the core kernel (thats what is Linux essentially, everything else is GNU/non Linux) maintainers?
5. IMHO, many companies are joining the linux bandwagon since that is where most of the 'free developers' are.
6. Confusion != Choice. We have too many distributions with not much of difference between them. Anyone can use LFS, create a personal selection of usermode applications and create a distribution. I dont see much of a benefit than using something like core debian/fedora and installing what I need
I personally have been using/experimenting with linux for over 12 years and also had my share of flings with BSD. Except for the development philosophy, there is no essential difference, so why this flame war?
Your first complaint is rather silly. But I agree with you on 2. I never understood why other Unixes did that. It seems a little strange. The hard disks don't do it, why should the ethernet adapters?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Only old people use Linix
I'm so sick of haters like this.. why would you argue with people who generally have the same intentions as far as computing is concerned?? its a FREE operating system... "Why do you continue to use it when you know it sucks!?" c'mon gimme a fucking break.. its free you dumb shit.. and sorry, but OpenBSD is FAR from user friendly.. the aims of both operating systems are totally different, so why the hell would you make a statement like that?? are you retarded?? kissed a girl?? sounds like a fucking 3rd grader debating about something.. christ man.. i'm not gonna diss BSD in anyway because its a great operating system.. In my eyes, any free OS, is a good OS.. let people do what they want.. you're worse than the catholics that run this country..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
On the other hand it is kind of handy to just be able to use the ethernet interface without having to open the case to check if it was the pc with the 3com or the one with the realtek NIC..... :)
(I guess OpenBSD guys are so 1337 that they never use closed cases anyway
The point of the network driver is to offer a standard abstracted interface to your hardware.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
If Linux just "happens to run", how come it knocks out OpenBSD when it comes to performance? I very much doubt that Linux would win tests like these if "many parts" of its code were low quality and badly designed.
Granted, the test linked to above is soon two years old, and De Raadt refers to style of coding or general code quality rather than raw performance -- which other prominent people also have commented (in a perhaps more balanced way), but the fact that Linux runs is not merely a coincidence, as De Raadt seems to insinuate.
It reminds me of the Muslims in Iraq. The easing of pressure from Saddam and then the occupying forces allows the Sunnis and Shiites to argue amongst themselves (of course I hardly need to add that this behavior isn't restricted to Muslims, Christians, or even religious people). Now that Linux and BSD are beginning to be seen as an alternative to Windows in (parts of) the general computer user community, they're getting the gloves out.
I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
# echo $PATH # PATH= # export PATH
/usr/local/* can easily be resolved.
Now your
I bet you didn't even know what a "path" was, did you?
There was something vaguely ominous about this:
"Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix," De Raadt says.
Hating MS seems like a good idea -- I don't hate them but creating alternatives and competition is always good. Loving Unix, however, strikes me as a very inward-looking (indeed backward-looking) motivation indeed.
De Raadt's statement could almost be paraphrased as 'Linux people do what they do because they want to create diversity and challenge established systems. BSD people do what they do because they don't go out enough.'
Not that I'm saying anything about actual Linux and BSD developers -- but it does seem that De Raadt's values are far from universal.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
2. Showered.
3. Brushed teeth.
4. Dressed.
5. Used Linux.
6. Read Theo's article.
7. Still using Linux.
8. Theo who?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
really better to have eth0 and not knowning on the fly the card chipset, and wether you can enable polling, driver specific stuff, etc. What a silly idea to name all the interfaces eth0/eth1.
I don't get this. If 90% of users/apps don't care about the details of chipsets, why should they have to keep track of this trivia to know the name of their ethernet device?
If you want to know details about polling, or the driver, for some special need, you should be using an introspection mechanism to *ask* the device, or *configure* the device.
Your position is like needing to guess the waiter's name before you can order food in a restaurant. What a needless hassle.
You're argument is based on OpenBSD not attracting any new developers ... which I think is pretty unlikely.
"OpenBSD users see Linux users as losers"
We do?
I guess I should stop using Debian on my other computer.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
/* does this belong here? */
Best Buy can have you arrested
Funny, the default mixing of apps and OS in linux distros is what I dis-like the most about linux.
.msi in Windows*.
I would like to have a word with the LSB and/or freedesktop.org people about that. It seems essential to desktop or home use of computers that installing function-creating programs, such as office software, messaging clients, mp3 players, art & other creative stuff that's clearly not system software, should be something that users are able to do without needing superuser privileges. I haven't seen a package management tool in a common GNU/Linux distribution which allows packages to be recognised and identified to a single user.
Perhaps this will ignite an argument among Unix people versus non-Unix people (it would really be between multi-user systems people and single-user systems people) over whether all users should gain the functionality of a package installed by one particular user... Perhaps the argument needs to be ignored and a solution found so that installing software as a home user is as easy as installing an
(* I know that you can double-click an rpm in GNOME under FC3 and have it install itself happily, but this doesn't quite play nicely with the yum/apt/etc. tools for package management and system updates. These tools are needed to make sure that installed software remains up-to-date but they don't appear complete to me.)
"Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.'"
7
So... much... detail!
"I think our code quality is higher, just because that's really a big focus for us," De Raadt says. "Linux has never been about quality. There are so many parts of the system that are just these cheap little hacks, and it happens to run." As for Linus Torvalds, who created Linux and oversees development, De Raadt says, "I don't know what his focus is at all anymore, but it isn't quality."
http://hs.riverdale.k12.or.us/maverick/?q=node/25
"Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft."
Umm... wtf? That's only a small number of zealots.
"They have the same rapid development cycle, which leads to crap,"
Not in m$'s defence, but m$'s last big OS release was four years ago.
De Raadt obviously has no knowledge of the theory of evolution. In nature genetic code that produces different proteins seems to appear by mutation and coincidence. This can be likened to "quick and dirty hacks" style of linux development, where only code that actually fulfills a purpose, will eventually survive and be perfected. The philosophy of bulding "high quality code only" through slow development cycles, will indeed produce programs that are very efficient and stable for a very specific and narrow task, but that means that the range of practical applications for BSD software will not increase dramatically.
pass me those sparticles will ya?!
Sure. You want to handle 100 billion .INI files again? Each with their own screwed up idea of how you should format it.
You got some sort of strange lisp going or have you been watching too many TV commercials for breakfast cereal?
Ever had two NICs in a box running Linux located in such a way that it is very inconvenient to open the box?
/proc/modules.
Yes, all the time.
I have to locate which is eth0 and which is eth1 just to make sure I don't misconfigure things, adn the only way to separate them (even though they're a different make/model) is to find the bloody MAC address on it
Sounds like you don't know enough about Linux to actually admin it, and now you're bitching about it. Hint: Try taking a look at
And yeah, having ev0 and vi0 is *MUCH* easier - that tells me which card in my machine is the Dlink, right?
News organizations ought to supply full transcripts of interviews so readers can determine exactly how on the mark the editing is.
In the case of FreeBSD it is the stuff that under /usr/src. See http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/ for what all is there.
What is the OS? Is up for debate. I'll say kernel, basic network stuff(e.g. ssh, telnet, ping, etc), init scripts and logging facilities(i.e. a syslog daemon). Granted most distros include more this(e.g. sendmail).
Apps like Apache, Nagios, X, etc, I don't consider part of the OS.
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
I think the difference in popularity mainly comes down to the license. As I understand it: stuff you contribute to BSDs can be pirated by msft, and others, and put into their binary code. Whereas, the GPL offers a little more protection.
Don't tell the BSD people that, they hate Stallman and his 'virulant like license'. I like the BSD license because it offers more 'freedoms' to people who might want to use the source code.
However, there are definately more differences than just the license. IMHO the BSD user interface is at least 5 years behind Linux, but then again it doesnt have all that UI bloat.
I know the theory behind it. I've never used it - my servers are a mixture of Sparc, Pentium 3, Pentium 4, etc. They all have different binaries. /opt /usr -rf and recover the box easily IMO.
I just much prefer the file locations under Linux. Not because I'm more familiar with them, but just because they make sense to me, anyway. Under a sensible OS (and I'm not saying that BSD* isn't), the filesystem should be set up so that you should be able to rm
Get your own free personal location tracker
I think that points up one of the basic philosophical differences between the GPL crowd and the BSD crowd;
To me, the BSD position is more in line with natural selection; if you write better stuff, you win.
<disclaimer>
</disclaimer>
I want all of the power and none of the responsibility.
Call this flame bait if you like, but Linus simply is NOT as good as any of the BSDs.
On a technical level (and I don't mean - "ah, but does BSD have a driver for bla bla..."), the Linux codebase is a very poor cousin of BSD's.
BSD is correctly designed and put together. Linux is thrown together my millions of different people all pulling in different directions.
Linux will NEVER (and I mean NEVER) be as technically sound and robust as any BSD out there - it is simply too eclectic and more the work of a bunch of students than the work of a coherent team.
And yes, I don't doubt that there are some very clever people working on Linux. I'm not suggesting otehrwise, but it's just not the same.
Forbes: How are you gentlemen. All your linux is for Losers.
/ /www.forbes.com
Slashdot: Main screen turn on -
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:
Linux: You have no chance to survive, make you time. HA HA HA!
Cleaning the net one sed at a time! s/sex/sermons/; s/hot/holy/; s/goats/thebible/; www.holysermonswiththebible.com
Breaking news!
"Linux crap according to BSD enthusiast"
Way to scoop the story, Forbes. I yield to your titanic journalistic might.
Maybe Unionfs would come in handy in this situation, with its ability to merge the view of /usr/local/*/bin into a single /usr/local/bin structure.
Theo, define quality!
Something tells me Theo wouldn't recognize quality if it hit him in the face. Quality is not directly about nice, structured and documented code. It's about setting up a system that predictabily nice, structured and documented code.
For software development there is one true quality measurement system: CMM. I have worked for many large to huge SW companies. Even il large companies, only the very bright people contemplate assessing the SW development process using CMM. And then hit the wall called costs.
Quality in SW development is horribly expensive and does not produce a direct revenue or return on investment.
Now, getting back to the definition of quality. In short, quality is about setting and documenting standards, living up to them, having an independent authoritative body audit the process periodically and defining corrective tasks.
If you don't have such a system you should plainly shut up about quality.
Besides that, who would want to work with a cocky bastard that has a hard time respecting other people's efforts? Theo clearly does not realize how much effortgoes into organizing huge groups of people.
And then there's the GPL. Using the GPL I don't feel raped without lubricant.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
That's the thing that all you nerds fail to grasp. Crappy is good enough. C minus is adequate. You have it quick, you have it good you can have it cheap. Pick TWO. But unless and until my crappy HR web application needs to run orbital reinsertion computations for the space shuttle I'm not going to worry about 6 sigma anything.
Cue discussion about what equals an OS, and what is an app. passwd? mount? login? sshd? apache? The other reason I hear for having /usr/local separate is that you can rm /usr/local -rf it, and use the machine for something else. That's a pretty null argument as far as I'm concerned - it's just not common enough to worry about, and a fresh rebuild for a new server would never hurt.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Care for some sour grapes with that Theo?
Actually, I believe it is pretty trivial to rename an interface in FreeBSD. Same should be the case w/ Linux.
I cannot believe someone finically said this, I have been saying it since 99. Thank you Mr. Theo de Raadt for being one of the first to publicly state the emperor is wearing no cloths.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Is anyone else annoyed by the practice of putting the "nasdaq - news - people" links following every other goddamn word? It detracts from the reading in quite obvious ways. Often it's ridiculous as well. How the hell needs to find the webpage to Microsoft? Bleh.
I use Gentoo. I update daily. I run KDE 3.3.2. I run KPatience 2.2.1. I run XMMS 1.2.10. I run Atun, but won't right now because the bloody thing won't go away, short of xkill on it.
Patience has a nifty thing - when it's determined that a win at solitaire is impossible, it talls you so. Sometimes, it's right. More often, it's wrong. I've been told a game is unwinnable, with only one card left to turn over.
Ii've thought of mentioning this, or even trying to fix it, but KPatience is not on bugtrack.
XMMS will sometimes just stop after a song ends. No apparent reason - the song plays fine, then it decides it must have played every song and stops. It's annoying, but not life-threatening, so I tolerate it.
KDE decides, tho I've told it not to, that it knows best where I *really* wanted to put icons on my deskyop. Drag and drop, and watch it end up near where I put it, but not where I said. This is annoying, but not fatal, so I tolerate it.
However, even given those examples, Gentoo is still so far ahead o the competition it's unreal. I can run Gentoo for months with naught but minor annoyances. Windows, I'm flippin' lucky to run 4 hours sans death. I've never had to wipe and totally reinstall Gentoo. Windows, that was a weekly occurrance, burning up most of a full day. More fun is that, with all this use, the Windows disc gets marred, and after six months needs to be replaced, which means shelling out even more cash on totally shoddy software.
I may be disabled, but I'm not stupid. Linux is not perfect. Windows is not perfect. However, I can live with Linux's imperfections far easier than I can live with Windows. As an added bonus, Microsoft is not getting more of my miniscule disability income, to pay its employees who use their money to make life in Seattle less tolerable.
Using Linux is a win-win situation for me. Stop bitching because it's not perfect, yet.
Lemon curry?
Theo is a smart guy, but the facts speak for themselves. The fact is that Linux supports more hardware than openbsd, and has performance gains several times faster than OpenBSD or FreeBSD or MacOSX and of course windows. If I wanted to lock down linux, I'll use grsecurity.net jumbo patch, which is what I use and it does all that I would expect. I think most people care about hardware compatibility, user friendlyness, support and performance. OpenBSD is lacking on all of those fronts. Sorry Theo, hate to bust your bubble. I think most people who care about security already know about grsec.
I've used NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and have been running Linux as my desktop for over a decade now. As an operating system, linux *does* suck in comparison... but utilities and toys are catered to Linux. I don't have time to screw with porting useful addons to FreeBSD. IMHO, Linux is the Windoze of the *nix world. Its far from the best, but it has the attention.
"I don't know. I've never used Linux"
It should also be noted that Torvalds isn't unduly harsh about Windows either. On a couple of occations he has claimed an apathetic view of Windows. Torvalds works on Linux because of Linux and not because of Windows.
Is this stuff really what TdR said or is it Forbes trying to generate click-through by scandal? I can let some of it slide but I would be worried if the leader of an OSS project has a lot of venom for another project. It clouds their decision making.
- Linux seems to have better hardware support for what I use.
- There seems to be more software available to run directly on Linux.
- Linux is not Windows and it runns "GOOD ENOUGH" for now. I don't see a reason to invest the time to learn the structure of BSD.
I don't know why anyone would get so bent out of shape over the support of Linux or BSD. As long as it is open sourced I think they are playing for the same team.i just think this guy is bitter that linux is getting all this attention and like a 5 year old with a new baby in the family he's a cocky, bitter and acting completely childish. He's rambled on this entire article and not proven a single sentence with proof except an excerpt from the kernel source that says "should this be here". Everybody has a "flavor' of linux or other open source software/operating system and that's all it is... a personal preference. And if you don't like that the other person is doing just shut your trap and keep fidiling with your code and leave them alone.
and lastely, I can't speak for everybody who writes linux programs but to quote linus torvalds, "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect." (2003) That doesn't seem to be a guy who hates microsoft! But that being said acts more mature towards Microsoft than this guy towards linux
He says linux is getting just like microsoft. Ok I can see, graphically, some similarities. But what does he cite for evidence? Quick development cycles! Since when did M$ have quick development cycles!?! Lets see, XP - 2001, Longhorn - 2004, no 2005, wait how about 2006, yeah 2006 we promise. (We are just taking out the major reasons to switch, avalon, winFS, etc).
Linux in general does have fast development cycles admittedly, but not always. How long was it from Woody to Sarge (officially)?
The guy is clearly drumming up support for himself and OpenBSD. Stupidly enough he is attacking his potential user base! Free/Open/NetBSD is not end-user friendly. BSD users come from Linux, not Windows.
If I wanted to promote OpenBSD, I'd know Linux users are pretty smart. I'd Explain in non histerical and non insulting terms why it is great. Make some comparisons. Not attack those I wish to woo.
Gosh sounds like the RIAA suing its own fanbase.
Like Linux has had fine-grained locking and SMP for years now... and OpenBSD just got it. Linux surpased OpenBSD in most functionality years ago. OpenBSD has a very strong security effort, but that's about the only thing OpenBSD has over Linux in terms of functionality and performance.
Then put /usr/local/apcache/bin in your path variable
/usr/local/mysql/bin in your path
/usr/local/java/bin in your path
then put
then pub
At least Linux is doing the enthernet stuff right.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
I stopped reading newspapers, magazines a while ago because they were all basically full of shit when reporting on subjects I'm informed about. I came to the conclusion that if they were full of shit on stuff I know about they are probably full of shit on everything, and I'm not paying money for advertising and shit.
So it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if you were correct.
I no longer consider anything written by journalists to be any more than complete fiction and find them to be completely discredited as a profession. It must be galling for the few who do have principles and are knowledgeable about the subjects they report on.
Deleted
I wonder how much they paid him to humiliate him self like this..!
- - - - - .
Hmm, /etc - a place to store config files. Left over from a time when it ment etcetra and stored everthing that didn't yet have a place. Now used for configuration.
What part of this doesn't make sense about putting a config file in there?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
He blames Linux marketshare on the BSD lawsuit. I'm sorry, but in this case, he sounds foolish. The way BSD was developed and promoted a decade ago had far more to do with Linux' acceptance than the BSD lawsuit.
At the time, *very* few businesses used Linux. Well under 1%, probably more like 1% of 1% of 1%. At any rate, if you wanted to use a free *nix OS, you had three choices besides Linux:
1) Paying a commercial BSD license fee (BSDi). This was a bit expensive for an individual, and even the commercial version didn't have drivers for a lot of the better hardware (like reasonably new Dell servers).
2) Writing your own device drivers for anything unsupported.
3) Sending a BSD vendor equipment so they could write your driver.
I wish I could remember which prject was which for #2 and #3. Whichever group was #2, when I asked on the net about a SCSI driver for our server (a friend and I were starting a business on the side), I was flamed by a core BSD developer for not just writing a driver. HELLO! I need to run a business, not write drivers!
I tried really hard to make BSD work on our hardware. I finally gave up and tried Linux at another friend's suggestion. It just worked.
Linux caught on with individuals, then with startups and small projects in larger companies, and only in the past 3-4 years has started to matter in the corporate marketplace at large.
The BSD community chased people away (that's not an indictment of the community, it's just the effect of how things were handled).
There's an old adage that says, "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." Even if that were still true (it's generally not), when you start beating them in the head with the mousetrap, don't complain when tehy don't buy it.
I'm not sure if Theo is merely ignorant of history, or is simply choosing to ignore it. Either way, he's in trouble. Those who ignore or forget the lessons of history are doomed to what? Repeat it. Theo's helping screw up BSD's chances all over again.
"These companies used to have to pay to develop Unix. They had in-house engineers who wrote new features when customers wanted them. Now they just allow the user community to do their own little hacks and features, trying to get to the same functionality level, and they're just putting pennies into it," De Raadt says.
I'm hoping Forbes left out the part that puts this into context as a comment about corporate involvement in opensource projects in general.
Otherwise, it's kind of hypocritical to bash Linux when the BSD kernel is used in so many commercial products without significant contributions back from those same companies. The BSD license makes exploiting (if we want to use that word) unpaid coders a lot easier since companies can just modifiy the source to make their proprietary version and not have to contribute any code back to the project.
everyone acuses theo of being an asshole eliteist.. take a look at his project. Openbsd is completely based on being secure. Do you want a coder using cheap hacks to get code working or some asshole bent on security? He's the right guy for the job
I went through several OS's trying to get them to work on my older system so I could play with it. I tried a couple of the BSD flavors (net and open), I tried Red Hat, Debian, and Mandrake (I used Slackware back at 0.9 when it was multiple sets of floppies), I even tried Solaris x86, BeOS and looked at Plan9. I eventually settled what worked for me: Mandrake. It supported all my hardware, it got me running, and I had several books that worked with it.
I have two prime boxes: Windows XP on a home built and a Mac PowerBook G4. My wife has Windows 98 and refuses to upgrade (it works for her, why change). I have two Sun Ultra 60's, one Mandrake linux box and one extra older Mandrake box that I'll be running through OS's again after backing it off. I'll be trying OpenBSD again just to play. We'll see how it pans out.
Shit better not happen!
This could have been a very interesting article if a little detail was given concerning what issues he has with Linux.
Instead the article relies on vague opinions, sweeping accusations, a bit of bragging and a quote by a computer professor that he dropped Linux because of a single comment he saw in the code.
So much promise, too pathetic.
We need articles that can really generate interesting dialog and journalists that write better than Jerry Springer transcripts.
Fast foward to today, same BS, same bitter people. Same trash talk. Yea, we would be the most popular.... well we would... ya know? If it weren't for that lawsuit. Sure sounds like a looser to me. It has also been my experience that Linux guys not only have kissed girls, they have married and had kids. The BSD guys that I know, I doubt any of them have kissed a girl. I know plenty of people that if BSD really was better, they would use that and not Linux - me incuded.
Grow up De Radt, Linux has a lawsuit against it right now - the SCO lawsuit. You don't see us jumping ship. The fact is BSD sucks. SYSV sucks. Linux merged the best parts of both, that is why it DOESN'T suck. It just happened that BSD sucked more than SYSV did and that is why you are still by yourself. Grow up and admit you are wrong. Otherwise we will continue to laugh AT you. Second thought, stay right where you are. We don't need another hard headed person.
We all have our "religious" convictions. I've been developing software (apps & system) for *nix and other OSes for 25 years and none is perfect. I've worked at all levels of more than 20 UNIX-like Oses, including many LINUX distribs for 12 years and the *BSD oses. They all have pluses and minuses. The GNU/LINUX environment is the most complete operating sytem besides that evil empire technology farce from Redmond. There are many things that frustrate me about LINUX, but it has been my OS of choice and I have been microsoft-free for 7 years. I couldn't do that with OpenBSD. It is the only cost-effective, reliable, secure-enough environment that allows millions of us to get out from under the thumb of that company whose name probably attributes more to Mr. Gates' manhood than it does to technological merit.
Why, we should... wait. He didn't actually say that? It's just another bit of shitty slashdot editing? What a shock. Honestly, this site gets worse every day.
haha :)
:)
If i had mod points and hadnt replied earlier id mod you up
Its treasures like that inside OSes that i think need to be kept. "Clean Codebase" is fine but annotating files like that is one of the few ways we get these things likely to be in the next version/equivalent of The Jargon File and if we lose them for the sake of "being clean" then you need to wonder. Do you want a clean OS that has no record of the people that toiled to creat it like some kind of blank slab. Or would you preffer an os that has amusing coments littered in NON KEY files like that that are there for those to look and see just where the reasons and motivations came from
That and its just funny as hell.
XML - A clever joke would be here if
If you want me to switch from linux to bsd that is the very last way to get me to do it. Do you expect me to want to run some software built and maintained by some arogant asshole like this. Linus on the other hand just builds shit instead of talks shit.
Not that I could switch anyhow since linux is way more scalable than bsd....I mean shit they just got smp for god sakes.
Got Code?
Here are Theo's comments on Linux from the past few weeks of interviews:
3 2233 )
Interview 1: ( http://kerneltrap.org/node/6 )
JA: What advantages does OpenBSD offer over Linux?
Theo de Raadt: I don't use Linux, so I do not really know how to answer this.
Interview 2: (http://www.tuxjournal.net/intervista3-en.html )
Q: Do you like GNU/Linux ? Yes/No, why? Do you use it sometimes?
A: I have never used it.
Interview 3 (http://os.newsforge.com/print.pl?sid=05/06/09/21
NF: The BSDs are still considered by some to be more technically correct than the Linux kernel. Linus Torvalds has said in the past that it's not all about technology. Do you think the BSD project you work on is better technically for some or all uses than GNU/Linux (in general)?
Theo de Raadt: I don't know. I have never run Linux.
...that Linux owes to Theo.
The OpenBSD project also produces OpenSSH, and is kind enough to package portable versions that run on alternative architectures.
This is a thankless task for Theo & company; I think that the largest corporate dontation for OpenSSH was one laptop from IBM. Shameful.
Theo can run his systems free of all code produced by Linus. Unless Linus wants to go back to telnet (or use an alternate, less tested sshd), he has no such option.
Theo gets it completely wrong. Linux fans don't hate Microsoft. They hate monopolies and authoritarians and BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO.
Linus succeeded because he respected others and got their best possible effort from them. Stallman succeeded because he showed that it was possible for technologists to be in charge of their own life, and not just make the best of what's been foisted on them by Large Corporations (of which Microsoft is but one example).
No, De Rat doesn't get it at all.
Randy
Meh, he's just bitching because the minority usese openBSD. Is this guy Canadian or something? Can't hold his own, so he bitches about the competition.
naeem
There's a good rundown of the situation here. What's funny is that Microsoft actually paid for BSD code.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Linux users get laid.
...where can I buy this book? Is it like the "For Dummies" series???
Wow, some guy doesn't like linux. Oh god, let's make it a headline. Why is there a diverse set of OS's? Perhaps because they satisfy different people.
Theo does not take that path. He's a zealot... but he's not just a zealot. He's a clear-eyed, effective zealot who manages a solid project that produces the result he intends: a highly secure OS. If you'll recall from that other interview:Here we have a NetBSD guy saying, essentially, "I don't agree with Theo's approach, but it does work better than ours and we may all need to adopt it one day."
CZ is saying that Theo may be forging the path that many will need to follow before long. Theo was a security fanatic a long time ago, and I think events have proven that he made a good call on that. Events have yet to say if his abrasive approach to documentation will turn out to be a good call. CZ clearly recognizes that Theo may be ahead of the curve again, although it's too soon to say.
It seems to me that there exists a diversity of approaches to driving open-source and free software forward. At one extreme is Good Cop Linus, at the other is Bad Cop Theo, and everyone else is arrayed somewhere in the middle. A company being asked to provide documentation hears "It's in your best interest to get broad support from Linux" and on the other "Give me the goods or support for this device will be dropped." This is an effective combination, and the two together work better than either alone.
Theo is abrasive, yes... but the collective endeavor of free and open software needs someone abrasive, just as much as it needs a benevolent dictator.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
www.forbes.com 63.240.4.179 Linux Apache/1.3.26
/ /forbes.com
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:
Year's ago when I ran screaming from the M$ camp
it was a very simple choice. BSD's future hung
under a cloud, with threats of lawsuits standing
in it's shadow.
I was going to run a Unix, and looked hard at using BSD. However at that time I wasn't going to invest time and code into a system that I might not be able to legally use. In the end it was the GPL that made up my mind...
So while I've played with BSD a bit it's with
Linux and the GPL that I'll invest my time and
effort. It was true then and for it's still
true now, Guess I'm a Loser...but a happy one.
Great tools do only ONE thing, but do that ONE thing very, very well.
"Good enough" is the enemy of perfect.
Man this guy sounds bitter and angry. How big of an ego do you have to have to say that your product is better, even when you admit considerably fewer vendors support your product? Buddy, if you happen to read this (which I know you won't because you probably wouldn't touch Slashdot with a ten foot pole cause it runs on a Linux box) do some growing up. Code doesn't get accepted by users because its uber-secure. If that were the case I'd put 'Hello World' on a CD and sell it for ten bucks a pop. People buy code for usability, plain and simple. Even hardcore Unix (yes, UNIX) admins like a little usability.
It was my understanding that Sun started out BSD based, but around SunOS 5 or so it switched from BSD to AT&T SVR4.
The article says Sun currently is based on BSD, just like the Mac.
We all know De Raadt likes to shoot his mouth off. Fine - that's almost part of the hacker ethos. But can't he just be a wee bit particular about who he shoots his mouth off to?
Here's a mild but typical example of Lyons' half-informed nonsense, the closing paragraph from this very article:
Well, duh. When source code is open, we get to read developers' honest comments. Do you think there's nothing in the OpenBSD or - gasp - Windows XP source trees that isn't critical of the code? Except with XP, we'll never know. Would we rather that developers "watch what they say" (ala Ari Fleischer) and simply keep quiet about parts of the code that need improvement? Maybe Lok was making a subtle point, but in using this quote as the capping rimshot of his article, Lyons is once again leading his readers to draw poorly informed, mistaken conclusions.
Open source is never going to get a fair shake, only a smear, from Dan Lyons and Forbes. This should be obvious to anyone with access to Google and a few minutes of time. What in the world was Theo thinking??
Iknow Iknow !!!!!!!!!! Let's all switch to MacInTrash cuz we hate everyone and kiss farm animals...
Well, when I build software for installation into /usr/local I like to have each app install into its own *versioned* subdirectory in order to make removal simpler when I upgrade / decide the program really isn't what I wanted / or any other quasi-rational reason to ditch software. I prevent my $PATH from getting irrationally long and clumsy by taking the extra step of symlinking the executable to /usr/local/bin, the libraries to /usr/local/lib, etc. It takes ME, the admin, a few minutes more, but it certainly reduces the number of user support requests I have to handle.
/usr/local standard, it was the preferred location under BSD and EARLY SysV, but the intention was that it be used for non-standard apps on the LOCAL machine. The common practice of placing SHARED non-distro apps in an nfs-mounted /usr/local filesystem has led to the original practice being deprecated in favor of /opt in later versions of the Single Unix Standard. I would prefer to see this reversed and get /usr/local back to its original use and put site-wide shared apps in /opt, but who's going to listen to an admin who's actually IN the trenches on a daily basis?
As for the
utter rubbish
This is not a flamebait. Can BSD users, especially OpenBSD users, tell me how BSD is better than Linux? Like specific points. And does it support as many hardware as Linux - especially Nvidia and ATI graphic cards? And what about support for applications - does it support as many OSS apps as Linux? After they're all *nixes, so I believe they do. And, of course, can you explain to me how BSD, especially OpenBSD, has better security? Is it just default setting or something more? And I'd like to know about these from the perspective of a user, developer and developer of the OSes. Thank you.
I quit using Linux about a month ago opting for OSX. JWZ did the same thing about a week ago. Now this guy is knocking linux, and wouldn't you know it: he works on a BSD.
Direct away from face when opening.
the kernel of OpenBSD really is lagging Linux in a few areas, number of architectures supported and hardware devices on those architectures. smp is quite new & experimental in openbsd, and not for all architectures. Theo should remember that openbsd wasn't designed and built from scratch, there's about 24 years of code Theo inherited when he threw a hissy fit and forked away from NetBSD. Linux was built from the ground up, and yet now works on more hardware and devices than openbsd: maybe there's a wee advantage to having 100's of developers rather than 60? Anyway, I love OpenBSD, great for internet servers and dedicated network appliances, but it's not for the desktop and its not a general purpose business enterprise Unix-substitute platform, it can't handle being a 8 or 16-way Oracle or J2EE server, for example.
This seems all rather mean spirited. I like using Linux, but I don't hate Microsoft. I do believe that any company with true monopoly power in a vital sector is a bad idea. BSD is probably great, but I really like that Linux is compatible with all my hardware and that it's point and click easy to install everything that I want without having to have a lot of additional knowledge about scripting etc. (although I have just begun to study shell scripting and there are some really cool things you can do with it).
I prefer to use a mac.
*commence random mac user bashing*
I use Linux for some things.
I use OpenBSD and FreeBSD for other things.
On the job I use Windows because they pay me to do so.
What bothers me is someone trying to cram THEIR preferences down my throat at least on my time and nickel.
I personally don't give a rat's ass who is cooler (Linux or BSD users). Just in case yer interested, I kiss girls, probably all your girlfriends and wives while you are all busy hunkering down infront of your computers tap tap tapping into slashdot reply forms;-)
Have a nice day.
[sysadmin@dhgsrv17 sysadmin]$ /sbin/lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: ServerWorks CNB20LE Host Bridge (rev 06)
00:00.1 Host bridge: ServerWorks CNB20LE Host Bridge (rev 06)
00:01.0 RAID bus controller: LSI Logic / Symbios Logic 53c895 (rev 02)
00:03.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc 3D Rage IIC 215IIC [Mach64 GT IIC] (rev 7a)
00:04.0 System peripheral: Compaq Computer Corporation Advanced System Management Controller
00:0f.0 ISA bridge: ServerWorks OSB4 South Bridge (rev 51)
00:0f.1 IDE interface: ServerWorks OSB4 IDE Controller
03:04.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corp. 82557/8/9 [Ethernet Pro 100] (rev 08)
03:05.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corp. 82557/8/9 [Ethernet Pro 100] (rev 08)
Now that was hard, wasn't it?
But, just for the record, I'm definitely a Linux guy. I'd switch, but I just don't have any reason too. Runs fantastic, supports my hardware, and I know it more than well enough to keep it patched, updated and running.
Lets all just agree on a proprietary unix we hate, like SCOwarez or something, and we can all just trash them, together.
Wow. That guy is a complete ass! Are you kidding me? Linux is the 'nix in the spotlight getting the chicks -- Im a 37 year old devout Linux enthusiast w/ a 25 year old girlfriend.. 'Whatever - 'BSD nerds.. :P
Fact: Everything 'cool' happens to Linux first.. Have you looked through the enhanced security stuff in recent kernels? Ever took a look at Gentoo Linux's Portage? Ever tried to do 'multimedia' stuff on a BSD box? Ever played 'Enemy Territory'? IS there even hardware accelerated graphics support on a BSD?!?
My main desktops at home and work are both Linux - and they're FAR more stable than my Windows environment. BSD for a desktop OS - are you kidding me?
That guy needs to shut up - he's bitter because the Linux world is sooooo much more cool..
-- NeTMoNGeR
I don't think there are any best practices that carry over at the kernel level. What matters to me, as a user, is the user experience. The fact that I can't just click something and get postscript viewer support easily in Linux, etc.
The KDE and Gnome projects could do with running Windows (and MacOS).
Another fine article by Dan Lyons. Theo says a lot of silly things in his usual abusive manner that once again demeans any content, and is selectively quoted to make it look as bad as possible for Linux.
Could we please have a disclaimer in the summary?
Forbes' headline contains no quotes or atribution. It's their own words. You may believe the headline incorrectly depicts the thrust of De Raadt's comments, but it is a legitimate headline.
Slashdot, however, by adding the "according to..." phrase, incorrecly and inappropriately linked De Raadt with the "loser" connotation. At best, that's just sloppy. At worst, it unethical deliberate tabloidism.
Par for the course, really.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
51
~$
Change wc -l to less to see some of those comments, they're actually pretty amusing. 5 gets you 10 you have similar ones in the BSD kernel source.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The article was dead on when it compared this silly bickering and name calling to the Ford versus Chevy battle. Nothing comes of it, and people looking from the outside just see two drunk white trash slobs driving rust buckets with superficial differences.
;)" The RTFM guy berated me for putting f in the middle and not as its own swithc. The reason for this is that GNU tar is a bit more lax in its parsing than other tars, and to tell this guy to tar in this manner is to spread bad practices.
While reading this article I was reminded of a guy I met in ##freebsd on freenode. Somebody new to the *nix way of life hoped on channel and asked how to tar and compress a directory. This guy shot off "RTFM" which only alienates new users ( Have you seen the tar man page? Jesus. ) So I shot off a quick "tar cfz foo.tar.gz foo/ but read the man page
Was the RTFM guy right or wrong? Who cares? Both ways work, its just that the if the new guy used a non-GNU tar he'd have to RTFM. The difference is superficial and RTFM guy was just one half of the white trash pair arguing about his truck.
Question: Linux or *BSD, which is better?
Answer: For what? --or-- Grow up you stupid asshat.
What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
I know a lot of people don't know this, but it's a slur on Jewish people:
http://www.google.com/search?q=crikey+jews+slur
From the Forbes article:
Simon Lok, who holds a doctorate in computer science, took a close look at the Linux source code. "You know what I found? Right in the kernel, in the heart of the operating system, I found a developer's comment that said, 'Does this belong here?' "Lok says. "What kind of confidence does that inspire? Right then I knew it was time to switch."
Obviously Lok isn't a programmer, degree or not. Just that fact that someone questions the existing code in my mind is a positive thing. The idea that code is "better" because it doesn't have a comment or noone is questioning the status quo is ludicrous.
Yes comments can be meaningfull, but I'd put more stock in the quote if he had stated that X was in the CODE which would cause problem Y rather than this tripe.
I would hope that Lok's comment was taken way out of context, but in my experience dealing with the "ivory tower" mentality of doctorate holders (Educated Idiots) I doubt it.
Isn't BSD dying or something?
A Linux developer is paid back by the work of every other developer ever to modify his code; a BSD developer is not: some devs will contribute their code back and some will not.
I noticed that Forbes also had a nasty article about free software in relationship to JBoss and a recent IBM acquisition. Methinks they've bought Microsoft's party line that the BSDL is superior to the GPL.
so losen up.
Is this likely? Well, yeah. OpenBSD's emphasis is on being audited, auditable and free of exploits. (Not quite the same as free of bugs, as there are known DoS vulnerabilities in the code that have been given a low priority.)
OpenBSD is also consistant across platforms. LWN linked to comments by him to the effect that Linux has too many filesystems and that distributions haven't standardized on one. It is certainly true that it has a lot and that there is no guarantee any Linux distribution will (out of the box) read disks produced by any other Linux distribution. I don't personally see this as a defect, as it means that Linux can be tailored to suit a problem, rather than the other way round, but I can also see that others may well regard it as a problem.
In other words, any such comments by any person should always be regarded relative to the standpoint of that person. Otherwise, you lose the context in which the remarks are made.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I tried really hard to make BSD work on our hardware. I finally gave up and tried Linux at another friend's suggestion. It just worked.
And yet when people same the same thing linux/windows, linux advocates blow their stack.
The BSD community chased people away (that's not an indictment of the community, it's just the effect of how things were handled).
And lots of people searching for help get chased away by the linux community. Especially on Usenet.
I was flamed by a core BSD developer for not just writing a driver. HELLO! I need to run a business, not write drivers!
Actually, I'll just stop going through it. But the parallels should be immediately obvious.
Netcaft Confirms it! The server that served up those vitriolic words is apache running on linux boxen.
... but that's really not an excuse to act like that. If LT talked like that I'd seriously consider finding a new OS. It speaks of bitterness and an attitude that goes back to an old school unix bred elitism that i've not seen in years... and certainly not from anyone in the Linux community.
If OpenBSD wants to know why it's not as popular as it could be, I don't think they need to look any further than Theo's attitude.
Shadus
That this isn't so much a Ford vs Chevy arguement... but more like Chevy vs GM. Oh, and... "Theo is teh ghey! L12nux r00lzzzzzz!!!"
MadOgre.com
When I compile software, I *always* compile on a dev machine as a package, test it to make sure that it works properly, then install the package on the production system. The package gets integrated with the rest of the system, so I don't have to worry about it. There is no real additional work for me (in fact, if it's destined to multiple machines - which is almost always, then there is less work for me), and no additional support requests I have to handle.
/usr/local (typically one-off utilities that don't require config files, etc.)
Only in very rare circumstances do I put things in
okay. first of all, linux is not for losers. do i agree with some of his comments? sure. linux does need some work. is openbsd a superior OS to linux? i wouldn't say that because they are designed for two different purposes. but theo needs to tone down the hatred, a bit.....
also, theo, i use linux for the openness. personally, i don't hate microsoft. i could care less about them. i don't even think about them.
"Right in the kernel, in the heart of the operating system, I found a developer's comment that said, 'Does this belong here?'"
OMFG!!
Things like OpenSSL and OpenSSH. Last time I checked, those two products have had almost as many critical security issues as sendmail. As a former manager of QA for a fortune 100 software company, that doesn't sit well.
In all fairness, I depend on those products... but I think if somebody started a true free version (i.e. GPL version), I just might switch to avoid the security issues (depends on the fundamental soundness of the architecture of course... there are some bad GPL'd things that are similar to OpenSSL/OpenSSH in quality).
If someone were to ask me what mission critical piece of software I've had to patch the most often over the past 3 years, I'd have to say OpenSSL and OpenSSH.
I know that might sound silly, after all, OpenBSD has the perceived reputation about being the "most secure"... but I'm sorry, the metrics are NOT in their favor on this one.
Still.... that's better than a commercial package where the bugs only exist when/if the vendor chooses to tell you about them.
My advice to Mr. De Raadt.... a wise man is one who is slow to speak.
Ditto, GNOME. Ditto KDE. Is the new development model really "let's keep chucking more features into the mix rather than making sure the featues we need work properly?"
That said, Linux does appear to have broader support for hardware, making it a more viable domestic platform than *BSD.
I'll switch to a better platform whenever there is sufficient support for DOOM 3, Neverwinter Nights and the various gizmos littered around my house.
Or, if I give up gaming, I'll just get a Mac.
... Linux is for posers... The majority of those using linux are doing so because they think it makes them 7337 (or whatever). There lots of legitimate uses for linux, but at this time none of them involve a "home" computer. I, in my quest to see what all the fuss is about, have tried Debian, Mandrake, Gentoo and Mepis varieties. So far Mepis hit closest to the mark for a home solution. The problem is all of them have little problems which cannot be fixed by a nice little configuration box. It is difficult for the home user to go in, learn the language, and edit some config file to fix every little problem that presents it's nasty little head. This is why the mighty and bloated "windblows" continues to dominate. Any idiot (myself included) can install it on pretty much any hardware and get it configured and working properly in a few hours. I tried for the better part of a week to get all the little problems with Mepis cleared up. Finally, in frustration, I went back to that dirty old whore M$ Windows XP. For those who care what problems I had this last go 'round, here's the list:
Grub not configured properly by config program (fixed)
No RAID support
No Hotswap USB support
Disappearing Tuner Card Driver
Disappearing Mail folders (to be fair Mozilla's problem)
Disappearing Favorites (again Mozilla's problem)
I am sure that If I stuck with it for a few weeks, I could have resolved all these issues. The thing is, I could move a dumptruck load of sand with a teaspoon, but that doesn't make it a viable solution.
Just for the record, the Mepis Live Boot CD is TITS!!! Makes me wish the rest of the experience had been so smooth.
Well, I guess I've spent my two cents.
The problem with BSD is not the technology, it's the license. The BSD license offers no protection for companies who want to work with them. The BSD license basically says "anything you give to us may be taken by your competitors, put under a closed-source proprietary license, extended to make it incompatible with your original version (a la MS Kerberos), and used against you." The GPL, on the other hand, encourages a culture of equality. What IBM donates under the GPL stays under the GPL, thus Microsoft can't close it up and use it against IBM. They have to keep it open, and release their improvements when they release their new code. GPL'ed code has got to stay as open as when the original author wrote it, and thus isn't a tool of unfair leverage for the mega-corporations of the world. The GPL at least offers companies who want to encourage openness some assurance that they are levelling the playing field; the BSD license offers them nothing in return for their work except the certainty that their generosity will fuel proprietary software which may compete with their own offerings.
I love OpenBSD, but I've never understood their addiction to their "weak" license. I've thought about it, and it's business suicide. They have no chance of ever getting a foothold in the market based on their featureset because anything they do can just be co-opted by Microsoft, Apple, and whoever else wants to take their code, close-source it, and sell it with a pretty front-end. To contribute through the GPL, however, is to make a capitalistic deal with the world: "I have created this product, and on these terms. If you want to deal fairly with me on these terms, and reciprocate, then good. We have a deal." The creator stipulates the terms that the code is to be used: open, free, fair, and transparent. The BSD guys stipulate pretty much nothing, save an ego stroke attribution line.
So, Theo, if anyone's an "unpaid workforce", it's the BSD guys. The GPL guys get code back when theirs is used. You get nothing. The GPL guys are expanding the size of the pool of GPLed software out there in proportion to the amount of proprietary software. For every piece of BSD licensed software, 10 corporations probably take their code and use it to strengthen the proprietary software world. So if I have my choice between the excellent technology of OpenBSD or the pretty good technology and the code freedom security that comes with GPL-licensed Linux, I'll contribute to Linux. At least I know my code won't strengthen my competitors -- unless they seek to become more open as well and accept the terms of the GPL.
Here's my take on how the licenses play out in "real life":
BSD Versus Proprietary
It's high noon on Bootable Hill. Tumbleweeds are floatin' by and the sun beats down. In the middle of the street, Chuck Berkeley faces off with his arch-enemy, Billy Proprietary (I know, I know. The names suck. So sue me). They stare off for a moment, then Chuck remembers his ideology. Chuck lowers his guns in true Gandhi style. BANG! Billy takes the opportunity Chuck offered, and shoots Chuck in the head. Yay. The bad guys win again. Our hero didn't think it was "ethical" to protect himself against the bad guy and is now dead. Evil reigns supreme and Cthulhu consumes the earth.
GPL Versus Proprietary
It's high noon on Bootable Hill. Tumbleweeds are floatin' by and the sun beats down. In the middle of the street, our hero, Richard M. Tuxman, Esquire faces off with his arch-enemy, Billy Proprietary. They stare off for a moment, then Tuxman remembers his ideology. Tuxman calls out: "Billy, I'll lower my guns if you lower your guns in return. It's your choice." Proprietary
It's always helpful to set up up a strawman representing somebody else's motivation for doing something and then criticize it. Sweeping assertions of this kind are best.
Attn: Leatherman Board of Directors
Dear sirs,
It has come to my attention that your CEO was asked in a recent interview to compare your flagship product with ours. Apparently, he had the balls to assert that he prefers your tools. Therefore, I am taking this opportunity to respond in kind.
Blowfish screwdrivers are made to the most exacting standards possible, with the finest materials available, including custom titanium alloys. The handles are made from genuine Chilean mahogony. Every component is crafted to micron precision and individually tested by our crack team of screw-turners. There is obviously no finer mechanism in the world for turning screws than a Blowfish screwdriver. I am incensed that your CEO suggested that he prefers using a Leatherman.
Compared with our product, yours is of shameful quality. No doubt you will continue making additional 'doodads' available for your product instead of addressing these quality issues.
Sincerely,
Theo DeRanged
CEO
Blowfish Screwdrivers
include $sig;
1;
Hehe. This guy is obviously a great coder. Too bad he's such a total dickhead.
This article really highlights Theo's personality problems, and may shed some light on why NetBSD summarily kicked him out on the street. Here's the first email he got from the core developers after he complained that they shut down his CVS access:
Over the past year and a half, we have received a considerable number of complaints about the fact that you seem to harass and abuse both users and developers of NetBSD. At various times, some of us have suggested (with varying levels of severity) that you cease this behaviour, but this has been ineffective. Indeed, you have given us scant reason to believe that your behaviour is ever going to change for the better.
Your abusive actions have seriously impaired the success of the NetBSD project in several ways. Your actions have driven away developers or potential developers, and have alienated many users. They have also squandered much of the good will that various people have directed at the project.
Finally, it is clear that for the project to be a success, we must promote a positive environment for both users and developers. If we continue to allow you, an official representative of the NetBSD project, to behave in this manner, we create the perception that we approve of your behaviour. That perception is damaging to the project and cannot be allowed to persist.
Because of these things, we believe that it would be in the best interest of the NetBSD project if you were to resign all official association with the project. We request that you resign from the NetBSD core team, resign as the maintainer of the NetBSD SPARC port, and post a message to the "netbsd-users", "current-users", and "port-sparc" mailing lists announcing your resignation. If you choose not to post such an announcement within one day (by 9:00AM, 12/21/94), we will be forced to inform the public about your removal from the organization ourselves.
We regret having to do this, because you have done a significant amount of very good work for the project. In spite of that, we can no longer condone your behaviour. We wish for this parting to be as painless as possible; we have disabled your accounts on the NetBSD development machines and have removed you from the "core" and "port-masters" mailing lists, but have left your subscriptions to other NetBSD mailing lists untouched. We have no objection to your further participation in NetBSD, as long as you participate in a mature manner and make clear the fact that you no longer officially represent the NetBSD Project.
Of course, now no one can kick him out of OpenBSD, so I guess he's found the one role that'll work for him. Luckily, it's irrelevant during the 364 days this year when some idiot at Forbes didn't decide to upchuck a completely assinine, one-sided bullshit flame from a proven asshole, and then call it a news story.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
No, no, Linux is the bastard child of Unix. When will people get it right?
BSD has a reputation for stability, speed, reliability. Generally good quality releases (ignoring 5.x FreeBSD) and a slow, steady release cycle.
Linux has a reputation for very rapid development and deployment of new features and probably the widest support base for hardware of any Unix-like operating system in existance. In this sense it is the Microsoft of Unix-like operating systems. It's got lots of users and lots of developers who are focused on innovation instead of quality.
Which is better? I don't give a shit.
If I need a hardened firewall or a very reliable server i'll choose to use BSD. But if I need a SOHO server, a desktop or workstation, an embedded platform, a development platform, something small, something portable, something simple, something flexible, or something with support for whatever hardware or software I want to use, i'll choose Linux.
P.S. Remember that Theo is a very controversial figure who likes making big deals out of things, like boycotting dozens of major hardware manufacturers or software companies because they can't legally open some specification.
On what OS is it necessary to open the case to see what's inside? Solaris, *BSD, linux distros, Windows - all come with utilities to show this information.
It's about time someone spoke the truth about Linux... I think I might investigate OpenBSD as a result!
It would be just as meaningless and filled with haste.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
As a Windows fanboy who's kinda warming up to OSX and Redhat Linux (ignorant of other distros), it's kind of interesting to watch the apparent flamewars between *BSD and Linux.
First, there's the major hangup over the name - GNU/Linux or just plain Linux. Then there's the "our history is better than yours" or "our software is freer than yours" flamewars that are perpetuated everywhere. Ideally, open source was NOT a battle between egos, but it seems each OS is a huge battle between the spokespeople (De Raadt vs. Torvalds vs. Stallman).
How about a usability study (with young kids for example) with Windows XP and OS X as a control? Or a side-by-side comparison of security issues between the *NIX OSes ranked in an objective manner?
Is the F/OSS movement (within the OS space anyway) really about the community or a religious battle between egos?
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
I would only tend to agree with him on that point. Linux really needs a new paradigm in the UI. Chasing Windows is not a way to really win acclaim. What ends up happening is what is happening now, comparison's to Windows.
Hey, I just used the first PC Unix to support MY hardware.
That is as meaningless as the user who says they use Windows because it supports their hardware, that Linux could but does not.
To be cleaer I'm not arguing against Linux. In the mid 90s I took two CDs home from the local computer swap meet. One FreeBSD and the other Yggdrasil Plug-and-play Linux. Coming from a BSD background I tried FreeBSD first on my 486DX2-66. Yddgrasil installed fine, autodetect and autoconfigured my ATI Mach32, SoundBlaster 16, and 3Com 3c509 (?) - a far better installation experience than anything I experience today with Linux. Later on I tried an updated FreeBSD and it installed fine. Since then I have not had a PC that Linux or FreeBSD failed to work on. Over the last 4 years OpenBSD has worked fine too but I've only been installing that as a server and not a desktop like Linux and FreeBSD. YMMV, I tend to lean towards quality components rather than least expensive.
Theo, word of advice, don't fall into the RMS trap. While you may be a decent coder, you're NOT the best. Concentrate on what you do best though, CODE. Leave the PR to those best suited for it.
Your interview comes off like some little kid whining because the kids on the playground want to use an old football with most of its strings gone, instead of your shiny new football.
More advice, make ISOs available, that way those of us that are mildly curious will find it easier to GET. Thats been the major deterrent to my trying it, no ISOs. Its difficult to garner financial support from the public when we can't try before we buy. No, I'm not interested in ordering CDs from some company, I have the bandwidth to download. Give me a reason to utilize it, and the means to try your brand of BSD.
I myself find uses for both linux and BSD. On my desktop computer I dual boot linux and WinXP (necessity) and for my pen testing and recon I use OpenBSD. To me it isn't an argument of what is better overall, but what is better for each specific use.
Linux is a great desktop/server OS because it is rapidly evolving and open source software is rapidly evolving around it. I don't think open source would be as far as it is today if it wasn't for linux. New applications are being released daily and this helps to serve both sides as it encourages people to seek other OSes than Microsoft. I was a windows guy for a long time, then i heard about linux. Fell in love with it and a devout user, but that in turn led me to BSD which I also found extremely useful.
I suggest that Bill Gates tries Linux.
:)
Now that would be fun to watch. He has a lot of talent, I bet he can even get it to blue screen.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
That being said, I personally do like
I have at least four NICs in the majority of my production servers (a couple of them have six). Linux is the easiest of the OSes to find this information for. There are plenty of ways; you can get at least as much information as you say BSD provides simply by checking the startup messages (do the command dmesg|more and see) or you can get far more extensive information from various places in the
I'm not sure what you are talking about, unless it's the henious *nix tradition of stupidly inconsistent device naming... which linux and several other *nix type systems are moving away from.
In any case, OS flavor wars are retarded and ignore the basic truth that different tools suit different uses and different users, and more importantly the meta-truth that software monoculture is bad. As beautiful as OpenSSH is, we need more independently developed codebases for secure transports. Even if you think BSD is Allah's Own OS, you still should do nothing to discourage the use and development of alternatives.
Theo's not an idiot. I bet he knows that saying those things will piss off the linux developers enough to fix any specific problems he mentions.
The Romans knew about this bogus argument. Just because he has motives for what he says doesn't mean that what he says is false. Better to address what he says than what he is.
K.
Theo is a paranoid, perfectionist, peckerhead. I say this in the most kind, loving manner possible, as I've got half a dozen OBSD boxes running on the internet right now, along with many more FreeBSD boxen and a few SuSe Linux machines that I'm learning to love.
BSD and Linux are different animals - on the development side BSD is like an American funeral home lawn - not a blade out of place, while Linux is more of an English garden, with all sorts of wild experiments happening.
I prefer BSD for server work because I like the discipline that exists in both development and maintenance, but I love the steady flow of GPL software that comes from Linux into the FreeBSD ports tree.
Both have an ecological niche to fill
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
'Does this belong here?' That is a valid question to ask. Who is the audience? The other people working on that section of code who know that portion of the code best.
It seems that Simon Lok would have been satisfied if the question had never been asked, since that would mean the developer was confident.
How about we put comments in the code that say, "Rainman style": "Yes, this definately belongs here."
That should satisfy Mr. Lok just nicely.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I'd like to try a *NIX where the first thing I have to do isn't to open a terminal and type barf --volapÿk -xxx -goatse narf.tar.bz2 loveTheBomb to install something. Oh, sure, I have no problem with it, but sometimes I sit there and I feel the frustration build up. I think "This would be so much easier in Windows". Then close my eyes and go "BLAAH-BLAAH-BLAAH!" before I reboot. I tried Fedora Core 4 the other day. The first thing I stumbled into was dependency hell. Boy, somebody should just take one of the open source kernels, preferably a modular one, and add support for the .NET, Win32 and POSIX APIs to it, do a kickass no-bloat GUI and turn the whole computer business on it's head with an OS that beats everyone and supports everything.
And how is this not developing code for free for commercial systems?
You could look at it that way, so what? Where I work, we use GCC for free.
Didn't this Rat guy also say the same thing about Linux?
I dunno, did he? It sounds like something he might say in the context of someone making the exact same argument you just made. The BSD license makes no pretence to protecting the code from being exploited for profit. Some people like to think that the GPL does, but many companies use Linux without paying those involved a dime. Some even sell products that use it.
They should stop giving away all their code and make em share.
I bet you love it when people try to cram their ideologies down your throat... Maybe you should stop worrying about being ripped off and code for the pleasure of coding. Relish the beauty of elegant algorithms.
The BSD license guarantees that anyone who has the source code will have your name. Isn't that enough? Well, maybe you're not happy with that, but coders who put their work under BSD are.
But even that lacks any indication of what the comment was talking about. Perhaps the comment author was wrong and whatever the comment referred to does belong in the kernel. Maybe some superfluous code makes it into the Linux kernel once in a while, but without more information it is impossible to tell if this really is junk code (as the article would have us believe) or something far more negligible -- not something significantly offensive to be worth considering to bolster the claims made in this article. This information has to come from those who posit the argument; readers shouldn't have to defend the speakers' arguments for them.
I blame Forbes for what went wrong in this article. Theo de Raadt has the experience, skill, and requirement to cite specific evidence to support his argument. But for all we readers know, he was never asked for such evidence. The article is written for laypeople, who know nothing about programming, yet the entire article hinges on one's ability to understand programming issues. Forbes should know their audience. This was a poor choice of article for Forbes to run and they executed it in a particularly poor way by not challenging their audience to try and keep up with the material which should have been presented.
Digital Citizen
While I think de Raadt is primarily complaining due to sour grapes, he does have some technical points. The BSD code is actually a lot cleaner than Linux code, so we really ought to be dedicating some effort to cleaning it up. On the other hand, OpenBSD doesn't support anywhere near as much hardware as Linux, so I guess it all evens out. He makes a point, though, that's worth discussing. We *should* be assessing what works in Linux and what doesn't, because that's how you keep an operating system great.
theo whines more than my fiancee. whine whine bitch bitch...i could have sworn i left her at home today, then i read this.
The GPL license makes it difficult to turn work done by Linux developers into "unpaid workforce". Just ask Apple.
You are confusing freedom with power. BSD and GPL are equaly free, BSD gives you power over your users.
Theo is an ass. A brilliant ass but still an ass. Hell, most of us in the BSD community love him for it. Someone who is willing to stand out there and come out with conherant and educated critiques of the problems he sees with Linux, which lets face it is pretty much the sacred cow of the "geek" masses. I have often said that Linux is not an OS, but is instead a religion. I say a religion because it would seem that most of the belief in the OS is purely faith based. Faith that they will fix the holes, faith that they will tune the kernel.. faith that Linux will EVER be a mature OS. Before I switched to OBSD I kept that faith since 1994 when I first incountered Linux.. I haven't exactly been repaid by results. OBSD has a solid focus and is extreamly mature within the confines of that focus. Linux has little or no focus, it is trying to be a generalist OS. As a result it ends up being a jack of all trades and a master of none. All this being said, it has come to a point where Theo's comments are having a detrimental effect on the OS. It is getting a name as a system where the developers are unapproachable and the founder is condensending and patronizing. That is just the way Theo is and, like I said, we do love him for it. However, it is time that OBSD got someone who can act as a media and community relations person. This shouldn't be a developer but someone choosen for both their technical skills and more importantly, their people skills. OBSD needs a friendly face that can explain our point of view without appearing hostile and confrontational. In addition it would free time up for Theo to do what he loves, develop and get him away from situations and questions that he obviously doesn't appreciate. Theo, we love ya, but it seriously is time to take a back seat and let someone else be the public face of our beloved obsd. You just keep comming out with software that beats the hell out of anything avalble in ANY market. With systems like PF and OpenSSH the PR will write itself. peace
Give me txt file configs any day of the week.
.net? you've got your .config files now which are pretty much the same as old .ini files 'cept in xml.
heard of
If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
Everyone is using it - and he feels like he has lost out - poor boy...
Oh well, what the hell...
The thing is, almost certainly the only reason you don't see similar comments in the Windows kernel source is because the source is not available.
Not technically available, but in the "stolen" Windows code we find comments like these:
First excerpt: "The (expletive deleted) alpha cpp compiler seems to (expletive deleted) the (expletive deleted) type "LPITEMIDLIST", so to work around the (expletive deleted) peice of (expletive deleted) compiler we pass the last param as an void *instead of a LPITEMIDLIST."
Second excerpt: "!!!!!!!IF YOU CHANGE TABS TO SPACES, YOU WILL BE KILLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DOING SO (expletive deleted) THE BUILD PROCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
So, I'm just saying that it happens everywhere.
Carthago delenda est!
Linux is absolutely shoddy, what with the ease it molds itself to every computing platform ever developed, its reliability and stability and cost.
*rolls eyes at Theo*
Whatever, dude.
If Linux is for losers and BSD is for Winners, I'll fight to stay with the losers.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Julius Ceasar told that the best way to win a war is to make divisions between your adversaries. Forbes is known to have crap articles that help ms shit and tell all kind of pseudo-lies. So don't fall into this trap and believe everything that is written. BSD and Linux are helping each others much much more than Ms will ever do or want.
As history has shown us, it is always the cheap inferior technology (MS Windows, VHS, internal combustion engine, etc.) that become the standard. If Linux truly is crap, it will probably go on to rule the world!
Where would we be if Wheel had hid her round rock in a cave instead of showing everyone how it rolls?
Sounds like he's rehashing the Cathedral and the Bazaar debate to me....hasn't it already been shown that Linux's Bazaar type development method is a surprisingly good one? The Linux kernel went from nothing in 1991 to relatively stable in 1993, after 10 years of no success. What a whiner.
If I had some mod points today, you'd get 'em, my man.
Theo's technical chops are excellent, but Forbes chose to concentrate on infantile name-calling (which Theo is perfectly willing to indulge in) instead of real issues.
You can just say 'ifconfig' or watch the kernel messages. There is never a reason to look inside the machine. Even if a driver didn't claim the device, you can lspci.
Besides, the new FreeBSD 5 network stack (and now others?) can rename interfaces, so you can have your ethN if you want. But I much like the BSD naming system because I can select cards by their purpose (put the cards which require the least CPU use where they'd be used the most, for instance) and then write packet filter / etc scripts appropriately, without having to keep a mental list of interface names unless I actually end up with more than one of a kind of card.
In Linux, sometimes (not all the time, which is the worst part) eth1394 and other virtual drivers can allocate eth0 instead of a card, so injecting them into your kernel config means you lock yourself out of the system unless you know what to expect and hack ahead. Making it a module avoids this tragedy, but then that's just a hack-around. In FreeBSD there's fwe and fwip, neither of which coincide with existing interface names, and so injecting the new driver does not require *ANY* tweaking of your configs. Same for the others, of course, but Free is the only one which has *two* firewire networking drivers, as far as I know.
This is a Very Good Thing. Very, very good thing. And is very consistent with the 'graceful updating' philosophy the BSDs tend to stick to. An interface name change without a hardware change can be a real showstopper.
If there was one thing on my wish list, it would be for the BSDs to have consistent interface/driver names between each other - I dislike having to distinguish ex/xl, rtk/rl, etc. depending on where I am. It makes porting otherwise identical pf scripts more tedious than it needs to be, even IF it only requires changing the variables at the start.
Sam ty sig.
According to the article, Theo and his team have their heads down, focused on making sure that OpenBSD is of the highest possible quality. This I do not doubt. But if so, when does Theo find the time to review the millions of line sof Linux source and decide that it is all crap? I have a full time job (and a wife and kid), and while I'm no super-genius like Theo (or Linux, or RMS) I sure don't have enough free time to vett the Linux source.
Let's face it, this is yet another Linux hit piece from Dan Lyons who tirelessly scours the globe for negative things to write about Linux.
What are these guys on?
Thanks, I knew I wasn't the only one that 'unlucky'. I once added eth1394 to a kernel config remotely and had to travel several kilometers to resolve the naming clash that arose because eth1394 decided to be eth0 (where in all previous cases it had been the last eth). Teaches me to keep backups of the last working kernel.
Sam ty sig.
BSD people just confuse me. They give away their code in such a way that those who use it owe them nothing back at all. Company X can take your code, change it significantly, make it into a popular product, and give you absolutely nothing back. To me that is bad design. In a world where people played fair it might work but in this world it's the same as bending over in a prison shower. It definately is a way to make sure you get used but it doesn't mean it's going to create a relationship that benefits everyone involved. The BSD system only keeps working as long as new people step up to be used. The GPL system forces users to become producers and helps define a community. It works because it is viral.
Maybe Theo is pissed because he lets himself get used and people still use Linux more? Would Linux be used as much and developed for as much if it wasn't GPL licensed? I don't think so.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
From the CEO's desk at Blowfish Screwdrivers ...
Made me laugh!
I don't usually mod +Funny, but I'd make an exception here, if only I had mod points.
-kgj
-kgj
Yeh, that's one of the 3 most popular TLDs, right?
Hard disks *do* it. A SCSI disk will be named differently to a loopback device which will be named differently to an ATA disk. Linux and BSD alike. The reason is that it's often very helpful to know what you can do with a device and what it is in your system given only its name.
If everything was hdX, and compiling an extra driver into your kernel changed the ordering (which does happen with Linux ethernet devices), you would be completely f'ed. You'd have to go grab a LiveCD and fix your bootloader and fstab and possibly other things in your rc scripts that deal with the drives directly.
Linux got one naming thing right: drives are named differently. But why they used letters instead of perfectly good numbers is beyond me. People might say 'omg what about bsd disk labels?!!1', that's to distinguish between the label and the partition (which is not possible in a purely numerical system - ad1s1e becoming ad1s11 is suddenly ambiguous).
Sam ty sig.
Where does he say "Linux is for Losers" ?
Ah, I see what you meant now.
I think a large part of this is perception, though. The core maintainers list for linux is a pretty closely knit team too, I imagine. How hard is it to get to that status level? Maybe it's as hard as getting to be an OpenBSD team member. I don't know, but that seems like a good guess.
Clears up common misconception re: GPL
Dear Mr. The Rat,
Thank you for your informative article. I'm with you. It's just no fair that a lesser-quality, piece of junk that you don't work on is so much more popular than your OS. And their users are just losers. I mean, come on, do they really know anything about computers at all?
Thank you for your informative article. </sacrastic strongbad voice>
Reading it, I first thought it was a joke based on the vitriolic, bitter nature of his comments and how blatantly silly he was.
Okay buddy, so you don't like Linux. DONT USE IT. Okay, so it's more popular than your flavor BSD. Whining like this does not encourage me to give BSD a shot. Demonstrate some features that an end user wants. Don't whine. Give us a reason to want to try it.
Really, I think Linus's reply just about summed it up: Mr. De Raadt is "difficult."
There is a genuine weakness to the open source world when it meets the mass market.
90% of computer users do not have the knowledge necessary to evaluate whether a piece of software is garbage or not. Because open source software can be forked and kept around by anyone, garbage often can't be removed. No matter how awful the code, someone will keep it alive.
This problem applies somewhat to the BSDs too; except that there aren't as many BSD distributions, so it's more likely that they'll all decide to remove a given piece of crap that should be removed. With Linux, there's practically no chance of getting something godawful removed from every distribution, because they all compete with each other for completeness. I mean, we still have sendmail, and RPM was even made part of the LSB. There are still IMAP servers that use mbox format, and one of them has such shitty code that it doesn't even check malloc return values for failure.
Actually, if we're talking about fundamental flaws in OSs, perhaps Theo could spend some of his time fixing BSD's syslog before he turns his attention to ranting about Linux.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Doesn't it seem ironic to you to have /usr/local be remote?
You'll know that anything shy of OpenBSD is crap because of Y number of issues, particularly security. He has some points but really misses the big picture when it comes to why people choose the OS that they do.
This is kind of a flamebait article. My BS O'meter pegged out after "Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix..."
That's another fun thing about Theo, he has about 20 quotes ready to go at a moments notice about how dumb something is. Theo's not anti-MS, he's anti-anything-but-openBSD.
:)
The parent post should get some Funny moderation scores.
Oh well. :) Can't take it, sorry. :) Linux trounces the *BSDs in performance and the sheer amount of supported hardware. It's difficult to see how *BSD can possibly measure up.
If you wanted to make the BSDs relavent, perhaps you should not have focused on these narrow bits of the industry: security, portability, etc and instead focused on the larger picture, which linux has been doing since day one.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
"De Raadt makes a rival open source operating system called OpenBSD. Unlike Linux, which is a clone of Unix, OpenBSD is based on an actual Unix variant called Berkeley Software Distribution. BSD powers two of the best operating systems in the world--Solaris from Sun Microsystems (nasdaq: SUNW - news - people )..." Wrong. Try ATT System V. How can you distinguish this article from some nitwits personal blog? I thought Forbes had editors and a reputation.
I like all UNIX and UNIX variant OSs. However my choice for primary home OS is OpenBSD. Why you ask, Theo is why. I really liked using GNU/Linux for a spell but everyone has turned on Stallman. Forgetting why it exists and what it is for. OpenBSD on the other hand i run by a madman, who is out of the closet about this. I like his attitude the full feature ness of the Distribution and the ease of install. If Stallman came off the preaching circuit and got to work writing code instead of alienating developers, one day i may switch to HURD. I like the GNU/GPL a little better then the BSD license, however not enough to make me choose one over the other. The Linux kernel is great and most of the users, developers, advocates, zealots are OK but some really have there heads right in their asses. OpenBSD has one primary spokesman leading the charge and he backs down to no one. He has done more to promote open source/free software then anyone else recently. And is on track to continue in being the voice Stallman once was and Linus has never been.
Rightists have aligned themselves with judeo-christianfascist theocracies that are the direct antithesis of their purported values.
Couldn't help but correct your sig there, you were WAY off.
God is real unless declared integer.
Erh, these locations varies depending on distro, and is usually even internally inconsistent. A nice thing about *BSD is that the locations is predictable.
Incidently, some of those .INI files could be written in lisp.
Theo's distinct lack of social interaction skills is *the* major factor holding back openBSD's adoption, imho.
Every now and again, i'm tempted to give it a shot, then he makes another outrageous talking out of his arse comment, having a cry about other people, and i'm reminded of why I've tried just about every other OS i can get my hands on, other than NetBSD as yet :D
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Ok, maybe not an idiot, but you should read up on him - he's definitely full of himself.
/* This is a gross hack */ /* I have no idea why, but this is necessary */
Comments in code?
Such comments sound bad to non-programmers, but they really don't mean shit. Anyone who gleans anything from comments like this is a fool.
You seem to contradict yourself by saying that you don't like having OS's install everything in /usr/bin, but then say you wan't /usr/local/ clear of anything used by the OS. Either the distro puts all apps in /usr/bin and keeps /usr/local (and opt) clean or puts core utilities in /usr/bin and apps in /usr/local or /opt.
If you use apt-get or emerge you don't have to worry much about this stuff.
If Linux is so bad, I can't seen it as a developer nor as an end user. As a matter of fact, if Linux was so bad, how come these benchmarks show Linux 2.6 outpeforming openBSD?
scalability benchmarks
why's the Linux guy married and getting it on while the OpenBSD guy is bitching about how Linux gets all the press? If I had to put money on who isn't getting laid, I'd put it on them de rat. Honestly, do you think he'd be so bitter if he had a girlfriend?
I'm not aware of any of those. Please elaborate.
If you are referring to the USA I think you need to look again and reconsider. Please note the policies and practices of real theocracies like the Taliban and illustrate the parallels between them and ours.
I jumped ship from the windows camp in 2000, and when I did I evaluated FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and 3 Linux distros to decide which one I would run on my home systems, which ones I would recommend to clients for solutions, etc.
I had 3 spare x86 boxes, and tinkered with all three OSs for at least 6 months.
I'm sorry Theo but the reason I use Linux instead of BSD has nothing to do with hating MS. I needed a better solution that was cheaper, I went looking, and Linux ran on 99% of my available hardware. FreeBSD while better than OpenBSD in the hardware support regard only supported about 60-70% of what I had at the time, and I could only get OpenBSD to even install on 1 of my spare machines, of course without sound or USB and I had to try 4 different NICs before I found a supported one.
Sure, the BSDs have better design, I agree, and I would love to run them, but if I'm limited to 10% of the available hardware and every time I need a new NIC I have to snoop around the store looking for that one magic NIC with the right chipset revision well I consider that a larger burden freedom-wise than MS places on its users. Stop yapping Theo and go write some firewire drivers, or whatever technology came out 5 years ago that your system still doesn't support.
This is a dog bites man story.
Theo is either the most arrogant and argumentative person alive or he's just got a stick rammed so far up his ass that it's interfering with his vision. Every article about him is about him arguing with somebody or being an ass about something else.
It sounds suspiciously like sour grapes. He should just do all he can in promoting OpenBSD and getting it more popular.
I use OpenBSD and Linux. Does this mean I've both kissed and not kissed a girl? Schrodinger's kiss experiment?
I find this whole argument very funny... I see many people on all sides of this who refuse to use one or the other for the fear that their coolness/geek factor would be lessened because they booted to Windows, or Linux or OpenBSD. I use each as a tool to achieve a tasking/function/need. I have two machines at my desk 1) WinXP pro 2) Fedora Core 2. Each is used about equally. I use the windows to maintain docs/email/administrative type functions. I use the Linux box for native X connections to remote boxes via ssh and sftp. I also use the built in server capabilities to host data and connections. Both are merely tools to use. I love PC gaming -- gotta go Windows on that one. I love to work effectively on my unix based systems (Many different releases) -- gotta go to linux for that one. This, I am better than you because I run Y operating system if just downright funny to me. If you are willing to limit yourself to one or the other then I say more power to ya. I will be the guy with the well rounded background in as many as possible so when a problem shows itself I know which tools to use to correct them. Ps... This reply was written on a WinXP pro box does that make me a loser/winner/cool/geek. So very confused. :-)
Cheers,
And someday, maybe openBSD won't be so slow.
This article has really made me see the light. It is full of unwaivering logic and factual critique of the Linux OS. I am now switching to OpenBSD. In fact, I will now be switching the entire Datacenter to run OpenBSD, and find a picture of De Rat to use as my desktop background.
Thank you Forbes magazine, once again you proved to mold and shape the direction of my life.
1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
Hm. I'll give you SCSI vs. ATA. But you don't get "maxtor" vs. "seagate." The disk devices are named differently for different types of disks. Not just different drivers.
I have no trouble with BSD disk labels et al. It was just annoying that my ethernet devices had odd (imho) names. It's nice to be able to assume that "the" network device (in a typical system) is called "eth0".
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
which was quoted on another discussion of this article elsewhere on the Net:
"On December 20 [1994], Theo de Raadt was asked to resign from the NetBSD Project by the remaining members of 'core'. This was a very difficult decision to make, and resulted from Theo's long history of rudeness towards and abuse of users and developers of NetBSD. We believe that there is no place for that type of behaviour from representatives of the NetBSD Project, and that, overall, it has been damaging to the project.
This decision was difficult to make because Theo has a long history of positive contributions to the project. He was the principal caretaker of NetBSD's SPARC support, and has written too much code to mention.
We are certainly willing to accept (and would very much like to see) future contributions from Theo, but we believe that it is inappropriate for him to be an "official" representative of the project any longer."
I'd say that pretty well takes care of that. Theo is apparently an asshole. That he prostitutes himself to Daniel Lyons, a know anti-OSS/Linux FUD merchant, seems to make it clear that this rant is to be ignored by anybody with a brain, whether you like the BSDs or not.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
You're fucking insane. OSX is FAR from secure. Look at some of the ridiculous vulnerabilites that sneak out:
= 30&c=12&op=display_list&vendor=Apple&version=&titl e=Mac%20OS%20X
Can read any file with at. (WTF APPLE!!)
Can get root by answering a DHCPREQUEST (Fucken eh, the next windows!)
You want more, visit here:
http://securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?o=60&l
And those are just disclosed! Depending on where you look, you can usually find more undisclosed OSX sploits than Linux.
Forbes is trying to increase their hit count. Don't help them - read the article here below.
In this article (below), you can see how Dan Lyons is trying hard to whip up trouble between BSD and Linux developers. When you read the article, distinguish carefully between what Theo de Raadt says and what Dan Lyons says.
Lyons inserts abusive and suggestive comments between de Raadt's fairly mild criticism of Linux. Consider that de Raadt is a very active proponent of BSD. Is it any wonder that de Raadt prefers BSD, which is his child?
Intelligent Infrastructure
Is Linux For Losers?
Dan Lyons, 06.16.05, 6:00 PM ET
NEW YORK - Theo de Raadt is a pioneer of the open source software movement and a huge proponent of free software. But he is no fan of the open source Linux operating system.
"It's terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.'"
De Raadt makes a rival open source operating system called OpenBSD. Unlike Linux, which is a clone of Unix, OpenBSD is based on an actual Unix variant called Berkeley Software Distribution. BSD powers two of the best operating systems in the world--Solaris from Sun Microsystems (nasdaq: SUNW - news - people ) and OS X from Apple Computer (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ).
There are three open source flavors of BSD--FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, the one De Raadt develops, which is best-known for its security features. In a sort of hacker equivalent of the Ford-versus-Chevy rivalry, BSD guys make fun of Linux on message boards and Web sites, the gist being that BSD guys are a lot like Linux guys, except they have kissed girls.
Sour grapes? Maybe. Linux is immensely more popular than all of the open source BSD versions.
De Raadt says that's partly because Linux gets support from big hardware makers like Hewlett-Packard (nasdaq: HPQ - news - people ) and IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ), which he says have turned Linux hackers into an unpaid workforce.
"These companies used to have to pay to develop Unix. They had in-house engineers who wrote new features when customers wanted them. Now they just allow the user community to do their own little hacks and features, trying to get to the same functionality level, and they're just putting pennies into it," De Raadt says.
De Raadt says his crack 60-person team of programmers, working in a tightly focused fashion and starting with a core of tried-and-true Unix, puts out better code than the slapdash Linux movement.
"I think our code quality is higher, just because that's really a big focus for us," De Raadt says. "Linux has never been about quality. There are so many parts of the system that are just these cheap little hacks, and it happens to run." As for Linus Torvalds, who created Linux and oversees development, De Raadt says, "I don't know what his focus is at all anymore, but it isn't quality."
Torvalds, via e-mail, says De Raadt is "difficult" and declined to comment further.
De Raadt blames Linux's development structure, in which thousands of coders feed bits of code to "maintainers," who in turn pass pieces to Torvalds and a handful of top lieutenants.
The involvement of big companies also creates problems, De Raadt says, since companies push their own agendas and end up squabbling--as happened recently when a Red Hat (nasdaq: RHAT - news - people ) coder published an essay criticizing IBM's Linux programmers.
There's also a difference in motivation. "Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix," De Raadt says. The irony, however, is that while noisy Linux fanatics make a great deal out of their hatred for Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ), De Raadt says their beloved program is starting to look a lot like what Microsoft puts out. "They have the same rapid develop
70% fall Liinux users are morons. 70% of all DOS(dows) users are morons. 1% of all *BSD users are morons.
Go figure!
I became very disillusioned with Linux. I've switched to OpenBSD and haven't looked back. The license is better. The quality is tighter. The focus is on security and freedom period.
I'm thankful for Theo and all the OpenBSD devs and the devs for the other BSD projects. They've really done great work. Thank you all.
This article is such typical "forbes" crap. Who is this magazine for anywyays? It reads like a mix of Harvard Business Review and your local supermarket Inquirer...geez!
"All free men, wherever they may live, are users of Linux, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words 'I am a Loser!'"
I think it's kind of funny that Theo is whining about how it's a shame that BSD lost popularity because of the lawsuit, yet, when I first started out trying to learn OpenBSD, I got pretty frustrated with his whole attitude of "If you're not smart enough to figure it out, go somewhere else" and "OpenBSD is developed by developers for developers and we develop only things we want." How the hell does that guy get the nerve to blame anyone/thing else for OpenBSD's unpopularity other than himself? What an idiot.
On the other hand, BSD does DOMINATE Linux. Everything that matters is better in BSD....who cares about a MS-imitating desktop OS? IBM and HP should get their crap together and start supporting the BSDs instead of Linux.
As for the /usr/local standard, it was the preferred location under BSD and EARLY SysV, but the intention was that it be used for non-standard apps on the LOCAL machine. The common practice of placing SHARED non-distro apps in an nfs-mounted /usr/local filesystem has led to the original practice being deprecated in favor of /opt in later versions of the Single Unix Standard.
/opt. Sun created it as an alternative to dumping everything under /usr. Its structure was originally designed to resemble Window's "\Program Files". (Just to be clear, I know it was the other way around). I didn't know the history of /usr/local and the name always confused me. In my mind, local means not networked. Most Linux distributions seem to define it as not maintained by us.
/opt), and a level for user maintained software (/usr/local).
/bin, /sbin, /etc, and /lib were for the system. /usr is for user programs. That's why there is still a /usr/games. When /usr started to look like a mess, Sun created /opt (which should have been under /usr as it contained user programs). However, /opt was a kludge that made a mess of the $PATH variable.
It seems like everyone knows a little piece of history concerning the file layout. However, I have yet to meet anyone who knows the whole picture (myself included). I know the history of
It seems to me that file layout needs some serious attention in the entire *NIX world. I'm not sure what the requirements are for other *NIX variants. However, Linux seems to require a level for the core system (/), a level for software maintained by the distribution that is not needed for the system (/usr,
Now I always figured that
Half dozen, one or another... The whole thing is a mess these days. Some have tied to redefine traditional meanings of file locations, others have held tight to the original meanings. Several people I've talked to have just given up and used their own meanings.
With Linux this will always be a problem. Don't like the layout? Start your own distribution. I can see where a more controlled environment might make sticking to your definition of a standard easier. However, if the standard is so open to interpretation, perhaps the standard needs a better definition.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
What Theo said:
""I think our code quality is higher, just because that's really a big focus for us," De Raadt says. "Linux has never been about quality. There are so many parts of the system that are just these cheap little hacks, and it happens to run." As for Linus Torvalds, who created Linux and oversees development, De Raadt says, "I don't know what his focus is at all anymore, but it isn't quality.""
Vote for Pedro
/me thinks I'm on to something...
"It's terrible...Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.'"
Hmm. Sounds a bit to me like some Linux users' attitude towards Windows...
Actually, I'd blame Dan Lyons for inventing "linux for losers," because he titled his article that way. Only a Microturd could even think that way.
The whole article is flamebait by a known shill. You might also note he describes BSD as "a rival OS," and tries to build up as much animosity as possible. Linux and BSD are both free software and the whole notion of "rivalry" makes no sense. I'd suggest that no one ever talk to the loser again. It's like being interviewed by SCO, you can't win.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
The more I think about it, the more I think this is exactly why I _LIKE_ Linux.
...)
As Linus said: "Perfection is the enemy of good"
As Theo said - "They have the same rapid development cycle..."
As that kernel hacker demonstrated, they'll fix a problem rapidly and come back later to improve whatever is most important to fix.
Is Linux better from an "example of how to code in a CS class" point of view? My guess is probably not. If I had to make a farm of 1000 servers running Apache, would I use FreeBSD? Probably. And I'm VERY glad Theo's folks do the crypto stuff that they do.
But Linux is a more common, popular and relatively supported target for vendors of all sorts (hardware, software..) which is MORE important. Ditto for OSX.
Windows only looses on this count because it's security architecture is completely atrocious and in a lot of ways functionally not multiuser (even if that's somewhat the fault of the apps, MS did not sufficiently influence it
Furthermore, this rapid development cycle means precisely that Linux tries more new things faster, so the combination of weird things you need - at any moment - is more likely to be in Linux. I want this. I want Xen support before BSD has anything like it (and a chroot jail is close but not sufficiently like it)
The best possible situation is that both groups exist - conveniently that's the situation today.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Agreed.
The iptables manpage might have a better structure and last time I checked there was no basic example provided; though there is at least one in the howtos. So the blame should be on the packager/distro (if they don't supply the howto) or the user (if he/she doesn't look there).
The state of the traffic shaping docs is indeed worse; probably because parts are now *really* outdated. For a long time 'wondershaper' was the main source of how to do this (right?) and it still needed a lot of variable tweaking.
I find the current docs are harder to read then the iptables ones, as you *should* know what your are looking for before reading; w/o a decent understanding of these things you *have* to read it all even if you only need parts of it.
Though I really think that both firewalling and shaping are non-trivial; easy-to-read docs would have to be *extremly* well researched and written, which is a difficult and time-consuming process.
So let me finish with two age old statements:
* You don't like the docs? Go write better ones; I am sure the current maintainers would like that. And don't forget to publish under a 'free' license, otherwise the distros won't/can't use it!
* If something is hard to write, it shouldn't be easy to read;-)
if you actually track the successful idea ratio, you'd see the advice in Forbes won't help you much - unless you inherited wealth - whereas Fortune will give you good ideas that actually work.
So I wouldn't worry about an anti-Linux article in Forbes - they're so far behind the curve that most real investors ignore them as fluff meisters, knowing they are totally clueless.
Expect to see an article in four years time on how Linux is the best thing since sliced croissants. They won't apologize for being wrong, they'll just pretend they supported it all along.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"Does this belong here?" is in OpenBSD too.
It would be a real scream if the comment that prompted the PHB to swtich from Linux to BSD was cloned from BSD to Linux. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I might be wrong, and it might be a nit to pick, but as I recall SUN made the shift from the BSD-based UNIX to the SVR4-based UNIX years ago...
If you had asked me a year ago, I would've said that every living person and/or thing in the world should use Linux. Yes, I was a Linux nazi, Tux's Right-Hand Man (one of a few thousand, anyway. Tux must have many right hands).
And I hated Windows.
I still hate Windows, but I don't trash it anymore. See, chosing an OS is just like choosing a distro - no one is better, per se. They all have their ups and downs, and it depends on what you want to do.
If you want to play video games, but don't care about computers, then by all means, use Windows.
If you like doing strange, wacky things like setting up your own clusters and servers, then by all means, use Linux.
If you like somewhere in the middle (ease of use, and stability) go with Mac.
If you want to use Linux, but have more percieved intellectual superiority, then by all means, use *BSD.
Whatever you use, it's a personal choice which should be determined by what you plan to do with the computer. Oh, and you should respect others' personal choices, too.
Theo's folks do OpenBSD.
FreeBSD for speed.
OpenBSD for security.
NetBSD for portability.
Why would you pick FreeBSD for a server?
I have installed FreeBSD but have not really learned it. For me anyway BSDs greatest problem is that there are a lot more places to learn Linux than to learn BSD.
I am comfortable in Linux.
Why wouldn't you run Linux for a server??? Google does?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
OK, if he doesn't want it in /usr/local, I won't be surprised if changing a minor flag in the ports system for BSD would fix that. But if they're using packages, I guess it is out of luck.
I'm well aware that I can find out which device is which from dmesg/proc or all the other places. But if you installed BSD in the first place, you'd know which card has which device name. Perhaps this Dlink would have xx0 and the other Dlink would have yy0. In Linux, it would be eth0 and eth1. Normally there wouldn't be any problem until you're trying to write a non-trivial packet filter script and don't really want to flip back and forth between a dmesg output and the script you're writing. Maybe it is just me with my bad short term memory, but I find that generally with difference device names I tend to remember which is the right ethernet port. And IMO this won't help in a corporate machine because most likely the NICs have the same chipset, and BSD would merely have xx0, xx1, xx2, xx3, just like Linux would.
I would damn well agree that to each their own, and software monoculture is bad. I don't pretend I'm a BSD zealot because I use Linux far more often than BSD. It's just that I found myself being more inconvenienced by the naming convention - and they're not consistent by far. I have a Orinoco wireless that goes by eth1, and for the longest time I thought wireless also goes by eth* until I got a new one, and it used wlan0.
For some reason I feel like getting crazy with the cheese wiz.
If I can load OSX onto my x86 PC, Linux is bye bye
I was having a hard time deciding between *BSD and *nix, but kissing girls sounds like so much fun I'm gonna have to choose *BSD.
The only way to tell the difference between a hamster and a gerbil is that the hamster has more white meat.
Wouldn't you want to run Linux for Losers?
Here is the link to Theo's archive on the matter:
Theo's side of the story
and a shorter commentary:
seems reasonable to me
The truth suffers more from convictions than from lies.
Mod parent up, it's one of the few actually knowledgable comments in relation to lok's "discovery".
Sigh, makes me kinda sad really.
If he is such an almighty great coder perhaps he should code himself some tact and eloquence.
I would rather run Linux which has a great community than run OpenBSD which is run by a complete prick. I feel sorry for OpenBSD developers and users. It is a decent operating system which has to suffer the disservice of its rude and inconsiderate commander.
It's a shame when a person with no consideration or social tact rises to the level Mr de Ville has.. I've seen it in the buisness world and it's a shame.
What I truely cannot understand is how a person like Theo can sleep at night knowing that his reputation is the most talented asshole in the project.
Who cares what he says. Every BSD and Linux is decent in its own right. It's the variety which empowers us all. I have not been one to listen to assholes ever in my life. A lesson which Forbes seems to be devoid of.
Forbes, LISTED.
Theo, LISTED.
Cheers ^_^
Have you ever heard of the Dominionists? Have you ever read the End Times novels? Have you ever done any kind of basic surface-level research on Christian Zionism, and the religious motivations for evangelical support of Israel?
A bit. But I fail to see how that has anything to do with our Republic being perceived as a theocracy... outside of crackpot anti-semitic conspiracy theories.
My support of Israel is purely political, as they are the only liberal democracy in an region dominated by monarchs and fascists.
Not all of us live in this ideal world where one can buy more expensive hardware just for compatibility with a product that one doesn't even use yet.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I made myself a bet before I ever clicked on the article. I thought "wow, sounds like a Lyons piece" then I clicked on it:
Is Linux For Losers?
By Dan Lyons
So the Linux is for Losers part is from Dan Lyons. That's no surprise. He's still smarting from the thorough debunking PJ of Groklaw did. Speaking of which, I'd advise checking over there to see if PJ has made any comment on this story.
Lyons has to know he could get some flamebait out of Theo (not to difficult, but try comparing this interview to the one Theo gave to NewsForge).
This is just a troll for hits. Nothing more, nothing less. Lyons has just been studying up on how to rile people up. Please ignore him.
I mean look: Lyons chose that headline, Lyons chose to interview Theo, Lyons helped Theo look bad (not hard, given Theo's reputation).
This is nothing more than a cynical bid to sell ads on Forbes. Just like when Dvorak said that Maureen O'Gara should've gotten a medal for increasing readership when she stalked PJ of Groklaw, this is flamebait from an idiot meant to rile you into mindlessly clicking a Forbes story and generating ad revenue.
Lyons is laughing at you all the way to the bank. Have the last laugh; blackhole Forbes and their advertisers in your DNS and tell others to do the same.
we set up a server running open bsd in 2002 or so. Within a few hours we found a root kit and an IRC server running on it. I'd go with free bsd, or linux anyday. open bsd is crap, and that's why he has sour grapes. maybe he should scrap his os and start over.
MOD UP!!
Seems like Theo can't come to grips with reality - design perfection isn't as important as making it work.
I think OpenBSD is pretty neat, but honestly, it's pretty crappy too. Unless you feel like doing a lot of research and compiling on your own, OpenBSD is almost worthless as anything more than the OS for low-end servers running open-source daemon software. If you're really not doing much it can also serve as a decent administrative terminal for other *nix boxes, but OS X or even Windows running Putty is a better choice.
I'm not defending Linux here, I just think it's nonsense for Theo to pretend that just because his extremely limited OS can run free software on shit hardware most people would throw away and be virtually ownage-proof in a default configuration does NOT make it a good operating system for the vast majority of computer users.
Theo has been paying his dues and developing a rack solid OS for a long time. I have enormous respect for his contribution. At this point in time security and extensive technical knowledge go hand in hand. If you want security become an expert and run OpenBSD. Also, the blow fish t-shirts, that Theo sells, are way cool.
in only 30 minutes. Whoa, he must have struck a nerve. This may rival Apple switch to intel as the most commented article this year.
Its sad that we get suckered into this flamefest anytime one OS leader says the other OS suck. Examples include Torvalds say Mac OSX/BSD suck, Alchin say Mac OSX and Linux sucks, and Steve Jobs say Windows sucks. Then there is all the OS are dying crap from so called tech analysts. We should grow beyond this by now considering how many times this happens.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Have you ever looked at the BSD section on slashdot? Not only is it full of constant BSD bashing troll bullshit, but there's genuine FUD from linux users all the time about how BSD is so hard, and how its so slow, and how it can't do all sorts of things that it does just fine.
The BSD users who bash linux are a small minority of people who like to stir up shit for no reason. The linux users who bash BSD are a small minority of people who like to stir up shit for no reason. There is no reason to treat either group of tards differently, or to act as though the normal users of either OS are to blame for having idiots also use the same OS.
I had exactly the same ephimamy as the parent's parent. I was given a choice in 1995 on what to run on a spare machine. I went to the Uni's computer lab with a box full of floppys and started downloading BSD, went home and started installing.
Well part of the installation worked. Once I got past some of the quirky installation issues BSD (I don't recall why but partitioning hard drives seemed to be a bitch), some hardware simply didn't work the most glaring was the video card and network card. VESA was supported but it was clearly lacking in performance and without a network card what is the point? I poked around on Yahoo on another machine (what is Google?) for more information and even tried a BSD irc channel. I was basically told in so many words "if you aren't a hardcore coder, you don't deserve our help". That is just "great" since my interest was getting the machine working not coding and their elitist attitude finally caused me to give up.
So back to the lab to download another piece of software called Linux (Slackware I believe!). The rest is history because it just worked. When it came to configuration questions, for instance X had to be configured by hand, I found people willing to give me hints. I worked through it and ended up with a functional machine video, NIC, and all.
To this day I point to this initial impression of BSD as the reason why I shy away from BSD as my first choice in machine deployment. The attitude of the BSD community has probably changed a lot in 10 years but I still can't shake the feeling I'm going to be slapped with elitism again if I run into a problem with a BSD installation.
OpenBSD was pretty obscure, despite everyone using openssh. As Theo has been more and more provocative, openbsd has gotten more and more publicity. The number of people using OpenBSD is WAY up in the last few years. Believe it or not, any publicity really is good publicity, and alot of people use products based on the product, not the person who made it, so people find out about openbsd because of this stuff, and then ignore this stuff and use openbsd because its good.
NetBSD kicked him out because they thought him being mean to users would scare away their userbase. OpenBSD long ago surpassed NetBSD for number of users, so maybe speaking your mind isn't the worst thing in the world huh?
It is official; Netcraft has confirmed:
OpenBSD is dying.
You only start bashing others when you know you're on a sinking ship.
It is official.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
> "Linux people do what they do because they hate
> Microsoft. We do what we do because we love
> Unix," De Raadt says.
Bingo... I'm sick to death of Stallman and
the GPL and Anti-Microsoft zealots. But besides
that, DeRaadt is also right about the Linux
development/test/release process resulting in
crap. Bingo...
I wouldn't be suprised if Bill Gates and Forbes' CEO are in a room somewhere, giggling. I almost wouldn't blame 'em.
I wonder how many linux users think Forbes magazine is for losers.
Good post. Very informative. Would read again.
After all, I am strangely colored.
I have personally more faith in NetBSD. Strange that noone recalls the ibcs2 kernel overflow. obsd had a straight stack overflow, but nbsd code checked this properly and therefore wasn't vulnerable. Noone recalls apachenosejob.c where #obsd dev couldn't even manage to make it work on their own machine, and hence denied that it actually worked? what about shutuptheo sshd heap overflow ? and the non-exploitable format string in talkd? what about privsep if you can break it so easily with a kernel select() int overflow bug (or other undiscovered one)? is it openbsd or wide openbsd (http://wideopenbsd.org/) ?
don't believe what you're being told to believe.
Theo is really good at making people angry. Sometimes, that's angry enough to get out and fix a problem (such as security issues) but just as often they'll tell him to fuck off.
But he's a good attack dog for the open source movement: He can yell and scream at vendors and make the Linux people look calm and collected by comparison.
Just for the record, I use both OpenBSD and Linux (and other OS as well). There's some really good stuff in OpenBSD. There's also some things that Linux does better. Or, I should say, operating system using the Linux kernel.
Theo says that the BSD lawsuit made people flock to Linux. Nope, that wasn't it for all of us: when I was getting involved back in '92, it was the fact that Linux would run on lesser hardware. Specifically, it was that I needed a math coprocessor to run BSD but Linux would run fine on my 80386SX at 16 mhz. I remember seeing somewhere that Alan Cox chose to work on Linux for the same reason. More broadly speaking, Linux was more egalitarian in its hardware support.
I think that Linux success has been largely due to the social impact of the GPL license.
.... you are not a Comp Sci PhD ....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Proper application use of registry is to write local machine settings in HKLM and user settings into HKCU. Network based applications write to the servers HKLM and user specific settings to the HKCU. In fact the HKCU tree is pulled in over the network in a NT domain.
.INI files that people just like you used to bitch about because they got scattered all over the machine. Just like on linux, i have config files in /etc, /usr/local/etc, ~/, ~/.application, /var/something and a number of other places depending on which application we are talking about. Not that this is nessisary bad, except when application vendors put them in the wrong place. This is the same as the registry, when your running as administrator and you nice new application writes to HKLM when it should have written to HKLU its the same problem. You can find these applicatons in windows by running without permissions to update HKLM same as you can run linux/unix without permission to modify /etc/something.
Just because you don't understand the registry rules doesn't mean that its missing all these concepts you think it should have. As another poster pointed out the registry is an extension of the old
These movements are theocratic movements. Combined, they're massively powerful in this country, loosely counting upwards of 30 million Evangelicals. Their leadership is very much intent on moving towards a Christian State which does away with many democratic ideals in favor of biblical law. These are not isolated groups, they're very large, very influential, and very, very well-funded.
The US is not a theocracy, but just because that's the case now doesn't mean that the threat does not exist from within. The threat not only exists, but has been building incredibly in the last two decades.
(As for Israel, I don't argue with people about that anymore. The information about the occupation is out there, and I'm done going back and forth with people who have never been to the occupied territories as a non-combatant, as I have.)
Well, in an ATA topology, you can tell what your device will be named just by its position (e.g. primary master will always be hda), but with network devices where you can have virtual devices, busses on busses on busses on bridges on busses, and sometimes even arbitrary order (I have a motherboard where the PCI slots are enumerated in the opposite order to all others I've seen...), having more clues on which card is which is very helpful. In disks, who cares if it's the Maxtor or the Seagate? You should know by the capacity, and if not that, then the order you arranged them in your machine. But since there is much less consistency in the PCI world, all you have to go in is little bits of identification, almost all of which are stripped when you ifconfig (but fortunately some remains in kernel messages - if the driver is kind to you, which not many Linux network drivers are). Most distros will give you pciutils to investigate further. However, if you're not using modules, /proc/modules is useless, and /proc/bus/pci/devices isn't very handy either.
/usr/local is much sillier still. These replies are much ado about nothing :)
But all of this is relatively moot anyway: a competent admin will only be slowed by at most a minute by naming confusions (but they DO sometimes change later, for varying reasons), and there's also the chance of a BSD box having all PCI cards the same type (which is still better since virtual devices [fwe/fwip/etc..] are split out). The issue of
Sam ty sig.
I must say that openbsd is much cleaner. Scanning the code for "fuck" gave no results but linux gave all these: /usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.h:/* Am I fucking pedantic or what? */ /usr/src/linux/include/asm-parisc/spinlock.h: * writers) in interrupt handlers someone fucked up and we'd dead-lock /usr/src/linux/include/asm-m68k/sun3ints.h:/* master list of VME vectors -- don't fuck with this */ /usr/src/linux/include/linux/netfilter_ipv6/ip6t_l imit.h: /* Ugly, ugly fucker. */ /usr/src/linux/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_li mit.h: /* Ugly, ugly fucker. */ /usr/src/linux/include/asm-sparc64/system.h: /* If you fuck with this, update ret_from_syscall code too. */
:), OpenBSD is to conservative, like a little girl. So us Linux users can at least say that our kernel will kick your kernels ass and send it home cryingg to its mother!
I like a kernel with some spice to it though
All IRC users are dicks.
Looking for a helpful answer on IRC is like looking for a Democrat on Fox News or a Republican in Berkeley.
It's not a projects fault if some jerk decides to name an IRC channel after the project so he and his fan-boy friends of a particular project can hang out and be assholes.
If you go looking for help where assholes hang out, don't be surprised that when you get there, you find them instead of help.
- IRC Sucks
It speaks for itself.
politics and envy are a lot of this and FUD for windows . which speak of Chinese hacks with one hand and doing the blog censor for them with the other
Everything that article says is pure bullshit.
First of all, I am a Linux hacker, I actually maintain my own distribution, so may as well get that disclaimer out of the way.
Now to the point.
The whole time I've been using Linux I have never said anything about any BSD system. Ever. I've made plenty of comments about Windows, and even other Linux distributions (Mandriva, ...) but nothing about FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc. None of them. (Of course, my own distribution is perfect, it's just all the others I have problems with ;-)
So who gave this guy the right to attack a bunch of guys who put in a lot of hard work and often for nothing in exchange?
Also, I don't think they should complain about comments in code. I often put even stranger things in stuff I write and nobody complains.
So basically, to summarize...
No wonder it's spelled "B.S.-D".
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
Okay, let's just face it. Theo's right. He always is. That's just the way the world is.
Now let's think about it from the viewpoint of reality. The reality is that ranting and raving and openly attacking the competition, while self-fulfilling, isn't the right kind of PR to advocate your own platform. Theo will learn, eventually, that the world runs on relationships. Superior relationships (often embodied by advertising) will beat superior technology each and every time.
Any technical specifics about how oBSD is better than Linux?
Look, I'm not a zealot. I don't use Linux because I hate Windows. I use Linux because Windows doesn't give me what I need. When I want to inspect packets at a low level, it was like entering a new country in Windows. When I want to inspect packets on a low level in Linux, it's like knocking on the neighbor's door. Windows has distanced itself from real computer use to application use. That's its business model and frankly, as a computer hobbyist, I have no use for the goals which Windows fulfills.
So, that said, how about this rant about oBSD being so superior to Linux? So what? It's all POSIX based with an sh compatible (more or less) shell. The only thing making Linux more like Windows is Gnome and KDE. Thank God Enlightenment knows where to draw the line. I get a pretty GUI that doesn't try to teach parlor tricks to my toaster oven.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
I use Linux on my desktop and obsd on my servers... for reasons (in both directions) most people are probably discussing here. I consider obsd more stable and secure, but with that I loose the bleeding edge of new software. Yes, I have a thing for pain.
Anyway, I am on the obsd mailing list, and its like listening to rush limbaugh... if you ever voice a different opinion than the mainstream lockstep you are branded a troll.
anyway, its sad. I love obsd, I sell it to customers, but it will be a cold day in hell before I let them see the obsd support mailing list.
OBSD has a slower, more planned, cohesive development and release plan. Linux has a lot more out there, but with faster - its not always better.
Why can't we all get along, or at least all hate microsoft like in the good old days ?
Every OS sucks.
I mean, no, linux isn't perfect, but that's not news.
And it doesn't even try to be perfect, said by Linus himself. That reminds me why I prefer BSD: quality.
The best way to predict the future is to invent it
If you wish to use your computer for play:
... play.
1) Play Music
2) Play with video's
3) Play Games
4) More playing with other time wasting activities
You would want a Linux box. It will install anywhere so you can
But if you want a box that will work for you as a server workhorse, all you need is basic video support, decent nic, CD/DVD support. BSD covers all of these areas quite well. And has rock solid framework that can be trusted with your core applications.
JsD
Moz+Mac+OOO==Happiness
Having used Linux for several years, I am currently switching to BSD. I am not yet sure which BSD, but overall I can say that I agree with De Raadt's view.
I also think that Torvalds' reply is too easy and perhaps not as classy as suggested by some commenters. Instead of debunking De Raadts claims, Torvalds choses to aim at the person and call him "difficult". From this perspective, De Raadt is classy, he sticks to the topic and, as I said, he really has a strong point.
Reading the article I found nothing about what is bad with Linux. All the critic is about the development process. It's like he doesn't understand how this process can create a good result, therefore the result can't be good.
You linux retards need to think about who the enemy is. You say MS, but you're aligned with all MS competitors. Go work for IBM, give me a break. You're just being used and too dumb and wrapped on this "war" with MS to know it. If you don't like MS because they are successful and capitalistic - maybe its time to send you linux meatheads to socialistic China - you'll fit right in.
Anonymous Coward, so what!
You are confusing "meaningless" with "as meaningless as", the two are very different. Re-read.
This is a common misunderstanding by Linux users about OpenBSD. Let me clear it up for you.
- OpenBSD isn't developing a user base;
- OpenBSD isn't developing a product;
- OpenBSD isn't about converting users to OpenBSD;
- OpenBSD isn't about hand holding newbies to accomplish the above.
OpenBSD is about one thing - producing an OS which meets these goals:
- free for all, recognizing contributed work through copyright notices, and avoiding restrictions (such as the GPL open source stays open restriction);
- maintaining simplicity of the system over rushed in features;
- security, security, security.
OpenBSD developers work on what they want, not what the user base wants. If we as users like what they do, we use it. If we don't, we move on. The developers don't care because they can use their system and I'm just thankful they allow me to use it as well.
As for Theo, he's a decent guy. He's opinionated and very blunt, but he has beliefs and ideals which he stands behind and defends. He doesn't eat children for breakfast, he isn't trying to screw everyone to make himself filthy rich, and he is giving his work away for free for anyone to use.
Sure, he doesn't have a high opinion of Linux. So what? Get over it. Go attack someone who deserves to be trashed (this last statement is aimed generally at everyone complaining, not so much specifically at the root author).
If OpenBSD stated in its' goals that it was going to hand hold people through the process of using it, then I'd say you have a reason to be upset. But it doesn't, so you don't. There is notobligation for OpenBSD developers and users to answer every half assed lazy question posed on misc@. Frankly, I like it that way. It helps keep the crap to a minimum.
Linux users know what it's like to run Linux. Lecturing to them about what Linux is like, using OpenBSD as a standard, is
Tell people about what OpenBSD does right, using Linux as the standard, and maybe you'll get somewhere.
I don't care for either, really :)
;)
And yes.. although there's only one GPL, and then there's the LGPL.. that's where the problems start.
Though there is only one GPL, there are dozens of licenses that derive from the GPL that are either compatible with it or not.
I'm mostly all for the GPL, though I think in a world with commercial software the LGPL is a good asset. So not trashing the GPL at all
...and 'adoration' of Steve Irwin ;)
Perhaps Torvalds and Raadt should only use XP and Tiger OS for the next month in order to better evaluate how a computer should or shouldn't work on initial install.
Then they should make an OS which automatically surfs the net without having to get a PHD to install drivers to listen to streaming music, video, and post a web page, etc... We still have a long way to go guys... (So stop the bickering.)
Does anyone know why Raadt doesn't just help Torvalds write some better Linux code if he has a better solution?
Anyone? Besides weren't there studies where somepeople did some comparing and results where that Linux had only about 985 bug per 5,7 millionlines of code when in comersial Closed source usually had more than 5 000 bug per similar sized software project... So I don't care if there says a comment in kernel source code where reads: "Does this belong to here?" as I know that it is still better than closed source... I don't know what right BSD dudes have to start up fight when they should support linux like linux community supports BSD community by providing a lots of stuff for them to use... I guess they are just jelous to us so childish as it sounds... And yeah, if we start this fight then could somebody tell me why Windows is the biggest main stream operating system in the planet? Why? It's because all those thousands of Unixes couldn't make any cooperation between them. And see the situation now! There are no "real" unixes anymore exept those few which survided... If NIX fans start to fight again we never get the rid of real problems here.
BSD can't complain about the Linux mess until BSD easily installs the plugins required to enjoy popular content on the net.
Until then Raadt is comparing apples to oranges.
"Let me know how great FreeBSD as a workstation is when portupgrade fails. (I'm writing this from a FreeBSD workstation running Gnome 2.10.1)"
/usr/ports/sysutils/portmanager
Ahh yes, ye olde portupgrade.....
If you havn't already, I strongly suggest you give portmanager a try. I use FreeBSD 5.4/KDE 3.4, and after using it for a couple of months now, I dread the thought of having to go back to portupgrade to update my system.
You can find portmanager here:
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
then put
then pub
At least Linux is doing the enthernet stuff right.
BSDs install packages' binaries into /usr/local/bin and /usr/local/sbin. So you know what to add to your path. /usr/local/etc. If needed as in apache case there is /usr/local/etc/apache.
And config files go to the
The idea is to keep base system and additional packages in different directories or better in different partitions/disks.
And about ethernet - the names are matter of convenience, nothing more. FYI FreeBSD allows to rename ethrnet controllers as you wish - call them eth0, eth1 whatever...
Did you flunk your Computer Science courses?
Operation system consists of kernel and set of utilities. Kernel talks to hardware, not OS. Two last sentenses of yours are right. BSDs allow bash in /usr/local/bin only. But it is hard to run OS without Bourne shell.
So there are FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD and Darwin kernels. And they have different sets of utilities.
One more reason to keep /usr and /usr/local/ on different partitions is to mount /usr read-only
and have /usr/local read-write if you change additional packages often enough. YMMV
Look at a book. Go read some informed source that is far more lucid on the matter instead of trying to make us both look ignorant on Slashdot.
The problem was that Bill Jolitz had no skill on working with people over the net. He came through as a rambling madman.
The other BSD people at least seemed sane, but presented themselves as hard working Unix professionals, who gave up enourmous personal sacrifices for the BSD cause.
Meanwhile, Linus (with his brilliant net personality) collected a bunch of kids from the existing Minix hacker culture, some DOS/MS Windows nerds who wanted to play with source, and a lot of college students who, like Linus, wanted to run Unix at home just like they ran on the Suns at school. They were all obviously both having fun and learning at the same time.
At the time where the free operating systems began to be noticed by the management, who might have preffered the sour and dire pseudo-professional attitude of the BSD people, it was because Linux had already become a big phenomen thanks to the inclusive "free software should be fun" attitude of the early Linux years.
Do you think color-ls could have sprung from the BSD community? Yes, in Bill Joys day. Young Bill Joy would have hacked color-ls if he had a color terminal. But not from the later, grown up community of highly skilled profesionals around the free BSD net-releases. Color-ls is a stupid and disgusting idea, any professional would reject right away. But it is fun, and reflect the difference in attitude between BSD and Linux those days.
Morale: Don't forget the fun.
Squadboy, do you have any OpenBSD colleagues on Slashdot? If so, I'd like to know who they are so I can add them to my Foe list. I think elitists of all flavors deserve to be ignored and marginalized, and OpenBSD elitists are among the most egregious offenders.
Well said
ok,what's next? which distro is the best? which icecream tastes better? left or right? green or red? up or down? ... sorry thought there was a discussion here but all i found was a "my is better than your "
If you wanted to make the BSDs relavent, perhaps you should not have focused on these narrow bits of the industry: security, portability, etc and instead focused on the larger picture, which linux has been doing since day one.
Focus on the larger picture?
Actually, the BSD's do tend to think for the long term and lay down good foundations. Look at the Linux world, where major systems change dramatically not only between major versions, but even within a single stable branch. Linux firewalling (between majors), the VM system chop and change (within a "stable" branch), etc?
I don't beleive it is true that Linux looks at the greater picture. I think the truth is that Linux has many more developers and a large percentage of them are still mostly in experimental tinker mode.
I enjoy the BSD's for the platform being stable. Not stable code, stable design. Linux disapoints me when the VM system changes suddenly when we're not expecting it and Linus makes comments (just as bad as Theo's) to the effect of "I don't know it well / have not looked" but "my system is better / I don't see good points in the other system".
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Silly me, I thought the kernel talks to the hardware. And the OS talks to hardware thru the kernel. /shrug what do I know. ;)
/usr/src. Visit freebsd.org and checkout their cvs tree to see what all is in there.
/usr versus *BSD defaulting to /usr/local. I wasn't making a statement about "what an OS is", just that I prefered *BSD behavior and that it has saved me time when cleaning up after others.
What makes an OS is up for debate. Prior to your post I replied that in the case of FreeBSD it was everything in
I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make. I don't like how linux defaults to installing everything in
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
There's some good books on operating systems out there that use unix as an example and say far more in a much clearer way that I ever could, and in ways that are not prone to debate by the browser or X or gcc is part of the OS groups who have big agendas to push. I would suggest looking at a text that didn't come out after the MS browser court case.
This guy is so stuck on himself. Yeah I tried BSD, although a nice learning experience, it took several kernel recompiles and even more custom configurations for it to work with my hardware. Perhaps if you are stuck on yourself and your computer skills (like de Raadt), can count in binary and hexidecimal backwards, have all the time in the world, and enjoy jerking off to the fact that you spent all that time and finally got the system working, then BSD is for you. But if you are a new user trying to learn unix and don't want to get frustrated or overwhelmed, linux is definitely the better of the two regardless of low-level advantages one way or the other; Go screw yourself, de Raadt... you and other arrogant jerks like yourself can kiss my ass. -cor-
Well I'm using Linux every day and I tried each of the BSD and Solaris, too. NetBSD is very good, very fast. FreeBSD tries to mimic Linux. OpenBSD has unfriendly installation. I think that it's default installation is really secure, but with a little work, Linux can be really secure, too. The fact that there was no remote hole found eight (or how many) years back doesn't mean there actually isn't one.
And yes, the distribution. Why should I pay for 3CDs, when only one of them is for my architecture? What should I do with the rest, huh? Put them under my cup of hot coffee?
BTW, Theo used to work for NetBSD, but he made angry so many people, that their fired him. Try to search some archives and see for yourselves, who is Theo de Raadt!
I think Theo should let users to make a choice. If they don't choose OpenBSD, then the problem is in OpenBSD itself and not in them.
The only thing I have a problem with in OpenBSD is the crappy filesystem. It took about 5-10 times longer to copy a 100MB file under OpenBSD (whatever the default filesystem is UFS) thank Linux with an XFS filesystem (or even EXT2). Use XFS you tool, your filesystem is shite.
at the moment this theory seems true to me.
:(
i am the only linux geek i know in my area and i am a looser
His comments seem so nyahh-nyahh-nyaahh, it would make me less likely to try OpenBSD, in sort of the same way recent Tom Cruise's robo-Scientology rants turn me off to seeing _War of the Worlds.
I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
I'm bouncing my Linux distro and finding another alternative.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!