Hehehee, actually, that's a major motivation behind porting it over, etc. Because I start soooo many fights pro-BSD anti-GPL, I want to get a chance to explain proper ways of doing certain things, such as the author keeping control of a product, etc. And any modifications that need made to IPF to work before adding to xMach, I will clear with the author first, and any modifications to xMach that need made to add IPF, I'll contribute back so he can automate adding it, as he has done for EVERY other os. --
Send them to me. Seriously. As long as it's a 486/DX2 or better, has a disk >300MB and ram >= 16MB (And works), I can put it to VERY good use. If it has a NIC (NE2000), even more better. Depending on the computer, I even can cover shipping costs. Show me how _this_ idea doesn't work, please. --
Maybe I'm the only developer who could use more hardware, but 486 and pentium class systems are welcome donations to xMach, and I especially need more systems to test code on, such as my work-in-progress of integrating ipfilter. --
OpenBSD could not have it in their codebase in that situation, because they have to pretend to keep the codebase audited. Making a port out of IPF, however, would be almost acceptable. --
I sincerely hope you are joking or being sarcastic. Andrew Tanenbaum, Linus Torvalds, Kurt (the atheos guy whose last name I forgot), and many others have done _exactly_ that. Well, maybe not Linus, but still. --
I so run FreeBSD, in fact I am avidly Anti-Linux. I was just saying this is a Good Thing(tm) for the Linux community. Can't one say as a third party that something is "good"? --
I'm glad to see Linux stuff catching up with the amount of security technology that has been out there in the world. If only RWatson would port jailng to Linux, it'd be probably one of the best platforms for security, since so much cool stuff does tend to get developed. Fad or not, the attention and dollars that are put into Linux make it worthwhile. --
Finally someone realizes that despite all the propaganda, if you're in business, if you're MAKING MONEY, or want to, you need an unrestricted license, or at least one less restrictive than the GPL. --
This says that use must be unrestricted in the license agreement, does this mean that the government there cannot use GPL'd software as, indeed, it imposes as much on individuals using the software as something like the MS EULA. Total freedom means you don't _have to_ do anything, however the GPL inhibits freedom and unrestricted use by saying that users of the software _must_ make modifications they make available back to the "community". At a recent North Carolina Infragard meeting, I got to talk to one of the top people in InfoSec at the CIA, and they won't even _touch_ GPL'd software, because they have to modify everything, have to follow the law, and 90% of the time can't make anything known publicly about what exact modifications they have made. In other words, governments need the ability to keep their secrets secret, and something like the GPL could be the death of them, and most of the time, they won't even get involved. --
Despite the post that started this being complete garbage and total GPL propoganda; I'd rather work for Apple than a Red Hat or Mandrake or VA Linux. Apple is a legend. --
I would like to clarify to everyone that the site isn't in fact down, nor is any server related to the site. What happened is my DNS servers (which are on Verizon internet) became unreachable _NOT_ because of Slashdot, but because _my DSL is down_. To clarify, the site is hosted on soem rather fat pipes, not hosted by me. One mirror runs RedHat Linux, the other runs FreeBSD. They are both up and running. If you want to view the Core Team page complete with everyone's picture on the Canadian server, try http://www.velocet.ca/~smegsite/xmach/core.html , if you want to view the entire webpage, which is a few hours out of date, try http://xMach.FreeOS.com. Thanks. And to clarify one more thing, Mach Mach3 was monolithic, so all of you people talking about a lot of Mach 2.5 derivitives being exactly the same, you're wrong. And yes there have been a number of 'production' oses based on a microkernel Mach. Unicos comes to mind. --
But I already got this posted on the front page =) I was really hoping not to get on Slashdot again until we did a release, let alone for my oso article =) --
Slashdot Mirror
How well does this scale in contrast to Unicos/mk?
--
Hehehee, actually, that's a major motivation behind porting it over, etc. Because I start soooo many fights pro-BSD anti-GPL, I want to get a chance to explain proper ways of doing certain things, such as the author keeping control of a product, etc. And any modifications that need made to IPF to work before adding to xMach, I will clear with the author first, and any modifications to xMach that need made to add IPF, I'll contribute back so he can automate adding it, as he has done for EVERY other os.
--
Send them to me. Seriously. As long as it's a 486/DX2 or better, has a disk >300MB and ram >= 16MB (And works), I can put it to VERY good use. If it has a NIC (NE2000), even more better. Depending on the computer, I even can cover shipping costs. Show me how _this_ idea doesn't work, please.
--
How so?
--
Maybe I'm the only developer who could use more hardware, but 486 and pentium class systems are welcome donations to xMach, and I especially need more systems to test code on, such as my work-in-progress of integrating ipfilter.
--
OpenBSD could not have it in their codebase in that situation, because they have to pretend to keep the codebase audited. Making a port out of IPF, however, would be almost acceptable.
--
Who in the world is RMS to define what the community is.
--
I sincerely hope you are joking or being sarcastic. Andrew Tanenbaum, Linus Torvalds, Kurt (the atheos guy whose last name I forgot), and many others have done _exactly_ that. Well, maybe not Linus, but still.
--
I so run FreeBSD, in fact I am avidly Anti-Linux. I was just saying this is a Good Thing(tm) for the Linux community. Can't one say as a third party that something is "good"?
--
Saying that all software is equal when it comes to security is not Open Source rhetoric. It's sensibility.
--
If they pretend to audit the code, can they call it secure?
--
Commercial software rhetoric.
--
I'm glad to see Linux stuff catching up with the amount of security technology that has been out there in the world. If only RWatson would port jailng to Linux, it'd be probably one of the best platforms for security, since so much cool stuff does tend to get developed. Fad or not, the attention and dollars that are put into Linux make it worthwhile.
--
Finally someone realizes that despite all the propaganda, if you're in business, if you're MAKING MONEY, or want to, you need an unrestricted license, or at least one less restrictive than the GPL.
--
This says that use must be unrestricted in the license agreement, does this mean that the government there cannot use GPL'd software as, indeed, it imposes as much on individuals using the software as something like the MS EULA. Total freedom means you don't _have to_ do anything, however the GPL inhibits freedom and unrestricted use by saying that users of the software _must_ make modifications they make available back to the "community". At a recent North Carolina Infragard meeting, I got to talk to one of the top people in InfoSec at the CIA, and they won't even _touch_ GPL'd software, because they have to modify everything, have to follow the law, and 90% of the time can't make anything known publicly about what exact modifications they have made. In other words, governments need the ability to keep their secrets secret, and something like the GPL could be the death of them, and most of the time, they won't even get involved.
--
It's back up; no worries.
--
Despite the post that started this being complete garbage and total GPL propoganda; I'd rather work for Apple than a Red Hat or Mandrake or VA Linux. Apple is a legend.
--
Ani DiFranco is my saviour.
--
Sorry, I was attempting to play nice with the gnubies for once, and possibly mock the line from the GNU HURD page.
--
I would like to clarify to everyone that the site isn't in fact down, nor is any server related to the site. What happened is my DNS servers (which are on Verizon internet) became unreachable _NOT_ because of Slashdot, but because _my DSL is down_. To clarify, the site is hosted on soem rather fat pipes, not hosted by me. One mirror runs RedHat Linux, the other runs FreeBSD. They are both up and running. If you want to view the Core Team page complete with everyone's picture on the Canadian server, try http://www.velocet.ca/~smegsite/xmach/core.html , if you want to view the entire webpage, which is a few hours out of date, try http://xMach.FreeOS.com. Thanks. And to clarify one more thing, Mach Mach3 was monolithic, so all of you people talking about a lot of Mach 2.5 derivitives being exactly the same, you're wrong. And yes there have been a number of 'production' oses based on a microkernel Mach. Unicos comes to mind.
--
Actually, and this is kind of important, the reason the site is down (and it actually isn't) is because my DNS server is unreachable. Why? Verizon.
--
And that any program that relies on GPL code must itself be GPL'd.
--
Most of the information you're providing is wrong.
--
But I still wish this was an April Fool's joke. I mean c'mon 'iXsystems'?? How 'krad' does that sound.
--
But I already got this posted on the front page =) I was really hoping not to get on Slashdot again until we did a release, let alone for my oso article =)
--