The information in these presentations is specifically for the Qwest's ISP business, which was U.S. West before they were bought. They are 100% FreeBSD.
Your second-hand info regarding Solaris/Oracle may well be true for the rest of Qwest.
The majority of FreeBSD's Security Advisories for 2000 were for third party applications in the Ports Collection, and not part of FreeBSD at all.
Any one running those applications on any OS would have the same problem. The FreeBSD Project is just being responsible.
The advisories have a paragraph that makes this very clear.
"BSD and Linux users were just like their brain-dead Windows users" isn't a jab at their choice to be a Windows site. It was a jab at: 1) Windows users and 2) Tucows for not knowing their audience.
BSDi is a company, not an OS. It's also a new company formed from the merger of BSDI and Walnut Creek CDROM. BSDi's product now, as it was when it was BSDI, is BSD/OS. BSD/OS has never been open.
BSD/OS and the *BSDs do all share a common heritage, specifically 4.4BSDLite2, the last to come out of the CSRG at Berkeley.
It was a few former members of the CSRG who went on to found BSDI and sell BSD/OS. At the same time, Bill Jolitz's 386BSD became stagnant, so two other projects each independantly of each other took it and became NetBSD and FreeBSD. There was no infighting between these two groups, they just each started their own _on_ their own.
The only split due to infighting is OpenBSD's creation, which has been well documented.
TrustedBSD is not a _new_ version, but a name given to a set of extensions that Robert Watson (Remember, that guy with the interview last week?) is working on for INCLUSION into FreeBSD's main tree.
Note that this is not a flame, but an attempt to correct misinformation. If I do not, it will propogate. Others will read your post and think "yeah! What's with TrustedBSD splitting!? Damn those BSD users!". Don't think it can't happen? It does, every day, and sites like Tucows' BSD section made it possible.
The tone of the feedback one gets is directly related to the tone of the content being reviewed. Tucows got back what they put into it.
Which brings us to your "what a surprise comment." It was inflamatory and any negative response you get regarding it is well deserved. And so what if there *are* three (Only the free ones count when talking about segregation and splitting) flavors of BSD? There's several dozen Linux distributions. And yes, I've heard all the reasons why the segregation of Linux was felt to be neccesary.
The incident you're remembering is the one that was described in the article that was originally listed, and later reposted in comments. It's 4 freakin years old.
Just to clarify Oz and correct Cardinal's confusion...
There is no separation of kernel and userland in BSD in the same way that there is in a Linux Distribution. There are no "package maintainers" because it isn't a package-based distribution. Everything that makes up the system is engineered by the same team of people. It's all in a single source tree under/usr/src rather than a plethora of third party userland apps by who-knows-who.
(Not counting third party applications available via Packages or Ports of course.)
Of them, only Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith are BSDi employees, both having come over with WC. Jordan of course has been there since FreeBSD's inception and beyond, and Mike was only recently voted into Core by popular vote of the...
...Developers list is listed here.
Though this is the authoritative list.
The handbook page lists 232 total developers.
Three of them come to mind as BSDi employees, though I can only think of 2 without browsing the entire list: Jim Mock and Bill Swingle. My appologies to the third and anyone that I don't know by name.
That is easily neither "most" nor a "very large number", even if I'm way off. But wait! There's MORE!
The list of Additional Contributers is here.
This is anyone (Including yours truly) who over the years has had something committed to FreeBSD in the form of code (src), documentation (doc and www) or ports (ports).
There are 1135 documented contributers.
That's a total of 1357 people who provide you with FreeBSD. (Contributers come and go, and there are also those who may not be listed, but it's a pretty good number, and is probably much higher.)
Second, let's look at your FUD (For it is surely Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt that you are expressing)...
Walnut Creeks' position wrt FreeBSD was always clear. They distributed CDs and marketed it and provided some commercial support. There are plenty of Linux companys that do the same for Linux, yet no one cries foul there (except maybe the same breed of conspirators you come from.)
Jordan Hubbard founded FreeBSD, Inc. to handle the interests of the Project, and this responsibility is being passed to the new FreeBSD Foundation thanks to Justin Gibbs (former Core team member and current committer.)
The FreeBSD trademark will transfer to the Foundation. It was held by Walnut Creek previously, but not because they "owned" it but instead to protect the name in cooperation with FreeBSD, Inc. The Foundation is totally not related to either the Core team or BSDi. Justin and his cohorts are seeking legal non-profit status.
When BSDI merged with Walnut Creek, it was clear to anyone with insight or anyone who read the Press Releases that it was only WC they were merging with. You can't merge with an operating system. FreeBSD is wholly seperate from BSDi. The only thing being merged with FreeBSD is code from BSD/OS. Where do you think SMPng is coming from? It amazes me that people still get this wrong.
Sure, there may be code in BSD/OS that's not in FreeBSD, but it was there to begin with. Also any code that BSDi has under NDAs with vendors won't be added to FreeBSD. FreeBSD gets whatever FreeBSD puts into it, end of story. If ANY company, including BSDi wants to take some or all of it and sell a closed source version, more power to them. FreeBSD will continue. It is the BSD License that makes, and keeps, FreeBSD free.
FreeBSD is only BSDi's "product" insofar as they sell CDs. FreeBSD's democratically elected Core team decides the future of the Project, not BSDi.
I am not wrong, I even pointed this out. They pay people to develop for FreeBSD. Whatever goes
into FreeBSD stays there.
We "get" FreeBSD not because of BSDi's generosity and good graces but because of all the volounteers that make up the project. I'm not making light of their (including WC) contributions, I'm just saying it would go on without them.
Your paranoia is unwarranted and only serves as FUD.
BSDi's only relationship to FreeBSD is as it's commercial benefactor (ie, they hire some developers and sell CDs and stuff.) Specifically, it's the Open Source Division, which is basically the staff from what used to be Walnut Creek.
FreeBSD is in the hands of the core team, *NOT* BSDi.
It wouldn't kill it off because you would continue to work on your BSD Licensed software. You, as most OSS developers, do what you do because you enjoy it. Relating it to the current story..Theo has said that he would still work on OpenBSD even if he was the ONLY user.
The only 'killing off' would be from a marketing and economic angle, which doesn't matter to the up-all-night hacker types. If it does, then don't write free software.
Do you write it so you can sell lots of copies (Media sales or Linux based dot.coms, whatever) or so you can have good software and be respected by your peers?
The CVS repository does not disappear when a commercial company uses the software it contains.
The people behind a given project continue to work on their project. That does not suddenly stop because some company is selling it or something based on it.
6 months later the project releases a new version. The company is still behind. They could work on it from the point they started using it, or they could use the new release. Since they have to keep tracking new rleases anyway, they could even (and many do) help by giving their changes back to the project.
And even if they don't (and many do), the project members spent those hundreds of hours of work doing what they loved and could care less what some company does. They want the fruits of their labor to fall into as many hands as possible. BSD allows and encourages that.
GPL zealots are hypocritical. If you're so worried about The Man making money off of you, why are you writing free software?
Tell me, would you rather write free software because you WANT to or because you HAVE to?
How can a software project go out of business? FreeBSD is an OS project, not a company. You might be thinking of Walnut Creek, which merged with BSDI to become BSDi.
And FreeBSD wasn't "taken over". WC was the largest benefactor and supporter of FreeBSD, but it didn't own it, and neither does BSDi.
"As such, it decidedly won't come with the hordes of CLI and console tools you'd expect to see in the typical NetBSD / FreeBSD / OpenBSD installation. "
In fact it *DOES*. This comment cannot be made unless you have seen it for yourself.
The standard Unix toolset is there-grep, awk, sed, head, tail, etc..everything you expect to find in Unix, many of them GNU versions. It comes with Perl, BIND, Apache, all installed as well. Network services are also present via inetd. SSH (and sshd) is also installed. Open a terminal window and you would think you were on any standard Unix box.
I'd list more but the iBook is off, downstairs, and not set to boot to OS X.
And please don't buy from anywhere that does not donate all or part of their sales to the various Projects. Do FTP installs or (if you must) burn ISOs and donate a few dollars yourself. If you have to buy a CD, do so from freebsdmall.com (Now run by BSDi), where all CD sales go to the FreeBSD Project. This (donating, not freebsdmall.com) goes for any of the BSDs and Linux distros (Debian specifically comes to mind) also.
Linux is not a descendant of UNIX. It is an original work birthed by Linus after his unhappy experiences with Minix (also an original work.)
Look at the UNIX family tree some time.
While neither are "UNIX" for trademark reasons (Damn that Open Group), BSD has at least a historical claim to the name (Even though no AT&T code exists any longer in the modern BSDs.)
(This is not a judgement, but a factual correction.)
"I like the fact that if you modify the source you return the code back to the community."
This is no different than the BSD License. Where does the BSD License say that you CAN'T?
Sure, someone can come along and put your code into something and change it and not give their changes back, but who cares? You're still doing your thing.
In fact it's in a company's best interest NOT to keep their changes private since they'll just have to follow the moving target that your continuing work provides. Whistle/IBM does exactly this with the work they do on the Interjet. They continually contribute to FreeBSD (Julian Elischer is a commiter and one of the brains behind the Interjet.)
Some would argue that they're taking advantage of you..making money off of your hard work. This is a hypocritical argument. If it was about the money, why are you writing free software?
So you have to ask yourself...why do you write free software? Because you want to? Or because you have to?
Strictly speaking, it *was* entirely true. -CURRENT was not in the scope of the discussion. There is an implied disclaimer that -CURRENT doesn't apply, given it's nature.
You can suspend disbelief long enough to ignore the presense of "Martians" but you don't buy the possibility of people living in polygamous, free-loving group marriages?
Or is it just Heinlein's vision if it you have a problem with?
So does it hang or does it panic? There's a difference. Anyway, the problem is prob ably the wrong disk geometry (ie, BIOS reports one geometry, disklabel is setup another.) I'd say it was a 1024th cylinder problem but the BIOS Extensions are supported in 4.1's boot loader. Are you sure it was 4.1?
And the whole system is compiled for all *386 machines.
Slashdot Mirror
The information in these presentations is specifically for the Qwest's ISP business, which was U.S. West before they were bought. They are 100% FreeBSD.
Your second-hand info regarding Solaris/Oracle may well be true for the rest of Qwest.
--
The majority of FreeBSD's Security Advisories for 2000 were for third party applications in the Ports Collection, and not part of FreeBSD at all.
Any one running those applications on any OS would have the same problem. The FreeBSD Project is just being responsible.
The advisories have a paragraph that makes this very clear.
Please stop your FUD.
--
"BSD and Linux users were just like their brain-dead Windows users" isn't a jab at their choice to be a Windows site. It was a jab at: 1) Windows users and 2) Tucows for not knowing their audience.
--
Misinformation is abundant.
BSDi is a company, not an OS. It's also a new company formed from the merger of BSDI and Walnut Creek CDROM. BSDi's product now, as it was when it was BSDI, is BSD/OS. BSD/OS has never been open.
BSD/OS and the *BSDs do all share a common heritage, specifically 4.4BSDLite2, the last to come out of the CSRG at Berkeley.
It was a few former members of the CSRG who went on to found BSDI and sell BSD/OS. At the same time, Bill Jolitz's 386BSD became stagnant, so two other projects each independantly of each other took it and became NetBSD and FreeBSD. There was no infighting between these two groups, they just each started their own _on_ their own.
The only split due to infighting is OpenBSD's creation, which has been well documented.
TrustedBSD is not a _new_ version, but a name given to a set of extensions that Robert Watson (Remember, that guy with the interview last week?) is working on for INCLUSION into FreeBSD's main tree.
Note that this is not a flame, but an attempt to correct misinformation. If I do not, it will propogate. Others will read your post and think "yeah! What's with TrustedBSD splitting!? Damn those BSD users!". Don't think it can't happen? It does, every day, and sites like Tucows' BSD section made it possible.
The tone of the feedback one gets is directly related to the tone of the content being reviewed. Tucows got back what they put into it.
Which brings us to your "what a surprise comment." It was inflamatory and any negative response you get regarding it is well deserved. And so what if there *are* three (Only the free ones count when talking about segregation and splitting) flavors of BSD? There's several dozen Linux distributions. And yes, I've heard all the reasons why the segregation of Linux was felt to be neccesary.
Wait, no I haven't.
--
IP Filter does not itself do Bridging. On OpenBSD, it's done with virtual bridgeN interfaces, and on FreeBSD with kernel sysctls.
If you meant that ipf can be used as a transparent firewall on a bridging box, then yes, it can do that.
e-px didn't say there wasn't anything going on now, just that the article being referenced to describe the situation now is from 4 years ago.
The incident you're remembering is the one that was described in the article that was originally listed, and later reposted in comments. It's 4 freakin years old.
This is an entirely different situation.
Just to clarify Oz and correct Cardinal's confusion...
/usr/src rather than a plethora of third party userland apps by who-knows-who.
There is no separation of kernel and userland in BSD in the same way that there is in a Linux Distribution. There are no "package maintainers" because it isn't a package-based distribution. Everything that makes up the system is engineered by the same team of people. It's all in a single source tree under
(Not counting third party applications available via Packages or Ports of course.)
First, let's look at the numbers...
The Core team is listed here.
Of them, only Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith are BSDi employees, both having come over with WC. Jordan of course has been there since FreeBSD's inception and beyond, and Mike was only recently voted into Core by popular vote of the...
Three of them come to mind as BSDi employees, though I can only think of 2 without browsing the entire list: Jim Mock and Bill Swingle. My appologies to the third and anyone that I don't know by name.
That is easily neither "most" nor a "very large number", even if I'm way off. But wait! There's MORE!
The list of Additional Contributers is here. This is anyone (Including yours truly) who over the years has had something committed to FreeBSD in the form of code (src), documentation (doc and www) or ports (ports). There are 1135 documented contributers. That's a total of 1357 people who provide you with FreeBSD. (Contributers come and go, and there are also those who may not be listed, but it's a pretty good number, and is probably much higher.)
Second, let's look at your FUD (For it is surely Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt that you are expressing)...
Walnut Creeks' position wrt FreeBSD was always clear. They distributed CDs and marketed it and provided some commercial support. There are plenty of Linux companys that do the same for Linux, yet no one cries foul there (except maybe the same breed of conspirators you come from.)
Jordan Hubbard founded FreeBSD, Inc. to handle the interests of the Project, and this responsibility is being passed to the new FreeBSD Foundation thanks to Justin Gibbs (former Core team member and current committer.) The FreeBSD trademark will transfer to the Foundation. It was held by Walnut Creek previously, but not because they "owned" it but instead to protect the name in cooperation with FreeBSD, Inc. The Foundation is totally not related to either the Core team or BSDi. Justin and his cohorts are seeking legal non-profit status.
When BSDI merged with Walnut Creek, it was clear to anyone with insight or anyone who read the Press Releases that it was only WC they were merging with. You can't merge with an operating system. FreeBSD is wholly seperate from BSDi. The only thing being merged with FreeBSD is code from BSD/OS. Where do you think SMPng is coming from? It amazes me that people still get this wrong.
Sure, there may be code in BSD/OS that's not in FreeBSD, but it was there to begin with. Also any code that BSDi has under NDAs with vendors won't be added to FreeBSD. FreeBSD gets whatever FreeBSD puts into it, end of story. If ANY company, including BSDi wants to take some or all of it and sell a closed source version, more power to them. FreeBSD will continue. It is the BSD License that makes, and keeps, FreeBSD free.
FreeBSD is only BSDi's "product" insofar as they sell CDs. FreeBSD's democratically elected Core team decides the future of the Project, not BSDi.
So it is anything but "unclear."
That's just it... chmod isn't the relevant place.
[man -k|apropos] flags
chflags(1) - change file flags
As for the absense of See Also's on Linux man pages..well...documentation on Linux isn't as great as everyone would like to believe.
I would agree with you 100%....if this review was actually on Slashdot. Did you even read the
article?
You're thinking of the biased comments.
I am not wrong, I even pointed this out. They pay people to develop for FreeBSD. Whatever goes
into FreeBSD stays there.
We "get" FreeBSD not because of BSDi's generosity and good graces but because of all the volounteers that make up the project. I'm not making light of their (including WC) contributions, I'm just saying it would go on without them.
Your paranoia is unwarranted and only serves as FUD.
BSDi's only relationship to FreeBSD is as it's commercial benefactor (ie, they hire some developers and sell CDs and stuff.) Specifically, it's the Open Source Division, which is basically the staff from what used to be Walnut Creek.
FreeBSD is in the hands of the core team, *NOT* BSDi.
It wouldn't kill it off because you would continue to work on your BSD Licensed software. You, as most OSS developers, do what you do because you enjoy it. Relating it to the current story..Theo has said that he would still work on OpenBSD even if he was the ONLY user.
The only 'killing off' would be from a marketing and economic angle, which doesn't matter to the up-all-night hacker types. If it does, then don't write free software.
Do you write it so you can sell lots of copies (Media sales or Linux based dot.coms, whatever) or so you can have good software and be respected by your peers?
Life is better in the Bazaar.
Why are you so shocked? It's BSD.
It is NOT exploitation. Nothing is stolen.
The CVS repository does not disappear when a commercial company uses the software it contains.
The people behind a given project continue to work on their project. That does not suddenly stop because some company is selling it or something based on it.
6 months later the project releases a new version. The company is still behind. They could work on it from the point they started using it, or they could use the new release. Since they have to keep tracking new rleases anyway, they could even (and many do) help by giving their changes back to the project.
And even if they don't (and many do), the project members spent those hundreds of hours of work doing what they loved and could care less what some company does. They want the fruits of their labor to fall into as many hands as possible. BSD allows and encourages that.
GPL zealots are hypocritical. If you're so worried about The Man making money off of you, why are you writing free software?
Tell me, would you rather write free software because you WANT to or because you HAVE to?
The existance of "FreeBSD, Inc" is to protect the name "FreeBSD"..it's independant of the Project.
How can a software project go out of business? FreeBSD is an OS project, not a company. You might be thinking of Walnut Creek, which merged with BSDI to become BSDi.
And FreeBSD wasn't "taken over". WC was the largest benefactor and supporter of FreeBSD, but it didn't own it, and neither does BSDi.
OpenBSD does not have point releases.
Major.Minor.N vs Major.Minor
It's pretty clear.
"As such, it decidedly won't come with the hordes of CLI and console tools you'd expect to see in the typical NetBSD / FreeBSD / OpenBSD installation. "
In fact it *DOES*. This comment cannot be made unless you have seen it for yourself.
The standard Unix toolset is there-grep, awk, sed, head, tail, etc..everything you expect to find in Unix, many of them GNU versions. It comes with Perl, BIND, Apache, all installed as well. Network services are also present via inetd. SSH (and sshd) is also installed. Open a terminal window and you would think you were on any standard Unix box.
I'd list more but the iBook is off, downstairs, and not set to boot to OS X.
And please don't buy from anywhere that does not donate all or part of their sales to the various Projects. Do FTP installs or (if you must) burn ISOs and donate a few dollars yourself. If you have to buy a CD, do so from freebsdmall.com (Now run by BSDi), where all CD sales go to the FreeBSD Project. This (donating, not freebsdmall.com) goes for any of the BSDs and Linux distros (Debian specifically comes to mind) also.
Linux is not a descendant of UNIX. It is an original work birthed by Linus after his unhappy experiences with Minix (also an original work.)
Look at the UNIX family tree some time.
While neither are "UNIX" for trademark reasons (Damn that Open Group), BSD has at least a historical claim to the name (Even though no AT&T code exists any longer in the modern BSDs.)
(This is not a judgement, but a factual correction.)
"I like the fact that if you modify the source you return the code back to the community."
This is no different than the BSD License. Where does the BSD License say that you CAN'T?
Sure, someone can come along and put your code into something and change it and not give their changes back, but who cares? You're still doing your thing.
In fact it's in a company's best interest NOT to keep their changes private since they'll just have to follow the moving target that your continuing work provides. Whistle/IBM does exactly this with the work they do on the Interjet. They continually contribute to FreeBSD (Julian Elischer is a commiter and one of the brains behind the Interjet.)
Some would argue that they're taking advantage of you..making money off of your hard work. This is a hypocritical argument. If it was about the money, why are you writing free software?
So you have to ask yourself...why do you write free software? Because you want to? Or because you have to?
Strictly speaking, it *was* entirely true. -CURRENT was not in the scope of the discussion. There is an implied disclaimer that -CURRENT doesn't apply, given it's nature.
You can suspend disbelief long enough to ignore the presense of "Martians" but you don't buy the possibility of people living in polygamous, free-loving group marriages?
Or is it just Heinlein's vision if it you have a problem with?
So does it hang or does it panic? There's a difference. Anyway, the problem is prob ably the wrong disk geometry (ie, BIOS reports one geometry, disklabel is setup another.) I'd say it was a 1024th cylinder problem but the BIOS Extensions are supported in 4.1's boot loader. Are you sure it was 4.1?
And the whole system is compiled for all *386 machines.
How do you get "doesn't work in Linux" from "works better than Linux"?
(Disclaimer: Numbers are arbitrary. If I don't say so now you'll read to much into it.)
10 > 5
5 != 0
Got it?
Stop being so bloody paranoid. And that goes for ALL OF YOU!