For one, Apache on NT/2000 is definitely not up to par when it comes to performance and stability of Apache on UNIX (be it Solaris, Linux, xBSD, etc.)
Second, Windows NT/2000 uses a hacked version of the BSD TCP/IP stack and has never showed that it was nearly as stable as BSD's TCP/IP. There are cases there it may be faster, but not likely.
There have been cases where Samba's SMB implementation beats Windows NT/2000's SMB, even though it's native for the latter:)
There are two thing I would never use Windows NT/2000 for, and that would be a router and a firewall.
You're signature is not quite technically correct... Berkeley produced a UNIX-like operating system (you can't call BSD, UNIX because of the AT&T case against BSD and BSD/OS). I don't know about the LSD though... but it's close to BSD:)
One product that can easily be help by the Transmeta processor is their Whistle internet appliance device (which runs FreeBSD), or any internet appliance running on an x86 processor.
Does anyone know how well it works under FreeBSD 3.x or 4.0?
The GIMP is nice, but I need some features that I know that work very nice under the last Windows release of Photo-Paint.
Other than a good photo editor, all I need is decent True Type (and anti-aliasing) fonts under X and a decent Java support before I start using FreeBSD on my main workstation at work!
It's nice to see that BSD is getting more attention by the bigger companies. It's also nice to have sites that track software and provides ways to easily download them.
Most of the stuff found at bsd.tucows.com is also available at Freshports.org and in the BSD ports collection.
The system's kernel, which does the heavy lifting to support all those rich applications, is based on Mach 3.0 from Carnegie-Mellon University and FreeBSD 3.2 (derived from the University of California at Berkeley's BSD 4.4-Lite), the most highly regarded core technologies from two of the most widely acclaimed OS projects of the modern era.
3.5-RELEASE is an updated version under the 3.0 branch, whereas 4.0-RELEASE is the first official (almost stable) release under the 4.0 branch. 4.0-RELEASE wasn't meant to be a mainstream release (I think 4.1 would be).
3.5 was released for people who were not quite ready to jump onto the 4.0 branch due to changes in some of structure and syscalls.
You can think of -RELEASE as a completed product, but it can have bugs and possibly some exploits that were not caught during final testing of the code before the official release.
-STABLE usually contains patched code that fixes problems found after -RELEASE was released. Many people keep up with -STABLE to make sure that the latest programs compile and that there isn't quite as much risk when it comes to bugs and what-not.
-CURRENT is usually considered the current code while that version is in development. This allows developers and contributors to check out the code and make changes before -RELEASE goes live. I could be wrong on this portion of it since I haven't been caught up with -CURRENT.
4.0-RELEASE is a full version (not pre-release or upgrade-only but was not aimed to be the mainstream release) and 4.0-STABLE is now available on the CVS servers. FreeBSD Diary [www.freebsddiary.org] has an article on upgrading from 4.0-RELEASE to 4.0-STABLE. I have used their upgrade process on three different machines with a lot of success.
This is one thing FreeBSD definitely needed work on and it looks like SMP is going to be a complete reality!
Sure SMP has been available since the 3.0 branch, but it definitely needs to be improved.
I wonder with all of the changes, how scalable will the SMP kernel be compared to Solaris (SPARC and x86), Digital UNIX and AIX? I hope this will also help out SMP on OpenBSD... just think... one processor handling the OS and the other processor handling all of the encryption calls!!!
The only companies that distribute machines with FreeBSD are ones like Telenet Systems. I think there is a list of hardware vendors that produce hardware and/or systems that support FreeBSD at http://freebsd.org
I asked my company's Dell representative and the reply that I get back from her and the other people is that there are no plans to support or even distribute BSD with their machines. I find this really sad, mostly because many people wouldn't mind purchasing a Dell PowerEdge server pre-loaded with FreeBSD (or OpenBSD for that matter).
If I had the time, money and management's approval, I'd purchase the parts and get per-incident support contracts and build my own BSD-based server. But I guess if any of the hardware fails, there would not be any decent replacement or on-site repair contracts:(
Where I work, people will print out e-mails because they feel safer that they have a hard copy. Some people like a hard copy so they can write notes about the note that was sent to them electronically.
Of course, then there are the people that print out multiple copies of reports (weighing in at around 15-40 pages per copy) instead of using a copier. Not only is that a waste of printer resources but other people's time.
The article repeats a lot of other material written from dozens of previous articles. I'm not dissing FreeBSD (I love and use FreeBSD, I manage and own several machines that only run FreeBSD), but these kind of articles are just getting really boring.
The articles I would like to definitely see is how a company incorporated xBSD and what their success and horror stories are. Another thing I'd like to find out is how the companies go about getting support or help on xBSD if some large issue occurs.
This month's issue of Daemon News has a very nice summary and overview of the Ports system and how to use it and how it's done. I haven't worked with Debian nor the apt-get utility, but the BSD ports system is definitely one of BSD's high points.
The only gripe I have with the ports system is that I don't always update the ports directory on my workstation(s) and sometimes I don't get the latest builds or revisions of an app I was hoping for. I don't know if one is in the works or not is a simple script or a pre-compiled utility that will check the revisions and dates of the ports stuff of the station and automatically pull down any new versions. I know this might be helpful if you want to keep an older version, but the utility could have the option to keep older versions and rename the new ones.
Anywho... something I found quite nice in this month's issue was the article on Assembly. I might not be up to par on my C/C++, but learning a bit of Assembly would definitely be worth while for me.
The reason why Microsoft didn't port the Office suite to the Alpha platform is that most of the Office applications will run under FX!32. I was able to get portions of Office 95 and 97 running, but the machine I had was fairly old and only had 48MB of RAM, not enough to get some programs running.
Microsoft did make a version of Word and Excel for Windows NT (a long time ago... around Office 4.2 for Windows) that was supported on the Alpha platform, but never made any newer versions:(
I agree that the Alpha platform [at this very day] isn't very ``consumer-friendly'' since it was never pushed as a consumer-level platform. Compaq nor Digital really thought that the Alpha could be produced cheap enough (due to large on-die cache, larger fabrication process, number of pins, etc) to be something other than an enterprise/high-end RISC workstation solution.
Digital introduced and sold the 21164PC processor to be the ``Intel killer'' of processors, but lack of support at both Microsoft and Digital killed the killer. Even though the 21164PC processor was a severely castrated version of the 21164 (sounds like the Celeron 266/300 v. Pentium II and the Celeron II v. Pentium III) that still had problems with low yields and huge power consumption.
I'd love to see the Alpha and other RISC processors get a bigger piece of the consumer slice, but it will take a lot of changes at Compaq to do so.
Heck, at one point in time, Dell would advertise on their website that one or two series of their storage area network solution used the Alpha processor. Now they just say that they use ``RISC'' processors (probably because Intel didn't like Dell advertising competitive technologies).
For those who have GSM phones, they also have a GSM Digital Phone Card that works with the Nokia 5190 and the 6190. The card is a CompactFlash Type I card that doesn't drain too much battery power since the phone handles the DSP stuff.
I think with the PocketNet plan, if you want to use a computer or handheld with the plan, you have to pay an additional monthly charge plus five cents per kilobyte. My friend has a brochure for PocketNet and it's hidden within the very fine print.
There is also a limit on how many e-mails you can have in the inbox before they start deleting stored messages and send a bounceback message. I think the limit is 50, but I'm not sure. Anyone have the actual number?
Personally, that's a bit spendy, but I guess it was never meant to be used with a PDA/computer.
I also have a Nokia 6190 GSM phone and VoiceStream's DataStream service, but I use it with my HP Jornada 545 and the Sockets GSM Digital Phone Card. The entire suite is very nice since I'm able to get mail from my company's mail server and my home e-mail in two taps on the screen.
I don't know if there's an equivalent of the DataSuite package for non-Win32 platforms, but someone could probably use the AT commands to figure out how to dial on the Nokia phone. I think VoiceStream or Nokia has a page with a link to the AT commands, but I don't have the URL handy.
One thing I like about VoiceStream is that I can call any of my ISP's POPs within my home range (if the Portland POPs is misbehaving, I can connect to the Vancouver, Seattle or Salem POP without any L/D charges... woohoo!).
With DSL at home and very fast Internet connection at work, the 9600bps wireless connection was a bit hard for me to get used to. Hey, as long as I get my e-mail and pull down driving directions on the go, I'm happy.
Dismissing anything that isn't as great as Linux is really dumb (lack for a better word).
Each operating system has their own niche market or group. Sure, FreeBSD may not support the latest and greatest hardware and software, but do all workstations and servers need that stuff? Probably not. Just to bring up something is that FreeBSD 3.3/3.4 had very good USB support and I was able to actually use several devices I couldn't get working under several distributions of Linux (even reading through the documents).
Do the most popular kids in high school always end up with the best job or a good image? Not always. I prefer BSD over Linux (not because of the BSD v. GPL thing) but rather I like to use it as a server operating system and to do basic word processing and e-mail. Since I already have the mirror'd files from the CD on my BSD machine, I just pop in the boot diskette and install it on my other machine in 15-20 minutes flat.
I could care less if I didn't have sound or DVD (that's what my TV and audio system is for). I don't play games so I don't need game support that Linux provides.
I didn't say that you hated nor liked either license, but I'm just saying that there are places where alternatives are good (like in licenses... I myself prefer the BSD license over the GPL license, but more on the purpose that it's more free for corporations and corporate developers).
Isn't the idea of Linux (and other open source projects, including the different BSD projects) to allow for freedom of choice and the ability to get and work with the source code (and to some, free beer)? If so, why diss another alternative?
If another company were to produce another viable alternative to the Transmete Crusoe chip, will you diss it because it's not linked with Linux or Linus?
I know many people have a religious hatred against the BSD license, but it's an alternative open source license. Sure the BSD license used to have the advertising clause and the ability for anyone to take and commercialize a product. But each license has their own goal and differences, allowing for additional choice and a better fit in different scenarios. Think if everything had to be GPL'd? It might not be as great as you think, since the lack of choice becomes an issue and undermines the point of open source.
If you hate BSD so much, just work with what you like and don't cause a flamewar or diss products with such open ignorance.
The cost of the conference is $495. If you register before September 1, 2000, you qualify for the early-bird discount of $50 off.
Still, $495 is not expensive for a high-tech conference of any sort. If you look at some of the seminars and developer conferences held by Seimens, Microsoft, Oracle or any other companies, the BSDCon is pretty inexpensive. It is pretty expensive to hold a 3-4 day conference in California for hundreds of people. Conferences aren't really BSDi's main source of income (it's the CD's and BSDI's products/services).
The name reminds me of a fruit called Durian (a greenish-brown fruit with spikes on it's shell)... as someone from Australia said on an OPB show:
`` Durian... Tastes like heaven but smells like a toilet ''
Many would agree to the latter portion of the description and won't even eat nor be around someone who is eating one. Others, eat it no matter what. I tend to use it has a secret weapon... more potent than garlic/onion breath.
Re:The problem with Rambus compared to SDRAM...
on
Will Rambus Go Bust?
·
· Score: 1
I think I heard somewhere that Intel is choosing DDR SDRAM for some of their newer server-level chipsets due to the cost (and availability) of Rambus RIMMs.
Think about stuff a server with 2GB of RIMMs (where each 256MB RIMM costs around $1500-2000 a piece)... the memory itself would cost more than the rest of the server components. Also having 8 RIMMs would really crank up the latency to access RAM (even if the chipset supports dual-channels, that's 4 RIMMs per channel).
I doubt of Rambus will bust because of the Playstation 2 sales (and other computers/consoles) that might be based on Rambus. If the yields of high-density Rambus barely improve and prices don't go down enough, then there is a chance that Rambus will lose out. Rambus is a nice technology... but could it be too good?;)
Slashdot Mirror
For one, Apache on NT/2000 is definitely not up to par when it comes to performance and stability of Apache on UNIX (be it Solaris, Linux, xBSD, etc.)
:)
Second, Windows NT/2000 uses a hacked version of the BSD TCP/IP stack and has never showed that it was nearly as stable as BSD's TCP/IP. There are cases there it may be faster, but not likely.
There have been cases where Samba's SMB implementation beats Windows NT/2000's SMB, even though it's native for the latter
There are two thing I would never use Windows NT/2000 for, and that would be a router and a firewall.
You're signature is not quite technically correct... Berkeley produced a UNIX-like operating system (you can't call BSD, UNIX because of the AT&T case against BSD and BSD/OS). I don't know about the LSD though... but it's close to BSD :)
One product that can easily be help by the Transmeta processor is their Whistle internet appliance device (which runs FreeBSD), or any internet appliance running on an x86 processor.
Does anyone know how well it works under FreeBSD 3.x or 4.0?
The GIMP is nice, but I need some features that I know that work very nice under the last Windows release of Photo-Paint.
Other than a good photo editor, all I need is decent True Type (and anti-aliasing) fonts under X and a decent Java support before I start using FreeBSD on my main workstation at work!
It's nice to see that BSD is getting more attention by the bigger companies. It's also nice to have sites that track software and provides ways to easily download them.
Most of the stuff found at bsd.tucows.com is also available at Freshports.org and in the BSD ports collection.
phuc u beech!
According to Apple's website:
The system's kernel, which does the heavy lifting to support all those rich applications, is based on Mach 3.0 from Carnegie-Mellon University and FreeBSD 3.2 (derived from the University of California at Berkeley's BSD 4.4-Lite), the most highly regarded core technologies from two of the most widely acclaimed OS projects of the modern era.
You can find that here.
3.5-RELEASE is an updated version under the 3.0 branch, whereas 4.0-RELEASE is the first official (almost stable) release under the 4.0 branch. 4.0-RELEASE wasn't meant to be a mainstream release (I think 4.1 would be).
3.5 was released for people who were not quite ready to jump onto the 4.0 branch due to changes in some of structure and syscalls.
You can think of -RELEASE as a completed product, but it can have bugs and possibly some exploits that were not caught during final testing of the code before the official release.
-STABLE usually contains patched code that fixes problems found after -RELEASE was released. Many people keep up with -STABLE to make sure that the latest programs compile and that there isn't quite as much risk when it comes to bugs and what-not.
-CURRENT is usually considered the current code while that version is in development. This allows developers and contributors to check out the code and make changes before -RELEASE goes live. I could be wrong on this portion of it since I haven't been caught up with -CURRENT.
4.0-RELEASE is a full version (not pre-release or upgrade-only but was not aimed to be the mainstream release) and 4.0-STABLE is now available on the CVS servers. FreeBSD Diary [www.freebsddiary.org] has an article on upgrading from 4.0-RELEASE to 4.0-STABLE. I have used their upgrade process on three different machines with a lot of success.
This is one thing FreeBSD definitely needed work on and it looks like SMP is going to be a complete reality!
Sure SMP has been available since the 3.0 branch, but it definitely needs to be improved.
I wonder with all of the changes, how scalable will the SMP kernel be compared to Solaris (SPARC and x86), Digital UNIX and AIX? I hope this will also help out SMP on OpenBSD... just think... one processor handling the OS and the other processor handling all of the encryption calls!!!
The only companies that distribute machines with FreeBSD are ones like Telenet Systems. I think there is a list of hardware vendors that produce hardware and/or systems that support FreeBSD at http://freebsd.org
:(
I asked my company's Dell representative and the reply that I get back from her and the other people is that there are no plans to support or even distribute BSD with their machines. I find this really sad, mostly because many people wouldn't mind purchasing a Dell PowerEdge server pre-loaded with FreeBSD (or OpenBSD for that matter).
If I had the time, money and management's approval, I'd purchase the parts and get per-incident support contracts and build my own BSD-based server. But I guess if any of the hardware fails, there would not be any decent replacement or on-site repair contracts
I definitely agree with you there...
;)
Where I work, people will print out e-mails because they feel safer that they have a hard copy. Some people like a hard copy so they can write notes about the note that was sent to them electronically.
Of course, then there are the people that print out multiple copies of reports (weighing in at around 15-40 pages per copy) instead of using a copier. Not only is that a waste of printer resources but other people's time.
Enough ranting
Is it me or is the article mis-spell Matt Damon's name (they spelled it Matt Demon)?
;)
I know Yahoo uses FreeBSD, but if they wanted to be FreeBSD correct, it should have been Matt Daemon
The article repeats a lot of other material written from dozens of previous articles. I'm not dissing FreeBSD (I love and use FreeBSD, I manage and own several machines that only run FreeBSD), but these kind of articles are just getting really boring.
The articles I would like to definitely see is how a company incorporated xBSD and what their success and horror stories are. Another thing I'd like to find out is how the companies go about getting support or help on xBSD if some large issue occurs.
This month's issue of Daemon News has a very nice summary and overview of the Ports system and how to use it and how it's done. I haven't worked with Debian nor the apt-get utility, but the BSD ports system is definitely one of BSD's high points.
The only gripe I have with the ports system is that I don't always update the ports directory on my workstation(s) and sometimes I don't get the latest builds or revisions of an app I was hoping for. I don't know if one is in the works or not is a simple script or a pre-compiled utility that will check the revisions and dates of the ports stuff of the station and automatically pull down any new versions. I know this might be helpful if you want to keep an older version, but the utility could have the option to keep older versions and rename the new ones.
Anywho... something I found quite nice in this month's issue was the article on Assembly. I might not be up to par on my C/C++, but learning a bit of Assembly would definitely be worth while for me.
The reason why Microsoft didn't port the Office suite to the Alpha platform is that most of the Office applications will run under FX!32. I was able to get portions of Office 95 and 97 running, but the machine I had was fairly old and only had 48MB of RAM, not enough to get some programs running.
:(
Microsoft did make a version of Word and Excel for Windows NT (a long time ago... around Office 4.2 for Windows) that was supported on the Alpha platform, but never made any newer versions
I agree that the Alpha platform [at this very day] isn't very ``consumer-friendly'' since it was never pushed as a consumer-level platform. Compaq nor Digital really thought that the Alpha could be produced cheap enough (due to large on-die cache, larger fabrication process, number of pins, etc) to be something other than an enterprise/high-end RISC workstation solution.
Digital introduced and sold the 21164PC processor to be the ``Intel killer'' of processors, but lack of support at both Microsoft and Digital killed the killer. Even though the 21164PC processor was a severely castrated version of the 21164 (sounds like the Celeron 266/300 v. Pentium II and the Celeron II v. Pentium III) that still had problems with low yields and huge power consumption.
I'd love to see the Alpha and other RISC processors get a bigger piece of the consumer slice, but it will take a lot of changes at Compaq to do so.
Heck, at one point in time, Dell would advertise on their website that one or two series of their storage area network solution used the Alpha processor. Now they just say that they use ``RISC'' processors (probably because Intel didn't like Dell advertising competitive technologies).
For those who have GSM phones, they also have a GSM Digital Phone Card that works with the Nokia 5190 and the 6190. The card is a CompactFlash Type I card that doesn't drain too much battery power since the phone handles the DSP stuff.
I think with the PocketNet plan, if you want to use a computer or handheld with the plan, you have to pay an additional monthly charge plus five cents per kilobyte. My friend has a brochure for PocketNet and it's hidden within the very fine print.
There is also a limit on how many e-mails you can have in the inbox before they start deleting stored messages and send a bounceback message. I think the limit is 50, but I'm not sure. Anyone have the actual number?
Personally, that's a bit spendy, but I guess it was never meant to be used with a PDA/computer.
I also have a Nokia 6190 GSM phone and VoiceStream's DataStream service, but I use it with my HP Jornada 545 and the Sockets GSM Digital Phone Card. The entire suite is very nice since I'm able to get mail from my company's mail server and my home e-mail in two taps on the screen.
I don't know if there's an equivalent of the DataSuite package for non-Win32 platforms, but someone could probably use the AT commands to figure out how to dial on the Nokia phone. I think VoiceStream or Nokia has a page with a link to the AT commands, but I don't have the URL handy.
One thing I like about VoiceStream is that I can call any of my ISP's POPs within my home range (if the Portland POPs is misbehaving, I can connect to the Vancouver, Seattle or Salem POP without any L/D charges... woohoo!).
With DSL at home and very fast Internet connection at work, the 9600bps wireless connection was a bit hard for me to get used to. Hey, as long as I get my e-mail and pull down driving directions on the go, I'm happy.
or... extremely fuckable interface ;)
Dismissing anything that isn't as great as Linux is really dumb (lack for a better word).
Each operating system has their own niche market or group. Sure, FreeBSD may not support the latest and greatest hardware and software, but do all workstations and servers need that stuff? Probably not. Just to bring up something is that FreeBSD 3.3/3.4 had very good USB support and I was able to actually use several devices I couldn't get working under several distributions of Linux (even reading through the documents).
Do the most popular kids in high school always end up with the best job or a good image? Not always. I prefer BSD over Linux (not because of the BSD v. GPL thing) but rather I like to use it as a server operating system and to do basic word processing and e-mail. Since I already have the mirror'd files from the CD on my BSD machine, I just pop in the boot diskette and install it on my other machine in 15-20 minutes flat.
I could care less if I didn't have sound or DVD (that's what my TV and audio system is for). I don't play games so I don't need game support that Linux provides.
I didn't say that you hated nor liked either license, but I'm just saying that there are places where alternatives are good (like in licenses... I myself prefer the BSD license over the GPL license, but more on the purpose that it's more free for corporations and corporate developers).
Isn't the idea of Linux (and other open source projects, including the different BSD projects) to allow for freedom of choice and the ability to get and work with the source code (and to some, free beer)? If so, why diss another alternative?
If another company were to produce another viable alternative to the Transmete Crusoe chip, will you diss it because it's not linked with Linux or Linus?
I know many people have a religious hatred against the BSD license, but it's an alternative open source license. Sure the BSD license used to have the advertising clause and the ability for anyone to take and commercialize a product. But each license has their own goal and differences, allowing for additional choice and a better fit in different scenarios. Think if everything had to be GPL'd? It might not be as great as you think, since the lack of choice becomes an issue and undermines the point of open source.
If you hate BSD so much, just work with what you like and don't cause a flamewar or diss products with such open ignorance.
According to the conference's website:
The cost of the conference is $495. If you register before September 1, 2000, you qualify for the early-bird discount of $50 off.
Still, $495 is not expensive for a high-tech conference of any sort. If you look at some of the seminars and developer conferences held by Seimens, Microsoft, Oracle or any other companies, the BSDCon is pretty inexpensive. It is pretty expensive to hold a 3-4 day conference in California for hundreds of people. Conferences aren't really BSDi's main source of income (it's the CD's and BSDI's products/services).
The name reminds me of a fruit called Durian (a greenish-brown fruit
with spikes on it's shell)... as someone from Australia
said on an OPB show:
`` Durian... Tastes like heaven but smells like a toilet ''
Many would agree to the latter portion of the description and won't even
eat nor be around someone who is eating one. Others, eat it no matter
what. I tend to use it has a secret weapon... more potent than
garlic/onion breath.
I think I heard somewhere that Intel is choosing DDR SDRAM for some of their newer server-level chipsets due to the cost (and availability) of Rambus RIMMs.
;)
Think about stuff a server with 2GB of RIMMs (where each 256MB RIMM costs around $1500-2000 a piece)... the memory itself would cost more than the rest of the server components. Also having 8 RIMMs would really crank up the latency to access RAM (even if the chipset supports dual-channels, that's 4 RIMMs per channel).
I doubt of Rambus will bust because of the Playstation 2 sales (and other computers/consoles) that might be based on Rambus. If the yields of high-density Rambus barely improve and prices don't go down enough, then there is a chance that Rambus will lose out. Rambus is a nice technology... but could it be too good?
IIRC, the FTP site has XFree86 3.3.6, not 4.0.
I think 4.0 came just too late to be incorporated with the release. A port should be available from the Ports collection fairly soon (if not already).