Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureacratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- The first criminal trial under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act will begin Aug. 26, a federal judge decided Monday.
ElcomSoft Co. Ltd. of Moscow could be fined $500,000 if convicted of selling a program that let users circumvent copyright protections on electronic-book software made by Adobe Systems Inc.
Said the presiding jury of the case, "We feel that very serious issues are at hand here. Copyright circumvention is a very serious offense."
Programs that function as circumvention devices are legal in Russia but banned under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Attorneys for the company failed this month to convince a judge that the law is too broad, vague and unconstitutional.
The case originally involved ElcomSoft programmer Dmitry Sklyarov, who was arrested after speaking at a hacker convention in Las Vegas last July. But prosecutors agreed in December to drop charges against him after the company's case is resolved.
Sklyarov is currenly in federal custody in Willington, MA.
The case is U.S. v. ElcomSoft and Dmitry Sklyarov, CR-01-20138RMW.
This statement further encourages L33T AL QUEDA HAX0RS to hop on to their commodore 64's and start cracking government computers. Great job, MS, you just blew our cover.
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
BSD's early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureacratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it; as we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
BSD's early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of
While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became . Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become too bureacratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
Fuck! Utterly useless programs making crappy news on slashdot! Can't the open-source community do *anything* right? Kiss my ass if you don't agree with me. I'll explain to you simply how open-source can clean up its own mess
Today i make a proposal to the open-source community Open source programs are too lightweight and useless Really, I mean, programs like gcc have such limited functionality when compared with visual c++ Very few open-source applications are really worthy (perhaps the kernel, maybe ssh) All of the others really *suck* though Let me tell you why: they're so shoddily written! my cat could code better Don't let lightweight programs destroy the open-source movement! Start turning the separate programs into monoliths, thereby increasing functionality, speed, and ease of use!
Re:IPv6 addresses are way too long and cumbersome.
on
Learning IPv6?
·
· Score: -1
excuse me, sir, do you recognize this man? I just took a shit on him, and the gentleman in the pastry shop informed me that it was your father
whentheHIgomarchingWHATSonohwhentheUPsaintsgo
on
StarOffice 6.0
·
· Score: -1
Fuck! Utterly useless programs making crappy news on slashdot! Can't the open-source community do *anything* right? Kiss my ass if you don't agree with me. I'll explain to you simply how open-source can clean up its own mess
Today i make a proposal to the open-source community Open source programs are too lightweight and useless Really, I mean, programs like gcc have such limited functionality when compared with visual c++ Very few open-source applications are really worthy (perhaps the kernel, maybe ssh) All of the others really *suck* though Let me tell you why: they're so shoddily written! my cat could code better Don't let lightweight programs destroy the open-source movement! Start turning the separate programs into monoliths, thereby increasing functionality, speed, and ease of use!
Slashdot Mirror
the wireless network. I mean, after all, computers are the most important thing anyway, right?
It's too Jewish.
Lick, lick.
What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureacratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
Yup, we're on the runt end of humanity here, folks.
I find it disturbing that more people searched for the crack for Flash Mx than for tutorials on how to use it
Cracks are pretty easy to use, so I doubt that many people would be downloading the tutorial for it.
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- The first criminal trial under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act will begin Aug. 26, a federal judge decided Monday.
ElcomSoft Co. Ltd. of Moscow could be fined $500,000 if convicted of selling a program that let users circumvent copyright protections on electronic-book software made by Adobe Systems Inc.
Said the presiding jury of the case, "We feel that very serious issues are at hand here. Copyright circumvention is a very serious offense."
Programs that function as circumvention devices are legal in Russia but banned under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Attorneys for the company failed this month to convince a judge that the law is too broad, vague and unconstitutional.
The case originally involved ElcomSoft programmer Dmitry Sklyarov, who was arrested after speaking at a hacker convention in Las Vegas last July. But prosecutors agreed in December to drop charges against him after the company's case is resolved.
Sklyarov is currenly in federal custody in Willington, MA.
The case is U.S. v. ElcomSoft and Dmitry Sklyarov, CR-01-20138RMW.
* __
On the Net:
Prosecutors: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/index-2.html
ElcomSoft: http://www.elcomsoft.com
sand niggers suck.
What industry bibles are you referring to?
This statement further encourages L33T AL QUEDA HAX0RS to hop on to their commodore 64's and start cracking government computers. Great job, MS, you just blew our cover.
What We Can Learn From BSD
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
BSD's early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureacratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it; as we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
BSD's early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of
While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became . Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become too bureacratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
Who want sucky sucky for three dolla?
Go drink some maggot-infested goat semen, anime loser. Anime is a pedophile magnet and gives rise to things like Fecal Japan.
Long live BSD! I'm using it right now! It rocks! It's wonderful! Life is good! GULAGGLAGLUGLAG
Yeah, I know, Google hasn't crawled Slashdot yet. Don't worry, juice will come in time.
"donkey punch autistic nigger children into the ceiling without nullifying the Wilmot proviso"
juice??
Well, you don't have any, so why don't you go suck some more camel cock
Fuck, man. That is the cool.
Facts never serve idiots who don't stop talking. So please, shut up.
Fuck!
Utterly useless programs making crappy news on slashdot!
Can't the open-source community do *anything* right?
Kiss my ass if you don't agree with me. I'll explain to you simply how open-source can clean up its own mess
Today i make a proposal to the open-source community
Open source programs are too lightweight and useless
Really, I mean, programs like gcc have such limited functionality when compared with visual c++
Very few open-source applications are really worthy (perhaps the kernel, maybe ssh)
All of the others really *suck* though
Let me tell you why: they're so shoddily written! my cat could code better
Don't let lightweight programs destroy the open-source movement!
Start turning the separate programs into monoliths, thereby increasing functionality, speed, and ease of use!
WE MUST DO IT NOW
Hello FreeBSD Core Team,
I am wondering if I could join organization. I would help code your "PROFESSIONAL unix O-S". I will work for only $3 an hour,
Xing Huaaaaaaaa
Thank yu
Wahoooooooeeaahooo
excuse me, sir, do you recognize this man? I just took a shit on him, and the gentleman in the pastry shop informed me that it was your father
Fuck!
Utterly useless programs making crappy news on slashdot!
Can't the open-source community do *anything* right?
Kiss my ass if you don't agree with me. I'll explain to you simply how open-source can clean up its own mess
Today i make a proposal to the open-source community
Open source programs are too lightweight and useless
Really, I mean, programs like gcc have such limited functionality when compared with visual c++
Very few open-source applications are really worthy (perhaps the kernel, maybe ssh)
All of the others really *suck* though
Let me tell you why: they're so shoddily written! my cat could code better
Don't let lightweight programs destroy the open-source movement!
Start turning the separate programs into monoliths, thereby increasing functionality, speed, and ease of use!
WE MUST DO IT NOW