For fuck's sake, OpenBSD can't even offer a modern version of WINE in their ports (the one they offer is from 1999, and is broken to boot)
The ports tree is 3rd party stuff, not OpenBSD. Why don't YOU contribute instead of whining.
Because I have a wealth of already working solutions to choose from. Why in the fuck would I waste my time contributing to a project full of assholes (read the mailing lists for details) who don't even want to admit there's a problem in the first place -much less fix it?
Don't know about you, but I've got a life to live; if OpenBSD doesn't feel like offering virtualisation technology (or -in the case of WINE- compatibility functionality) then I'll simply move on and use operating systems which do.
And if Theo insists on making it sound as if the problem isn't OpenBSD's inability to support virtualisation but virtualisation itself; then I reserve the right to laugh my ass off at his extremely silly pompousness.
This sounds suspiciously close to his comments about journaling filesystems when asked why OpenBSD didn't support them (which boiled down to "journaling sucks, use softdeps instead"). OpenBSD has native support for exactly zero virtualisation schemes, whereas NetBSD has native Xen support (something Opensolaris is working on -if they don't have it already), FreeBSD and Linux both have support for kqemu and Linux and Windows both have support for VMWare, Virtualbox and kqemu.
For fuck's sake, OpenBSD can't even offer a modern version of WINE in their ports (the one they offer is from 1999, and is broken to boot).
So instead of fixing OpenBSD so that it has native support for running some sort of native virtualisation scheme, Theo does what he usually does -bitches, whines and blames the technology for the flaws in his OS.
All of the lame ass cowboyneal/I for one welcome our ____ overlords/in soviet russia _____ _____s YOU comments make it to +5 funny, and this is sitting at 0?
That's all the proof you'll ever need that geeks have got NO sense of humor
>Can we plop our current GCC-compiled source on PCC and have it compile without huge headaches?
[i]Half[/i] the time you can't 'plop' your current GCC-compiled code onto a sun or intel compiler and have it compile without huge headaches -and to the degree that you [i]are[/i] able to have it compile is due only to intel and sun adding compatibility for GCC's increasingly bizarre and non-standard behavior (which would be fine, actually, except for the fact that GCC makes false claims of adhering to industry standards which they don't in practice adhere to).
Not really; you already have the sun and intel compilers for Linux (I've been told that the intel compiler has even been tweaked so you can build a bzImage with it).
But you're still stuck with using glibc if you want to be able to compile anything. You do have different libcs floating around, uclibc, etc; but they're all gnu and they're all meant for embedded market. I doubt you'd be able to recompile the linux kernel with any of them.
I notice that TFS doesn't say that anyone is actually able to compile anything (other than PCC) with it. The BSD folks would love to have a BSD-licensed drop-in replacement for GCC; but it doesn't sound like this is it. Not yet at least.
Wake me up when you're able to use PCC instead of GCC to do a 'make world' (or./build.sh or whatever).
What about when you replace FAT (or NTFS) with another filesystem entirely? Would the format done by mkfs.ext2 (or whatever) overwrite the data, or would it simply set up a filesystem table and leave the previous data on the drive readily accessible (to anyone who wants to recover it)?
Seriously, Gateway has always made really crappy computers. Compaq and Gateway are two brands I've always gotten burned on (weird, non upgradeable components that basically mean your box is worthless after a couple of years).
Actually I was reading a little (nothing in great detail) about the alternate platforms for gentoo the other day, so you're not presenting something new to me.
BSD -Unix- is a system, developed and planned as a whole unit. Linux -and 'meta' operating systems such as Debian and Gentoo all suffer from a lack of co-ordination. Microsoft gets many things wrong, but their ad in '99 with the illustration of Linux as being an animal made out of the parts of different animals is actually pretty spot-on. The file utilities come from one developer, your archiving programs come from several different projects and your bootstrap utility is made by someone else entirely -and none of these people are on the same page.
In other words, most Linux distributions are comprised of random, seperately developed programs as opposed to whole systems where the person developing a new kernel api communicates back and forth with the people who are working on the corresponding userland code (whatever that may be in that instance, file utilities, disk utilities, whatever).
Then you have Gentoo -which, along with Linux from scratch- adds even more randomness to the mix with its' update mechanism. Update when the latest diskutilities fuck up X (or whatever) and your system is hosed.
The strength of Unix (BSD, Solaris) is that it is _designed_ -and by replacing the userland designed to work with the kernel with the usual disparate array of GNU/utilities you detract from the strenth of using a designed system, and are probably better off sticking to Linux.
Unless you're simply talking about splicing gentoo in the place of the usual third party delivery mechanism (gentoo instead of ports, gentoo instead of pkgsrc). That would actually be interesting, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
>Suck it down my friend - Gentoo is the meta distro.
First, a correction is in order -Debian is "the" meta distro, and has been since 2000, if not before (they have had ports to the Freebsd, Netbsd and Hurd kernels in development since then -hell I've heard unconfirmed rumors of a cygwin port of Debian).
That said, this statement is why I think that you're not talking about replacing package delivery mechanisms but are instead talking about ripping apart stable, designed systems and replacing them with randomly bits and pieces of cobbled-together pieces from GNU.
Lastly, the claim that Gentoo is a development platform "for developers by developers" is rather amusing considering that no one touts it as a superior programming enviroment (at least, not outside of the gentoo forums, I wouldn't know about there -that's not someplace I have any reason to hang out at).
Instead you hear two claims from most Gentoobies:
1)"I feel like I understand my system so much better by compiling it myself" 2)"It takes a long time to compile a system, but it runs sooo much faster once you do".
You never hear people talk about how great the documented gentoo is (they say that, instead, about BSD), you never hear about what a great environment Gentoo is to develop in -whereas people frequently comment about how much cleaner, elegant and easier to understand the code from -say- Net or OpenBSD is.
Now, as far as things to suck down -you might consider swallowing the fact that pkgsrc has existed longer -and does better- as a cross-OS packaging system and that Debian pretty much invented the concept of the Meta OS.
While Joe User may end up a developer after using Gentoo (though I've seen no evidence of that happening) I think that's much more likely to happen if Joe User either uses and follows the Linux From Scratch book or downloads one of the BSDs and gets his hands dirty experimenting with and seeing what breaks in/usr/src.:)
>Because the FreeBSD community as well as the FreeBSD developers [i]generally[/i] tend to have outgrown the fanboyism displayed by most Gentoo followers?
I fucked up and used UBB code instead of html. Bleah, I know better (just not before I've had my first cup of coffee).
Because the FreeBSD community did not propel itself to fame on the back of a bunch of "CFLAGS just kick in, yo" kids, maybe?
Because the FreeBSD community as well as the FreeBSD developers [i]generally[/i] tend to have outgrown the fanboyism displayed by most Gentoo followers? (I'm not knocking the gentoo devs here, btw -far from it- I'm going out of my way to exclude them from the 'fanboy' label.)
Oh, and also because FreeBSD doesn't base it's core OS on a fluxating set of packages that can -and do- hose your system on a regular basis if you try to keep it up to date (meaning FreeBSD has a binary patch mechanism instead of "make 'fuck up my system with the latest packages from sourceforge -k?' ".
Mind you, I don't run FreeBSD (haven't since 4.6), but there's a reason why people who have used Unix for a while look down on Linux in general ("it's friday -time to gratuitously change the scheduler again!") and Gentoo in particular ("more CFLAGS means more vroom!").
Slashdot Mirror
I used to laugh at that commercial until I saw someone seriously use "idk" in a post on the Ubuntu Forums.
I'm not laughing any more.
>My advice, go find a bar your friends recommend and hang out there. You might meet someone IRL.
:-p
So, basically your advice boils down to... "don't use social networking sites".
We in the 21st century would like to thank you for that insightful and informative tip, Mr Luddite.
and this story should be tagged accordingly.
I don't know, but I imagine it will look a little like this
...kqemu?
Patience, patience. We're getting there!
And to think they laughed at my 'run everything on cp/m' strategy. Who's laughing now? ;)
Because I have a wealth of already working solutions to choose from. Why in the fuck would I waste my time contributing to a project full of assholes (read the mailing lists for details) who don't even want to admit there's a problem in the first place -much less fix it?
Don't know about you, but I've got a life to live; if OpenBSD doesn't feel like offering virtualisation technology (or -in the case of WINE- compatibility functionality) then I'll simply move on and use operating systems which do.
And if Theo insists on making it sound as if the problem isn't OpenBSD's inability to support virtualisation but virtualisation itself; then I reserve the right to laugh my ass off at his extremely silly pompousness.
This sounds suspiciously close to his comments about journaling filesystems when asked why OpenBSD didn't support them (which boiled down to "journaling sucks, use softdeps instead"). OpenBSD has native support for exactly zero virtualisation schemes, whereas NetBSD has native Xen support (something Opensolaris is working on -if they don't have it already), FreeBSD and Linux both have support for kqemu and Linux and Windows both have support for VMWare, Virtualbox and kqemu.
For fuck's sake, OpenBSD can't even offer a modern version of WINE in their ports (the one they offer is from 1999, and is broken to boot).
So instead of fixing OpenBSD so that it has native support for running some sort of native virtualisation scheme, Theo does what he usually does -bitches, whines and blames the technology for the flaws in his OS.
as long as you've got powerpoint and can read the Word documents you're sent in the mail?
...great balls of fire!
slashdot: Announcing the Year Of The Linux Desktop since 1997!
All of the lame ass cowboyneal/I for one welcome our ____ overlords/in soviet russia _____ _____s YOU comments make it to +5 funny, and this is sitting at 0?
That's all the proof you'll ever need that geeks have got NO sense of humor
>Can we plop our current GCC-compiled source on PCC and have it compile without huge headaches?
[i]Half[/i] the time you can't 'plop' your current GCC-compiled code onto a sun or intel compiler and have it compile without huge headaches -and to the degree that you [i]are[/i] able to have it compile is due only to intel and sun adding compatibility for GCC's increasingly bizarre and non-standard behavior (which would be fine, actually, except for the fact that GCC makes false claims of adhering to industry standards which they don't in practice adhere to).
Not really; you already have the sun and intel compilers for Linux (I've been told that the intel compiler has even been tweaked so you can build a bzImage with it).
But you're still stuck with using glibc if you want to be able to compile anything. You do have different libcs floating around, uclibc, etc; but they're all gnu and they're all meant for embedded market. I doubt you'd be able to recompile the linux kernel with any of them.
I notice that TFS doesn't say that anyone is actually able to compile anything (other than PCC) with it. The BSD folks would love to have a BSD-licensed drop-in replacement for GCC; but it doesn't sound like this is it. Not yet at least.
./build.sh or whatever).
Wake me up when you're able to use PCC instead of GCC to do a 'make world' (or
1,000 monkeys, 1,000 typewriters.
What about when you replace FAT (or NTFS) with another filesystem entirely? Would the format done by mkfs.ext2 (or whatever) overwrite the data, or would it simply set up a filesystem table and leave the previous data on the drive readily accessible (to anyone who wants to recover it)?
Seriously, Gateway has always made really crappy computers. Compaq and Gateway are two brands I've always gotten burned on (weird, non upgradeable components that basically mean your box is worthless after a couple of years).
>So you're the kind of person that would hate http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/bsd/fbsd/ Gentoo/FreeBSD then?
/usr/src. :)
Actually I was reading a little (nothing in great detail) about the alternate platforms for gentoo the other day, so you're not presenting something new to me.
BSD -Unix- is a system, developed and planned as a whole unit. Linux -and 'meta' operating systems such as Debian and Gentoo all suffer from a lack of co-ordination. Microsoft gets many things wrong, but their ad in '99 with the illustration of Linux as being an animal made out of the parts of different animals is actually pretty spot-on. The file utilities come from one developer, your archiving programs come from several different projects and your bootstrap utility is made by someone else entirely -and none of these people are on the same page.
In other words, most Linux distributions are comprised of random, seperately developed programs as opposed to whole systems where the person developing a new kernel api communicates back and forth with the people who are working on the corresponding userland code (whatever that may be in that instance, file utilities, disk utilities, whatever).
Then you have Gentoo -which, along with Linux from scratch- adds even more randomness to the mix with its' update mechanism. Update when the latest diskutilities fuck up X (or whatever) and your system is hosed.
The strength of Unix (BSD, Solaris) is that it is _designed_ -and by replacing the userland designed to work with the kernel with the usual disparate array of GNU/utilities you detract from the strenth of using a designed system, and are probably better off sticking to Linux.
Unless you're simply talking about splicing gentoo in the place of the usual third party delivery mechanism (gentoo instead of ports, gentoo instead of pkgsrc). That would actually be interesting, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
>Suck it down my friend - Gentoo is the meta distro.
First, a correction is in order - Debian is "the" meta distro, and has been since 2000, if not before (they have had ports to the Freebsd, Netbsd and Hurd kernels in development since then -hell I've heard unconfirmed rumors of a cygwin port of Debian).
That said, this statement is why I think that you're not talking about replacing package delivery mechanisms but are instead talking about ripping apart stable, designed systems and replacing them with randomly bits and pieces of cobbled-together pieces from GNU.
Lastly, the claim that Gentoo is a development platform "for developers by developers" is rather amusing considering that no one touts it as a superior programming enviroment (at least, not outside of the gentoo forums, I wouldn't know about there -that's not someplace I have any reason to hang out at).
Instead you hear two claims from most Gentoobies:
1)"I feel like I understand my system so much better by compiling it myself"
2)"It takes a long time to compile a system, but it runs sooo much faster once you do".
You never hear people talk about how great the documented gentoo is (they say that, instead, about BSD), you never hear about what a great environment Gentoo is to develop in -whereas people frequently comment about how much cleaner, elegant and easier to understand the code from -say- Net or OpenBSD is.
Now, as far as things to suck down -you might consider swallowing the fact that pkgsrc has existed longer -and does better- as a cross-OS packaging system and that Debian pretty much invented the concept of the Meta OS.
While Joe User may end up a developer after using Gentoo (though I've seen no evidence of that happening) I think that's much more likely to happen if Joe User either uses and follows the Linux From Scratch book or downloads one of the BSDs and gets his hands dirty experimenting with and seeing what breaks in
>Because Intel can be bothered to give the devs the specs and not get their tits in a knot like ATI.
Riiight.
Just ask Theo de Raadt, he can tell you all about getting specs from Intel.
>Because the FreeBSD community as well as the FreeBSD developers [i]generally[/i] tend to have outgrown the fanboyism displayed by most Gentoo followers?
I fucked up and used UBB code instead of html. Bleah, I know better (just not before I've had my first cup of coffee).
Because the FreeBSD community did not propel itself to fame on the back of a bunch of "CFLAGS just kick in, yo" kids, maybe?
Because the FreeBSD community as well as the FreeBSD developers [i]generally[/i] tend to have outgrown the fanboyism displayed by most Gentoo followers? (I'm not knocking the gentoo devs here, btw -far from it- I'm going out of my way to exclude them from the 'fanboy' label.)
Oh, and also because FreeBSD doesn't base it's core OS on a fluxating set of packages that can -and do- hose your system on a regular basis if you try to keep it up to date (meaning FreeBSD has a binary patch mechanism instead of "make 'fuck up my system with the latest packages from sourceforge -k?' ".
Mind you, I don't run FreeBSD (haven't since 4.6), but there's a reason why people who have used Unix for a while look down on Linux in general ("it's friday -time to gratuitously change the scheduler again!") and Gentoo in particular ("more CFLAGS means more vroom!").
I'm in, if only because that made me laugh.
No I'm not!
Oh, wait -my bad. It's been so long, I forgot.