Yes. For the/. article refer to http://slashdot.org/articles/99/02/25/2352205.shtm l and for the ZDNet article refer to http://slashdot.org/articles/99/02/25/2352205.shtm l
It is under Linux. Other systems implement vfork in different ways, that's why I asked. I am wondering if that is what caused Linux to be faster on the CGI scripts and C programs.
No it was Linux corrupting Linux file systems. I have a Linux box that eats a file system once every few months and everytime someone does a CTRL-ALT-DEL style reboot. It is kind of funny, if it were a critical server, I'd blow away Linux and put on something reliable. But it is just a system sitting the cornor that would otherwise be powered down.
BSD grew out of the originaly AT&T source. So did SunOS, Solaris, AIX, and SCO in one way or another. Linux did not do this, Linux grew out of Minix. I guess that makes it a Minix derivative.
(So will Tannenbaum or Torvalds be the first to put a price on my head?)
The only time I ever heard of it on a BSD system was on a BSDi system where the networking code was fucked up by children who had no clue what they were doing.
> Note also that FreeBSD has some severe problems > with NFS: Search on freebsd-hackers to find all > the gory details (and that the main hacker > working on it lost his commit rights due to > personal differences with a core team member).
NFS is an insecure and scary way of doing things.
> smbfs isn't supported on FreeBSD, that's right. ... > There could be possibly a new distro based on > FreeBSD. You could even sell it and not give > away your source code, thanks to the BSD > license.
And how is this bad? Linux and GNU like to claim to be "freely redistributable" and like to give freedoms to the users. But this one isn't given. FreeBSD is far more free than GNU or Linux could ever dream of.
> I'm also annoyed at the somewhat patronizing > attitude that Linux is our most fertile > recruiting ground, and When they move on to BSD, > as if Linux is merely a step in the path to true > enlightenment with BSD.
I agree with this every step of the way. I used Linux for about a year before I got fed up by the lack of documentation, bloated utilities and unexplained crashes. I installed FreeBSD on the system instead and it was a godsend. No more unexplained crashes. No more corrupted file systems. Things worked correctly, the first time. There is a clean, consistent interface. The code is significantly smaller and easier to understand. I can upgrade the source and rebuild and install with one command line. FreeBSD is truly a superior systems.
> And, of course, as soon as you prove a linuxism > wrong, someone will fix it. IF BSD really _was_ > better, someone would have adopted the code long > ago.
Do you mean like Sun, Digital, SCO, Apple, SGI, HP, and any other SVR4 adopters have?
What about Perl? It is licensed under both the GPL and artistic licenses? And what about PHP? It uses the GPL and a seperate proprietary.
Re:FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, MicrosoftBSD...
on
Feature:GPL vs BSD
·
· Score: 1
Sun and BSDi have given many, many patches back to the BSD community. The DOS emulator in FreeBSD came from BSDi. The math libraries, NFS and others have from from Sun. Sun has made huge contributions back.
'Free' has different meanings. The GPL gives significantly less freedom than other licenses do, X and BSD for instance.
With regard to leeching, I have no problems with people using the GPL to prevent undesired use of code. However, don't lie to us about what we can do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny my ass. It is truth. Slashdot moderators and Linux users are dumber than goat shit. I've said that many times on here.
I mean really, look at what Linux users say on here and compare that to how the moderators score things.
That's okay, because Slashdot moderators, just like Linux users, wouldn't know their asses from holes in ground.
GPL'ed programs can be sold for profit.
Yes. For the /. article refer to http://slashdot.org/articles/99/02/25/2352205.shtm l and for the ZDNet article refer to http://slashdot.org/articles/99/02/25/2352205.shtm l
Okay, that makes sense. Which is odd considering you have no knowledge of the history.
I was curious about this too. What was McVoy's reasoning for this site?
Why not Berkeley who could have offered both it and the BSD source at that point?
Didn't this all get somewhere recently when Sun announced they would be distributing Solaris under the Community License by the end of the year?
Maybe they should use vfork for CGI on systems that have it. I think this would significantly speed up CGI on BSDs.
It is under Linux. Other systems implement vfork in different ways, that's why I asked. I am wondering if that is what caused Linux to be faster on the CGI scripts and C programs.
Does Apache use vfork() if it is available?
Sounds like growing out of Minix to me.
I started with Linux because Linux is all we had at the University. I have since begged them to convert some of primary servers over to FreeBSD.
No it was Linux corrupting Linux file systems. I have a Linux box that eats a file system once every few months and everytime someone does a CTRL-ALT-DEL style reboot. It is kind of funny, if it were a critical server, I'd blow away Linux and put on something reliable. But it is just a system sitting the cornor that would otherwise be powered down.
BSD grew out of the originaly AT&T source. So did SunOS, Solaris, AIX, and SCO in one way or another. Linux did not do this, Linux grew out of Minix. I guess that makes it a Minix derivative.
(So will Tannenbaum or Torvalds be the first to put a price on my head?)
The only time I ever heard of it on a BSD system was on a BSDi system where the networking code was fucked up by children who had no clue what they were doing.
> Note also that FreeBSD has some severe problems > with NFS: Search on freebsd-hackers to find all > the gory details (and that the main hacker
> working on it lost his commit rights due to > personal differences with a core team member).
NFS is an insecure and scary way of doing things.
> smbfs isn't supported on FreeBSD, that's right.
...
> There could be possibly a new distro based on > FreeBSD. You could even sell it and not give
> away your source code, thanks to the BSD > license.
And how is this bad? Linux and GNU like to claim to be "freely redistributable" and like to give freedoms to the users. But this one isn't given. FreeBSD is far more free than GNU or Linux could ever dream of.
> I'm also annoyed at the somewhat patronizing > attitude that Linux is our most fertile > recruiting ground, and When they move on to BSD, > as if Linux is merely a step in the path to true > enlightenment with BSD.
I agree with this every step of the way. I used Linux for about a year before I got fed up by the lack of documentation, bloated utilities and unexplained crashes. I installed FreeBSD on the system instead and it was a godsend. No more unexplained crashes. No more corrupted file systems. Things worked correctly, the first time. There is a clean, consistent interface. The code is significantly smaller and easier to understand. I can upgrade the source and rebuild and install with one command line. FreeBSD is truly a superior systems.
> And, of course, as soon as you prove a linuxism > wrong, someone will fix it. IF BSD really _was_ > better, someone would have adopted the code long > ago.
Do you mean like Sun, Digital, SCO, Apple, SGI, HP, and any other SVR4 adopters have?
What about Perl? It is licensed under both the GPL and artistic licenses? And what about PHP? It uses the GPL and a seperate proprietary.
Sun and BSDi have given many, many patches back to the BSD community. The DOS emulator in FreeBSD came from BSDi. The math libraries, NFS and others have from from Sun. Sun has made huge contributions back.
And how did that hurt BSD?
'Use' in this context refers to shipping it.
'Free' has different meanings. The GPL gives significantly less freedom than other licenses do, X and BSD for instance.
With regard to leeching, I have no problems with people using the GPL to prevent undesired use of code. However, don't lie to us about what we can do with it.
Linux is not free in all respects. Anyone who uses us forced to pay the price of releasing their source.
By your mindset, BSD and SYSV blow Linux out of the water...oh wait, they do.
What are the odds of us seeing ports for FreeBSD, Solaris, and DEC UNIX/Tru64?