Nope. Microsft bought the STREAMS implementation of TCP/IP from Spyder, Inc.
The only TCP/IP-related bits MS took from BSD were a few utilities like ftp.exe and telnet.exe. The actual TCP/IP stack is not related to BSD in any way.
I just want a simple, non-clamshell, ruggedised phone. Something that won't break when it hits the pavement from a few feet off the ground, or that will still work after bouncing down three flights of cement stairs. Something to replace my again Panasonic TX-220.
Do they make anything like this anymore??? Not that I've found. Everything is now so flimsy I'd be afraid to toss it onto my bed, let alone my desk.
OpenBSD and DragonFlyBSD are both working toward making their source trees compilable under TenDRA. There are a couple of different projects doing the same for the FreeBSD source tree, but I haven't heard/read anything about their progress in a couple of months.
The major problem facing the removal/replacement of GCC is that all of the BSDs rely on certain extensions that only GCC uses. Once the source tree is cleaned up of these gcc-isms, then you should be able to use just about any compiler.
This is the same problem facing those who want to compile the Linux kernel under something other than GCC.
This month's CPU magazine has a review of these headphones. Don't recall the specifics, but they received a good review. The reviewer found them to be much better than stereo headphones during gaming sessions as you could hear sounds from all directions. But the sound quality for DVD movie playback wasn't so hot.
There might be a copy of the review on their website (no I don't have a URL, use a search engine).
Most of these tools are being removed/replaced from the OpenBSD source tree. Several of these are also being removed/replaced from the FreeBSd source tree. Not sure if there are any projects along these line for NetBSD.
Check out libtar, the BSD replacement for GNU tar. BSD awk and sed are also in the works, as is a BSD grep.
Re:Cut-and-Paste in X beats the competition...
on
X.org and XFree86 Reform
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The problem with PRIMARY is: how do you select text in one document, then select text in another document that you want replaced, then paste the text from the first document???
The only way around this is to delete the text you want replaced first, then select the replacement text, then paste it into the correct location. This requires flipping between the two docs/apps/whatevers at least twice. Why??
The vast majority of the time, I am replacing text with previously selected text. Or moving text around. And having the PRIMARY buffer overwritten when all I'm trying to do is select text is a royal pain in the ass.
Selecting (highlighting) text and copying text into a buffer should NOT be the same action.
It comes with screen savers and sound drivers. Did you bother to look in the/modules directory to see all the kernel modules and drivers that you can play with??
It never ceases to amaze me how people who use Linux and kernel modules all the time never bother to look / think about kernel modules when they move to FreeBSD. With *very few* exceptions, if it isn't explicitly listed in the kernel config IT'S BUILT AS A KERNEL MODULE.
Just like any other cache, you can disable the harddrive's write cache (except on those drives that only pretend to disable it). Depending on your filesystem, this can actually improve your data integrity.
Re:I'm almost ashamed my FreeBSD preference now
on
BSD For Linux Users
·
· Score: 2, Informative
FreeBSD is *NOT* a distribution. You can't pick and choose the kernel, the compiler, the ls app, the nice app, the init app, and so on to build your own. There is only 1 FreeBSD, and no matter who installs it, or how (FTP, CD-ROM, etc) you all end up with the *exact* same bits. It is an actual OS, with a kernel and userland developed in sync with each other.
Linux *IS* a distribution. You can pick and choose the kernel, the compiler, the ls app, the nice app, the init app, and so on to build your own, custom OS. This is exactly what the different distribution groups do. They pick and choose what they want to use, where they want to put it, how they want to configure it. You can never be sure if the distribution you use is compatible with the distribution your buddy is using. The kernel is developed completely independently from the rest of the OS. The individual userland apps are all developed independently of each other. It is up to the distribution groups to make all these independent apps work together. Linux is a kernel. A Linux OS is some version of the kernel bundled together with a hodge-podge of other apps that have (maybe) been tested to work together.
Not yet. But, the Athlon64 running in 32-bit mode is still faster than the fastest AthlonXP and gives the fastest P4 a run for its money.
Plus, all it takes to gain full 64-bit support is a re-install with a 64-bit aware OS. Gotta love when updating a piece of software gives you access to even more of the hardware.
And the problem with that is... what? Here we have an MS implementation of OpenBSD.. that is compatible with OpenBSD. As opposed to an MS implementation of POSIX that wouldn't really be compatible with POSIX and cause all kinds of interoperability problems for everyone.
Which would you rather see: every proprietary software company making their own implementations of everything... or everybody using the same, tried, tested, and known-to-work implementation??
The BSD license allows for this, and is why all low-level architectural-type stuff should be released under a BSD-type license. The GPL does not allow for this, and forces everybody to continuously rebuild every wheel, with who knows what kinds of bugs lurking underneath to bite us down the road.
But, the GPL is a good license for high-level applications, things you don't want other software companies to take, wrap under a different name, and sell as their own.
CD2 as distributed by the FreeBSD project is a bootable, live filesystem CD-ROM. Granted, it only gets you to a shell prompt, but it includes everything that comes with a standard install of FreeBSD, and makes a great rescue tool.
There are a couple of third-party LiveCD projects underway, although the only one I can recall the name of is Freesbie.
This will install the portupgrade suite of tools, plus the ruby scripting engine (since portupgrade is written in ruby -- the only reason it's not part of the base OS).
You are talking about price / performance -- or getting the most bang for the buck. Since the release of the original AMD 386 clone chip, AMD has had the best price / performance ration. IOW, the AMD chips will always give you the most speed per dollar spent on it.
As for wanting a super-cool, super-quiet CPU, that has decent performance, you'll want to check into the Transmeta TM5800 and TM5900 series chips, or the VIA C3 chips. Both of these can run without fans, and are clocked up around the 1GHz mark. These CPUs won't give you the same performance as a P3/P4/Athlon at the same megahertz, but they aren't horrible either.
Microsoft never used the BSD TCP/IP stack. They purchased the STREAMS implementation of TCP/IP from Spyder Inc. They extended that, tweaked it to work using WinSock, and shipped it.
The only BSD bits in Windows are the userland TCP/IP tools like ftp.exe and telnet.exe and so on.
Repeat after me: the Windows network stack DID NOT come from BSD.
Well, if you're going to get right down to it, then Windows went from 3.x to 4.0, to 4.1, to 4.2, to 4.5, since 95-ME are all really just point releases.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Except it's not an exploit, it's a DoS ... and it's only a problem for those running IPv6 with a publically accessible IPv6 address.
Yeah, there's a dangerous problem there.
God, the intelligence on Slashdot has certainly dropped in the past few years.
::1
There you go. Have fun.
Nope. Microsft bought the STREAMS implementation of TCP/IP from Spyder, Inc.
The only TCP/IP-related bits MS took from BSD were a few utilities like ftp.exe and telnet.exe. The actual TCP/IP stack is not related to BSD in any way.
Wow, you guys want a lot of extras. :)
I just want a simple, non-clamshell, ruggedised phone. Something that won't break when it hits the pavement from a few feet off the ground, or that will still work after bouncing down three flights of cement stairs. Something to replace my again Panasonic TX-220.
Do they make anything like this anymore??? Not that I've found. Everything is now so flimsy I'd be afraid to toss it onto my bed, let alone my desk.
OpenBSD and DragonFlyBSD are both working toward making their source trees compilable under TenDRA. There are a couple of different projects doing the same for the FreeBSD source tree, but I haven't heard/read anything about their progress in a couple of months.
The major problem facing the removal/replacement of GCC is that all of the BSDs rely on certain extensions that only GCC uses. Once the source tree is cleaned up of these gcc-isms, then you should be able to use just about any compiler.
This is the same problem facing those who want to compile the Linux kernel under something other than GCC.
This month's CPU magazine has a review of these headphones. Don't recall the specifics, but they received a good review. The reviewer found them to be much better than stereo headphones during gaming sessions as you could hear sounds from all directions. But the sound quality for DVD movie playback wasn't so hot.
There might be a copy of the review on their website (no I don't have a URL, use a search engine).
Most of these tools are being removed/replaced from the OpenBSD source tree. Several of these are also being removed/replaced from the FreeBSd source tree. Not sure if there are any projects along these line for NetBSD.
Check out libtar, the BSD replacement for GNU tar. BSD awk and sed are also in the works, as is a BSD grep.
The problem with PRIMARY is: how do you select text in one document, then select text in another document that you want replaced, then paste the text from the first document???
The only way around this is to delete the text you want replaced first, then select the replacement text, then paste it into the correct location. This requires flipping between the two docs/apps/whatevers at least twice. Why??
The vast majority of the time, I am replacing text with previously selected text. Or moving text around. And having the PRIMARY buffer overwritten when all I'm trying to do is select text is a royal pain in the ass.
Selecting (highlighting) text and copying text into a buffer should NOT be the same action.
This is even more of a pain at a console.
Dude, I want whatever it is that you are smoking. It must be very strong and exotic for it to cause you spew out the things you did.
Microsoft did *NOT* take the networking stack from BSD. They bought the streams implementation of TCP/IP from Spyder, Inc.
The only BSD networking bits in Windows are a few high-level applications like ftp.exe and telnet.exe.
There is no CHANGES file. It's called UPDATING.
And any idiot knows that you build the world *before* you build a kernel.
Anybody who runs into problems without first reading the docs (Handbook, UPDATING) has no right to complain when things die on them.
The AMD64 64-bit version of dhclient has a few issues.
It comes with screen savers and sound drivers. Did you bother to look in the /modules directory to see all the kernel modules and drivers that you can play with??
It never ceases to amaze me how people who use Linux and kernel modules all the time never bother to look / think about kernel modules when they move to FreeBSD. With *very few* exceptions, if it isn't explicitly listed in the kernel config IT'S BUILT AS A KERNEL MODULE.
Just like any other cache, you can disable the harddrive's write cache (except on those drives that only pretend to disable it). Depending on your filesystem, this can actually improve your data integrity.
FreeBSD is *NOT* a distribution. You can't pick and choose the kernel, the compiler, the ls app, the nice app, the init app, and so on to build your own. There is only 1 FreeBSD, and no matter who installs it, or how (FTP, CD-ROM, etc) you all end up with the *exact* same bits. It is an actual OS, with a kernel and userland developed in sync with each other.
Linux *IS* a distribution. You can pick and choose the kernel, the compiler, the ls app, the nice app, the init app, and so on to build your own, custom OS. This is exactly what the different distribution groups do. They pick and choose what they want to use, where they want to put it, how they want to configure it. You can never be sure if the distribution you use is compatible with the distribution your buddy is using. The kernel is developed completely independently from the rest of the OS. The individual userland apps are all developed independently of each other. It is up to the distribution groups to make all these independent apps work together. Linux is a kernel. A Linux OS is some version of the kernel bundled together with a hodge-podge of other apps that have (maybe) been tested to work together.
Do you see the difference now??
Not yet. But, the Athlon64 running in 32-bit mode is still faster than the fastest AthlonXP and gives the fastest P4 a run for its money.
Plus, all it takes to gain full 64-bit support is a re-install with a 64-bit aware OS. Gotta love when updating a piece of software gives you access to even more of the hardware.
And the problem with that is ... what? Here we have an MS implementation of OpenBSD .. that is compatible with OpenBSD. As opposed to an MS implementation of POSIX that wouldn't really be compatible with POSIX and cause all kinds of interoperability problems for everyone.
... or everybody using the same, tried, tested, and known-to-work implementation??
Which would you rather see: every proprietary software company making their own implementations of everything
The BSD license allows for this, and is why all low-level architectural-type stuff should be released under a BSD-type license. The GPL does not allow for this, and forces everybody to continuously rebuild every wheel, with who knows what kinds of bugs lurking underneath to bite us down the road.
But, the GPL is a good license for high-level applications, things you don't want other software companies to take, wrap under a different name, and sell as their own.
CD2 as distributed by the FreeBSD project is a bootable, live filesystem CD-ROM. Granted, it only gets you to a shell prompt, but it includes everything that comes with a standard install of FreeBSD, and makes a great rescue tool.
There are a couple of third-party LiveCD projects underway, although the only one I can recall the name of is Freesbie.
/usr/ports/sysutils/portupgrade
This will install the portupgrade suite of tools, plus the ruby scripting engine (since portupgrade is written in ruby -- the only reason it's not part of the base OS).
You're just using the wrong tools. :)
Installing a pre-compiled binary package on FreeBSD is as easy as "pkg_add -r "
Using the portupgrade suite of tools, it's as easy as "portinstall -P "
To install an app via the ports tree is as simple as "portinstall "
Yes, there is no perl in the base OS anymore. But, the perl 5.6 port is installed as part of the standard OS install.
Removing or upgrading that is as easy as removing or upgrading any other port.
You are talking about price / performance -- or getting the most bang for the buck. Since the release of the original AMD 386 clone chip, AMD has had the best price / performance ration. IOW, the AMD chips will always give you the most speed per dollar spent on it.
As for wanting a super-cool, super-quiet CPU, that has decent performance, you'll want to check into the Transmeta TM5800 and TM5900 series chips, or the VIA C3 chips. Both of these can run without fans, and are clocked up around the 1GHz mark. These CPUs won't give you the same performance as a P3/P4/Athlon at the same megahertz, but they aren't horrible either.
There's a handy little Sourceforge project to solve that problem: The X Modeline Generator
Microsoft never used the BSD TCP/IP stack. They purchased the STREAMS implementation of TCP/IP from Spyder Inc. They extended that, tweaked it to work using WinSock, and shipped it.
The only BSD bits in Windows are the userland TCP/IP tools like ftp.exe and telnet.exe and so on.
Repeat after me: the Windows network stack DID NOT come from BSD.
Well, if you're going to get right down to it, then Windows went from 3.x to 4.0, to 4.1, to 4.2, to 4.5, since 95-ME are all really just point releases. :)