Heh, yes well, we can't all have the (most excellent) Ports System.:) I've built (pre 1.0) xmms from unmodified source and used it on FreeBSD without any problems. I plan on letting SF know that they can send people to the various BSD Ports Collections (Available via FreeBSD's CVSWeb) so they can incorporate the various OS specific patches into their source. (Such changes would exclude items that are specific to the Ports system, like overriding PATHs and make variables, etc. These items would remain in the Ports patches.) I'll be having articles in the FreeBSDZine about FreeBSD's Ports system in the near future.
It's about time an organized effort was made to keep source code portable across the free OSs.
This is why C was invented in the first place, but too many people forget it.
Many programs already compile on multiple OSs, and kudos to their respective authors for writing good code. Other programs only require minor changes, which is where autoconf makes it easy. Then there's the occasional code that assumes Linux only (kernel or/proc) code, and won't build anywhere but on Linux (maybe even specific distros?)
</RANT> Then there's the whole "Linux" software phenomenon. It's sad when people don't realize that the programs they use in Linux aren't "Linux" programs, they're Unix programs. I don't just mean grep, etc. I mean programs like XMMS, GNOME, KDE, etc. This stuff compiles, unmodified, on the *BSDs as well. Even some authors call their software "Linux" software when it's portable *as is*. This is misleading, both towards the Media, who pick up on it, but to new free Unix users as well, who might be deciding between Linux and a BSD. This new offering from SourceForge will not only provide a place for authors to test their code, it will help educate people as to the true nature of Open Source as well.
`./configure && make install` shall set you free. <RANT>
The "Related Links" are taken directly from the story as posted. Any search URL is built using each of the links in the story, and placed under "Related Links." It doesn't matter what the story is about.
Given this...you are correct. There's no "Linux" link whose HREF is www.linux.com.
"And it wasn't removed solely because of Theo's involvement.
"Nobody said it was removed because of Theo's involvement.""
Forgot to respond to this part too.
That's exactly why I brought it up. Someone reading your initial post may think that that's what you were trying to imply. (Note: I'm not suggesting you did, just that others may see it as such.)
They censured themselves, not Theo. If DN was anti-Theo at all, they wouldn't have posted it to begin with. Again, I know you're not suggesting it was, just making sure others know it.
"As for the blackholing...purely a security measure placed after threats were made against their respective networks.
"In *your* opinion, and based on your incomplete, second-hand knowledge of the facts.""
This bit isn't a matter of opinion. The reasons for the blackholes were given at the time they were turned on, as a direct result of the threats. They didn't spring up out of anyone's imagination.
I'd gladly take my own advice, which is why I cut my sentence short. I'm here neither to blither nor bicker, just making sure that anyone who read your initial comment doesn't take it out of context. I merely tried to provide that context.
(Specifically, not mentioning that the stated (by those tho set them) reasons for the blackholes were for security.)
It wasn't censured per se. And it wasn't removed solely because of Theo's involvement. The goal of Daemonnews is to bring the BSD together. The story shouldn't have been posted to begin with, not because Theo shouldn't be heard, but because it wasn't the proper forum. The DN editors realized this after the fact, and removed the story and the comments (read: flamefest) that ensued. Nothing was said that hadn't been said many times before (since '95).
The lack of "jornalistic integrity" was in posting the story to begin with, and was reclaimed in it's removal.
As for the blackholing...purely a security measure placed after threats were made against their respective networks.
When making such claims, please don't leave out all the details. Neither you nor I have any first hand knowledge, so it's best just to shut the......
It's no secret that Nik is a FreeBSD committer and Documentation dude, and as such (like all committers) are given an address @freebsd.org. For all you know it's just a virtusertable alias that forwards to some.uk POP Account. His having a complimentary @slashdot.org address (as a Slashdot staff member) shouldn't be at all surprising.
There's no secret conspiracy here, just someone trying to stir up trouble. Your irresponsible moderation will only make it successful. The worst kind of FUD is when those who spread it don't realize it.
"But thats just because we are stupid and you are smart right?"
Nothing of the sort was either said or implied, and I resent your attempt to put such words in my mouth.
My feelings here aren't the issue, I was only attempting to help the orginal poster "work it out". What you say regarding the relative definition of "few" is dead on, but it may have been taken the wrong way by the person who made the quote, which is what I've been trying to explain to whole time. *I* realize it's relative, he may not, resulting in his quote.
I wasn't suggesting that the "heat" was from BSD itself (that may or may not be the case, but it's not part of this discussion), I was directly referring to the comment made about Linus at LWE, that he was feeling heat in the form of questions such as the one that was asked, and in his response, he disparaged BSD by implying it was [only] "a few people".
You, like the person who started this thread, need to stay on topic. He was trying to work it out, but by the end of his post it turned into something it shouldn't (but always does.)
There's not a single anti-Linux comment in "Linus dispargaged BSD in his keynote...guess he must be feeling the heat at little."
While you may or may not have valid points (which I'm not commenting on), at least stick to the subject matter. You've now created YALVBFW (Yet Another Linux Versus BSD Flame War) without realizing it.
Now for my comment... FreeBSD isn't just a few people writing good software, it's a hell of a lot of people writing DAMNED good software. There is as much of a community (And I'm not talking numbers) behind the BSDs as there is behind Linux. Sites like Daemonnews, and events like FreeBSDCon didn't make themselves.
If Linus regarded FreeBSD as [only] "just a few poeple" then yeah, I'd say whoever said that about Linus is probably right. The "heat" they referred to was probably people like the guy who asked the question.
What's so hard to figure out? Don't be so bloody defensive.
Ciscos also use port numbers for translation. They call it NAT Overload. Just add the "overload" option to the end of the "ip nat inside source list blah blah blah...."
"IP Masquerading" *is* the workalike. FreeBSD, and the rest of the industry (Cisco, Lucent, 3Com, etc), calls it by it's true name, Network Address Translation, or NAT for short. It's accomplished on FreeBSD in one of three ways:
ipfw/natd (The native IPFireWall and NAT Daemon.)
ipf/ipnat (Darren Reed's IPFilter, which is in the base system under contrib, and is also available for Linux, etc.)
The third is using the -nat option with the userland ppp program. This is obviously only an option if you're on dialup (or using PPPoE.) It's compiled against the same libraries (libwrap) as natd, so the functionality is the same, but the setup is painless (just add -nat to the command.)
Also:
IPFilter is the default packet filter in OpenBSD, and OpenBSD uses the same ppp program that FreeBSD does.
It is not emulation of Linux. "Thunking" is a more accurate term. Linux system calls are translated into BSD system calls. Just like Transmeta's Crusoe can run Intel binaries, it doesn't do so through "Pentium Emulation". (I mention the Crusoe because the recent announcement may still be fresh in your memory and you'll see the similarity.)
Slashdot Mirror
Even if you don't remember back far enough, you can always RTFRFCs.
The Internet not only started on Unix, it was born on BSD, as was Sendmail, Vi, etc.
That's Alphas, not Sparcs. Though a Sparc port may be in the future because of this merger.
Heh, yes well, we can't all have the (most excellent) Ports System. :)
I've built (pre 1.0) xmms from unmodified source and used it on FreeBSD without any problems.
I plan on letting SF know that they can send people to the various BSD Ports Collections (Available via FreeBSD's CVSWeb) so they can incorporate the various OS specific patches into their source.
(Such changes would exclude items that are specific to the Ports system, like overriding PATHs and make variables, etc. These items would remain in the Ports patches.)
I'll be having articles in the FreeBSDZine about FreeBSD's Ports system in the near future.
It's about time an organized effort was made to keep source code portable across the free OSs.
/proc) code, and won't build anywhere but on Linux (maybe even specific distros?)
This is why C was invented in the first place, but too many people forget it.
Many programs already compile on multiple OSs, and kudos to their respective authors for writing good code. Other programs only require minor changes, which is where autoconf makes it easy. Then there's the occasional code that assumes Linux only (kernel or
</RANT>
Then there's the whole "Linux" software phenomenon. It's sad when people don't realize that the programs they use in Linux aren't "Linux" programs, they're Unix programs. I don't just mean grep, etc. I mean programs like XMMS, GNOME, KDE, etc. This stuff compiles, unmodified, on the *BSDs as well. Even some authors call their software "Linux" software when it's portable *as is*. This is misleading, both towards the Media, who pick up on it, but to new free Unix users as well, who might be deciding between Linux and a BSD. This new offering from SourceForge will not only provide a place for authors to test their code, it will help educate people as to the true nature of Open Source as well.
`./configure && make install` shall set you free.
<RANT>
The "Related Links" are taken directly from the story as posted. Any search URL is built using each of the links in the story, and placed under "Related Links." It doesn't matter what the story is about.
:)
Given this...you are correct. There's no "Linux" link whose HREF is www.linux.com.
Broken code, or conspiracy?
"And it wasn't removed solely because of Theo's involvement.
"Nobody said it was removed because of Theo's
involvement.""
Forgot to respond to this part too.
That's exactly why I brought it up. Someone reading your initial post may think that that's what you were trying to imply. (Note: I'm not suggesting you did, just that others may see it as such.)
They censured themselves, not Theo. If DN was anti-Theo at all, they wouldn't have posted it to begin with. Again, I know you're not suggesting it was, just making sure others know it.
"As for the blackholing...purely a security measure placed after threats were made against their respective networks.
"In *your* opinion, and based on your
incomplete, second-hand knowledge of the
facts.""
This bit isn't a matter of opinion. The reasons for the blackholes were given at the time they were turned on, as a direct result of the threats. They didn't spring up out of anyone's imagination.
I'd gladly take my own advice, which is why I cut my sentence short. I'm here neither to blither nor bicker, just making sure that anyone who read your initial comment doesn't take it out of context. I merely tried to provide that context.
(Specifically, not mentioning that the stated (by those tho set them) reasons for the blackholes were for security.)
It wasn't censured per se. And it wasn't removed solely because of Theo's involvement. The goal of Daemonnews is to bring the BSD together. The story shouldn't have been posted to begin with, not because Theo shouldn't be heard, but because it wasn't the proper forum. The DN editors realized this after the fact, and removed the story and the comments (read: flamefest) that ensued. Nothing was said that hadn't been said many times before (since '95).
The lack of "jornalistic integrity" was in posting the story to begin with, and was reclaimed in it's removal.
As for the blackholing...purely a security measure placed after threats were made against their respective networks.
When making such claims, please don't leave out all the details. Neither you nor I have any first hand knowledge, so it's best just to shut the......
"I think what we need is a ksh with readline support added. Bourne Again Korn Shell! (Maybe spell "Bourne" as "Born)"
zsh.
There 4.0 reference was regarding the pre-ordering of 4.0-RELEASE.
In fact that was not the story to which I was referring. I was referring to the official
/.), born and lives in the
/.), or coordinating
<I>
Nik:The BSD Guy
Nik Clayton, 25 (which probably makes me an old fart on
UK. He's been contributing to FreeBSD since 1994, but has used NetBSD and
OpenBSD in his time (and used to dabble with a little bit of Linux as well). In the
day job he's the director of an IT consultancy, which isn't nearly as high-powered as
it sounds.
When not writing irregular articles for Daemonnews, (and now
the efforts of the FreeBSD Documentation Project, Nik plays badminton (badly)
and does the occasional bit of crewing for local theatre groups (yeah, I know, right
out of TNHD "Portrait of a hacker" section).
</I>
Though I (incorrectly) remembered it as the launch and the announcment being made on the same day, it is there nonetheless.
I hope your questioning doesn't mean you approve of the AC's post implying subterfuge. Surely you can at least acknowledge that it was an attempt at stirring up controversy where there is none.
PS. Hmm...does Extrans seem broken to anyone else?
"You dont see the Linux community bad mouthing BSD...."
Actually, you do. I refer you to the comments on any BSD related article.
It's a sad fact that it goes both ways.
I'll just ignore the rest of your comment, if you don't mind.
His affiliation was made QUITE clear the day the BSD section was launched. Everyone do please take note of this.
Informative? COME ON!
.uk POP Account. His having a complimentary @slashdot.org address (as a Slashdot staff member) shouldn't be at all surprising.
It's no secret that Nik is a FreeBSD committer and Documentation dude, and as such (like all committers) are given an address @freebsd.org. For all you know it's just a virtusertable alias that forwards to some
There's no secret conspiracy here, just someone trying to stir up trouble. Your irresponsible moderation will only make it successful. The worst kind of FUD is when those who spread it don't realize it.
"But thats just because we are stupid and you are smart right?"
Nothing of the sort was either said or implied, and I resent your attempt to put such words in my mouth.
My feelings here aren't the issue, I was only attempting to help the orginal poster "work it out". What you say regarding the relative definition of "few" is dead on, but it may have been taken the wrong way by the person who made the quote, which is what I've been trying to explain to whole time. *I* realize it's relative, he may not, resulting in his quote.
Stop making this about Linux vs BSD.
I wasn't suggesting that the "heat" was from BSD itself (that may or may not be the case, but it's not part of this discussion), I was directly referring to the comment made about Linus at LWE, that he was feeling heat in the form of questions such as the one that was asked, and in his response, he disparaged BSD by implying it was [only] "a few people".
You, like the person who started this thread, need to stay on topic. He was trying to work it out, but by the end of his post it turned into something it shouldn't (but always does.)
"What's up with the Sexism?" followed by gay-bashing. Ooh, that makes alot of sense.
There's not a single anti-Linux comment in "Linus dispargaged BSD in his keynote...guess he must be feeling the heat at little."
While you may or may not have valid points (which I'm not commenting on), at least stick to the subject matter. You've now created YALVBFW (Yet Another Linux Versus BSD Flame War) without realizing it.
Now for my comment... FreeBSD isn't just a few people writing good software, it's a hell of a lot of people writing DAMNED good software. There is as much of a community (And I'm not talking numbers) behind the BSDs as there is behind Linux. Sites like Daemonnews, and events like FreeBSDCon didn't make themselves.
If Linus regarded FreeBSD as [only] "just a few poeple" then yeah, I'd say whoever said that about Linus is probably right. The "heat" they referred to was probably people like the guy who asked the question.
What's so hard to figure out? Don't be so bloody defensive.
I read that as "make deinstall", in which case what I said above is correct. pkg_delete is the way to go. :)
If you're upgrading, a pkg_delete won't work, as $DISTNAME has changed.
Ciscos also use port numbers for translation. They call it NAT Overload. Just add the "overload" option to the end of the "ip nat inside source list blah blah blah...."
Implementations may differ, but it's still NAT.
"IP Masquerading" *is* the workalike. FreeBSD, and the rest of the industry (Cisco, Lucent, 3Com, etc), calls it by it's true name, Network Address Translation, or NAT for short. It's accomplished on FreeBSD in one of three ways:
ipfw/natd (The native IPFireWall and NAT Daemon.)
ipf/ipnat (Darren Reed's IPFilter, which is in the base system under contrib, and is also available for Linux, etc.)
The third is using the -nat option with the userland ppp program. This is obviously only an option if you're on dialup (or using PPPoE.) It's compiled against the same libraries (libwrap) as natd, so the functionality is the same, but the setup is painless (just add -nat to the command.)
Also:
IPFilter is the default packet filter in OpenBSD, and OpenBSD uses the same ppp program that FreeBSD does.
How could you have an opinion on something if you haven't tried it yet? You are only repeating what you see and hear other people say about FreeBSD.
(I'd say the same to someone who hasn't tried _Insert_Anything_Here_ before.)
Code Freeze beats System Freeze anyday.
It is not emulation of Linux. "Thunking" is a more accurate term. Linux system calls are translated into BSD system calls. Just like Transmeta's Crusoe can run Intel binaries, it doesn't do so through "Pentium Emulation". (I mention the Crusoe because the recent announcement may still be fresh in your memory and you'll see the similarity.)