This is the second time I've seen a misleading article title. It lead me to believe this was a discussion of Apple trying to close its BSD sources to the world.
Had this actually been the case I'd have actually been concerned, mind you - such an action taken after absorbing a large portion of FreeBSD's technology would have been a major act of bad faith on the part of Apple. Thank goodness this is something as trivial as interface mods!
I'm strongly leaning on the fact that Linus wants to 'dare to be different'. Whenever people do this because they want to push the envelope, it always comes back on them.
BitKeeper is an interesting idea, but in practice I haven't found it showstoppingly impressive. CVS is still one of the best revision control systems going, IMHO.
However, history has shown that when tools like BitKeeper hit the spotlight and it's their time to perform, the kinks are worked out after fast. It stands a chance of being a good tool for the job, if Linus and co. manage it properly.
on only two occasions, a -security (release plus security bug fixes) or -stable (release plus any bug fixes) branch.
-STABLE is release plus feature additions.
FreeBSD would certainly have to change its development model to appeal to the current tides facing Linux. It has perhaps been protected to date by the fact that the project hasn't tried to appeal to outside influence, and has become unattractive in some development situations because of this.
I think we come to an agreement on the fact that due to the nature of development done on the Linux kernel, stable and testing would have to remain very compatible and very close to each other in the pipeline.
Whether this is an appropriate move for FreeBSD is a topic for another slashdot article.:P
And here I was about to mention the positives to mirroring FreeBSD's development model.
I think you're being terribly naive about this, particularly the It's now nearly impossible for a commercially paid developer to contribute usefully to FreeBSD comment. Development work on FreeBSD succeeds on both fronts.
Where commercial development would be done on FreeBSD, there would be as much of a shift in development process as there has been in the shift from 'regular development' to that of entire teams at IBM submitting patches to Linus. At first this seems unviable as well.
Plainly, it is concievable that were a commercial team to submit changes to -CURRENT, they would be timed for integration into -STABLE in the same manner as current changes are. And try not to make a mistake, a *lot* of things are folded back from -CURRENT on a regular basis. They may have a lengthy test period, but hey, shouldn't every new feature?
I think the Linux development community will only benefit from a move such as this. It keeps the stable kernels stable, and it folds in new changes in an orderly and well tested fashion. I'm looking forward to seeing it happen.
Is not exactly an accurate science; either one has to deal with false alarms, and probably more than a pleasant number of them for the sake of paranoia, or simply be more sure of their systems.
Informal poll who among us uses an IDS, and why? I've always figured them for a way to be lazy, but that perspective is likely not shared. I'd love to see some other opinions!
The fact that I do not agree makes Lindows a bad idea, yes. I'm realistic about the likelyhood of such an implementation succeeding.
WINE, from a developers perspective, is not able to deliver a satisfying user experience yet.
A more valid business plan is to take existing UNIX software and gear it toward the end user, if UNIX is to be geared toward the end user at all.
We have OpenOffice. We have Mozilla 1. We have KDE 3. We have other equivalencies, and where we do not, we should not foolishly market compatibility engines as though they were the solution.
I have said nothing in my posts to indicate anything other than the fact that it is easier for the end-user to acclimate to native UNIX software than it is to acclimate to hybrid environments like Lindows. Even from a teaching perspective one can't mix metaphors and expect success to come conceptually out of it.
Can you point out to me where I've self-aggrandized and posted simply to show off my abilities? I sure don't see it.
All I see is you attempting to correct me as to the usage of UNIX/Linux. We're dealing with UNIX software, not Linux software. The debate about portability aside, any software which is POSIX compliant and will compile and run on Linux, FreeBSD, AIX, Tru64, or any other variant out there is UNIX software. Understand?
Why is it that I've been backing my statements up with anecdotal and experiential evidence, and you have not?
As mentioned there are open source equivalents to most any Windows specific program. They are easy to use. UNIX boots to a GUI if so configured and marketed.
This is not difficult for the user. I have seniors using it after having migrated from Windows 98. Do you take the time to read comments before replying to them?
Granted stability is much improved since the NT kernel came into the consumer versions. I think it is troubling though that the licensing changes under the consumers nose, and even automatically.
If Windows were more stable than Unix/Linux I'd find myself hard pressed to recommend it to end users.
But yes, in many cases it is the only way to go, for now.
Lindows is fun in concept but I think they fooled the marketeers into thinking it was viable.
A UNIX operating system which is blatantly different from Windows, using KDE and a full compliment of free applications which are equivalent to their Windows counterparts has actually proved in my experience to be EASIER for new users to get used to and use productively.
Unix and Linux can be quite productive without added fluff like WINE getting in the users way.
I'm afraid Windows hasn't gotten anywhere near catching up to the stability of Unix-like operating systems. As the adage goes, if you believe that you really don't have much experience putting Windows do the test.
NT based systems are not 'good', just easy. And while easy is a selling point for new users, it doesn't mean they're getting what they want from their purchase. They're getting unfair licensing, unfair business practices, and no standard of excellence.
There is a FreeBSD port of the emulator in/usr/ports/emulators/hercules; if you're running another BSD flavor and it doesn't have this port you'll likely have an easy time importing it.
While the Linux kernel itself isn't going to be forking any time soon, I take particular issue with Mandrake's claim that GNU/Linux is unfragmented. Their article seems to downplay 'badly thought out software' linking to libraries which are specific to the structure or filesystem layout of one distribution or another.
Especially in cases such as RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, one finds that common RPM's are not compatible across distributions. Often commercial software packages must be shipped for many different Linux distributions, and the LSB has been around for a long time. Let's not cop to the old 'well we're trying to form standards!'
UNIX tried copping to that, it got them nowhere. You Linux vendors should take a lesson from FreeBSD, just as Gentoo Linux has; form a filesystem standard, stick with it, and architect a build/installation mechanism that aids all software programs regardless of origin to be able to run.
Correct. If perhaps their caps are costing them money because they're being utilized to their full potential, maybe they need to re-evaluate their business model and lower the caps a bit.
Not to cause a reaction or anything, but I'd even consider a rate hike in order to keep them solvent, while providing a reasonable service that don't impede the rights of the user.
Then again, the new policy being imposed on quite a number of ISP customers is a per gig fee for anything over a set minimum, usually 5GB/month. I'm not very big on that.
Based on my experiences with them so far, it seems like a pretty good team, give or take. I think they'll be able to focus most on what the project needs.
The important part is they know how to have fun with it.;)
I'm a little surprised a poster would say the reasons behind the 4.6 release being late are excuses.
EVERY RELEASE HAS DELAYS
This is not a corporation. We do not keep a schedule. We release it when it's ready, slashdot be damned. Don't like it? Jump ship, goodbye, we don't need you on our team. You're not good enough mindshare to work on this project or take part in it.
Congratulations to the core on another release of FreeBSD, keep 'em coming strong.
I don't think ICANN is a particularly righteous organisation in itself, but a federal government making a sudden grab at a TLD seems off-putting to me in some way.
The phrase "management of the internet could not be left to individuals" is also irksome. Undertones, anyone?
The focus of.NET, as with any other project made out by public relations people to be centered around the software developer, or even the open source model, isn't to maximise elegance or acheive superior quality, though.
Sure, it happens, but I find it endlessly surprising that many projects form and gain popular support/praise when all they're really doing is making wads of cash for whatever corporation has umbilicals attached to it.
Couple this with the inherent inelegance of a.NET software/hardware solution in general (after having watched several promotional videos, I was absolutely stunned at the need for ten servers to do the job of two), I'm not quite ready to bestow praise on anything having to do with it yet.
IMO they should be the best, if they've been hired into any sort of position involving the administration of more than one non-Windows based server.
Working with multiple systems means you have to adapt, and quickly, not only to software changes, but to hardware changes, different behaviour, and the heterogeneity that is a modern networking environment.
Several good points have been raised by this question, one I've noted is the thread regarding the skill, or lack thereof, of many current Unix system administrators.
Contrary to popular belief, reading HOWTO's and being hired by desperate administration doesn't define you as a good sysadmin, and I think a lot of qualified people are being overlooked.
I'd like to see more questions like this! I enjoy the commentary that comes out of them.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the second time I've seen a misleading article title. It lead me to believe this was a discussion of Apple trying to close its BSD sources to the world.
Had this actually been the case I'd have actually been concerned, mind you - such an action taken after absorbing a large portion of FreeBSD's technology would have been a major act of bad faith on the part of Apple. Thank goodness this is something as trivial as interface mods!
The effect on your data is identical, you just have to wait for the filesystem to be checked.
Patience, grasshopper.
May I ask what debian has to do with FreeBSD in any way shape or form?
I think your viewpoint is biased and ridiculous. Expand your horizons before commenting.
I'm strongly leaning on the fact that Linus wants to 'dare to be different'. Whenever people do this because they want to push the envelope, it always comes back on them.
BitKeeper is an interesting idea, but in practice I haven't found it showstoppingly impressive. CVS is still one of the best revision control systems going, IMHO.
However, history has shown that when tools like BitKeeper hit the spotlight and it's their time to perform, the kinks are worked out after fast. It stands a chance of being a good tool for the job, if Linus and co. manage it properly.
on only two occasions, a -security (release plus security bug fixes) or -stable (release plus any bug fixes) branch.
-STABLE is release plus feature additions.
FreeBSD would certainly have to change its development model to appeal to the current tides facing Linux. It has perhaps been protected to date by the fact that the project hasn't tried to appeal to outside influence, and has become unattractive in some development situations because of this.
I think we come to an agreement on the fact that due to the nature of development done on the Linux kernel, stable and testing would have to remain very compatible and very close to each other in the pipeline.
Whether this is an appropriate move for FreeBSD is a topic for another slashdot article. :P
And here I was about to mention the positives to mirroring FreeBSD's development model.
I think you're being terribly naive about this, particularly the It's now nearly impossible for a commercially paid developer to contribute usefully to FreeBSD comment. Development work on FreeBSD succeeds on both fronts.
Where commercial development would be done on FreeBSD, there would be as much of a shift in development process as there has been in the shift from 'regular development' to that of entire teams at IBM submitting patches to Linus. At first this seems unviable as well.
Plainly, it is concievable that were a commercial team to submit changes to -CURRENT, they would be timed for integration into -STABLE in the same manner as current changes are. And try not to make a mistake, a *lot* of things are folded back from -CURRENT on a regular basis. They may have a lengthy test period, but hey, shouldn't every new feature?
I think the Linux development community will only benefit from a move such as this. It keeps the stable kernels stable, and it folds in new changes in an orderly and well tested fashion. I'm looking forward to seeing it happen.
Will it come standard in a Cavalier?
Is not exactly an accurate science; either one has to deal with false alarms, and probably more than a pleasant number of them for the sake of paranoia, or simply be more sure of their systems.
Informal poll who among us uses an IDS, and why? I've always figured them for a way to be lazy, but that perspective is likely not shared. I'd love to see some other opinions!
Will they make a PowerBook out of it? :)
The fact that I do not agree makes Lindows a bad idea, yes. I'm realistic about the likelyhood of such an implementation succeeding.
WINE, from a developers perspective, is not able to deliver a satisfying user experience yet.
A more valid business plan is to take existing UNIX software and gear it toward the end user, if UNIX is to be geared toward the end user at all.
We have OpenOffice. We have Mozilla 1. We have KDE 3. We have other equivalencies, and where we do not, we should not foolishly market compatibility engines as though they were the solution.
I have said nothing in my posts to indicate anything other than the fact that it is easier for the end-user to acclimate to native UNIX software than it is to acclimate to hybrid environments like Lindows. Even from a teaching perspective one can't mix metaphors and expect success to come conceptually out of it.
Can you point out to me where I've self-aggrandized and posted simply to show off my abilities? I sure don't see it.
All I see is you attempting to correct me as to the usage of UNIX/Linux. We're dealing with UNIX software, not Linux software. The debate about portability aside, any software which is POSIX compliant and will compile and run on Linux, FreeBSD, AIX, Tru64, or any other variant out there is UNIX software. Understand?
Why is it that I've been backing my statements up with anecdotal and experiential evidence, and you have not?
As mentioned there are open source equivalents to most any Windows specific program. They are easy to use. UNIX boots to a GUI if so configured and marketed.
This is not difficult for the user. I have seniors using it after having migrated from Windows 98. Do you take the time to read comments before replying to them?
Look into managing your aggression elsewhere please.
Granted stability is much improved since the NT kernel came into the consumer versions. I think it is troubling though that the licensing changes under the consumers nose, and even automatically.
If Windows were more stable than Unix/Linux I'd find myself hard pressed to recommend it to end users.
But yes, in many cases it is the only way to go, for now.
Lindows is fun in concept but I think they fooled the marketeers into thinking it was viable.
A UNIX operating system which is blatantly different from Windows, using KDE and a full compliment of free applications which are equivalent to their Windows counterparts has actually proved in my experience to be EASIER for new users to get used to and use productively.
Unix and Linux can be quite productive without added fluff like WINE getting in the users way.
I'm afraid Windows hasn't gotten anywhere near catching up to the stability of Unix-like operating systems. As the adage goes, if you believe that you really don't have much experience putting Windows do the test.
NT based systems are not 'good', just easy. And while easy is a selling point for new users, it doesn't mean they're getting what they want from their purchase. They're getting unfair licensing, unfair business practices, and no standard of excellence.
Don't be defeatist.
There is a FreeBSD port of the emulator in /usr/ports/emulators/hercules; if you're running another BSD flavor and it doesn't have this port you'll likely have an easy time importing it.
While the Linux kernel itself isn't going to be forking any time soon, I take particular issue with Mandrake's claim that GNU/Linux is unfragmented. Their article seems to downplay 'badly thought out software' linking to libraries which are specific to the structure or filesystem layout of one distribution or another.
Especially in cases such as RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, one finds that common RPM's are not compatible across distributions. Often commercial software packages must be shipped for many different Linux distributions, and the LSB has been around for a long time. Let's not cop to the old 'well we're trying to form standards!'
UNIX tried copping to that, it got them nowhere. You Linux vendors should take a lesson from FreeBSD, just as Gentoo Linux has; form a filesystem standard, stick with it, and architect a build/installation mechanism that aids all software programs regardless of origin to be able to run.
FreeBSD Developers Handbook
I'm looking for mention of UNIX in this article, and all I'm seeing is a Linux derivate. What gives?
Correct. If perhaps their caps are costing them money because they're being utilized to their full potential, maybe they need to re-evaluate their business model and lower the caps a bit.
Not to cause a reaction or anything, but I'd even consider a rate hike in order to keep them solvent, while providing a reasonable service that don't impede the rights of the user.
Then again, the new policy being imposed on quite a number of ISP customers is a per gig fee for anything over a set minimum, usually 5GB/month. I'm not very big on that.
Based on my experiences with them so far, it seems like a pretty good team, give or take. I think they'll be able to focus most on what the project needs. The important part is they know how to have fun with it. ;)
You not thinking it's that simple doesn't jive with the fact that the release engineering team releases it, not you. Try to keep that in mind.
I'm a little surprised a poster would say the reasons behind the 4.6 release being late are excuses.
EVERY RELEASE HAS DELAYS
This is not a corporation. We do not keep a schedule. We release it when it's ready, slashdot be damned. Don't like it? Jump ship, goodbye, we don't need you on our team. You're not good enough mindshare to work on this project or take part in it.
Congratulations to the core on another release of FreeBSD, keep 'em coming strong.
I don't think ICANN is a particularly righteous organisation in itself, but a federal government making a sudden grab at a TLD seems off-putting to me in some way.
The phrase "management of the internet could not be left to individuals" is also irksome. Undertones, anyone?
The focus of .NET, as with any other project made out by public relations people to be centered around the software developer, or even the open source model, isn't to maximise elegance or acheive superior quality, though.
Sure, it happens, but I find it endlessly surprising that many projects form and gain popular support/praise when all they're really doing is making wads of cash for whatever corporation has umbilicals attached to it.
Couple this with the inherent inelegance of a .NET software/hardware solution in general (after having watched several promotional videos, I was absolutely stunned at the need for ten servers to do the job of two), I'm not quite ready to bestow praise on anything having to do with it yet.
IMO they should be the best, if they've been hired into any sort of position involving the administration of more than one non-Windows based server.
Working with multiple systems means you have to adapt, and quickly, not only to software changes, but to hardware changes, different behaviour, and the heterogeneity that is a modern networking environment.
Several good points have been raised by this question, one I've noted is the thread regarding the skill, or lack thereof, of many current Unix system administrators.
Contrary to popular belief, reading HOWTO's and being hired by desperate administration doesn't define you as a good sysadmin, and I think a lot of qualified people are being overlooked.
I'd like to see more questions like this! I enjoy the commentary that comes out of them.