BSD isn't being worked on anymore. There are a few descendants of it, and generally, people refer to these descendants as "BSD" or "the BSDs" or "*BSD", etc. The fact is a lot of code is based on FreeBSD 3.x and NetBSD, as well as many other systems, and obviously plenty of new code.
3.5-STABLE is being eased back on (or already has been) as far as new features. For the most part, the only things going into 3.5 will be bug fixes. 4.1-STABLE will get new features that are considered stable, as well as bug fixes, and -CURRENT (5.x) will get all the evil things that could cause your computer to burst into flames, etc.
3.4 is just an older release of 3.x-STABLE. 3.5 is the most recent (and final) release on 3.x-STABLE, and 4.1 is the most recent release on 4.x-STABLE.
Well, the UNIX trademark has been `owned' by various people since UNIX really started. AT&T, Novell, now it's X/Open that owns the trademark. It's not like they acquired it illegally or unfairly. Any trademark-related issues arisen from someone other than X/Open owning it should be expected.
As a FreeBSD user I am very apprehensive about this merger. What FreeBSD needs, IMHO, is an infusion of smart, energetic and creative folks. I have a gut feeling that the merger with BSDi is a step in the wrong direction. Perhaps a better arrangement would have been for Walnut Creek to buddy up with Apple and their OpenSource efforts?
Are you implying with this that the people from BSDI aren't smart, creative or energetic?
Look at the walnut creek web site, dull, boring, stale. Look at the FreeBSD site, the home page hasn't been touched in well over a year. Look at the BSDi site and you would think they were out of business. You can't even find a comprehensive feature list for BSD/OS. I think it is telling that none of the sites listed above have an announcement of the merger!
Please explain how you get any of this. Your statement on Walnut Creek's Web page may be your opinion but the main FreeBSD page has indeed been updated even as recently as two days ago. I can't see how you get that BSDI is going out of business from their Web page, either.
Just because Linux Today and Be News are becoming rapidly popular, FreeBSD is not on the decline. Unless you give proof to the contrary, you look only like a fool.
I'm not even going to respond to what you're saying regarding Nik.
That's really what I meant. Each devel kernel release isn't newsworthy so much as perhaps Debian releasing a new version of its distribution or FreeBSD 3.4 being released. Those are actual release events, rather than snapshots (which is what Linux development kernel version bumps really are analogous to).
Well why don't we also post each new FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT snapshot and each new NetBSD-Current snapshot and each new OpenBSD-Current snapshot to Slashdot, too? It's pretty much the same thing.
What did Linus Torvalds do that was so special? Why not list everybody that started an OS? Nate Williams, Jordan Hubbard, Rod Grimes, Bill Jolitz, Theo de Raadt, Steve Jobs...
They aren't the exact same thing, and they actually share little code (Linux and FreeBSD) so why should they be the same? I bet HP-UX and Solaris don't both get exactly the same "longest uptime streak".
I can accept your article as one of mostly opinion. Except the "code stealing" bit. We [FreeBSD] have very little if anything at all that can be considered "Linux code." We have the GPL math emulator, GNU binutils... but then again, things like that are GNU code, not Linux code.
So where do you get the idea that BSD programmers steal Linux code?
We don't have to waste -core's time with having them review each and every update to the kernel sources (though there are obvious cases). Basically we have to use our own judgement. If it's something simple, like ripping out unused declarations or whatever, it doesn't need -core review.
You probably either misunderstood the way review works with FreeBSD, or who -core is.
For Linux applications, FreeBSD already has glibc in one of the Linux compatibility library ports. There's no need to have a FreeBSD-native port of glibc as
We already have our own libc that works just fine
It's bad practice to use confusing and nonstandard (and often stupid, in my opinion) interfaces
Actually, they won't affect our FreeBSD. It will be their own distribution of it and their own responsibility. Technically it would be a different operating system. So don't worry about the real FreeBSD.:)
Linux is under the GPL. We hate the GPL. Linux is technically inferior to BSD. Linux is an SVR4 clone. It has a poor development model. Just a few reasons why this will never happen.
Linux isn't an SVR4 clone because many of the distributions are a combination of BSD, SysV and GNU!
Furthermore, BSD isn't fragmenting the UNIX community, Linux is. BSD was in widespread usage before Linux. The real UNIX fragmentation problem is the absurd number of Linux distros, which, despite what some Linux folk say, have very significant differences. Also, we're not 'splitting tasks'. Hardly anyone develops specifically for BSD, in fact, we suggest that they develop for Linux, since we can run the binaries natively, and port the source fairly easily.
Who are you? "We" as FreeBSD certainly don't want people developing for just Linux. That's where Jordan Hubbard suggested developers of new software start out.
I'm really getting sick of the Linux mentality that we need a gleaming, one world OS. The world needs different OSes, because every OS sucks at certain things, and they're always going to. The Open Source movement is about MORE decisions, not less, and the more choices we have, the better.
Linux used "we need choices" as leverage until they were sufficiently widespread. That makes them no better than Microsoft as far as advocacy and marketing goes.
I'm using GNOME with Window Maker on my FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT system and it's surprisingly stable. This isn't "October GNOME", though, but I can run all the things like Gnumeric, GNOME-card, etc. While I don't use them much, they're fun to play with.
It's not really called "emulation" because it's not an emulator. FreeBSD (and others, I'm sure) runs Linux binaries. You can install Linux libraries, even as low-level as the various C libraries floating around for Linux. Technically it's called, in FreeBSD, "Linux mode."
It would not have worked out at all. If Linus hadn't distributed it for free, it would have died within months of its creation. Simple as that. Do you know anyone who would _buy_ an operating system that essentially originally only supports the hardware Linus Torvalds owned back in 1991?
Slashdot Mirror
BSD isn't being worked on anymore. There are a few descendants of it, and generally, people refer to these descendants as "BSD" or "the BSDs" or "*BSD", etc. The fact is a lot of code is based on FreeBSD 3.x and NetBSD, as well as many other systems, and obviously plenty of new code.
Define BSD. FreeBSD and NetBSD have different kernels, too. And some different userland utilities.
That's because it's an associated press article, not a Yahoo article.
3.5-STABLE is being eased back on (or already has been) as far as new features. For the most part, the only things going into 3.5 will be bug fixes. 4.1-STABLE will get new features that are considered stable, as well as bug fixes, and -CURRENT (5.x) will get all the evil things that could cause your computer to burst into flames, etc.
3.4 is just an older release of 3.x-STABLE. 3.5 is the most recent (and final) release on 3.x-STABLE, and 4.1 is the most recent release on 4.x-STABLE.
There was no reason to put quotes around the word owned in that last post. They really do own it.
Well, the UNIX trademark has been `owned' by various people since UNIX really started. AT&T, Novell, now it's X/Open that owns the trademark. It's not like they acquired it illegally or unfairly. Any trademark-related issues arisen from someone other than X/Open owning it should be expected.
Just because Linux Today and Be News are becoming rapidly popular, FreeBSD is not on the decline. Unless you give proof to the contrary, you look only like a fool.
I'm not even going to respond to what you're saying regarding Nik.
That's really what I meant. Each devel kernel release isn't newsworthy so much as perhaps Debian releasing a new version of its distribution or FreeBSD 3.4 being released. Those are actual release events, rather than snapshots (which is what Linux development kernel version bumps really are analogous to).
Well why don't we also post each new FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT snapshot and each new NetBSD-Current snapshot and each new OpenBSD-Current snapshot to Slashdot, too? It's pretty much the same thing.
Site: http://www.deja.com/
Smell: Urine
What did Linus Torvalds do that was so special? Why not list everybody that started an OS? Nate Williams, Jordan Hubbard, Rod Grimes, Bill Jolitz, Theo de Raadt, Steve Jobs...
They aren't the exact same thing, and they actually share little code (Linux and FreeBSD) so why should they be the same? I bet HP-UX and Solaris don't both get exactly the same "longest uptime streak".
I can accept your article as one of mostly opinion. Except the "code stealing" bit. We [FreeBSD] have very little if anything at all that can be considered "Linux code." We have the GPL math emulator, GNU binutils... but then again, things like that are GNU code, not Linux code.
So where do you get the idea that BSD programmers steal Linux code?
We don't have to waste -core's time with having them review each and every update to the kernel sources (though there are obvious cases). Basically we have to use our own judgement. If it's something simple, like ripping out unused declarations or whatever, it doesn't need -core review.
You probably either misunderstood the way review works with FreeBSD, or who -core is.
In any case, hopefully this clears it up.
I consider things like stpcpy(), GNU getopt, etc. to be non-standard.
Actually, they won't affect our FreeBSD. It will be their own distribution of it and their own responsibility. Technically it would be a different operating system. So don't worry about the real FreeBSD. :)
OpenBSD is the most audited for security bugs, but that doesn't mean FreeBSD is full of gaping holes, now does it?
It's "BSDI". Why are people calling it "BSDi"? What's with the little "i"?
I'm using GNOME with Window Maker on my FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT system and it's surprisingly stable. This isn't "October GNOME", though, but I can run all the things like Gnumeric, GNOME-card, etc. While I don't use them much, they're fun to play with.
What SCSI card are you using? Initio? If so, they've got a FreeBSD driver on their website somewhere.
It's not really called "emulation" because it's not an emulator. FreeBSD (and others, I'm sure) runs Linux binaries. You can install Linux libraries, even as low-level as the various C libraries floating around for Linux. Technically it's called, in FreeBSD, "Linux mode."
It would not have worked out at all. If Linus hadn't distributed it for free, it would have died within months of its creation. Simple as that. Do you know anyone who would _buy_ an operating system that essentially originally only supports the hardware Linus Torvalds owned back in 1991?