Re:Even Apple knew enough to change
on
Support FreeBSD
·
· Score: 2, Informative
/bin/sh (the BSD Bourne shell) DOES have command-line editing. Both vi and emacs flavors -- just like bash. Please try things before posting "facts" about them.
"Hammer" is the internal AMD codename for the platform. "x86-64" and "amd64" are the external names. "Opteron" is an instance of a hammer/x86-64/amd64 processor.
Acutally there *IS* AT&T code in FreeBSD. Grep for 'American' in/usr/include/*.h (and src/lib/libc/*).
* (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. * All or some portions of this file are derived from material licensed * to the University of California by American Telephone and Telegraph * Co. or Unix System Laboratories, Inc. and are reproduced herein with * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
>> FreeBSD is not portable at all, and the two
>> platforms it does support (x86 and alpha) are
>> so horribly different in so many ways that
>> FreeBSD/x86 and FreeBSD/alpha may as well be
>> different operating systems.
Please provide details on why you feel this way.
The only embelishment I can add is that Theo wanted access to the NetBSD CVS repository. NetBSD would not give it to him. From that denal he felt everyone's desire for access and gave it.
Could it be that Linux was the first OS to run on IA-64 because the commericial interests behind IA-64 blocked FreeBSD development on the platform by only giving access to documentation and the toolchain (compiler) to Linux companies?? Yes, that would be truth.
Maybe they were afraid BSD would run on it before Linux??
Please get a clue... I really wish I understood why people cannot get this correct. BSDi was a company [which I worked at as a FreeBSD developer]. BSD/OS is the commercial OS product of BSDi.
One of the nice things
about the GPL is that it's stringent requirements for distribution, have the effect of
reducing code forking
Yeah, right. How do you explain the EGCS-GCC code fork. The Emacs-Xemacs code fork. The Bison-Byacc code fork (GNU people took BSD Yacc, GPLed it and forked it), GNU indent (same story)?
No, the BSD's public domain style license scares most people off.
They don't want to see their code end up in some commercial software and don't even get
bugfixes back.
So that's why most people choose the GPL.
You mean the same license in which someone STOLE Berkeley YACC turned it into Bison, and now prevents me from getting bug fixes and enhancements from it to put back into BYACC? Same for indent. I see the GPV really achieved honorable goals there.
What was that somebody said about "Microsoft's" implementation of DNS (or whatever it was) in Windows 2000...?
So? Was your access to BIND8 or BIND9 lessened? I for one would love to see Micro$oft use more BSD networking-related bits -- for once they will be adhearing to specs, AND interoperabitity with the rest of the world will be improved.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hammer" is the internal AMD codename for the platform. "x86-64" and "amd64" are the external names. "Opteron" is an instance of a hammer/x86-64/amd64 processor.
Don't forget about the on-die memory controller. That also pumps up the performance in legacy mode.
> What if they feel like using one of the *BSD's?
:-)
The are using one of the BSD's.
Look at all the FreeBSD commit emails with "Sponsored by: The Weather Channel".
Acutally there *IS* AT&T code in FreeBSD. Grep for 'American' in /usr/include/*.h (and src/lib/libc/*).
* (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
* All or some portions of this file are derived from material licensed
* to the University of California by American Telephone and Telegraph
* Co. or Unix System Laboratories, Inc. and are reproduced herein with
* the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
>> FreeBSD is not portable at all, and the two >> platforms it does support (x86 and alpha) are >> so horribly different in so many ways that >> FreeBSD/x86 and FreeBSD/alpha may as well be >> different operating systems. Please provide details on why you feel this way.
You can be quoted on this. You are correct.
The only embelishment I can add is that Theo wanted access to the NetBSD CVS repository. NetBSD would not give it to him. From that denal he felt everyone's desire for access and gave it.
But it did start in Walnut Creek, but quickly moved to Concord (cheaper rents).
Could it be that Linux was the first OS to run on IA-64 because the commericial interests behind IA-64 blocked FreeBSD development on the platform by only giving access to documentation and the toolchain (compiler) to Linux companies?? Yes, that would be truth.
Maybe they were afraid BSD would run on it before Linux??
Please get a clue... I really wish I understood why people cannot get this correct. BSDi was a company [which I worked at as a FreeBSD developer]. BSD/OS is the commercial OS product of BSDi.
Uh.. no. It is effectively the same as Sun Solaris. BTW, the work-in-progress SMPng has already been tested on 8-way Alpha big-iron.
Uh... there never was a FreeBSD 1.2. I think that is suffient proof you are a troll. (also the VM system in 1.x is not the same as in later versions)
Yeah, right. How do you explain the EGCS-GCC code fork. The Emacs-Xemacs code fork. The Bison-Byacc code fork (GNU people took BSD Yacc, GPLed it and forked it), GNU indent (same story)?
You mean the same license in which someone STOLE Berkeley YACC turned it into Bison, and now prevents me from getting bug fixes and enhancements from it to put back into BYACC? Same for indent. I see the GPV really achieved honorable goals there.
So? Was your access to BIND8 or BIND9 lessened? I for one would love to see Micro$oft use more BSD networking-related bits -- for once they will be adhearing to specs, AND interoperabitity with the rest of the world will be improved.