There's a difference between freedom and openness
on
*BSD News
·
· Score: 1
Unlike what many people think, the GPL does not permit freedom, it forces openness, if you use it or any of the software under it. The BSD license and thus the BSD OSes are a better choice for commercial businesses in that it allows them to patch sources with their own code and sell the binaries, provided that the authors and contributors get credit for their work. I consider this to be an amazingly good and often overlooked advantage of the BSD License over the GNU GPL.
You don't have to be root to run Linux binaries under FreeBSD, either. I used to run the Linux binary of Netscape as user 'chris' all the time. (and I plan on doing it again, since there are no plugins for the FreeBSD version of Netscape)
FreeBSD has had that for ages and in the form of a kernel module, so you don't _have_ to run it under a special command. That's real binary compatibility.
I don't get it. Are they going to attempt to make a "new {standard,revolution}" in Unix clients? Perhaps move Unix from the savage, old world way of using a CLI for mail to using a GUI? That's what they basically said about Internet Explorer, and I don't see a revolution yet. (Plus of course Netscape exists.)
What I do anticipate is an increase in morons posting HTML to Usenet from their shiny new Linux system.
I doubt Microsoft considers Linux as a threat, at least in the sense I'm conveying (an actual entity actively attempting to cause MS to lose business).
Microsoft more likely considers them as a frustration or an obstacle, because at this point, they are. I don't think Linux powers more servers out there than NT yet, and I doubt MS can actually perceive it as a threat, it's an operating system, not a commercial venture. It might consider a commercial vendor a threat, but I don't see that either.
Regardless of whether they're wrong, I don't think they really see it as a threat.
Didn't their "tests" "prove" NT was *faster* than Linux? A Hyundai is "faster" than a Jeep Cherokee, but guess which is more powerful. And after all, power counts more than speed in 90% of cases.
What wcarchive needs now is a nice gigabit connection to an OC-12 or so. It's actually mentioned in/archive-info/slow.txt, too. At that point, wcarchive will truly be the best. (It already is, but its link is a bit slow for its popularity;)
Also, it may be interesting to note that sometime last night or this morning, wcarchive set a new traffic record, as David Greenman stated in a post to -chat.
And for ``you Linux folks'' -
46% of the traffic was for Linux, due mainly to the release of Red Hat 6.0
I've seen something like this in the #FreeBSD topic on Undernet: "wcarchive: Now it's a machine that really flies, on CRL. The link that crawls."
They *BADLY* need a new backbone. (I like the time where the route was so screwed up, two hops seem to be routing packets back and forth between them...
With 3600 users on a PPro 200 running FreeBSD, it didn't get "slashdotted" (its backbone sucks from time to time, but it never got slashdotted), what makes you think 5000 on a Xeon 500 running FreeBSD would?
(Oh, and let's not forget to thank David Greenman and his FTPd code, which undoubtedly contributes to its lack-of-being-slashdotted.)
I just tried out a script I saw that apparently crashed Linuxen (unless login.conf restrictions are in effect, but I don't know if that even exists in that form) and it used up 115M of memory. And then some part of the kernel (or the swapper/pager) killed it.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike what many people think, the GPL does not permit freedom, it forces openness, if you use it or any of the software under it. The BSD license and thus the BSD OSes are a better choice for commercial businesses in that it allows them to patch sources with their own code and sell the binaries, provided that the authors and contributors get credit for their work. I consider this to be an amazingly good and often overlooked advantage of the BSD License over the GNU GPL.
Not everything is open source, that's why the binary compatibility exists.
FreeBSD runs SVR4 binaries, SCO binaries, and Linux binaries, also availible via a kernel module, which can be configured to be loaded at startup.
You don't have to be root to run Linux binaries under FreeBSD, either. I used to run the Linux binary of Netscape as user 'chris' all the time. (and I plan on doing it again, since there are no plugins for the FreeBSD version of Netscape)
Not all apps are open source.
It would be difficult to run x86 binaries on a Sparc system.
FreeBSD has had that for ages and in the form of a kernel module, so you don't _have_ to run it under a special command. That's real binary compatibility.
I don't get it. Are they going to attempt to make a "new {standard,revolution}" in Unix clients? Perhaps move Unix from the savage, old world way of using a CLI for mail to using a GUI? That's what they basically said about Internet Explorer, and I don't see a revolution yet. (Plus of course Netscape exists.)
What I do anticipate is an increase in morons posting HTML to Usenet from their shiny new Linux system.
I doubt Microsoft considers Linux as a threat, at least in the sense I'm conveying (an actual entity actively attempting to cause MS to lose business).
Microsoft more likely considers them as a frustration or an obstacle, because at this point, they are. I don't think Linux powers more servers out there than NT yet, and I doubt MS can actually perceive it as a threat, it's an operating system, not a commercial venture. It might consider a commercial vendor a threat, but I don't see that either.
Regardless of whether they're wrong, I don't think they really see it as a threat.
It depends on your definition. That server simply can't be overloaded with the relatively low bandwidth it has. It's simply a "stuffed pipe."
Didn't their "tests" "prove" NT was *faster* than Linux? A Hyundai is "faster" than a Jeep Cherokee, but guess which is more powerful. And after all, power counts more than speed in 90% of cases.
What wcarchive needs now is a nice gigabit connection to an OC-12 or so. It's actually mentioned in /archive-info/slow.txt, too. At that point, wcarchive will truly be the best. (It already is, but its link is a bit slow for its popularity ;)
Also, it may be interesting to note that sometime last night or this morning, wcarchive set a new traffic record, as David Greenman stated in a post to -chat.
And for ``you Linux folks'' -
46% of the traffic was for Linux, due mainly to the release of Red Hat 6.0
I would imagine that it's running 3.1-STABLE at this point, but you can always ask freebsd-chat@freebsd.org or freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
I've seen something like this in the #FreeBSD topic on Undernet: "wcarchive: Now it's a machine that really flies, on CRL. The link that crawls."
They *BADLY* need a new backbone. (I like the time where the route was so screwed up, two hops seem to be routing packets back and forth between them...
10 T3-something.CRL.NET
11 CDROM-something.CRL.NET
12 T3-something...
)
Let's put it THIS way:
With 3600 users on a PPro 200 running FreeBSD, it didn't get "slashdotted" (its backbone sucks from time to time, but it never got slashdotted), what makes you think 5000 on a Xeon 500 running FreeBSD would?
(Oh, and let's not forget to thank David Greenman and his FTPd code, which undoubtedly contributes to its lack-of-being-slashdotted.)
I just tried out a script I saw that apparently crashed Linuxen (unless login.conf restrictions are in effect, but I don't know if that even exists in that form) and it used up 115M of memory. And then some part of the kernel (or the swapper/pager) killed it.
I (heart) FreeBSD.