I am very pleased to see (if I understood this correctly) a BSD-specific Slashdot author and a section devoted to *BSD. We're all in this together, folks. Looking forward to future BSD-related articles.
Not that there weren't BSD-related articles before, but now the BSD community maybe won't be so inclined to look down on Slashdot for Linux-centricity, if you will.
I suspect that the Linux/BSD ratio here is more related to the popularity of the OS than any inherent bias on Slashdot's part, but I'm still happy to see this happen. Congratulations to - Nik, is it? - and looking forward to seeing your articles.
Re:Complexity for the Sake of Complexity
on
CNN Installs Linux
·
· Score: 1
I don't know if many here use OpenVMS, but OpenVMS addressed several of these things. Most commands worked using parameters that were formatted similarly, and they tended to use something closer to plain English.
Examples (albeit not perfect ones): UNIX: ls -l VMS: DIR/FULL (or) DIR/DATE/OWNER/PROTECTION
OK, well, I haven't used FreeBSD a great deal recently, and if I remember correctly NetBSD called both binary- and source-downloads using their dependency-checking system "packages." Either way, the point is, it's not hard to extend FreeBSD's software after the default configuration is working; the other software just doesn't come with the distribution, typically, unlike most Linux distros.
Assuming for the moment that the ideology of the licenses doesn't concern you, let me say what I think the difference is to users such as yourself, and you can decide what you want to do. I will start out with very general statements which are not always true but which (I think) tend to get the idea across:
*BSD (any free variant) just gives you the basic tools, and expects you to get the system into the state you want it by the tried-and-true method of download-compile-install-run. For someone who really wants to understand the Un*x way of doing things, I think that this is the best way to go, because it will force you to get into the nitty-gritty of system administration. I started with NetBSD (because way back when, Linux didn't run on my old Macintoshes), and I have not regretted it. Nothing sysadmin-wise daunts me anymore.
Most Linux distributions try to come with everything preconfigured; instead of BSD's question, "which window manager do you want to download, compile, and run? The most basic one is all I have for starters, but you can do whatever you want", for example, Linux's statement is more along the lines of "I have 15 window managers right here, I already have one configured for you, and you are welcome to do whatever you want with them."
These days, thanks to *BSD's package system, it is very easy to download and run software; it takes longer than just getting the binary RPM's and DEB's, but it's often more likely to work because you're compiling it for _your_ system. But RPM's nearly always work for most of us, too. And the opposite is true, as well: Slackware (from what I recall, it's been awhile since I used it) has more of the "do-it-yourself" approach, similar to what I have identified as a BSD thing.
So, I guess the big difference is, FreeBSD comes in a simple, fast configuration, and you add things as you want them. Most Linux distro's default to big, bloated configurations, but you can pare those down as much as you want, and replace all the packages with things you compiled if you like.
Or perhaps you just want all the bells and whistles preconfigured, in which case Linux is probably what you want.
I don't know if you're a new Unix user or not, but if you are and you want to really learn the nitty-gritty stuff, I personally recommend starting with FreeBSD, get comfortable with configuring, compiling, etc., and then switch if you decide you want to switch. Then you'll know both ways of doing it. People who start with "user-friendly" Linux distro's sometimes never get past the user-friendly part (I've seen it happen, anyway).
Hope this helps. People, feel free to add or correct as needed. This is just my view.
Charlie (NetBSD user, 4 years; LinuxPPC/x86/Alpha user, 2 years)
That's true, Berst is writing to management. So, let's consider what he's been telling our bosses:
* Linux cannot overtake Windows (comments about world domination) * Nobody gets fired for choosing Microsoft (paraphrase) * People _get_ fired for choosing Linux (left as a possibility) * Only a gearhead can use Linux to get real work done (comments about desktop, note implications about gearheads)
_If_ people accept these statements as fact, and don't check back to see if his views change, they may make what they consider to be informed decisions about servers, desktops, etc., without knowing the big picture (which they could have gotten from their local "gearhead").
Having written articles (and done radio shows) before, I recognize that it's difficult to make sure that every fact lines up before you say something, especially in this industry. But this guy has been wrong about Linux/OSS almost as often as Jack Van Impe has misdated Armageddon.
And this failure to accurately review products or predict the future has certainly caused thousands of small-to-medium-sized businesses to make the wrong decisions, and spend thousands of dollars on OS licenses for OS's that don't work and support that isn't supportive, when a "gearhead" could have charged them a week's worth of consulting time, got it all running with Linux/FreeBSD, and left them alone to make money.
>As for it being predictable I have to disagree. >OK looking back you can see what was gonna >happen, but at least I couldn't quote the lines >before they were said - like the normal set of >horror flicks.
I'm one of the ones who said it was predictable, but upon reading this I must admit that I _did not_ know what they were going to say. When I said "predictable," I suppose I meant things like, the things outside the camp, the whatever-it-was in the bundle of sticks, getting lost and going in circles, Josh's voice calling them to the "final confrontation," if you will, in the house. I have to admit that I wasn't ready for the final scene, but had I been trying to ruin my own movie, I think I would have anticipated that as well. Glad I didn't (although maybe then I wouldn't keep seeing it today, in broad daylight, in my cubicle. Yeech).
No major spoilers here; all things you've probably already heard, but if you haven't heard anything then I recommend getting completely off this page and go see it before anybody spoils anything for you.
I wish I hadn't heard so much about it; I think it would have had more of an impact on me.
It was interesting to watch them break down, and the final scenes stayed with me (and still flash in on me every once in a while, even when I'm not thinking about it). Haunting, I would even say.
I also liked the way that they didn't explain anything too much. No need to show us the reasons, physical or metaphysical, for the things that happen every night. Too many movies have to explain everything.
Overall, I liked it, but I won't see it again. It's very predictable, but set up, shot, and acted very well. And those last scenes...
Its a message board you moron. People come here to sound off.
Excuse me for hoping for intelligent discussion on this topic (as one could find in plenty of other articles on Slashdot). Just because you can't provide any...
You can lump yourself into the same category...read your own post. At least I assign a name to mine.
What category? Name?
Clearly "sounding off" is to the complete exclusion of comprehensibility.
To be honest, so far (at comment 13 at any rate) the comments have been insightful and thought-provoking.
Maybe Slashdot is growing up a bit...?
Of course, the tide may turn as soon as people start logging in...but all in all I'd say it was a good sign (I was expecting a bit of a war too).
Can't incorporate code into another product?
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 2
If a company takes your work, repackages it and sells the repackaging and service for it, your code is still available. It isn't legally permissible for them to take your code, incorporate it into another product and sell that product.
Stricly speaking, I thought they could do just that - as long as they released the new code as Free Software in the same sense. As the author states elsewhere, it keeps it from becoming their intellectual property in any real sense.
Not meaning to nitpick, just hoping to clear up some confusion.
Actually, one may make the case that being a Jedi could be an accident of birth; I mean, if someone had the Force strongly in them (apparently this is at least genetic to some extent), who wouldn't choose to become a Jedi if the recruiter showed up? Especially since they apparently recruited very small children in Lucas's framework.
And perhaps my view of the OSS/Free source is tainted by the fact that my laptop's sound card is one of the commercial ones. *smiles* But thanks for the info.
Maybe you need to learn the difference between conspiracy theories and business decisions. If I were 4Front and I were also employing the maintainers of X11amp-now-XMMS, it would be a great temptation to influence the code to some extent to support my own product. Heck, I expect some OSS-specific stuff, since they're so closely related now. I just hoped that ALSA wouldn't be excluded.
On which side of the bed did you get up this morning? Sheesh.
Perhaps someone who knows could alleviate my fears here: if 4Front (who control the OSS sound drivers, mostly proprietary with a few that were contributed to the kernel code) now can exert control over the X11amp code (albeit GPL'd code), does that imply that X11amp's code is probably only going to support OSS special features, to the exclusion of ALSA? And does this therefore mean that someone is going to have to provide patches, etc. to take advantage of things that ALSA does differently?
And while I'm on the topic, when is ALSA going to become the official sound system? Or have I misunderstood that as well? (I was reminded of this by OSS's press release.)
(I am an experienced UNIX admin but I know nothing about sound, software- or hardware-wise.)
Yes, but the point of the post was that he had been actively supporting them this whole time, actually giving them money when he didn't have to because he believed in what they were doing - and this is how they repayed him.
I think it is a good thing when people who can afford to support Linux distros/developers/etc., do so. They help to make all this possible. This post is all about trying to determine whether it is worthwhile to continue supporting RedHat when things have changed for the worse this much. In the spirit of the post this man should instead turn his business over to SUSE or Debian or someone else, where the money will be actively used to enhance Linux for the rest of us rather than whatever RedHat has been doing with the money (and let me say that they have helped the cause out a lot, but it doesn't seem to be quite as high-quality help lately).
Charlie, someone who owns 1 legitmate copy of RedHat Linux 5.2 and is probably going to buy the next Debian distro next time instead, if he doesn't just switch to *BSD
Slashdot Mirror
I am very pleased to see (if I understood this correctly) a BSD-specific Slashdot author and a section devoted to *BSD. We're all in this together, folks. Looking forward to future BSD-related articles.
Not that there weren't BSD-related articles before, but now the BSD community maybe won't be so inclined to look down on Slashdot for Linux-centricity, if you will.
I suspect that the Linux/BSD ratio here is more related to the popularity of the OS than any inherent bias on Slashdot's part, but I'm still happy to see this happen. Congratulations to - Nik, is it? - and looking forward to seeing your articles.
I don't know if many here use OpenVMS, but OpenVMS addressed several of these things. Most commands worked using parameters that were formatted similarly, and they tended to use something closer to plain English.
Examples (albeit not perfect ones):
UNIX: ls -l
VMS: DIR/FULL (or) DIR/DATE/OWNER/PROTECTION
UNIX: lpr -PPRINTER_1 filename
VMS: PRINT/QUEUE=PRINTER_1 filename
I do miss my regular expressions, though.
OK, well, I haven't used FreeBSD a great deal recently, and if I remember correctly NetBSD called both binary- and source-downloads using their dependency-checking system "packages." Either way, the point is, it's not hard to extend FreeBSD's software after the default configuration is working; the other software just doesn't come with the distribution, typically, unlike most Linux distros.
Assuming for the moment that the ideology of the licenses doesn't concern you, let me say what I think the difference is to users such as yourself, and you can decide what you want to do. I will start out with very general statements which are not always true but which (I think) tend to get the idea across:
*BSD (any free variant) just gives you the basic tools, and expects you to get the system into the state you want it by the tried-and-true method of download-compile-install-run. For someone who really wants to understand the Un*x way of doing things, I think that this is the best way to go, because it will force you to get into the nitty-gritty of system administration. I started with NetBSD (because way back when, Linux didn't run on my old Macintoshes), and I have not regretted it. Nothing sysadmin-wise daunts me anymore.
Most Linux distributions try to come with everything preconfigured; instead of BSD's question, "which window manager do you want to download, compile, and run? The most basic one is all I have for starters, but you can do whatever you want", for example, Linux's statement is more along the lines of "I have 15 window managers right here, I already have one configured for you, and you are welcome to do whatever you want with them."
These days, thanks to *BSD's package system, it is very easy to download and run software; it takes longer than just getting the binary RPM's and DEB's, but it's often more likely to work because you're compiling it for _your_ system. But RPM's nearly always work for most of us, too. And the opposite is true, as well: Slackware (from what I recall, it's been awhile since I used it) has more of the "do-it-yourself" approach, similar to what I have identified as a BSD thing.
So, I guess the big difference is, FreeBSD comes in a simple, fast configuration, and you add things as you want them. Most Linux distro's default to big, bloated configurations, but you can pare those down as much as you want, and replace all the packages with things you compiled if you like.
Or perhaps you just want all the bells and whistles preconfigured, in which case Linux is probably what you want.
I don't know if you're a new Unix user or not, but if you are and you want to really learn the nitty-gritty stuff, I personally recommend starting with FreeBSD, get comfortable with configuring, compiling, etc., and then switch if you decide you want to switch. Then you'll know both ways of doing it. People who start with "user-friendly" Linux distro's sometimes never get past the user-friendly part (I've seen it happen, anyway).
Hope this helps. People, feel free to add or correct as needed. This is just my view.
Charlie (NetBSD user, 4 years; LinuxPPC/x86/Alpha user, 2 years)
That's true, Berst is writing to management. So, let's consider what he's been telling our bosses:
* Linux cannot overtake Windows (comments about world domination)
* Nobody gets fired for choosing Microsoft (paraphrase)
* People _get_ fired for choosing Linux (left as a possibility)
* Only a gearhead can use Linux to get real work done (comments about desktop, note implications about gearheads)
_If_ people accept these statements as fact, and don't check back to see if his views change, they may make what they consider to be informed decisions about servers, desktops, etc., without knowing the big picture (which they could have gotten from their local "gearhead").
Having written articles (and done radio shows) before, I recognize that it's difficult to make sure that every fact lines up before you say something, especially in this industry. But this guy has been wrong about Linux/OSS almost as often as Jack Van Impe has misdated Armageddon.
And this failure to accurately review products or predict the future has certainly caused thousands of small-to-medium-sized businesses to make the wrong decisions, and spend thousands of dollars on OS licenses for OS's that don't work and support that isn't supportive, when a "gearhead" could have charged them a week's worth of consulting time, got it all running with Linux/FreeBSD, and left them alone to make money.
SPOILER
>As for it being predictable I have to disagree.
>OK looking back you can see what was gonna
>happen, but at least I couldn't quote the lines
>before they were said - like the normal set of
>horror flicks.
I'm one of the ones who said it was predictable, but upon reading this I must admit that I _did not_ know what they were going to say. When I said "predictable," I suppose I meant things like, the things outside the camp, the whatever-it-was in the bundle of sticks, getting lost and going in circles, Josh's voice calling them to the "final confrontation," if you will, in the house. I have to admit that I wasn't ready for the final scene, but had I been trying to ruin my own movie, I think I would have anticipated that as well. Glad I didn't (although maybe then I wouldn't keep seeing it today, in broad daylight, in my cubicle. Yeech).
END SPOILER
No major spoilers here; all things you've probably already heard, but if you haven't heard anything then I recommend getting completely off this page and go see it before anybody spoils anything for you.
I wish I hadn't heard so much about it; I think it would have had more of an impact on me.
It was interesting to watch them break down, and the final scenes stayed with me (and still flash in on me every once in a while, even when I'm not thinking about it). Haunting, I would even say.
I also liked the way that they didn't explain anything too much. No need to show us the reasons, physical or metaphysical, for the things that happen every night. Too many movies have to explain everything.
Overall, I liked it, but I won't see it again. It's very predictable, but set up, shot, and acted very well. And those last scenes...
But it's still a very interesting read, especially these days. Good to see how a good idea grew, even if this isn't quite what started it all.
I apologize, I totally missed the "BBS Wannabe" reply.
I concur 100%.
***
Its a message board you moron. People come here to sound off.
Excuse me for hoping for intelligent discussion on this topic (as one could find in plenty of other articles on Slashdot). Just because you can't provide any...
You can lump yourself into the same category...read your own post. At least I assign a name to mine.
What category? Name?
Clearly "sounding off" is to the complete exclusion of comprehensibility.
To be honest, so far (at comment 13 at any rate) the comments have been insightful and thought-provoking.
Maybe Slashdot is growing up a bit...?
Of course, the tide may turn as soon as people start logging in...but all in all I'd say it was a good sign (I was expecting a bit of a war too).
Stricly speaking, I thought they could do just that - as long as they released the new code as Free Software in the same sense. As the author states elsewhere, it keeps it from becoming their intellectual property in any real sense.
Not meaning to nitpick, just hoping to clear up some confusion.
Charlie
Actually, one may make the case that being a Jedi could be an accident of birth; I mean, if someone had the Force strongly in them (apparently this is at least genetic to some extent), who wouldn't choose to become a Jedi if the recruiter showed up? Especially since they apparently recruited very small children in Lucas's framework.
I meant to say "the only working driver for my laptop's sound card is one of OSS's commercial versions."
(should have hit the preview button, I know)
Ah, wasn't aware. Thanks.
And perhaps my view of the OSS/Free source is tainted by the fact that my laptop's sound card is one of the commercial ones. *smiles* But thanks for the info.
Maybe you need to learn the difference between conspiracy theories and business decisions. If I were 4Front and I were also employing the maintainers of X11amp-now-XMMS, it would be a great temptation to influence the code to some extent to support my own product. Heck, I expect some OSS-specific stuff, since they're so closely related now. I just hoped that ALSA wouldn't be excluded.
On which side of the bed did you get up this morning? Sheesh.
Perhaps someone who knows could alleviate my fears here: if 4Front (who control the OSS sound drivers, mostly proprietary with a few that were contributed to the kernel code) now can exert control over the X11amp code (albeit GPL'd code), does that imply that X11amp's code is probably only going to support OSS special features, to the exclusion of ALSA? And does this therefore mean that someone is going to have to provide patches, etc. to take advantage of things that ALSA does differently?
And while I'm on the topic, when is ALSA going to become the official sound system? Or have I misunderstood that as well? (I was reminded of this by OSS's press release.)
(I am an experienced UNIX admin but I know nothing about sound, software- or hardware-wise.)
Yes, but the point of the post was that he had been actively supporting them this whole time, actually giving them money when he didn't have to because he believed in what they were doing - and this is how they repayed him.
I think it is a good thing when people who can afford to support Linux distros/developers/etc., do so. They help to make all this possible. This post is all about trying to determine whether it is worthwhile to continue supporting RedHat when things have changed for the worse this much. In the spirit of the post this man should instead turn his business over to SUSE or Debian or someone else, where the money will be actively used to enhance Linux for the rest of us rather than whatever RedHat has been doing with the money (and let me say that they have helped the cause out a lot, but it doesn't seem to be quite as high-quality help lately).
Charlie, someone who owns 1 legitmate copy of RedHat Linux 5.2 and is probably going to buy the next Debian distro next time instead, if he doesn't just switch to *BSD
Or is this an attempt to cop an attitude (which would be an essential attribute of any god in Slashdot's pantheon)?
Not that I disagree particularly, I'm just a little bemused by the tone.
This may get you a few points in the popularity contests around here, certainly.
Charlie