*BSD's developement/release model has been described several times in this discussion, often far better than I am about to do. Read the fine posts?
As a quick and dirty refresher: Primary development is done on code in the -CURRENT branch. Code from -CURRENT is back-ported into -STABLE. Every so often -STABLE is frozen and called a -RELEASE. Major changes in -CURRENT are eventually frozen and called a.0-RELEASE.
Thus, there was development occuring on 4.0-CURRENT, the changes to which were being backported to 3.4-STABLE. 4.0-CURRENT was frozen for a time and released as 4.0-RELEASE, and 5.0-CURRENT was born, whose changes get incorporated into 4.0-STABLE. Meanwhile, changes were still being backported into 3.4-STABLE, eventually to be frozen into 3.5-RELEASE.
So, yes, 4.0-RELEASE is a pre-release in a way. It is not, however, an upgrade-only release. It is a full-fledged release, but as it is a snapshot of -CURRENT rather than -STABLE it is not guaranteed to be as stable as a snapshot of -STABLE.
As for "missing all sorts of.inf files", I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. A "find / -name "*.inf" on one of my FreeBSD machines, including full source, turned up exactly one.inf, located in pine's port directory.
Of course its hard to tell without asking Kirk himself why the old license was in place...
No need to ask him, its right there in the README file that accomanied the code (in FreeBSD at least):
"The idea is to allow those of you freely redistributing your source to use it while retaining for myself the right to peddle it for money to the commercial UNIX vendors."
Or you could just use Linux, which has already had the "really cool feature" for years now....
FreeBSD has had SMP for quite a while as well. The point is that there are going to be major improvements to FreeBSD's SMP implementation, improvements which the other BSD's (and anyone else in the entire world, including Linux) would be free to incorporate in their own code.
However, if you want to look at the statement I replied to logically, the phrase "company with the smartest people in the world" implies that all of the smartest people in the world work for Microsoft. Numerous counterexamples can be made of some of the smartest people in the world who do not work for Microsoft. Therefore the statement is obviously false. Thus, my rebuttal that Microsoft is not a company with the smartest people in the world.
If the original statement had instead stated something like "a company with some very smart people", or even "a company with [arguably] some of the smartest people in the world" it would have been a much more defensible argument.
BSD 4.4 is neither FreeBSD nor OpenBSD (nor NetBSD for that matter). However, it was the last official release of BSD by Berkeley, and is the code that today's BSD's are based upon (with quite a few twists and turns along the way).
A nice overview. However, it suffers from the apparently all too common misconception that the BSD license still includes the advertisement clause. It does not. The BSD license no longer includes the advertisement clause. There is no advertisement clause in the BSD license.
Please refer to ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.Lic ense.Change:
July 22, 1999
To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD:
As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source code files require that further distributions of products containing all or portions of the software, acknowledge within their advertising materials that such products contain software developed by UC Berkeley and its contributors.
Specifically, the provision reads:
" * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software * must display the following acknowledgement: * This product includes software developed by the University of * California, Berkeley and its contributors."
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted in its entirety.
William Hoskins Director, Office of Technology Licensing University of California, Berkeley
Emphasis added. This means that the change is retroactive, as if the advertisement clause was never in the BSD license at all.
To reiterate, there is no advertisement clause in the BSD license.
This patent is unenforcable, at least as a means of extracting licensing fees or prevention of competitors from implementing package managers.
If this patent were interpreted in its broadest sense, then countless examples of "prior art" (many of which have been mentioned by previous posters) would easily serve to defeat litigation brought on by Micro$oft over the issue.
Interpreted in its strictest sense, this patent wouldn't even apply to non-Micro$oft package managers at all.
As much as I dislike Micro$oft, this patent can only be viewed as a defensive maneuver on their part, much like those of IBM, in order to keep opportunists from trying to extract licensing fees etc from them. If it were used in any other way (i.e., in an offensive fashion), it could easily be challenged and nullified, thus effectively nullifying what little defensive power it carries for them.
ObDisclaimers: IANAL. Just MHO. I could be wrong. Blah blah blah.
Please note: I am not William Hoskins. William Hoskins is the author of the article referenced by the url. Not that I would expect anyone to mistake me for William Hoskins...
To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD:
As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source code files require that further distributions of products containing all or portions of the software, acknowledge within their advertising materials that such products contain software developed by UC Berkeley and its contributors.
Specifically, the provision reads:
" * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software * must display the following acknowledgement: * This product includes software developed by the University of * California, Berkeley and its contributors."
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted in its entirety.
William Hoskins Director, Office of Technology Licensing University of California, Berkeley
You seem to misunderstand the nature of SSH tunneling.
Connections from the ssh client to the ssh server are encrypted. Likewise, forwarded ports are encrypted via the same channel. One a connection gets bounced past the ssh server, it is no longer encrypted, since the ssh server has already decrypted that connection.
For example, in your example, the irc connection would be made to localhost, which the ssh client intercepts and encrypts and sends along to the ssh server. The ssh server then decrypts it and sends it on its merry way to the irc server. Anything listening between the ssh server and the irc server will be able to see a non-encrypted stream of data.
I think the point of the question was how to ensure a secure data path between each client end to end, which ssh port forwarding does not accomplish.
These links were ripped straight from http://www.freebsd.org/~nik/advocacy/myths.html#cl ustering , and I haven't checked any of them out for myself for usefulness to your need. But here goes:
I'm curious as to why you can't run a single machine as a fileserver.
Even a "crappy" box running *BSD or *Linux makes a wonderful file server, and the performance would far exceed the requirements of a SOHO. Cost for "crappy" parts is negligible, as would be the cost of all the software involved (OS, Samba, NFS, etc.)
Commercial standalone fileservers are really just "crappy" boxes preconfigured for their particular task. (Except for Symmetrix's EMC2 cabinets...heh).
If the skill level required for setting up your own solution is what is preventing you, then all I can say is that it really is a lot more fun to learn for yourself, as well as cheaper, than to pay someone else (commercial standalone fileservers) to do it for you.
With the advent of FreeBSD 4 (even at a.0 release), most fresh installs will probably be of the 4.x branch anyway. The CD's are best used for fresh installations.
Most of the interest in 3.5 will be from those who want to continue tracking 3.x on an existing installation. You can use CD's to do a binary upgrade, but upgrades are far better handled by cvs'ing the source and making world.
In the past, BSDI has been free to pick and choose which parts of FreeBSD to fold into their own code base, while FreeBSD has been free to develop in whatever directions they desire.
My concern is that when the time comes to merge the two code bases, political or ego-driven pissing contests could lead to decisions being made about which code to keep and which to drop that are not based strictly on the quality of the code itself. Furthermore, such an atmosphere could lead to the attrition of many otherwise loyal developers.
"Currently this doesn't effect... anywhere outside of Virginia."
Not true. Once passed in Virginia, all a aoftware vendor has to do is set up an office in Virginia, and state "The terms of this liscense agreement are bound by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia" or some such.
One state is too many, and its already too late. Where were these CIO's a few months ago?
Stories such as this are notable to those with an interest in BSD. If you would rather not see stories related to BSD, you can specify as much in your preferences.
NetBSD's philosophy is to port to everywhere, regardless of the development effort involved or the potential user base. Their motto is "Of course it runs NetBSD." NetBSD probably runs on more architectures than any other OS out there.
Slashdot Mirror
*BSD's developement/release model has been described several times in this discussion, often far better than I am about to do. Read the fine posts?
As a quick and dirty refresher:
Primary development is done on code in the -CURRENT branch. Code from -CURRENT is back-ported into -STABLE. Every so often -STABLE is frozen and called a -RELEASE. Major changes in -CURRENT are eventually frozen and called a
Thus, there was development occuring on 4.0-CURRENT, the changes to which were being backported to 3.4-STABLE. 4.0-CURRENT was frozen for a time and released as 4.0-RELEASE, and 5.0-CURRENT was born, whose changes get incorporated into 4.0-STABLE. Meanwhile, changes were still being backported into 3.4-STABLE, eventually to be frozen into 3.5-RELEASE.
So, yes, 4.0-RELEASE is a pre-release in a way. It is not, however, an upgrade-only release. It is a full-fledged release, but as it is a snapshot of -CURRENT rather than -STABLE it is not guaranteed to be as stable as a snapshot of -STABLE.
As for "missing all sorts of
Of course its hard to tell without asking Kirk himself why the old license was in place...
No need to ask him, its right there in the README file that accomanied the code (in FreeBSD at least):
"The idea is to allow those of you freely redistributing your source to use it while retaining for myself the right to peddle it for money to the commercial UNIX vendors."
Or you could just use Linux, which has already had the "really cool feature" for years now....
FreeBSD has had SMP for quite a while as well. The point is that there are going to be major improvements to FreeBSD's SMP implementation, improvements which the other BSD's (and anyone else in the entire world, including Linux) would be free to incorporate in their own code.
My post was meant to be toungue-in-cheek.
However, if you want to look at the statement I replied to logically, the phrase "company with the smartest people in the world" implies that all of the smartest people in the world work for Microsoft. Numerous counterexamples can be made of some of the smartest people in the world who do not work for Microsoft. Therefore the statement is obviously false. Thus, my rebuttal that Microsoft is not a company with the smartest people in the world.
If the original statement had instead stated something like "a company with some very smart people", or even "a company with [arguably] some of the smartest people in the world" it would have been a much more defensible argument.
"Why would a company with the smartest people in the world make life more difficult on themselves by making their own formats hard to read?"
They wouldn't. But we aren't talking about a company with the smartest people in the world, we are talking about Microsoft.
BSD 4.4 is neither FreeBSD nor OpenBSD (nor NetBSD for that matter). However, it was the last official release of BSD by Berkeley, and is the code that today's BSD's are based upon (with quite a few twists and turns along the way).
For a excellent, if a bit dry, history of BSD check out: Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution
For a more narrative, though less inclusive, story of BSD try: BSD Unix: Power to the people, from the code
A nice overview. However, it suffers from the apparently all too common misconception that the BSD license still includes the advertisement clause. It does not. The BSD license no longer includes the advertisement clause. There is no advertisement clause in the BSD license.
Please refer to ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.Li
July 22, 1999
To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD:
As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source
code files require that further distributions of products containing all or
portions of the software, acknowledge within their advertising materials
that such products contain software developed by UC Berkeley and its
contributors.
Specifically, the provision reads:
" * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley and its contributors."
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to
include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the
foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted
in its entirety.
William Hoskins
Director, Office of Technology Licensing
University of California, Berkeley
Emphasis added. This means that the change is retroactive, as if the advertisement clause was never in the BSD license at all.
To reiterate, there is no advertisement clause in the BSD license.
doh, I was wrong. never mind
proper haiku should
only have four syllables
in the last line
This patent is unenforcable, at least as a means of extracting licensing fees or prevention of competitors from implementing package managers.
If this patent were interpreted in its broadest sense, then countless examples of "prior art" (many of which have been mentioned by previous posters) would easily serve to defeat litigation brought on by Micro$oft over the issue.
Interpreted in its strictest sense, this patent wouldn't even apply to non-Micro$oft package managers at all.
As much as I dislike Micro$oft, this patent can only be viewed as a defensive maneuver on their part, much like those of IBM, in order to keep opportunists from trying to extract licensing fees etc from them. If it were used in any other way (i.e., in an offensive fashion), it could easily be challenged and nullified, thus effectively nullifying what little defensive power it carries for them.
ObDisclaimers: IANAL. Just MHO. I could be wrong. Blah blah blah.
Please note: I am not William Hoskins. William Hoskins is the author of the article referenced by the url. Not that I would expect anyone to mistake me for William Hoskins...
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.Lic ense.Change
July 22, 1999
To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD:
As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source
code files require that further distributions of products containing all or
portions of the software, acknowledge within their advertising materials
that such products contain software developed by UC Berkeley and its
contributors.
Specifically, the provision reads:
" * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley and its contributors."
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to
include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the
foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted
in its entirety.
William Hoskins
Director, Office of Technology Licensing
University of California, Berkeley
You seem to misunderstand the nature of SSH tunneling.
Connections from the ssh client to the ssh server are encrypted. Likewise, forwarded ports are encrypted via the same channel. One a connection gets bounced past the ssh server, it is no longer encrypted, since the ssh server has already decrypted that connection.
For example, in your example, the irc connection would be made to localhost, which the ssh client intercepts and encrypts and sends along to the ssh server. The ssh server then decrypts it and sends it on its merry way to the irc server. Anything listening between the ssh server and the irc server will be able to see a non-encrypted stream of data.
I think the point of the question was how to ensure a secure data path between each client end to end, which ssh port forwarding does not accomplish.
These links were ripped straight from http://www.freebsd.org/~nik/advocacy/myths.html#cl ustering , and I haven't checked any of them out for myself for usefulness to your need. But here goes:
h tml e r/mikler.html x .html h tml b ook/index.html
http://www.sarnoff.com:8000/docs/metacomputing.
http://cubix.desy.de/General/bsd/bsd.html
http://www.genebee.msu.su/Descript.html
http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/workshops/Talks/Mikl
http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~pleiter/edv/uni
http://www.ccrc.wustl.edu/~milind/MediaServers.
http://www.rwcp.or.jp/lab/pdslab/dist/
http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/Projects/ClusterCook
I'm curious as to why you can't run a single machine as a fileserver.
Even a "crappy" box running *BSD or *Linux makes a wonderful file server, and the performance would far exceed the requirements of a SOHO. Cost for "crappy" parts is negligible, as would be the cost of all the software involved (OS, Samba, NFS, etc.)
Commercial standalone fileservers are really just "crappy" boxes preconfigured for their particular task. (Except for Symmetrix's EMC2 cabinets...heh).
If the skill level required for setting up your own solution is what is preventing you, then all I can say is that it really is a lot more fun to learn for yourself, as well as cheaper, than to pay someone else (commercial standalone fileservers) to do it for you.
With the advent of FreeBSD 4 (even at a .0 release), most fresh installs will probably be of the 4.x branch anyway. The CD's are best used for fresh installations.
Most of the interest in 3.5 will be from those who want to continue tracking 3.x on an existing installation. You can use CD's to do a binary upgrade, but upgrades are far better handled by cvs'ing the source and making world.
Unix is any OS that I can bring to a screeching halt by typing kill -9 1 at a root prompt.
Not really a question, just a concern.
In the past, BSDI has been free to pick and choose which parts of FreeBSD to fold into their own code base, while FreeBSD has been free to develop in whatever directions they desire.
My concern is that when the time comes to merge the two code bases, political or ego-driven pissing contests could lead to decisions being made about which code to keep and which to drop that are not based strictly on the quality of the code itself. Furthermore, such an atmosphere could lead to the attrition of many otherwise loyal developers.
"Currently this doesn't effect ... anywhere outside of Virginia."
Not true. Once passed in Virginia, all a aoftware vendor has to do is set up an office in Virginia, and state "The terms of this liscense agreement are bound by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia" or some such.
One state is too many, and its already too late. Where were these CIO's a few months ago?
Stories such as this are notable to those with an interest in BSD. If you would rather not see stories related to BSD, you can specify as much in your preferences.
NetBSD's philosophy is to port to everywhere, regardless of the development effort involved or the potential user base. Their motto is "Of course it runs NetBSD." NetBSD probably runs on more architectures than any other OS out there.
Because you should be using ssh and scp for telnet/ftp.