Someone correct me if I am wrong, but compiling has alot more to do with the compiler, libs, headers then the actual operating system. I am guessing that linux has alot larger/more libs and headers to take into consideration when compiling an application then either solaris or *bsd. Second I think NFS was a bad choice in testing network performence, NFS is unique to the OS, and as such it is testing the OS specific implmetnation of NFS more so then the OS (Not to mention Linux is WELL KNOWN to have crappy NFS). Samba would of been much more useful in benching the operating systems ability. The IO difference between freebsd and the other operating systems looks rather like what I see with UDMA disabled:) I get better performence marks on a pentium 200 with UDMA enabled (under linux). I would agree that this benchmark isn't biased, it's just poorly done.
I believe the ideal solution to this perceived 'paradox' in which free software programmers are not rewarded for their 'services', is for the community (both individual's and businesses alike) is to pay Free Software programmers of thier own accord.
In this system those who use Free Software would freely (if they choose to) donate money to the Free Software projects which they used.
The problem is not that there is a fundmental problem, but rather that the community at large fails to understand their role in that community. Educating the community in what they receive by giving freely back to the community is then of great importance.
No one would be forced to donate to Free Software. It would be an act of free will (just like its an act of free will to release free software). Instead it would be an exchange, of life energy (money exchanged for the programmers time). The user gives the programmer (or a group of programmers) money not because the programmers are 'owed' money, rather it's in the users own self interest to do so.
I believe this model would have a number of immediate benefits:
a) The programmer(s) would have an added modivation to write software that fits the users needs.
b) Useful/Popular projects would be well funded while unpopular projects would not be.(modivating people to work on what was useful).
c) Projects that are well funded would have a greater supply of programming talent, as there would be increased resources to distribute.
d) New projects would be inspired as people with new ideas would be able to start a project with the knowelge that if it is useful they will be rewarded.
d)The process would be self increasing. As a project became more popular, it would receive more funding, and thus more programmers, and thus have more features, resulting in it increasing in popularity, resulting in more funding ect..
I think our community is ready for such a shift as what I have suggested. I think the ideal situation for this would for a orginization like VA Linux (or even the FSF) to build a donations section into sourceforge site allowing users to distrubute funds to the projects they wish to help fund. For example John Doe, decides to donate $20 a month to opensource as a whole. (most people spend alot more on commerical software every month).
John sets up a donation profile which allocates $5 to the Linux Kernel team, $5 to GNOME and $5 to GLIBC and $5 to be distributed amoung 'base' os compoents like gcc, binutils ect..
He could of course modify his profile at any time. It would be up to the copyright holders of the OS project to determine how to distribute the funds. Most likely they would create a non profit organization to handle fund distribution.
If there are 20,000,000 open source users in the world, and the average donation per month was $10.
That would come to: $200,000,000 per month in development funding. Not including any donations being made by Busineses that are users of open source software (like IBM?).
And of course, as our community grew, our development fund would increase and thus our user base would grow even more.
I believe the ideal solution to this perceived 'paradox' in which open source programmers are not rewarded for their 'services', is for the open source community (both individual's and businesses alike) is to pay OSS programmers of thier own free will.
In this system those who use open source software would freely (if they choose to) donate money to those OSS software projects which they wanted to contribute too.
The problem is not that there is a fundmental problem, but rather that the community at large fails to understand their role in the community. Educating the community on their role is therefore of exteam importance.
No one should be forced to donate to open source projects. It should be an act of free will (just like its an act of free will to release open source code). Rather it should be an exchange, of life energy. The user gives a programmer (or a group of programmers) money not because the programmers are 'owed' money, but because it's in the users own self interest to do so.
Imagine a community where programmers worked on what they wanted and then gave it away for free. Users who found value in that 'gift' would choose/or not to donate funds to that software project.
I believe this would have a number of benefits.
a) The programmer(s) would have an added modivation to write software that fits the users needs.
b) Useful/Popular projects would be well funded while unpopular projects would not be.(modivating people to work on what was useful).
c) Projects that are well funded would have a greater supply of programming talent, as there would be increased resources to distribute.
d) New projects would be inspired as people with new ideas would be able to start a project with the knowelge that if it is useful they will be rewarded.
d)The process would be self increasing. As a project became more popular, it would get more funding, and thus more programmers, and thus have more features, resulting in it becoming more popular, resulting in more funding ect.. ect..
I think our community is ready for such a shift as what I have suggested. I think the ideal situation for this would for a company like VA Linux to build a Donations section into their sourceforge site allowing users to distrubute funds to the projects they wish to help fund. For example John Doe, decides to donate $20 a month to opensource as a whole. (most people spend alot more on commerical software every month).
John sets up a donation profile which allocates $5 to the Linux Kernel team, $5 to KDE and $5 to GLIBC and $5 to be distributed amoung 'base' os compoents like gcc, binutils ect..
He could of course modify his profile at any time. It would be up to the copyright holders of the OS project to determine how to distribute the funds. Most likely they would create a non profit organization to handle fund distribution.
If there are 20,000,000 open source users in the world, and the average donation per month was $10.
That would come to: $200,000,000 per month in development funding. Not including any donations being made by Busineses that are users of open source software (like IBM?).
And of course, as our community grew.. our development fund would increase and thus attract more users:).
Does anyone know if it is currently possible (with Xfree 4.0) to change color depth/resolution without restarting X? I know you can change resolution, and have been able to forever, but it doesn't help if your virtual console size is 4x larger then your real size:). So whats the deal, has no one just writting a X tool to change color depth/resolution properly or is it just something X can't do?
Maybe your machine is f*cked. I haven't had any stability problems with gnome since redhat 6.1 which I believe was before the october release. I agree redhat 6.0's release (1.0) was horrible. But big deal, how good was windows 1.0?
For all those win2k bigots out there who claims 'win2k is so much faster then win98' please go do some research at http://www.tomshardware.com. You will find that Win2k lags behind win98 by about 10%. Thank you, drive through.
That was the very first theory to explain quantum phsycis. It was disproven by Bell's theorm which was specifically designed to PROVE your arguement. Needless to say the results was that quantum theory is 'non-local'. I.E. does not follow classical newton laws.
It's more likely that microsoft will be required to release all current and future API specifications. This my friend, does not bold well for stock holders.
RANT MODE ON (10+) What a bunch of whinning children. If you don't like to see Linux development kernels posted here. DON'T BLOODY READ IT!!!! new linux kernels have been posted here since the beginning of time. This site has nothing to do with what you want.. or with how you think the site should be run. It's news for "nerds". Defined by CmndrTaco. Get over it. p.s. I could show a benchmark that states windows 3.11 outperforms NT 2k. Whats the f*cking point. The people who will decide how NT performs are the admins who deploy it. Time will tell.. everything else is just a bunch of clueless half wits trying to sound informed. Get real slashdot.
Re:Funny thing that. WAS Re:This pisses me off a l
on
BSD Quickies
·
· Score: 1
Please say stupid things all the time. Doesn't matter if they use macos, windows, linux or even BSD.. Stupid is stupid.:)
Few is relative. In a relative universe few can mean anywhere from 3 to anything short of infinity.
Linus used it to suggest that compared to Linux *bsd only had a few people working on it.
Which is fine, compared to the number of years *bsd has been in development compared to linux, I think it is comparable.
I am sorry that *bsd users feel as though it should be *bsd in the lime light.
Apparently they are in the minority view point. But thats just because we are stupid and you are smart right?:)
Re:Quantity of Linux code in *BSD?
on
BSD Quickies
·
· Score: 1
A better question. Does anyone know how much code written for Freebsd was inspired by code written for Linux. Answer: Some, but the same is true for Linux.
Stop crying. Linus isn't feeling "the heat" by *bsd. Thats just stupid. Linus/Alan has said a number of positive comments about Freebsd over the years. They do not believe freebsd to be a superior technology, so how else do you expect them to respond?? It is commonly accepted that *bsd is more "mature" in some areas, this comes from having a code base that has been around for so long.
Almost all of the OPINIONS expressed here about why Freebsd is so much better then _PUT OS HERE_ can be found in debian as well. Just once I would like to see some informed posts, rather then raving freebsd zealots preaching the holy word of *bsd's divinity. Why *most* *BSD users bother me. a) If I wanted opinions I would ask my mother. b) Myths don't become any more valid just because it isn't a microsoft making it up. c) They state opinions as though it were facts which they have a truck load of evidence to support them. (0 facts, 0 evidence 100% baseless opinions) d) They think if they say something enough it will become true (1) Linux is less stable 2) Linux is less secure 3) Linux is slower 4) Linux isn't a REAL UNIX 5) Linux is for newbies 6) Linux isn't as GOOD period e) They smell (joke) I like freebsd, I just don't like the majority of the *bsd faithful. For the same reasons why I don't like alot of Linux faithful. I judge the "goodness" of something based on that somethings fruits. Freebsd new fruits: new drivers, a couple new features.. more crazy zealots Linux new fruits: www.linuxtoday.com NT new fruits: More bugs. Ok I am done ranting now.:)
If you have hacked on both kernels why are you unaware that Linus and Alan both have stated that it is not the kernels job to protect against the root user. Wether you agree with this or not, this is the instead intent, and this is why Xfree can crash the system. It has nothing to do with "bad code" unless you are saying their decision is wrong? If so I think it would be your place to justify why it is wrong.
Granted it was off topic, and thus the RANT ON RANT OFF was an attempt on my part to counter that. You are right, that this is not a court of law, nor would I expect it to be ran as such. However I think opinions are well and good as long as they are stated as such. When someone goes on to say "Linux is unstable and a toy os, and oh by the way its not a real UNIX anyways" People who do not know better believe it. Hell I know a number of X linux users who switched to freebsd for no other reason then they heard Linux was unsecure and unstable. Never had any evidence other then what they heard. It's like the old saying goes. It's much easier to believe something Bad then someting Good. It is easier to deface a painting then it is to repair it. However for the most part I agree with you.
Do you have some examples of how FreeBsd has better MAN pages then Linux? I would like to do some research on this, as it sounds like it *might* have some evidence? And if it can be proven to be true then hell I might even help resolve that issue for you:)
Linux is commited to doing the "right thing" (tm). *bsd seems more concerned with recreating what has already been created i.e. another UNIX. We will see which approch proves more useful:)
Well seeing as I have been running both BSD and Linux servers in production for about 5 years now. I can honestly say I have never experinced any of the formentioned problems with either system.. Which is odd if you ask me, since you seem to have multiple differnt problems all at once. I suggest you go to redhat's site and verify that you are not using tier 3 hardware?:)
Wow feel the hate.. This is exactly what I meant. FUD, no facts.. "LINUX CRASHES IN 30 SECONDS ON OUR NETWORK" . there are web sites doing HUGE volumes of traffic without any problems on Linux. etoys (you know the one that supported all those xmas shoppers??) went without a hickup this christmas season. My position still stands.. the day a *bsd user shows me some creditable evidence that *bsd is a superior system is the day I eat my shorts. p.s. It's interesting that my post got moderated down to "troll".:)
Slashdot Mirror
Uhmm. I didn't say as much. The header and libs are not the same on Freebsd as they are on linux.
And your point?
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but compiling has alot more to do with the compiler, libs, headers then the actual operating system. I am guessing that linux has alot larger/more libs and headers to take into consideration when compiling an application then either solaris or *bsd. Second I think NFS was a bad choice in testing network performence, NFS is unique to the OS, and as such it is testing the OS specific implmetnation of NFS more so then the OS (Not to mention Linux is WELL KNOWN to have crappy NFS). Samba would of been much more useful in benching the operating systems ability. The IO difference between freebsd and the other operating systems looks rather like what I see with UDMA disabled :) I get better performence marks on a pentium 200 with UDMA enabled (under linux). I would agree that this benchmark isn't biased, it's just poorly done.
In this system those who use Free Software would freely (if they choose to) donate money to the Free Software projects which they used.
The problem is not that there is a fundmental problem, but rather that the community at large fails to understand their role in that community. Educating the community in what they receive by giving freely back to the community is then of great importance.
No one would be forced to donate to Free Software. It would be an act of free will (just like its an act of free will to release free software). Instead it would be an exchange, of life energy (money exchanged for the programmers time). The user gives the programmer (or a group of programmers) money not because the programmers are 'owed' money, rather it's in the users own self interest to do so.
I believe this model would have a number of immediate benefits:
a) The programmer(s) would have an added modivation to write software that fits the users needs.
b) Useful/Popular projects would be well funded while unpopular projects would not be.(modivating people to work on what was useful).
c) Projects that are well funded would have a greater supply of programming talent, as there would be increased resources to distribute.
d) New projects would be inspired as people with new ideas would be able to start a project with the knowelge that if it is useful they will be rewarded.
d)The process would be self increasing. As a project became more popular, it would receive more funding, and thus more programmers, and thus have more features, resulting in it increasing in popularity, resulting in more funding ect..
I think our community is ready for such a shift as what I have suggested. I think the ideal situation for this would for a orginization like VA Linux (or even the FSF) to build a donations section into sourceforge site allowing users to distrubute funds to the projects they wish to help fund. For example John Doe, decides to donate $20 a month to opensource as a whole. (most people spend alot more on commerical software every month).
John sets up a donation profile which allocates $5 to the Linux Kernel team, $5 to GNOME and $5 to GLIBC and $5 to be distributed amoung 'base' os compoents like gcc, binutils ect..
He could of course modify his profile at any time. It would be up to the copyright holders of the OS project to determine how to distribute the funds. Most likely they would create a non profit organization to handle fund distribution.
If there are 20,000,000 open source users in the world, and the average donation per month was $10.
That would come to: $200,000,000 per month in development funding. Not including any donations being made by Busineses that are users of open source software (like IBM?).
And of course, as our community grew, our development fund would increase and thus our user base would grow even more.
Just my two cents.
In this system those who use open source software would freely (if they choose to) donate money to those OSS software projects which they wanted to contribute too.
The problem is not that there is a fundmental problem, but rather that the community at large fails to understand their role in the community. Educating the community on their role is therefore of exteam importance.
No one should be forced to donate to open source projects. It should be an act of free will (just like its an act of free will to release open source code). Rather it should be an exchange, of life energy. The user gives a programmer (or a group of programmers) money not because the programmers are 'owed' money, but because it's in the users own self interest to do so.
Imagine a community where programmers worked on what they wanted and then gave it away for free. Users who found value in that 'gift' would choose/or not to donate funds to that software project.
I believe this would have a number of benefits.
a) The programmer(s) would have an added modivation to write software that fits the users needs.
b) Useful/Popular projects would be well funded while unpopular projects would not be.(modivating people to work on what was useful).
c) Projects that are well funded would have a greater supply of programming talent, as there would be increased resources to distribute.
d) New projects would be inspired as people with new ideas would be able to start a project with the knowelge that if it is useful they will be rewarded.
d)The process would be self increasing. As a project became more popular, it would get more funding, and thus more programmers, and thus have more features, resulting in it becoming more popular, resulting in more funding ect.. ect..
I think our community is ready for such a shift as what I have suggested. I think the ideal situation for this would for a company like VA Linux to build a Donations section into their sourceforge site allowing users to distrubute funds to the projects they wish to help fund. For example John Doe, decides to donate $20 a month to opensource as a whole. (most people spend alot more on commerical software every month).
John sets up a donation profile which allocates $5 to the Linux Kernel team, $5 to KDE and $5 to GLIBC and $5 to be distributed amoung 'base' os compoents like gcc, binutils ect..
He could of course modify his profile at any time. It would be up to the copyright holders of the OS project to determine how to distribute the funds. Most likely they would create a non profit organization to handle fund distribution.
If there are 20,000,000 open source users in the world, and the average donation per month was $10.
That would come to: $200,000,000 per month in development funding. Not including any donations being made by Busineses that are users of open source software (like IBM?).
And of course, as our community grew.. our development fund would increase and thus attract more users :).
Just my 2 cents.
Does anyone know if it is currently possible (with Xfree 4.0) to change color depth/resolution without restarting X? I know you can change resolution, and have been able to forever, but it doesn't help if your virtual console size is 4x larger then your real size :). So whats the deal, has no one just writting a X tool to change color depth/resolution properly or is it just something X can't do?
Maybe your machine is f*cked. I haven't had any stability problems with gnome since redhat 6.1 which I believe was before the october release. I agree redhat 6.0's release (1.0) was horrible. But big deal, how good was windows 1.0?
For all those win2k bigots out there who claims 'win2k is so much faster then win98' please go do some research at http://www.tomshardware.com. You will find that Win2k lags behind win98 by about 10%. Thank you, drive through.
That was the very first theory to explain quantum phsycis. It was disproven by Bell's theorm which was specifically designed to PROVE your arguement. Needless to say the results was that quantum theory is 'non-local'. I.E. does not follow classical newton laws.
It's more likely that microsoft will be required to release all current and future API specifications. This my friend, does not bold well for stock holders.
RANT MODE ON (10+) What a bunch of whinning children. If you don't like to see Linux development kernels posted here. DON'T BLOODY READ IT!!!! new linux kernels have been posted here since the beginning of time. This site has nothing to do with what you want.. or with how you think the site should be run. It's news for "nerds". Defined by CmndrTaco. Get over it. p.s. I could show a benchmark that states windows 3.11 outperforms NT 2k. Whats the f*cking point. The people who will decide how NT performs are the admins who deploy it. Time will tell.. everything else is just a bunch of clueless half wits trying to sound informed. Get real slashdot.
Please say stupid things all the time. Doesn't matter if they use macos, windows, linux or even BSD.. Stupid is stupid. :)
Few is relative. In a relative universe few can mean anywhere from 3 to anything short of infinity.
:)
Linus used it to suggest that compared to Linux *bsd only had a few people working on it.
Which is fine, compared to the number of years *bsd has been in development compared to linux, I think it is comparable.
I am sorry that *bsd users feel as though it should be *bsd in the lime light.
Apparently they are in the minority view point. But thats just because we are stupid and you are smart right?
A better question. Does anyone know how much code written for Freebsd was inspired by code written for Linux. Answer: Some, but the same is true for Linux.
Stop crying. Linus isn't feeling "the heat" by *bsd. Thats just stupid. Linus/Alan has said a number of positive comments about Freebsd over the years. They do not believe freebsd to be a superior technology, so how else do you expect them to respond?? It is commonly accepted that *bsd is more "mature" in some areas, this comes from having a code base that has been around for so long.
Almost all of the OPINIONS expressed here about why Freebsd is so much better then _PUT OS HERE_ can be found in debian as well. Just once I would like to see some informed posts, rather then raving freebsd zealots preaching the holy word of *bsd's divinity. Why *most* *BSD users bother me. a) If I wanted opinions I would ask my mother. b) Myths don't become any more valid just because it isn't a microsoft making it up. c) They state opinions as though it were facts which they have a truck load of evidence to support them. (0 facts, 0 evidence 100% baseless opinions) d) They think if they say something enough it will become true (1) Linux is less stable 2) Linux is less secure 3) Linux is slower 4) Linux isn't a REAL UNIX 5) Linux is for newbies 6) Linux isn't as GOOD period e) They smell (joke) I like freebsd, I just don't like the majority of the *bsd faithful. For the same reasons why I don't like alot of Linux faithful. I judge the "goodness" of something based on that somethings fruits. Freebsd new fruits: new drivers, a couple new features.. more crazy zealots Linux new fruits: www.linuxtoday.com NT new fruits: More bugs. Ok I am done ranting now. :)
I joined the EFF too, $100 to start.
Linus's comments seem reasonable.. What about it do you feel is unreasonable?
If you have hacked on both kernels why are you unaware that Linus and Alan both have stated that it is not the kernels job to protect against the root user. Wether you agree with this or not, this is the instead intent, and this is why Xfree can crash the system. It has nothing to do with "bad code" unless you are saying their decision is wrong? If so I think it would be your place to justify why it is wrong.
Granted it was off topic, and thus the RANT ON RANT OFF was an attempt on my part to counter that. You are right, that this is not a court of law, nor would I expect it to be ran as such. However I think opinions are well and good as long as they are stated as such. When someone goes on to say "Linux is unstable and a toy os, and oh by the way its not a real UNIX anyways" People who do not know better believe it. Hell I know a number of X linux users who switched to freebsd for no other reason then they heard Linux was unsecure and unstable. Never had any evidence other then what they heard. It's like the old saying goes. It's much easier to believe something Bad then someting Good. It is easier to deface a painting then it is to repair it. However for the most part I agree with you.
Do you have some examples of how FreeBsd has better MAN pages then Linux? I would like to do some research on this, as it sounds like it *might* have some evidence? And if it can be proven to be true then hell I might even help resolve that issue for you :)
Linux is commited to doing the "right thing" (tm). *bsd seems more concerned with recreating what has already been created i.e. another UNIX. We will see which approch proves more useful :)
Well seeing as I have been running both BSD and Linux servers in production for about 5 years now. I can honestly say I have never experinced any of the formentioned problems with either system.. Which is odd if you ask me, since you seem to have multiple differnt problems all at once. I suggest you go to redhat's site and verify that you are not using tier 3 hardware? :)
Was in reference to the common theme among the &bsd posters on slashdot :)
Wow feel the hate.. This is exactly what I meant. FUD, no facts.. "LINUX CRASHES IN 30 SECONDS ON OUR NETWORK" . there are web sites doing HUGE volumes of traffic without any problems on Linux. etoys (you know the one that supported all those xmas shoppers??) went without a hickup this christmas season. My position still stands.. the day a *bsd user shows me some creditable evidence that *bsd is a superior system is the day I eat my shorts. p.s. It's interesting that my post got moderated down to "troll". :)