How many of us here have gotten their shiny new version of FreeBSD (3.2), Slackware (4.0) or Red Hat (6.0)? Who was downloading game cheats and such? How about downloading Seti@Home from them? Did anyone download something from cdrom.com's XFree86 mirror yesterday? How about their GNU mirror? See my point?
When I had an IDE disk, a Samsung 3.2 GB drive, it ran pretty well, but you have to realize that FreeBSD is really more of a server/workstation OS, and no server/workstation should really use IDE. PCs, which happen to be Linux's domain (more so than FreeBSD), however, do not need SCSI, and can do fine with IDE.
Slackware - Linux is a UNIX clone, developed by Linus Torvalds and thousands of volunteers on the Internet. Slackware is a heavy-duty version of Linux for mid-size businesses and departments but user-friendly enough for home users. Preorder Slackware 4.0, or order Slackware 3.6 now for only $39.95.
User-friendly enough and not orgasmically super-uber user-friendly with thought-sensing GNOME applets - now allows you to dream in one of many GTK themes!
That's one of the biggest things I love about most other Unices (FreeBSD, in my case) - you don't need to deal with distributions. One command updates the entire system, and another builds it and installs it. Instead of downloading a kernel package or dealing with applying a patch, just download the newest version of each file from the CVS tree. It also makes patching much, much easier, since the source people know exactly which version of the file you're patching. FreeBSD has both CVSup (compressed, 'updated' mode only) and CVS servers availible for public use. See here for more information on CVS and CVSup and how the FreeBSD project uses them.
Currently, my setup looks absolutely nothing like Windows whatsoever, and it is also not running on Linux. Also, the work on KDE 2.0 is seriously awesome, and I believe it looks much better than GNOME, and is already much more portable than GNOME is.
FreeBSD also has a working port to Alpha, and a Sparc port is in the works. Perhaps the people who are working hard on these areas should know that the only work on FreeBSD is being put into i386.
I can't figure out why there are people saying/(.*BSD)/ should be called GNU/$1. They don't owe their success to GNU. They're not based on GNU. They aren't released under the GPL. Just because they're open doesn't mean they have anything at all to do with GNU.
I'm glad there are little posts on this article. It means the [f]lamers are ignoring it. The next step, hopefully, would be to get some decent, mature commentary on the stories. I hope to see it soon.
The BSD-style license FreeBSD uses in fact does remove that particular clause. You must only give credit to the original developer(s) of the software in any binary reproductions of the original product.
While the GPL protects the rights of the author if the author wishes to keep the code open for others to contribute to, the BSD license is more free in that it allows people to integrate BSD-licensed code into closed source products, allowing people to make money. They both allow the code to be sold, but only one allows it to be sold only in binary form, with source made unavailible.
I don't understand it. There are a lot of new kernel releases coming out lately, one might say that they are being released one after another in rapid-fire succession, however, wouldn't it be much easier to use CVS (GNU), perhaps along with CVSup (which is essentially 'cvs update' on steroids - including an optional X UI and protocol compression) to keep its users up-to-date on the kernel sources? I believe I understand the Linus-final-word structure, but a one-man CVS operation would still be worth it if one can download only the latest updated sources from the tree.
This is, as some of you may know, the way FreeBSD keeps its whole OS tree (since it is, after all, one integrated operating system), as well as splitting the source tree (kernel and userland) into CURRENT, STABLE, and RELEASE (essentially a frozen -STABLE from a specific time), and I think it would be very valuble for Linux to do the same thing.
Comments? Flames?
Interesting note: FreeBSD mirrors use CVSup to update a CVS tree, so that users may use those mirrors which have mirrored the entire CVS tree on their system, to download either just the latest sources, or to download the actual CVS tree, on which one can make the usual CVS operations (useful for extensive work on things, such as the FAQ or Handbook, which I happen to work on)
Spreading this style of FUD is inherent of Microsoft and company, it's essentially IBM all over again, the only difference is that Microsoft is making much more of an ass out of itself for its continuous blatant spreading of total lies, and it's obvious that less and less people are taking these lies because the other side is getting major publicity, and the description of the various operating systems (Linux in particular) almost totally disspells the FUD Microsoft puts out.
However...
Microsoft is attacking Linux much more actively because it's very easy to perceive it as a joke, since it's not a single company or corporation that's behind it, it's a group of users. For example, Bill Gates himself once said that he respects FreeBSD, and Apache, and those are pretty well-defined organizations.
I see it a lot. Everybody is saying that a PC is the solution for everything. Need a high-end web server? Use a bunch of PCs! Need a router? A PC will do your job!
I disagree with this. Perhaps another type of system, but PCs are probably the worst and most inefficient architecture, mostly because they remain to be the only existing CISC architecture today, whereas everybody else is using a RISC processor.
I also would bet that all the PCs you need to equate to the product mentioned above would cost way more, and would take much more time to maintain.
On the issue of scaling in particular, I think this product was made with that bandwidth in mind, if not, what's the real use in marketing it as such?
FreeBSD is mostly based on 4.4BSD Lite2 developed in the University of California in Berkeley. FreeBSD only barely has to do with GNU, in that it uses gcc (egcs in 4.0-CURRENT) and a few other of the binutils (as, nm, etc.), however, RMS has no right to say that it should be called GNU anything, since GNU is a minority under FreeBSD.
Slashdot Mirror
How many of us here have gotten their shiny new version of FreeBSD (3.2), Slackware (4.0) or Red Hat (6.0)? Who was downloading game cheats and such? How about downloading Seti@Home from them? Did anyone download something from cdrom.com's XFree86 mirror yesterday? How about their GNU mirror? See my point?
When I had an IDE disk, a Samsung 3.2 GB drive, it ran pretty well, but you have to realize that FreeBSD is really more of a server/workstation OS, and no server/workstation should really use IDE. PCs, which happen to be Linux's domain (more so than FreeBSD), however, do not need SCSI, and can do fine with IDE.
I haven't laughed like this in ages.
... Same kernel, same apps ...
... great support from Microsoft. It can also play games ...
and even better...
Hah!
From http://www.cdrom.com:
Slackware - Linux is a UNIX clone, developed by Linus Torvalds and
thousands of volunteers on the Internet. Slackware is a heavy-duty version of
Linux for mid-size businesses and departments but user-friendly enough for
home users. Preorder Slackware 4.0, or order Slackware 3.6 now for only
$39.95.
User-friendly enough and not orgasmically super-uber user-friendly with thought-sensing GNOME applets - now allows you to dream in one of many GTK themes!
I believe so. I haven't looked into it, but I believe OpenBSD borrowed FreeBSD's ports and packages systems.
That's one of the biggest things I love about most other Unices (FreeBSD, in my case) - you don't need to deal with distributions. One command updates the entire system, and another builds it and installs it. Instead of downloading a kernel package or dealing with applying a patch, just download the newest version of each file from the CVS tree. It also makes patching much, much easier, since the source people know exactly which version of the file you're patching. FreeBSD has both CVSup (compressed, 'updated' mode only) and CVS servers availible for public use. See here for more information on CVS and CVSup and how the FreeBSD project uses them.
Currently, my setup looks absolutely nothing like Windows whatsoever, and it is also not running on Linux. Also, the work on KDE 2.0 is seriously awesome, and I believe it looks much better than GNOME, and is already much more portable than GNOME is.
FreeBSD also has a working port to Alpha, and a Sparc port is in the works. Perhaps the people who are working hard on these areas should know that the only work on FreeBSD is being put into i386.
Absolutely.
I can't figure out why there are people saying /(.*BSD)/ should be called GNU/$1. They don't owe their success to GNU. They're not based on GNU. They aren't released under the GPL. Just because they're open doesn't mean they have anything at all to do with GNU.
I'm glad there are little posts on this article. It means the [f]lamers are ignoring it. The next step, hopefully, would be to get some decent, mature commentary on the stories. I hope to see it soon.
CVSup straight to -STABLE if you're into that tame 3.x stuff.
The BSD-style license FreeBSD uses in fact does remove that particular clause. You must only give credit to the original developer(s) of the software in any binary reproductions of the original product.
Oops. I seem to have mispasted something and missed it.
The link I screwed up on.
Sorry.
They can't release a distribution. SCO won't let them. I already said that back when the "MS Bids on Linux.com" first hit Slashdot.
and for two reasons. The first is obvious - read the name of the article. The second is because Linux gets way too much hype as it is.
a.) FreeBSD isn't meant to be a good desktop OS
b.) It is.
2 = Major version
2 = Minor version
8 = Micro version
At least where I grew up.
I don't understand it. There are a lot of new kernel releases coming out lately, one might say that they are being released one after another in rapid-fire succession, however, wouldn't it be much easier to use CVS (GNU), perhaps along with CVSup (which is essentially 'cvs update' on steroids - including an optional X UI and protocol compression) to keep its users up-to-date on the kernel sources? I believe I understand the Linus-final-word structure, but a one-man CVS operation would still be worth it if one can download only the latest updated sources from the tree.
This is, as some of you may know, the way FreeBSD keeps its whole OS tree (since it is, after all, one integrated operating system), as well as splitting the source tree (kernel and userland) into CURRENT, STABLE, and RELEASE (essentially a frozen -STABLE from a specific time), and I think it would be very valuble for Linux to do the same thing.
Comments? Flames?
Interesting note: FreeBSD mirrors use CVSup to update a CVS tree, so that users may use those mirrors which have mirrored the entire CVS tree on their system, to download either just the latest sources, or to download the actual CVS tree, on which one can make the usual CVS operations (useful for extensive work on things, such as the FAQ or Handbook, which I happen to work on)
Spreading this style of FUD is inherent of Microsoft and company, it's essentially IBM all over again, the only difference is that Microsoft is making much more of an ass out of itself for its continuous blatant spreading of total lies, and it's obvious that less and less people are taking these lies because the other side is getting major publicity, and the description of the various operating systems (Linux in particular) almost totally disspells the FUD Microsoft puts out.
However...
Microsoft is attacking Linux much more actively because it's very easy to perceive it as a joke, since it's not a single company or corporation that's behind it, it's a group of users. For example, Bill Gates himself once said that he respects FreeBSD, and Apache, and those are pretty well-defined organizations.
If it were a FreeBSD or BSDI[*] box connected to one of those, never.
[*] Probably NetBSD and OpenBSD, too, but I've never had experience there.
I see it a lot. Everybody is saying that a PC is the solution for everything. Need a high-end web server? Use a bunch of PCs! Need a router? A PC will do your job!
I disagree with this. Perhaps another type of system, but PCs are probably the worst and most inefficient architecture, mostly because they remain to be the only existing CISC architecture today, whereas everybody else is using a RISC processor.
I also would bet that all the PCs you need to equate to the product mentioned above would cost way more, and would take much more time to maintain.
On the issue of scaling in particular, I think this product was made with that bandwidth in mind, if not, what's the real use in marketing it as such?
Slashdot is supposed to be an unbiased news source, as I've heard before. I'm finally beginning to see this lack of bias manifesting itself again.
FreeBSD is mostly based on 4.4BSD Lite2 developed in the University of California in Berkeley. FreeBSD only barely has to do with GNU, in that it uses gcc (egcs in 4.0-CURRENT) and a few other of the binutils (as, nm, etc.), however, RMS has no right to say that it should be called GNU anything, since GNU is a minority under FreeBSD.