You can see who works on PC-BSD by checking out the commit history on the official github repo Kris Moore is one of the main contributors and is a really nice guy. He works for iXsystems.
FreeNAS is a different beastie. Here is the github. As you can see there is actually very little overlap, but a lot of cross pollination between the various BSDs.
Well, if you really want to "get some work done" you could always run Windows or the operating system that came installed on your computer. And I might ask - what work are you doing that doesn't need to adjust some settings on your computer?
The first thing you need to insure is that there is a MBR compatibility mode for your motherboard, which for your machine should be IPISB-CU (Carmel2), so this is possible. Once you have that, you can probably figure the rest out in the wiki, or better to ask in the forums. I could give you some help but maybe slashdot is not the place for that. I hang out often in #freebsd so you might catch me there, and in general there are many helpful people there.
You will notice that I put the links for FreeBSD for the PC-BSD. The only real difference between the two is the software repositories. In fact you can easily convert a standard FreeBSD to PC-BSD simply by changing a few configs. You might try that route if you want a quick desktop install. I prefer to 'roll my own' but the PC-BSD guys have really done a lot of good work putting in good defaults.
So I'm not sure POSIX should exist and if does exist then I think Linux and OSX should be at the center of it with AIX, Solaris, other BSD... being peripheral. Things like support for Digital Unix and Xenix features can be dropped.
These kinds of statements are completely idiotic, and I dare say typical of the systemd fanclub.
Please read on what POSIX is first. It is what guarantees that your software will be portable, which is a foundation upon which UNIX is built. In fact it is the portability of software that made UNIX possible and popular to begin with. It is the equivalent of the w3 standards committee for web design.
You hate it when your web browser doesn't adhere to standards. Why should your software not adhere to standards? How do you think you can actually USE open source software on different operating systems? Making any key component of your operating system, especially something fundamental as an init system, against POSIX is completely insane. It will be the death of linux. It is equivalent to saying that your website 'works best with IE6' in the application realm. THIS IS A BAD THING, independently of the technical merits of systemd.
For instance, to compile gnome now on OpenBSD you need to add an emulation layer for the systemd parts because systemd CANNOT BE PORTED to BSD. So now in order to compile any gnome application onto OpenBSD you need a whole emulation layer just because they broke POSIX by having systemd as a dependence.
What you see in the browser area, where each webpage now needs to load a special javascript file in order to insure compatibility to all browsers, which is a nightmare for developers, is now being forced upon Linux.
The thing is these problems were solved so many years ago, and now thanks to Red Hat and their incompetent engineers everything is going to be broke and incompatible. It is basically Red Hat making Linux theirs - not by stealing the code, but by making it useless to others.
That is complete bullshit. Have you even looked at the source code of launchd and systemd?
Launchd actually is POSIX compatible which is why it has already been ported to FreeBSD. Systemd does not even consider POSIX compatability something to be desired.
If anything, porting GNOME will be a royal pain in the ass now. In fact many opensource projects like OpenBSD are writing shim layers to insure "systemd comptability" in order to facility cross compilation of Gnome Desktop.
When open source projects have to provide an emulation layer for an init system in order to port open source software there is something terribly wrong.
Actually, that is wrong. Systemd is well over 550k lines of code, and close to 1500 files.
There are operating systems with lower counts of lines of code. Even the entire Space Shuttle was run on less than that, and Minix is 3 orders of magnitude smaller for the entire operating system. Here is a nice graphic
The other init systems are much more modest. Even upstart is only around 40k lines of code. The source code of launchd for instance is very compact.
Furthermore, systemd is not only huge, it is entirely unportable. All the other init systems have been ported to other unix systems because they actually preserve POSIX. Even Apple, who has a tendancy to do proprietary things, has made their launchd portable to other systems. Systemd doesn't even care about POSIX compatibility in the slightest, and even detests this standard.
All those complaints about Windows being bloated are actually nothing compared to Red Hat Linux now, which has more code in its INIT system than the original WIndows 3.1 release.
In short it is a bloated project that will probably die under its own weight.
Yes there are alternatives that are running on several hundred million linux devices. Android, for instance does not use systemd.
In fact, even on Android the init system is a hobbled together "mess of bash scripts"
One of the advantages of this 'mess of bash scripts' is that I can add simply/bin/bash -x at the beginning of the script and can have very informative messages all the way down to the kernel level. This is very useful when you need to know WHY the process doesn't start. With systemd you have no such detail, and further if your machine doesn't boot you are so out of luck trying to read those logfiles.
In fact those bash scripts are part of the software that are written in a common language, easily writable and have built in diagnostic faculties due to the fact that it is using bash. With systemd you need to invest in an entire new tool set.
The main reason that binary log files ARE A TERRIBLE IDEA is that often to diagnose the problem you have to boot from another operating system in order to fix the broken one, and that may or may not be linux. Often it can't be the same operating system by definition because it won't boot into linux because of the problem.
Seriously, working with systemd is like going back to windows where you need a special tool to even read a configuration file.
Columbus was able to convince not only the Queen Isabella, but also the crews and investors who financed the voyage. There was never question of whether India was on the other side of the ocean, but rather of how far away it was. Columbus had a much smaller number than was commonly admitted, which is one reason he got the funds to go [he won the contract, if you will]. Yet the question was on how many degrees of longitude, not on whether the earth was round.
In fact just read most medieval poetry and songs, which were well known to the people. They always refer to the earth as 'this globe' or the sphere. Even a simple sailor knows why the the ship going over the horizon doesn't just get smaller, it also 'descends' over the horizon or disappears. The visible effect of the earth's curvature is visible on the open ocean at just 100 km distance so this is something that even simple workers would know about from observation.
The myth that people thought the earth was flat is just simply 19th century re-invention of history. It has no basis in fact.
1,500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat.
Except that is completely wrong. To quote an ancient from 300 BC [well over 1500 years ago]: [Text is actually quoted from Archimedes The Sand Reckoner]
Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is many times greater than the 'universe' just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth revolves about the Sun on the circumference of a circle, the Sun lying in the middle of the Floor, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same center as the Sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the Earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the center of the sphere bears to its surface.
And even the medieval theologians knew that the earth was round. To quote St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica:
Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.
That the earth is round was a fact so evident and proven in his time [1247, well over 500 years ago] that it was used as an example of a scientific fact. It is simply false that they thought the earth was flat.
Much of what is said about the ancients is just complete fantasy written by propagandists and not historians.
To be honest I've never understood the hate towards GOTO. In assembly language all you are doing is telling the computer where to go in order to do the next thing. In fact the program counter is a register just like any other which you modify to move to another statement, and at the very least increments by one each fetch cycle. Each and every pointer is telling the computer where to GO TO in order to find a certain variable. Each and every RETURN is an implicit goto. IF is nothing more than Branch On Equal. In fact the only thing you are doing with a computer is telling it where to take its next data and its next instruction, which at the very least is a GOTO NEXT BYTE. To fear GOTO is simply to fear the Von Neumann machine.
Many program languages are just abstractions to try to encapsulate in some way the place or time that something is supposed to be done. But in the end, it is just a glorified GOTO statement.
GOTOs are the only reality. If you fear GOTO, maybe there is something wrong with your philosophy, or are trying to abstract away from the problem too much.
Just recently I created a major mode for emacs just to help with a certain DSL. It was nothing all that complicated, so I didn't even put a license on it, just put it up on github and message on a mailing list saying that it was available and hope you found it useful.
The author of a program for this same DSL thought it so useful he wanted to bundle it with the program itself. I said sure, why not, its all there you can just take it. But then he explains that the program itself is GPL3 and that to include it in the project my code would have to be under GPL3. No idea if that was true, but then I get this form to fill out giving him copyright, inserting GPL stuff all over and it was really a pain in the ass....
I can see that for big projects you need some sort of license, just so everyone is on the same page. Yet for stuff like this I can see why BSD is so much easier - just take the code and just tell them where they can get more like it is all I really need. I'm a developer, not a politician nor an activist.
In short BSD license plays well with everyone, GPL wants to make everything GPL. Perhaps theoretically it doesn't, but in practice this has always been my experience.
Yes it does, but the majority of users are installing binary blobs to get their graphic card to work. So the point still remains - the GPL has not guaranteed the users anything more, and in general discourages developers to write the driver in the first place.
The main problem with the GPL is that it gives rights over code to people who do not code. Most of the people using GPL software do not write code, and yet they are given rights over it.
The GPL was once a way to insure that developers could collaborate and insure that no one would "steal" their code, or that they would work for something that later they had no control over or simply not have the ability to have the contributions of others in an easy way. But presently the GPL takes the rights away from the developer and gives them to people who don't even write code.
The reason BSD license code is more popular is simply because it gives the rights to the developer to do what he wants with the code. It keeps it in the hands of the one who wrote it, not the one who uses it.
It's designed to protect the end user from freeloaders.
And yet none of those users (or very very few) are writing code. They aren't developers. So basically it is reducing the rights of those who write code for those people who don't write code. Usually freedom concerns the actions of the one doing something.
I don't know about others, but everytime I submit patches to GPL projects its so complicated that I think I need a lawyer. WIth BSD I can just commit and hope someone finds it useful.
AWK is from the names of the programmers who invented it: Alfred Aho, Peter Weinberger, and Brian Kernighan. It is more of a language interpreter than a program, so the name is more about the language than the interpreter itself. There is a certain tradition of using acronymns for naming languages (LISP, Algol, Perl, Fortran) and using names of people (Pascal, Ada), so AWK combines the two traditions.
One of the best tools ever for disentangling output on the console.
Some of the strange GNU projects still follow this tradition. So GIMP, even it is sometimes criticized for its name, is actually quite logical: GNU Image Manipulation Program. These are usually the most successful.
A lot of the furry creature names are completely useless in my opinion.
Well Pascal is a pretty good measure of pressure, one Newton per square meter is a nice metric number. Yet for daily life we always use kilo- and hecto-Pascals, so perhaps it is a bit under-rated.
Maybe that is what happened to the Patriots' footballs?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, he joined them in 2013. He is their CTO I believe now. But PC-BSD is quite a bit older than that.
I think on that we can agree 100%. POSIX for the win.
I simply gave the link to show that Android does not use systemd, and actually has a "mess of scripts" in order to do its business.
You can see who works on PC-BSD by checking out the commit history on the official github repo Kris Moore is one of the main contributors and is a really nice guy. He works for iXsystems.
FreeNAS is a different beastie. Here is the github. As you can see there is actually very little overlap, but a lot of cross pollination between the various BSDs.
YES
THERE
ARE
I am by no means an expert in those databases, but I am fairly certain they can be run with very little difficulties on FreeBSD.
Here is an install of Oracle in a Debian jail on FreeBSD. I do not know if Oracle would support such an installation however.
The DB/2 client certainly works.
Sybase ASE for FreeBSD is available on this download page.
Whether it would be advantageous to you or not is a different question.
The answer is yes.
Actually the fellows who work on PC-BSD, or most of them, work for a company called iX Systems that provides servers and storage.
Well, if you really want to "get some work done" you could always run Windows or the operating system that came installed on your computer. And I might ask - what work are you doing that doesn't need to adjust some settings on your computer?
Sorry that link was eaten by slashdot. Here is a shortened one: http://goo.gl/VsOSS7
The first thing you need to insure is that there is a MBR compatibility mode for your motherboard, which for your machine should be IPISB-CU (Carmel2), so this is possible. Once you have that, you can probably figure the rest out in the wiki, or better to ask in the forums. I could give you some help but maybe slashdot is not the place for that. I hang out often in #freebsd so you might catch me there, and in general there are many helpful people there.
You will notice that I put the links for FreeBSD for the PC-BSD. The only real difference between the two is the software repositories. In fact you can easily convert a standard FreeBSD to PC-BSD simply by changing a few configs. You might try that route if you want a quick desktop install. I prefer to 'roll my own' but the PC-BSD guys have really done a lot of good work putting in good defaults.
Systemd doesn't even have a stable feature set yet, and yet you say the world has moved on? Maybe you are on a different world?
It also has a bug list that is huge, and the number of critical bugs embarrassing.
These kinds of statements are completely idiotic, and I dare say typical of the systemd fanclub.
Please read on what POSIX is first. It is what guarantees that your software will be portable, which is a foundation upon which UNIX is built. In fact it is the portability of software that made UNIX possible and popular to begin with. It is the equivalent of the w3 standards committee for web design.
You hate it when your web browser doesn't adhere to standards. Why should your software not adhere to standards? How do you think you can actually USE open source software on different operating systems? Making any key component of your operating system, especially something fundamental as an init system, against POSIX is completely insane. It will be the death of linux. It is equivalent to saying that your website 'works best with IE6' in the application realm. THIS IS A BAD THING, independently of the technical merits of systemd.
For instance, to compile gnome now on OpenBSD you need to add an emulation layer for the systemd parts because systemd CANNOT BE PORTED to BSD. So now in order to compile any gnome application onto OpenBSD you need a whole emulation layer just because they broke POSIX by having systemd as a dependence.
What you see in the browser area, where each webpage now needs to load a special javascript file in order to insure compatibility to all browsers, which is a nightmare for developers, is now being forced upon Linux.
The thing is these problems were solved so many years ago, and now thanks to Red Hat and their incompetent engineers everything is going to be broke and incompatible. It is basically Red Hat making Linux theirs - not by stealing the code, but by making it useless to others.
That is complete bullshit. Have you even looked at the source code of launchd and systemd?
Launchd actually is POSIX compatible which is why it has already been ported to FreeBSD. Systemd does not even consider POSIX compatability something to be desired.
If anything, porting GNOME will be a royal pain in the ass now. In fact many opensource projects like OpenBSD are writing shim layers to insure "systemd comptability" in order to facility cross compilation of Gnome Desktop.
When open source projects have to provide an emulation layer for an init system in order to port open source software there is something terribly wrong.
Actually, that is wrong. Systemd is well over 550k lines of code, and close to 1500 files.
There are operating systems with lower counts of lines of code. Even the entire Space Shuttle was run on less than that, and Minix is 3 orders of magnitude smaller for the entire operating system. Here is a nice graphic
The other init systems are much more modest. Even upstart is only around 40k lines of code. The source code of launchd for instance is very compact.
Furthermore, systemd is not only huge, it is entirely unportable. All the other init systems have been ported to other unix systems because they actually preserve POSIX. Even Apple, who has a tendancy to do proprietary things, has made their launchd portable to other systems. Systemd doesn't even care about POSIX compatibility in the slightest, and even detests this standard.
All those complaints about Windows being bloated are actually nothing compared to Red Hat Linux now, which has more code in its INIT system than the original WIndows 3.1 release.
In short it is a bloated project that will probably die under its own weight.
I hope you know that Poettering works for Redhat. He is not writing this stuff for free.
In fact, to write stuff this convoluted and poisonous, I dare say you would have to be paid for it.
Yes there are alternatives that are running on several hundred million linux devices. Android, for instance does not use systemd.
In fact, even on Android the init system is a hobbled together "mess of bash scripts"
One of the advantages of this 'mess of bash scripts' is that I can add simply /bin/bash -x at the beginning of the script and can have very informative messages all the way down to the kernel level. This is very useful when you need to know WHY the process doesn't start. With systemd you have no such detail, and further if your machine doesn't boot you are so out of luck trying to read those logfiles.
In fact those bash scripts are part of the software that are written in a common language, easily writable and have built in diagnostic faculties due to the fact that it is using bash. With systemd you need to invest in an entire new tool set.
The main reason that binary log files ARE A TERRIBLE IDEA is that often to diagnose the problem you have to boot from another operating system in order to fix the broken one, and that may or may not be linux. Often it can't be the same operating system by definition because it won't boot into linux because of the problem.
Seriously, working with systemd is like going back to windows where you need a special tool to even read a configuration file.
[Citation needed]
OpenRC is very much an active project. The last commit was just a few days ago.
The question is really the other way around - should systemd be doing all that it does and at the same time abandon POSIX compatibility.
systemd is not even portable. That is the very antithesis of Unix.
Columbus was able to convince not only the Queen Isabella, but also the crews and investors who financed the voyage. There was never question of whether India was on the other side of the ocean, but rather of how far away it was. Columbus had a much smaller number than was commonly admitted, which is one reason he got the funds to go [he won the contract, if you will]. Yet the question was on how many degrees of longitude, not on whether the earth was round.
In fact just read most medieval poetry and songs, which were well known to the people. They always refer to the earth as 'this globe' or the sphere. Even a simple sailor knows why the the ship going over the horizon doesn't just get smaller, it also 'descends' over the horizon or disappears. The visible effect of the earth's curvature is visible on the open ocean at just 100 km distance so this is something that even simple workers would know about from observation.
The myth that people thought the earth was flat is just simply 19th century re-invention of history. It has no basis in fact.
Except that is completely wrong. To quote an ancient from 300 BC [well over 1500 years ago]: [Text is actually quoted from Archimedes The Sand Reckoner]
And even the medieval theologians knew that the earth was round. To quote St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica :
That the earth is round was a fact so evident and proven in his time [1247, well over 500 years ago] that it was used as an example of a scientific fact. It is simply false that they thought the earth was flat.
Much of what is said about the ancients is just complete fantasy written by propagandists and not historians.
To be honest I've never understood the hate towards GOTO. In assembly language all you are doing is telling the computer where to go in order to do the next thing. In fact the program counter is a register just like any other which you modify to move to another statement, and at the very least increments by one each fetch cycle. Each and every pointer is telling the computer where to GO TO in order to find a certain variable. Each and every RETURN is an implicit goto. IF is nothing more than Branch On Equal. In fact the only thing you are doing with a computer is telling it where to take its next data and its next instruction, which at the very least is a GOTO NEXT BYTE. To fear GOTO is simply to fear the Von Neumann machine.
Many program languages are just abstractions to try to encapsulate in some way the place or time that something is supposed to be done. But in the end, it is just a glorified GOTO statement.
GOTOs are the only reality. If you fear GOTO, maybe there is something wrong with your philosophy, or are trying to abstract away from the problem too much.
Just recently I created a major mode for emacs just to help with a certain DSL. It was nothing all that complicated, so I didn't even put a license on it, just put it up on github and message on a mailing list saying that it was available and hope you found it useful.
The author of a program for this same DSL thought it so useful he wanted to bundle it with the program itself. I said sure, why not, its all there you can just take it. But then he explains that the program itself is GPL3 and that to include it in the project my code would have to be under GPL3. No idea if that was true, but then I get this form to fill out giving him copyright, inserting GPL stuff all over and it was really a pain in the ass....
I can see that for big projects you need some sort of license, just so everyone is on the same page. Yet for stuff like this I can see why BSD is so much easier - just take the code and just tell them where they can get more like it is all I really need. I'm a developer, not a politician nor an activist.
In short BSD license plays well with everyone, GPL wants to make everything GPL. Perhaps theoretically it doesn't, but in practice this has always been my experience.
Yes it does, but the majority of users are installing binary blobs to get their graphic card to work. So the point still remains - the GPL has not guaranteed the users anything more, and in general discourages developers to write the driver in the first place.
The main problem with the GPL is that it gives rights over code to people who do not code. Most of the people using GPL software do not write code, and yet they are given rights over it.
The GPL was once a way to insure that developers could collaborate and insure that no one would "steal" their code, or that they would work for something that later they had no control over or simply not have the ability to have the contributions of others in an easy way. But presently the GPL takes the rights away from the developer and gives them to people who don't even write code.
The reason BSD license code is more popular is simply because it gives the rights to the developer to do what he wants with the code. It keeps it in the hands of the one who wrote it, not the one who uses it.
And yet none of those users (or very very few) are writing code. They aren't developers. So basically it is reducing the rights of those who write code for those people who don't write code. Usually freedom concerns the actions of the one doing something.
I don't know about others, but everytime I submit patches to GPL projects its so complicated that I think I need a lawyer. WIth BSD I can just commit and hope someone finds it useful.
AWK is from the names of the programmers who invented it: Alfred Aho, Peter Weinberger, and Brian Kernighan. It is more of a language interpreter than a program, so the name is more about the language than the interpreter itself. There is a certain tradition of using acronymns for naming languages (LISP, Algol, Perl, Fortran) and using names of people (Pascal, Ada), so AWK combines the two traditions.
One of the best tools ever for disentangling output on the console.
Some of the strange GNU projects still follow this tradition. So GIMP, even it is sometimes criticized for its name, is actually quite logical: GNU Image Manipulation Program. These are usually the most successful.
A lot of the furry creature names are completely useless in my opinion.
Well Pascal is a pretty good measure of pressure, one Newton per square meter is a nice metric number. Yet for daily life we always use kilo- and hecto-Pascals, so perhaps it is a bit under-rated.
Maybe that is what happened to the Patriots' footballs?