Yes, FreeBSD is the most popular BSD. But each BSD is it's own operating system, not a previous version of the same operating system like your analogy.
It did not start with BSD4.4-lite, go to 386BSD, move to NetBSD, then OpenBSD, then DragonFlyBSD and then FreeBSD. Each are their own system which split at one time or another from the same tree.
All four of those systems are maintained today and therefore it is not like Windows 9x complaining about hardware support. Windows does not maintain new versions of Windows 95.
OpenBSD is the extremely secure and extremely open of the BSDs and Unix-likes. OpenBSD refuses to have anything that isn't as Free and Open as their goals describe into their system. Linux and FreeBSD are more into the functionality over ideals idea. NetBSD I cannot speak for though as I don't really follow them.
Yeah, you're right, I'm from Ontario. You prarie folk, especially Saskatchewan, are traditionally ahead of the rest of Canada on the political scale of things; though you often end up the butt of jokes for it (for being "way out there").
Hmmm, this reference to commies made me think of something that made me chuckle... In the past in America the Reds were the evil outsiders, now they are the good ol' boys back home.
Ok, I know you folk out there in will strongly dislike this idea, but I think that the phonelines should be taken from the phone companies.
I think governments should control them and regulate phone costs to something reasonable. As it is all the phone companies as they are split up are just baby Bells, with their own small monopolies for local phone work, just as the old Bell had it's own big monopoly.
Mind, I also think that water, power, heating and basic television and radio services should also be under the domain of a government controled company. So my opinion is a little more left on this matter than most people's.
I see no flaw in maintaining a strict licensing base, would that vsftpd but change their license to a more liberal one perhaps OpenBSD's users and it's developers would be jizzing in the vsftpd developers' faces right now. Likely it is a thing we will never know; those that place their work under the GPL are usually doing so because they believe in it or because they don't like the idea of loosing control of their work and as such they would never relicense.
Such is the way of holding onto what you believe, if you hold fast to your principles, you may not have all the advantages of those without.
The spirit of OpenBSD is not just in being secure, it is in being free as well, the GPL does not match that spirit.
Life is full of such choices, some lead to regret and others to great triumphs. We shall see which this is in the fullness of time; though OpenSSH appears to have been a success.
I can see why a developer would take a previously existant ftp implementation and rework it, it saves time not having to recode parts that can be used over. It is the same reason that Mach used many BSD tools for it's userland and parts of it's kernel.
From time to time such choices are required yes, even OpenBSD's dhcpd is a complete rewrite.
I was more saying this to point out that while you said it wrong to not use vsftpd since they are already there they had done just as you speak against previously.
I simply chose a random system as an example, would you have preferred me say Tru64? Perhaps they recommend vsftpd on Linux and use their own ftpd on AIX? I don't know, AIX was simply an arbitrarily chosen Unix used to help point that there has been no grand test to see what ftpd is best.
The funnny thing with saying why make a new one, beyond that you support making another CVS, is that the BSD ftpd was around first, so why did the vsftpd makers not just improve the BSD ftpd?
Also, I think the reason that the OpenBSD ftp server was running that "beta code" was to test it.
But then, I myself am not the man working on the OpenBSD ftpd's development so I cannot say that for sure.
You are saying that vsftpd is superiour, yet I don't recall there ever being a big "hack this ftp server" test which had the BSD ftpd, the GNU ftp and the VS ftpd run on three identical boxes on the same operating system with the same settings and have VS beat the snot out of the other two.
Perhaps vsftpd is better, perhaps it is worse, maybe the best ftpd is the one on AIX, who knows?
Whomever marked this as insightful needs to be kicked.
For one, the ftpd included in OpenBSD is not the GNU one which constantly seems to have issues, it is the BSD one which came from NetBSD when the two systems forked.
How is it wrong to have a commonly used daemon on the system should someone want to use it? It isn't running by default so it is no problem unless activated.
If someone wants to use a differnet ftp daemon they need not remove the original one, they just add another and start it. The base system's ftpd never need be started if the administrator doesn't want it to.
Seems I am redundant, but I felt the need to chime in agreement with the others.
It's been a while since I saw that one, it's great to have LSD play the hippy Hitler.
Doc Goebbels: Danke schön, mein Führer.
Lorenzo St. DuBois: Hey, you're a German.
Doc Goebbels: We're all Germans.
Lorenzo St. DuBois: That's right.
*gasps*
Lorenzo St. DuBois: That means we CANNOT invade Germany.
Or:
Lorenzo St. DuBois: One and one's two,
Two and two's four,
I feel so bad 'cause I'm loosin' the war!
It really is one of Mel Brook's best works, scarey that they almost shelved it after production cause of the Hitler shtick.
The money has been raised, the purchase shall soon be made. The link is here and you will note that the only companies that put in any money are smaller ones and the rest of the money has come from individuals.
And you have a CVS server in your NOC that hosts the developement of an open source operating system, yes?
Maybe I am simply blind trusting when it comes to administrators, when they say there is a problem with their system I trust them. I dunno, something about them being able to log into the system itself and run the diagnostics required to troubleshoot issues, I just assume they do it and not smoke a dubey and randomly pick something.
The OpenBSD guys seem to think that the I/O of the system was the biggest slow down and that SATA and IDE are out of the question because they're too shitty, I guess I'm crazy.
Jesus jumped-up Christ, a spelling mistake! Shit, someone call the fucking police!
I was not dealing with wasting of time when I posted in the forebearing sections of this thread, I was saying I didn't want to look through google to find the source of my knowledge on the matter. That maybe, just maybe, someone who wants to know this stuff can do their own damned search.
You seem to have taken a disliking to me and gone so far as to insult me without prior provocation, did someone shit in your cereal? Was it me?
Perhaps you need to step back and have a toke, I hear it does wonders on dealing with aggressive tendencies, if only for a while.
I must apologise for replying to the both of your posts here but I would rather not take the time to expand this discussion into more branches.
Yes, I am very particular about what I call support, if you give people that want to port something to your hardware on their own time for free a hard time then you sure don't support them.
I have seen no recorded anti- nor pro-HP arguements so I did not lean into the matter of how HP deals with people, however Intel I have often seen people complain about the difficulties in getting anything out of them, especially for making drivers for their networking and wireless equipement.
Perhaps in a land of cholocate clouds and gumdrop rainbows this kind of arguement does not occur; yet here at least I will say that the companies are bad and you they are good and it would seem each arguement holds no sway on the other side.
Mine is a simple view: if you release what is needed to code for the hardware without conditions then you support the people coding, yet if you refuse to give such documentation then you do not.
I find this view to be as streamlined as I can make my arguement on what I view support to be when it involves a hardware manufacturer; you need not give the people the hardware, you need not give them money, just give them what they need to code. Of course, in cases like IBM giving you your Mac, I would agree that that is supporting your developing for that platform because IBM cannot give Apple's documentation (or at least not all of it). With the others though I dunno how much of the proper stuff was given to you, so assuming all of it was given you could write a driver for the video card on those systems if it tickled your fancy, yes? While getting a bunch of hardware to work with is very useful, having full documentation allows for a better job; I am sure your Linux kernel work is better though for having these platforms to test on.
If ATI were to release an open source driver I would say it is a step forward, but not supporting open source. I would call them releasing the documentation for their video cards support. I suppose that's just me.
Mayhaps the best way to place it is this: Giving money is nice, giving code is nice, giving hardware is nice, but giving what allows programmers to make the code is alot nicer.
Until the day Intel gives enough to allow for proper support of their hardware I will not view Intel as a supporter of open source...
I view anything they do as the carrot on a string, it leads you along, podding down the path where they want you, but you never get the damned carrot, you're always walking a little further where they want you and a little further from where you want to be.
There is no face to save my friend, I am what I am and your opinion of what I am means nothing. This is a discussion and not some cosmic testing of my moral nor testicular fortitude.
You confuse Linux with open source; paying people to do something is not the same as giving people information if they request it so that they can properly get an open source tool or operating system to work with your hardware.
Sun doesn't support open source, they support themselves, they too (like Dell and Apple) refuse to give documentation to open source programmers.
AMD gives documentation to open source developers when they ask for it and they give hardware to developers in order to get the systems working quickly on the new hardware. That is properly supporting open source, because it isn't keeping the people working on the code in the dark.
Also, you seem to confuse support with contribute; I view the two as different things. To support open source you need not give code to the developers, you just need not make their work harder.
So you're a network administrator who has to deal these kinds of issues all the time, with the same kinds of loads for your servers? You make your living making these choices?
Don't talk about it if you don't.
If you trust in the OpenBSD team enough to use their software then you should trust them enough to know what they need to get.
You need not call someone that knows what they're doing a moron just because you don't agree with them.
You confuse supporting open source with supporting their best interests; it is cheaper for the Unix related companies to drop the Unixes and move to Linux as the kernel they use. For dropping much of the developers they must pay for further improvement of their operating systems is an easy cost-cutter.
Dell does not support open source, they refuse requests for documentation to properly have open source systems work on their hardware.
You are right for pointing your little blip out, for I was not specific enough in the wording chosen for in my posting; I referred to hardware manufacturers and sellers more than information based corperations. Also, you list Dell twice.
FSF views anything they don't make as less free, regardless of anything you may say or think.
Also, the FSF believes everyone has the right to all code, thus anything that allows for a closed source version of anything denies the "right" to said code and is therefore bad.
Another note: The OSI are irrelevant, the only thing that matters for making something open source is there being access to the source; a little slip of words mean nothing, nor does the "thumbs up" from an organisation that does not contribute anything to the community, it is the access to the code that makes something open source by definition.
What's even more funny is I am a BSD guy and expect stuff that isn't part of the base system to be in the/usr/local directory. I'm funny that way, don't like adding directories for no real reason.
Some Linux operating systems use/opt though, so you just need to read up on them before using before using one.
Slashdot Mirror
It did not start with BSD4.4-lite, go to 386BSD, move to NetBSD, then OpenBSD, then DragonFlyBSD and then FreeBSD. Each are their own system which split at one time or another from the same tree.
All four of those systems are maintained today and therefore it is not like Windows 9x complaining about hardware support. Windows does not maintain new versions of Windows 95.
OpenBSD is the extremely secure and extremely open of the BSDs and Unix-likes. OpenBSD refuses to have anything that isn't as Free and Open as their goals describe into their system. Linux and FreeBSD are more into the functionality over ideals idea. NetBSD I cannot speak for though as I don't really follow them.
Things that are not "one liners" or stubs are gererally considered full length.
I don't think they realised it was meant as a joke, they look to have thought it a serious suggestion at a solution.
Exactly.
Hmmm, this reference to commies made me think of something that made me chuckle... In the past in America the Reds were the evil outsiders, now they are the good ol' boys back home.
Bah, strange things enter a man's mind at 11:30.
I think governments should control them and regulate phone costs to something reasonable. As it is all the phone companies as they are split up are just baby Bells, with their own small monopolies for local phone work, just as the old Bell had it's own big monopoly.
Mind, I also think that water, power, heating and basic television and radio services should also be under the domain of a government controled company. So my opinion is a little more left on this matter than most people's.
Such is the way of holding onto what you believe, if you hold fast to your principles, you may not have all the advantages of those without.
The spirit of OpenBSD is not just in being secure, it is in being free as well, the GPL does not match that spirit.
Life is full of such choices, some lead to regret and others to great triumphs. We shall see which this is in the fullness of time; though OpenSSH appears to have been a success.
From time to time such choices are required yes, even OpenBSD's dhcpd is a complete rewrite.
I was more saying this to point out that while you said it wrong to not use vsftpd since they are already there they had done just as you speak against previously.
I simply chose a random system as an example, would you have preferred me say Tru64? Perhaps they recommend vsftpd on Linux and use their own ftpd on AIX? I don't know, AIX was simply an arbitrarily chosen Unix used to help point that there has been no grand test to see what ftpd is best.
Also, I think the reason that the OpenBSD ftp server was running that "beta code" was to test it.
But then, I myself am not the man working on the OpenBSD ftpd's development so I cannot say that for sure.
Perhaps vsftpd is better, perhaps it is worse, maybe the best ftpd is the one on AIX, who knows?
If you want secure, use sftp.
For one, the ftpd included in OpenBSD is not the GNU one which constantly seems to have issues, it is the BSD one which came from NetBSD when the two systems forked.
How is it wrong to have a commonly used daemon on the system should someone want to use it? It isn't running by default so it is no problem unless activated.
If someone wants to use a differnet ftp daemon they need not remove the original one, they just add another and start it. The base system's ftpd never need be started if the administrator doesn't want it to.
Seems I am redundant, but I felt the need to chime in agreement with the others.
Yeah, I think it would probably lead to anal violations by the moderators. Most stuff seems to go over their heads.
Doc Goebbels: Danke schön, mein Führer.
Lorenzo St. DuBois: Hey, you're a German.
Doc Goebbels: We're all Germans.
Lorenzo St. DuBois: That's right.
*gasps*
Lorenzo St. DuBois: That means we CANNOT invade Germany.
Or:
Lorenzo St. DuBois: One and one's two,
Two and two's four,
I feel so bad 'cause I'm loosin' the war!
It really is one of Mel Brook's best works, scarey that they almost shelved it after production cause of the Hitler shtick.
The money has been raised, the purchase shall soon be made. The link is here and you will note that the only companies that put in any money are smaller ones and the rest of the money has come from individuals.
Maybe I am simply blind trusting when it comes to administrators, when they say there is a problem with their system I trust them. I dunno, something about them being able to log into the system itself and run the diagnostics required to troubleshoot issues, I just assume they do it and not smoke a dubey and randomly pick something.
The OpenBSD guys seem to think that the I/O of the system was the biggest slow down and that SATA and IDE are out of the question because they're too shitty, I guess I'm crazy.
I was not dealing with wasting of time when I posted in the forebearing sections of this thread, I was saying I didn't want to look through google to find the source of my knowledge on the matter. That maybe, just maybe, someone who wants to know this stuff can do their own damned search.
You seem to have taken a disliking to me and gone so far as to insult me without prior provocation, did someone shit in your cereal? Was it me?
Perhaps you need to step back and have a toke, I hear it does wonders on dealing with aggressive tendencies, if only for a while.
Yes, I am very particular about what I call support, if you give people that want to port something to your hardware on their own time for free a hard time then you sure don't support them.
I have seen no recorded anti- nor pro-HP arguements so I did not lean into the matter of how HP deals with people, however Intel I have often seen people complain about the difficulties in getting anything out of them, especially for making drivers for their networking and wireless equipement.
Perhaps in a land of cholocate clouds and gumdrop rainbows this kind of arguement does not occur; yet here at least I will say that the companies are bad and you they are good and it would seem each arguement holds no sway on the other side.
Mine is a simple view: if you release what is needed to code for the hardware without conditions then you support the people coding, yet if you refuse to give such documentation then you do not.
I find this view to be as streamlined as I can make my arguement on what I view support to be when it involves a hardware manufacturer; you need not give the people the hardware, you need not give them money, just give them what they need to code. Of course, in cases like IBM giving you your Mac, I would agree that that is supporting your developing for that platform because IBM cannot give Apple's documentation (or at least not all of it). With the others though I dunno how much of the proper stuff was given to you, so assuming all of it was given you could write a driver for the video card on those systems if it tickled your fancy, yes? While getting a bunch of hardware to work with is very useful, having full documentation allows for a better job; I am sure your Linux kernel work is better though for having these platforms to test on.
If ATI were to release an open source driver I would say it is a step forward, but not supporting open source. I would call them releasing the documentation for their video cards support. I suppose that's just me.
Mayhaps the best way to place it is this: Giving money is nice, giving code is nice, giving hardware is nice, but giving what allows programmers to make the code is alot nicer.
Until the day Intel gives enough to allow for proper support of their hardware I will not view Intel as a supporter of open source...
I view anything they do as the carrot on a string, it leads you along, podding down the path where they want you, but you never get the damned carrot, you're always walking a little further where they want you and a little further from where you want to be.
You confuse Linux with open source; paying people to do something is not the same as giving people information if they request it so that they can properly get an open source tool or operating system to work with your hardware.
Sun doesn't support open source, they support themselves, they too (like Dell and Apple) refuse to give documentation to open source programmers.
AMD gives documentation to open source developers when they ask for it and they give hardware to developers in order to get the systems working quickly on the new hardware. That is properly supporting open source, because it isn't keeping the people working on the code in the dark.
Also, you seem to confuse support with contribute; I view the two as different things. To support open source you need not give code to the developers, you just need not make their work harder.
Don't talk about it if you don't.
If you trust in the OpenBSD team enough to use their software then you should trust them enough to know what they need to get.
You need not call someone that knows what they're doing a moron just because you don't agree with them.
Dell does not support open source, they refuse requests for documentation to properly have open source systems work on their hardware.
You are right for pointing your little blip out, for I was not specific enough in the wording chosen for in my posting; I referred to hardware manufacturers and sellers more than information based corperations. Also, you list Dell twice.
This would make it slightly difficult to buy from them.
Also, the FSF believes everyone has the right to all code, thus anything that allows for a closed source version of anything denies the "right" to said code and is therefore bad.
Another note: The OSI are irrelevant, the only thing that matters for making something open source is there being access to the source; a little slip of words mean nothing, nor does the "thumbs up" from an organisation that does not contribute anything to the community, it is the access to the code that makes something open source by definition.
Some Linux operating systems use /opt though, so you just need to read up on them before using before using one.
Don't worry about it, the moderation system is insane. I've had first posts moderated redundant.