No ramifications for 4.0. We have come too far into the last RELEASE cycle to delay longer. However, BSD/OS has incorporated a lot from FreeBSD in the past, so it shouldn't be that hard of an undertaking, but it remains fun to see how this all goes... =)
Because everyone slightly clued on the FreeBSD project knows that Matt Dillon got his privileges back quite some time ago.
And wrt the reviews, almost every commit I see has had a review of some sort, its what keeps the code of quality.
And last, but certainly not least, we have the everwatchful Bruce D Evans scrutinising every commit made. So all committers are under review of this man whom frankly IMHO is one of the most knowledge people I have had the pleasure to work with when it comes to programming and everything associated.
newbus/busspace, Working NFS v3 support, both over TCP and UDP, Improved support in tools to deal with NFS issues (mounting/umounting), Collapsing of block and character devices into one device node type, IPv6 support, a lot of PAO merges (laptop stuff), ATA/ATAPI driver to replace the older one, updates of some GNU system utilities (such as groff, sort, texinfo), PPPoE support and more due to the Netgraph code, latest IPFilter integrated,
With regard to platforms no-one has interest in, that's why we only support Alpha and IA-32 platforms at the moment. Since the demand is coming from the PowerPC users, we are working on porting FreeBSD there.
There are still people who use i386 and i486's, so please, don't make weird statements like that if you have nothing better to say.
What do funds have to do with it?
And what Brian said about the drivers is quite right. Any driver developer worth its salt would back off from Donald Beckers network drivers, how much effort he put in them. Also, many people seem to be zealous about the GPL (as most of us are about the BSDL), but they do use binary drivers for their videocards. Kinda defeats the whole OpenSource principle and we're back on a Windows like state where you can only get drivers from the vendor.
although I know how hard newbies have it, the lack of clue is coming forth more and more. When I started way back on using Linux and later on moving towards the BSD's and AIX and Solaris, I made sure I read webpages and other documentation before bothering my peers.
All the questions that person asked were findable on www.freebsd.org.
Also, the claim that person made wasn't valid. In fact, FreeBSD made it even to the list of Ingram and Micro for easy ordering for stores.
All of these questions were avoidable if the person did some proper reading before hitting the post follow-up button.
given the facts that the sourcetrees of the BSD's are more closed than the average Linux sourcetree.
With all the committers working on the sourcetree I doubt they would switch to a GPL'd BSD, obviously for the fact that they wouldn't have started their priviledged task as committer in the first place.
And of course, this discussion has risen up on the various BSD lists as well and frankly the number of GPL enthusiasts was countable on the fingers of a few hands.
I basically think the whole GPL/BSDL/*BSD/Linux 'war' is merely a matter of personal taste. Try them yourself, if yer happy with them, stick to them. I started with Linux at start and ended up with *BSD and still loving it. I still do look at Linux development and contribute back and look at code, but realise that it just isn't for me.
Then again, some people swear on NT or NetWare. I loathe NT, but can appreciate NetWare.
*shrug* Why does one drive an Opel and another one a Mazda or Buick or...
I just think that FreeBSD is more open to new users. Then again, other people might think otherwise of course. Their own right.;)
I love NetBSD for it's portability and other style of code. It may not be for _my_ average day to day use, but the source code is, as well as Free's and Open's, a jewel to read and learn from.
But I still want a Net and Open box at home just to get more proficient in it then I already am. Experience never hurts =)
Well, we do care that companies like BSDi uses the code. But we care in a way that is best described as getting recognition. They wouldn't have taken it if it were crap.
*shrug*
Call it elitist or arrogant. BSD code tends to be more portable and cleaner than corresponding GPL code. No offense intended, merely an observation I see between BSD and GPL source code. Then again, it might all be a matter of personality, the same personality which chose between one license or the other.
If you feel you must compare the daemon to devil, then may I suggest you bug Linus and his flock of sheep to change all references of daemon in the Linux kernel to paenguin? Surely such an `evil' reference must annoy you as well?
This might or might apply to all *BSD's out there, but here goes [see the appropriate www.[free|net|open]bsd.org page for more info]:
move from a.out to ELF as native format. Linux emulation. SVR4 emulation. IPv6 code. Ports system. Revamped memory system [Open and Net use UVM]. NFS fixes./etc/rc* changes. Lots of drivers added. egcs/gcc upgrades. gdb upgrades. new platforms supported. support for IEEE 802.11. NTFS support. Gigabit support. new syscalls. DHCP support to the base system. USB. ISDN. TCP Wrappers. And now I am forgetting a lot I guess.
OpenBSD having the future? Please get serious in the development process before saying that. How much I like some of OpenBSD's things, progress clearly wasn't one of their points the last few months.
FreeBSD in the last year had: revamped their VM system, fixed NFS to the point that it's one of the best around, they migrated fully to ELF, they changed gcc for egcs/gcc, updated a lot of other system components, revamped a lot of them.
Also, any serious developer would laugh at most of OpenBSD's commit messages.
And what about Linux goals? "World domination" get real. People use an Operating System with which they can work. Linux nor real Unices [including the *BSD's] aren't for computer illiterate people who only need to type a letter every now and then.
a lot of the people I speak with on hobby and professional base moved from other Unix systems and Linux to *BSD mainly due to the fact that the code base is cleaner, has a friendlier license, and is a kernel and OS all in one, instead of a kernel and a distro.
People still can't seperate Religion from technology?
And also, might I suggest reading up on the word Daemon [note: NOT devil], which comes from Greek Daimon and which was perverted by christians to mean evil/dark?
FreeBSD may be lacking in support for hardware, but most of its users are not particulary interested in getting a 3Dfx card working for their servers, which is the `market' FreeBSD aspires to. Having said that, FreeBSD does make an excellent desktop OS still.
With regard to the line-by-line audit, ehm, all three BSD's are almost equally good, OpenBSD however tends to be paranoia to the extreme with certain things, and let's not forget that every line of code has been reviewed by peers in NetBSD and FreeBSD as well before it was committed.
Well, the 20 years may not amount to much, but have ye ever bothered reading more of what Greg wrote? He is knowledge about a lot of things which have to do with Unix, not just BSD. And I have to say that with most discussions I had with him were never bad regarding Linux nor its users.
If ye truly believe that Greg is biased towards BSD, then why profile yer own bias towards Linux with the GNU generation line?
And if his 20 years of experience don't amount to anything, I cannot see the relevance in yer diverse system programming.
But, as my topic says, to each his own, and I respect Unix and Unix-like OS users for their choice and support of OpenSource...
Slashdot Mirror
No ramifications for 4.0. We have come too far into the last RELEASE cycle to delay longer. However, BSD/OS has incorporated a lot from FreeBSD in the past, so it shouldn't be that hard of an undertaking, but it remains fun to see how this all goes... =)
This is a troll argument.
Because everyone slightly clued on the FreeBSD project knows that Matt Dillon got his privileges back quite some time ago.
And wrt the reviews, almost every commit I see has had a review of some sort, its what keeps the code of quality.
And last, but certainly not least, we have the everwatchful Bruce D Evans scrutinising every commit made. So all committers are under review of this man whom frankly IMHO is one of the most knowledge people I have had the pleasure to work with when it comes to programming and everything associated.
Things he forgot:
newbus/busspace,
Working NFS v3 support, both over TCP and UDP,
Improved support in tools to deal with NFS issues (mounting/umounting),
Collapsing of block and character devices into one device node type,
IPv6 support,
a lot of PAO merges (laptop stuff),
ATA/ATAPI driver to replace the older one,
updates of some GNU system utilities (such as groff, sort, texinfo),
PPPoE support and more due to the Netgraph code,
latest IPFilter integrated,
And a lot I am forgetting here
With regard to platforms no-one has interest in, that's why we only support Alpha and IA-32 platforms at the moment. Since the demand is coming from the PowerPC users, we are working on porting FreeBSD there.
There are still people who use i386 and i486's, so please, don't make weird statements like that if you have nothing better to say.
What do funds have to do with it?
And what Brian said about the drivers is quite right. Any driver developer worth its salt would back off from Donald Beckers network drivers, how much effort he put in them. Also, many people seem to be zealous about the GPL (as most of us are about the BSDL), but they do use binary drivers for their videocards. Kinda defeats the whole OpenSource principle and we're back on a Windows like state where you can only get drivers from the vendor.
Sorry,
although I know how hard newbies have it, the lack of clue is coming forth more and more. When I started way back on using Linux and later on moving towards the BSD's and AIX and Solaris, I made sure I read webpages and other documentation before bothering my peers.
All the questions that person asked were findable on www.freebsd.org.
Also, the claim that person made wasn't valid. In fact, FreeBSD made it even to the list of Ingram and Micro for easy ordering for stores.
All of these questions were avoidable if the person did some proper reading before hitting the post follow-up button.
Care to elaborate on this?
FreeBSD [and Open and Net] use GPL software in the project, but give proper recognition, with the licenses still intact.
Or were you meaning the transition/modification of GPL code to BSDL code?
Funny statement,
...
given the facts that the sourcetrees of the BSD's are more closed than the average Linux sourcetree.
With all the committers working on the sourcetree I doubt they would switch to a GPL'd BSD, obviously for the fact that they wouldn't have started their priviledged task as committer in the first place.
And of course, this discussion has risen up on the various BSD lists as well and frankly the number of GPL enthusiasts was countable on the fingers of a few hands.
I basically think the whole GPL/BSDL/*BSD/Linux 'war' is merely a matter of personal taste. Try them yourself, if yer happy with them, stick to them. I started with Linux at start and ended up with *BSD and still loving it. I still do look at Linux development and contribute back and look at code, but realise that it just isn't for me.
Then again, some people swear on NT or NetWare. I loathe NT, but can appreciate NetWare.
*shrug* Why does one drive an Opel and another one a Mazda or Buick or
Smiley noted =)
;)
I just think that FreeBSD is more open to new users. Then again, other people might think otherwise of course. Their own right.
I love NetBSD for it's portability and other style of code. It may not be for _my_ average day to day use, but the source code is, as well as Free's and Open's, a jewel to read and learn from.
But I still want a Net and Open box at home just to get more proficient in it then I already am.
Experience never hurts =)
Well, we do care that companies like BSDi uses the code. But we care in a way that is best described as getting recognition. They wouldn't have taken it if it were crap.
*shrug*
Call it elitist or arrogant. BSD code tends to be more portable and cleaner than corresponding GPL code. No offense intended, merely an observation I see between BSD and GPL source code. Then again, it might all be a matter of personality, the same personality which chose between one license or the other.
If you feel you must compare the daemon to devil, then may I suggest you bug Linus and his flock of sheep to change all references of daemon in the Linux kernel to paenguin? Surely such an `evil' reference must annoy you as well?
e .html
Also, look at: http://www.freebsdzine.org/199905/features/beasti
Thanks.
Please see www.daemonnews.org for an indepth article about this.
This might or might apply to all *BSD's out there, but here goes [see the appropriate www.[free|net|open]bsd.org page for more info]:
/etc/rc* changes. Lots of drivers added. egcs/gcc upgrades. gdb upgrades. new platforms supported. support for IEEE 802.11. NTFS support. Gigabit support. new syscalls. DHCP support to the base system. USB. ISDN. TCP Wrappers. And now I am forgetting a lot I guess.
move from a.out to ELF as native format. Linux emulation. SVR4 emulation. IPv6 code. Ports system. Revamped memory system [Open and Net use UVM]. NFS fixes.
It is.
Also, the appropriate webpages are registered. Same applies for NetBSD and OpenBSD if memory serves me right.
HTH
Count the number of exploits for the BSD's and then of Linux and it's distro's.
I think if my latest numbers still hold, that's a 1:3 or 1:4 ratio of exploits.
Enjoy your `safety'.
Hmm,
OpenBSD having the future?
Please get serious in the development process before saying that. How much I like some of OpenBSD's things, progress clearly wasn't one of their points the last few months.
FreeBSD in the last year had: revamped their VM system, fixed NFS to the point that it's one of the best around, they migrated fully to ELF, they changed gcc for egcs/gcc, updated a lot of other system components, revamped a lot of them.
Also, any serious developer would laugh at most of OpenBSD's commit messages.
And what about Linux goals? "World domination" get real. People use an Operating System with which they can work. Linux nor real Unices [including the *BSD's] aren't for computer illiterate people who only need to type a letter every now and then.
Please,
don't call him `Chuck'.
You are offending Kirk McKusick in a big way.
If you absolutely need to name him besides `daemon' call him `Beastie'.
Not entirely true,
a lot of the people I speak with on hobby and professional base moved from other Unix systems and Linux to *BSD mainly due to the fact that the code base is cleaner, has a friendlier license, and is a kernel and OS all in one, instead of a kernel and a distro.
And please, the mascot is a daemon, not devil.
You missed a ton of stuff in -CURRENT this year...
4.0 will kick arse.
BSD and Linux will not overtake eachother. Both will exist and aspire to different users.
*sigh*
People still can't seperate Religion from technology?
And also, might I suggest reading up on the word Daemon [note: NOT devil], which comes from Greek Daimon and which was perverted by christians to mean evil/dark?
I'll take the daemon, symbol as it is.
True,
FreeBSD may be lacking in support for hardware, but most of its users are not particulary interested in getting a 3Dfx card working for their servers, which is the `market' FreeBSD aspires to.
Having said that, FreeBSD does make an excellent desktop OS still.
With regard to the line-by-line audit, ehm, all three BSD's are almost equally good, OpenBSD however tends to be paranoia to the extreme with certain things, and let's not forget that every line of code has been reviewed by peers in NetBSD and FreeBSD as well before it was committed.
Still running CURRENT cmc? ;)
Well, the 20 years may not amount to much, but have ye ever bothered reading more of what Greg wrote? He is knowledge about a lot of things which have to do with Unix, not just BSD. And I have to say that with most discussions I had with him were never bad regarding Linux nor its users.
If ye truly believe that Greg is biased towards BSD, then why profile yer own bias towards Linux with the GNU generation line?
And if his 20 years of experience don't amount to anything, I cannot see the relevance in yer diverse system programming.
But, as my topic says, to each his own, and I respect Unix and Unix-like OS users for their choice and support of OpenSource...