Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSDCon Quickies
There've been a bunch of FreeBSD Con submissions since the Conference started. kken notes that sendmail.net have an early report from the conference. Upside also talk about the conference, concentrating on FreeBSD's position re: Linux (thanks to wozz for that). On the pictures front, we have pics from Bill Fumerola and Gianmarco Giovannelli (here's a much faster mirror for those). Enjoy.
And I think Per Bergman's comments about FreesbsdCon excluding other BSD and Linux systems from the show were right on target. It is a _big_ mistake to exclude others. It's like shooting yourself in the foot, because of the lack of exhibitors hurt the overall image of the Freebsd show. I would have liked to have seen NetBSD and OpenBSD represented. NetBSD had a very nice booth at ALS, and the atmosphere was very congenial.
More anti-Linux dribble and crap from the FreeBSD zealots. Why dont you people stop with the jealousy, get off your knees and do something productive instead of the constant jabs at Linux ("bastard OS").
Call it what you will, the FreeBSDCon had the distinct odor of sour grapes. Calling Linux a ``bastard OS'' was one of the milder examples. I heard more people scapegoating about FreeBSDs failures than actually talking about substantive issues. Sadly Jordan Hubbard was the ring leader egging on the the anti-Linux crazies. The most productive step that the FreeBSDers could do to help themselves would be to grow up and quit blaming others for FreeBSDs problems.
In term of kernel, it is not a bastard OS: it is a new branch.
In term of kernel+system utilities+basic programs, it uses as much as possible the GNU tools. Even its original libc as been thrown away in favor of glibc. In this respect, it is no more bastardized than FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD.
> While many hackers disagree with RMS, not
> nearly as many disagree with his preference of
> licensing. If that was not the case, well, then
> *BSD would be where GNU/Linux is right now,
> don't you think..?
No. The AT&T/USL lawsuit blocked distribution of encumbered BSD systems (including NetBSD and FreeBSD) at the critical time when PCs capable of running UNIX became commonplace. With no free BSDs available, Linux filled the void, and became entrenched as the most popular free UNIX-like OS. It's a documented fact that it would never have even been written if AT&T/USL hadn't blocked the distribution of BSD.
The bottom line is, because of the events of the early `90s, Linux is now entrenched as the leading free UNIX-like OS. It doesn't have to be better than the free BSDs, and it doesn't have to have a better licence. It just has to be good enough to convince its users that switching is more trouble than it's worth. For most of its users, it currently meets that requirement.
There are a huge number of people at Microsoft, many of whom used to work on other operating systems. It shouldn't come as a surprise that some such people retain a residual interest in them.
Unlike BSD, Linux isn't a branch of the UNIX tree. It's a new OS which implements UNIX-like APIs. This new OS has been combined with existing GNU tools to create a full UNIX-like system, which is a hybrid (to use a less derogatory term).
To say the BSDs are as much hybrids as Linux is certainly not correct. The traditional BSD structure is still there, it's just that some of the encumbered tools (in particular the C compiler) have been replaced with GNU versions.
Damn I had fun on freebsdcon! Anyone else went?
It does. Also xBSD where x=Net or Free. It supports their filesystems too.
I don't think OpenBSD has KDE or Gnome
It does, but it's not an RPM. You build and install it yourself.
I'd never touched any Unix-like OS until April of this year, and now I am building apps from source under OpenBSD. It can't be that hard.
When you have enough clowns, you have a circus.
biscuit01
This coming from the same group of people who commonly do the same thing to Windows users.
Well it depends on what the purpose of the machine is going to be. If you want to do development and know how to write C, then using CVSup may be the thing for you.
For typical workstation and server machines, doing binary package management is a lot quicker and easier. It gives people the ability to swap out and interchange parts of their system even if they don't know how to use a C compiler (and there are lots of Linux people who want to make systems for these people)
You can use RPM as a source tool, and I do, but of course it isn't a true development tool. It would be interesting to add more CVS-like capabilitites into a package manager.
> BSD used to be the 'development arm' of Unix.
> It looks like Linux has pretty much taken over
> this role.
How so? I've seen some interesting research work in NetBSD and FreeBSD, such as UVM and Soft Updates.
Linux is breaking new gound in marketing and distribution, but where are the technological innovations? Just about every `new feature' I've read about is a reimplementation of something that's already been done in UNIX.
The comment wasn't referring to the views of any so-called community, it was referring to the black-and-white structure of the UNIX family tree. If you look at the tree, BSD is one of the two major branches from Research UNIX (the other major branch being System V).
Linux is an OS which was created as a clone of MINIX, itself a simplified clone of Research UNIX, with many BSD and System V features added. It's also got all sorts of user code from GNU (yet another UNIX clone). By any standard, that's a bastard OS.
>What bothers me is that Debian, Red Hat and others use their package >management systems for their C libraries, base utilities and the >kernel. The things that sold me on FreeBSD were CVSup and >well-defined development branches.
The rather important point you're leaving out in all this is the CVSup appoarch isn't very workable unless you basically have a fast link to the internet. Otherwise the package management systems walk all over the CVSup approach. There's no contest here.
Linux is the one making open source operating systems the next big > thing. It is the pioneer here.
Actually Linux is both. It's like when the wagon trains carried people and their belongins westward in large numbers during the mid-late 1800's. Linux is pretty much playing the role of both the pioneer and the settler.
tide78.microsoft.com - - [21/Oct/1999:21:03:10 -0500] "GET /freebsdcon99/ HTTP/1.1" 200 718 "http://slashdot.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)"
/~mosfet/ HTTP/1.0" 2
Now that I look closer at the logs, it looks like Microsoft was interested in the KDE Information we host too:
tide70.microsoft.com - - [09/Oct/1999:12:33:38 -0500] "GET
00 238 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT; MS Search 4.0 Robot)
Microsoft"
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Dont you have something better to do than look for the newest article and get a first post? Why dont you do something more entertaining???
has the first post phenotype gotten this out of hand??
===== Warble://VX
Don't you know all us Linux users are supposed to be irrational zealots who think we're the only "one true way", situations be damned.
Come on. Get with the program.
(Yes, that was sarcastic)
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
You stole that from my Daemon News article! :)
Every article on Unix gets Linux thrown in. Nowadays, even articles on Win2k have the obligatory Linux mention about halfway through. So BSD isn't being picked on here. It would be nice to see more BSD mentions in Linux articles however.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Daemon v. Penguin :: Showdown on 10110100 IO Lane, film at 11!
--
Sounds somewhat like the situation in my high-school. While the course is called "Computer Science" it focuses largely on Windows 98, and seems to be circling around Word, for the time being. I was also mildly annoyed to discover that both the ssh and the standard telnet ports were blocked.
It's always been my opinion that a course called "Computer Science" should be something which is 'spread around,' rather than just focusing on one operating system. Admittedly, it's only a sophomore course, so I shouldn't expect anything remotely amazing, but the text book seems to focus around step-by-step instructions, rather than explaining why you're selecting so-and-so to do such-and-such.
This seems to be the case with quite a few highschools, that I've heard about.
Ohwell, it is as it is, and I really shouldn't be expecting *n*x in a HS compsci course.
... even if that would be really neat.
Some time ago I read an article about a meeting of BSD developers. The one thing that stuck in my mind was a quote from one guy during a conversation about the rise of Linux. "Those penquins are starting to get to me", he said.
Does anyone have a link to this article or know to whom I can attribute the quote ?
From one of the pictures:
What is a device driver:
-Interface layer between kernel and hardware
-Abstracts device implementation from kernels idealised view of a class of device
-Assists developer with hair loss
>First, Microsoft never 'endorsed' FreeBSD. They just can't make NT perform as well. ;)
Right, when I was at linkexchange we TRIED to get
them to be a sponsor, but the marketing morons
decided it would be a bad idea to push the competitors product.
Needless to say I'm no longer there and I hear they are having a horid time trying to impliment everything on NT.
You don't have to do development and know how to write C to use CVSup. If you wanted to make changes to the system perhaps, but as an upgrade procedure, it's brainless. Make World doesn't require any hacking.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
The CVSup approach is VERY workable with a mediocre net connection. In fact, it's why it was created in the first place. You should read up on how CVSup works.
You might be thinking of CVS, for which your comment is accurate.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
When will you people LEARN that Open Source is NOT just a catch phrase. OpenBSD doesn't *HAVE* KDE or GNOME any more than Linux does. They are collections of programs that will run on any system they will compile on, and they WILL compile on OpenBSD. They're even included in OpenBSD's ports system (borrowed from FreeBSD.)
And yes, it also has Linux Binary compatibility.
I swear, your average Linux user has absolutely *no* respect for their Unix Heritage.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Cripes man. It was the first ever.
It was much larger than they supposed it would be. Didn't you hear Jordan say there were more people than they thought? When we were waiting in line for the dinner cruise, he walked down the line and I heard him say "I didn't even think there were this many people AT the Con."
Sure, it would have been nice to see more exhibitors, but that wasn't my reason for being there.
A little reasoning would explain why it was small compared to a modern Linux con.
FreeBSD is older than Linux, but it's younger in many other ways. This was a learning experience. Next year's will be bigger, and the next, and maybe when the BSD's are accepted more by the media as a part of the Open Source community, there *will* be a BSD Con.
I *seriously* doubt that any exhibitors were excluded. If NetBSD and OpenBSD weren't present, it's because they probably didn't ask.
So, Per Bergman's comments, and your agreement, aren't quite as on target as you think.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
COMPLETELY on topic.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
I recently attempted to configure a dual boot machine, with Slackware 4.0 and FreeBSD 3.2. (I bought the econo 6-pack from LinuxMall and they included the insidious FreeBSD.) They could never agree on disk partitioning (or slicing in BSD lingo). Then I realized that I didn't really need a Linux boot if FreeBSD could run Linux binaries. So, when I get enough time to get back to it, I'll install FreeBSD only, with Linux support. Anyway, to get back to your question, I don't think OpenBSD has support for Linux, so I think you are even more limited in applications. Also, I don't think OpenBSD has KDE or Gnome. I think OpenBSD is more appropriate for a server, with its better security, and FreeBSD for a workstation.
Thanks for the info. I might have gone through life thinking OpenBSD was only for servers. Maybe I'll give it a try.
Unlike Linux, however, FreeBSD has received high profile corporate endorsements from the likes of Yahoo and even Microsoft, a company which uses FreeBSD in both its HotMail and LinkExchange subsidiaries.
;-)
Yeah. No one runs Linux sites....
Seriously, though, I found this whole article rather disturbing. It's so Linux vs. BSD. We are all open source. We are all part of the community. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Yes, BSD is a much clique-ier world. Yes, Linux has more trigger-happy flame-kiddies. But, that's not what either effort is about. Let's just choose the right tools for the job, and at some point we'll all have a beer together....
I know your pain! The CS dept at my school isn't even NT they are 98!!! They teach classes around the Wintel platform...What I hate is that these schools CS dept. are turning into M$ training centers. If you are going to teach CS, teach me about the computer not about some vendor. That is why linux and the *BSDs should be the OS, I can see how it works and learn the principle, and then apply it to M$ or Mac or whatever. I work for a k-12 school district also, same thing instead of teaching kids about "computer ideas" like what is a mouse, what is a icon...some want it to become a M$ training center. They want to teach them M$ propietory stuff, because "most of the world uses M$". Well, if I teach them what a icon is or how to use a mouse, they can use M$, Mac, Sun, Linux, *BSDs (although some of these may be limited in what they really can do) etc... Basically, if they know the concepts then it is easier to switch OSes, then if you teach them only how M$ does it.
That is my rant:)
There are also snapshots downloadable at the RELENG_3 snapshot site which have the entire system compiled. Using sysinstalls "Upgrade" option, upgrading a FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE system is just as easy as installing a release.
Linux is the one making open source operating systems the next big thing. It is the pioneer here.
FreeBSD is pretty secure out of the box. Perhaps not as encrypted as OpenBSD, but it's secure.
Well, remember this course was designed and named by the people who thought up Home Economics and Driver's Education.
:-)
"Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
Interesting. RPM might actually be a better solution than pkg_add and pkg_del reworked for version checking; since this sort of thing would be most useful for users with a standard system setup (because they most likely have no idea how to change the system without screwing it up in the first place). Of course, problems will always be introduced when you manually change the system around -- though on freebsd that happens less often since the system is more or less standardized and already works well.
/usr/src. That of course would require an understandable bug and feature addition database with possibly an application similar to windowsupdate that allowed for specific rating of the degree's in which it was needed as well as effects on the system and current apps. The problem with freebsd though is that someone would have to look through all the src changes and take those which are particularly important and turn those changes into binary updates. Of course, there seems to be more of a need to recompile your kernel for device changes as well as activating certain features in freebsd. So now that I think about it, it's probably better to wait until modularity gets better before making it accessible to more people.
:)
My idea was to provide an alternative to cvsup for RELEASE users who do not know or care to grapple with
Current users have to be kind of proactive on updating their system though, so an update portal may be a good idea. I was implying that such a system would take a lot of time to implement -- not that it was relatively complicated.
As far as upgrading the entire system as per daily builds as mentioned below; all I can say is yuck
----------
Yep. I'd like to see something like this finally come to FreeBSD. However, some problems arise with this completely unified system. The userland is easy enough (we already have package and src ports management with dependency checking -- but the basic userland, kernel and surrounding source are pretty integrated; so it's not as easy as just upgrading a certain part of the base system. Actually, it kind of hurts stability doing that -- so cvsup seems to be the best way right now.
:)
:)
If someone could get something running like the USWest hosted current.freebsd.org with daily -CURRENT and -STABLE builds -- but instead have up to date binary updates for the latest release with specified high, medium, low security/stability/features/upgradeability settings that the user could interact with; it would be very nice. Too bad I'm up to my ears in about 6 months worth of work -- otherwise I'd try and write some preliminary proposed specifications
Don't get me wrong here though; I love cvsup. I use it daily to upgrade certain parts of the system and to make sure they agree with the 50+ personal patches I have on my systems (which then eventually gets distributed to the src on all the other servers). It's just that I could use binary upgradeability for certain things that I don't get my hands wet with (as well as the preferred setup for most end-users)
----------
FreeBSDCon Cookies
Not that I'm complaining.
Microsoft is somehow tied to my school. I really hate having to use vc++ to do stuff, but maybe i should stop bitching and actually do some of the assignments... that little pop-up thingy isn't all that bad, although i'd take notepad on windows any day.
'tis true, but I don't think it matters much. The FreeBSD philosophy is that if you want to use a port, you must either be running the OS from the same date, OR have installed the most recent version of the 'upgrade kit' package, which updates any changed files to account for broken dependencies.
The upside to the loss of fine-grained control is a better guarantee that the system will work together as one piece, and you don't have to play the dependency game getting it all interoperable.
You're comparing apples and oranges. 'make world' recompiles the entire OS, rpm -U just installs new binary packages. FreeBSD can also do this - see the 'upgrade' option in /stand/sysinstall. You can also install your packages this way (or use /usr/ports/x11/pib to do the same).
Dependency checking isn't an issue when you upgrade the system this way, because it comes as one cohesive unit, not n+1 parts which you have to do separately. For some this is a plus, others like the fine-grained control.
CTM is the system for people with transient internet connections - basically sends you all the diffs via mail, which you can then apply automatically to update your source.
Or you can do binary upgrades. It's true that it's not as easy to just do a binary update of, say, libc, but on the other hand you rarely need to.
It's no secret that FreeBSD is "behind the curve" relative to Linux in terms of commercial support - but it's definitely growing. It would be fairer to compare it to Linux conventions from 2 years ago, before it "made it big". Everything has to start from somewhere - a year ago something like this probably wouldn't have even been possible. By next year, who knows?
WTF is System VII? ;-)
I'm pretty sure it was SVR4 which merged in a lot of the BSDisms.
The entire analogy is stupid. Software has absolutely nothing to do with people settling land. Same thing with hardware, like game consoles. First there was Nintendo and Sega. Then Sega came out with the Genesis. They had the lead. Then the Super Nintendo came out and threw down the gauntlet. They won the market. Later, the PlayStation came out, and wiped the floor with everyone. After that, several other high-end game systems came out, like Nintendo64. Guess who's still cleaning up? Yup, the PSX. So how come PSX doesn't have a lot of pointy arrows in its ass? Isn't the N64 a better technology anyway? Isn't the PSX only 32 bit? Yeah, sure, great analogy.
Similarly, GNU was started a long time before NetBSD ever came out. And then NetBSD did come out, and it didn't really have a lot of competition from any other free OSes (they had a nice legal suit to deal with, but that was cleared up fairly easily). At around the same time Linux first began development. Then Linux became fused with GNU to form GNU/Linux. By this time, NetBSD was already a stable, functional technology (and had been since its inception, at which point GNU was still vaporware), having descended directly from the original Unix. GNU/Linux, however, was just born from scratch (more or less) and was still in its infancy. I'd imagine GNU/Linux attained a large driving force behind it because of two things: 1) the licensing and 2) the development model. So, who's the pioneer? Who's the settler? Why can't something be, well, both?
The problem with analogies is that they are usually short-sighted and narrow, and likely to make one look rather stupid unless chosen carefully. I sort of doubt *BSD is suddenly going to dethrone GNU/Linux. While I'm all for the various BSD teams marking their mark upon the world, I tend to look down on hubris such as McKusick's. Licensing issues are a key reason why J. Random Hacker will or will not work on a given project. While many hackers disagree with RMS, not nearly as many disagree with his preference of licensing. If that was not the case, well, then *BSD would be where GNU/Linux is right now, don't you think..?
In short, McKusick can have whatever pipe dream he wants, but I, for one, thinks he makes some pretty damn odd extrapolations.
~ Kish
rpm -U *libc* *kernel* is fast even there.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
It's not THAT complicated...
Actually I have an RPMified FreeBSD testbox. (not finished though - but I do have libc RPMs and such).
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
I know (I was just replying to someone saying make world was much better than the RPM system).
I disagree about the dependency checking part though - stuff that is not part of the operating system (compiled by hand, "installed" by copying files from a different computer, or stuff from the ports collection in FreeBSD) can depend on a specific version of a library or such. make world isn't designed to address this sort of thing.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Is Microsoft by any chance a major donor to you school? Or am I just being paranoid?
First, Microsoft never 'endorsed' FreeBSD. They just can't make NT perform as well. ;)
:) This goes for all Unix implementations, and doubly so for SCO, DGUX, and HP/UX (because they're freaky).
Second, that pioneer/settler quote also works well for Microsoft. Chilling, really. The people who don't innovate win? I hope it doesn't work that way. Of course there's a big advantage to maintaining a stable system, but that shouldn't mean that you can't invent anything. BSD used to be the 'development arm' of Unix. It looks like Linux has pretty much taken over this role.
Oh, and to all those people talking about "Unix heritage": Unix is a standard nowadays. Whoever can implement it best, wins. (and those who don't are doomed to reinvent it) Any code that matters in FreeBSD has been rewritten from scratch (to be free), therefore it's as much Unix as any good Unix clone is. (and less so wherever it isn't compliant to one of the three+ major standards.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Why I have the deepest respect for Mr. McKusick (he's a smart guy), I think he might have misinterpreted his own analogy:
BSD and the FSF pioneered Unix and open source respectively.
Linux came and settled, by the millions.
"Computer Science" shouldn't focus too heavily on any one programming language. The operating system is completely irrelevant unless you're actually hacking on it. A UNIX administration class, while possibly very useful, is not Computer Science.
The Terminal Room (where I'm at now, least until they tear it down in 40 minutes) here is connected via a 1.5Mb wireless link (I'm at the workstation right next to the trans/reciever.) We're not sure why, but we lost connectivity for about 20 minutes. It was during this time that Nik was trying to post the story, and accidentally submitted it twice. The duplicate story didn't last more than 5 minutes, as he removed it once connectivity was restored. I swear, people will take advantage of any ole thing...
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Anyway, this is also sort of offtopic, but I've been playing around with OpenBSD and I was wondering if any of the FreeBSD gurus out there could point out some advantages I might have in switching over. I'm not really concerned about security, so that's not a staying point. Any advice would be appreciated, because I just keep hearing people say how much better FreeBSD is, but I'm not getting any hard arguments for it.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
How was the comment not refering to views of any community?
More anti-Linux dribble and crap from the FreeBSD zealots. Why dont you people stop with the jealousy, get off your knees and do something productive instead of the constant jabs at Linux ("bastard OS").
"anti-Linux dribbe," "crap from...," "constant jabs at Linux." Those lead me to believe that that AC things the FreeBSD, or more correctly the BSD community is attacking Linux. The article was refering to the black-and-white structure of the UNIX famility tree.
And of course, your right on the branches. I'm not to keen on the idea of calling Linux a "bastard OS," nor would I call it a new branch. Both titles could be accurate, but I'd refrain from using them. Quick question, was it System V or System VII that incorperated BSD features? I remember something about AT&T UNIX incorperating a good deal from BSD Unix...
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
yeah.. :)
:)
somehow i got this crazy idea that system VII existed.. but then I knew it didn't.. but... just had to ask to be sure I hadn't day dreamed and gone a bit nuts... guess I went a bit nuts.
lets see.. BSD was capped at 4.x to not conflict with AT&T.. and such... so whew. I should re-read some unix history and keep sane.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
What bothers me is that Debian, Red Hat and others use their package management systems for their C libraries, base utilities and the kernel. The things that sold me on FreeBSD were CVSup and well-defined development branches.
Getting back to the package management issue, I believe it's much safer updating the entire system -- kernel, C library and base utils -- but that works best in integrated, full operating systems.
Hi guys,
Thanks for the link. We've posted a second update from the conference's second day this afternoon on sendmail.net.
Paul Boutin | writer for Slate, Wired, etc
"FreeBSD needs your help," Hubbard intoned. "Even if you're a user who hasn't touched a line of C code in your life, you can still help out, writing articles, passing out CDs, talking to schools. Whatever it takes."
;) (We will, of course, be right behind you with Linux disks.)
First off, I'm a Linux guy myself, but I'm very happy to see any *nix group pulling together to try to attract new blood. As much as the Linux and the BSD crowd squable over things, either side gaining new ground is a Good Thing(tm). It is a win for *nix in general, especially on the school front.
The college I attent, like many others, started almost totaly *nix, but has been making more and more of a push into total windows*. I think you aren't even required to use unix until the end of your sophomore year/ beginning of your junior year.
While our LUG has been making more and more converts, the CS dept is requiring new CS majors to buy a laptop, which must run WinNT. (Blah. No choice at all. I'm glad I got there long before that rule.) It gets harder and harder to convince all but the most jaded to run a *nix platform when the CS dept requires that they run WinNT as well.
So to the BSD crowd: I hope you make it around to my school. I would personaly be proud to have you all there.
This kind of competition and recognition can only benefit all.
This sig is false.
hmm.. the BSD community wasn't quoted by saying that. Its the UNIX community, the article was saying consider Linux a "bastard OS." That's pretty true. Sun hasn't 'seen the light' and dumped its decrepit (hah!) OS in terms to Linux, neither has IBM. Those UNIXes are qutie good, and its a bit sad many people view UNIX dead, and only Linux (and BSD) as server OSs of choice. Sun, SCO, etc are only now starting to have some Linux support. How old and well creditted is FreeBSD Linux support? So, umm.. your wrong.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue