There was already an article regarding OpenCVS, and it is fairly obvious that it will be getting released, or it would not be given a Open* title and it's own site.
Not that I mind mind you, I just didn't see why there have been to articles on OpenCVS starting up. At least this one isn't saying it was because OpenBSD hates the GPL and are trying to replace a GPL CVS system.
Around two years ago Electronic Arts hit it's last straw with me; the things it had been doing to what was once Origin Systems and the Ultimas, the poor treatment of employees, very poor customer support and generally crappy game titles had taken a toll on the respect I held for the company, I just didn't like anything at all related to them because of the bastards I saw them to be.
Luckily, it is times like this that I really am reasured that my choice to never buy one god damned thing they have touched is a good thing. More people should see things my way, but I am not a leader of men, I prefer to follow. Thus the unwashed masses generally don't see Electronic Arts for the bastards I that do.
Their "Challenge Everything" is just a hypocracy unless it applies soley to their worker's rights; the games they produce are just rehases of older games. They buy studios that come up with new ideas and run them into the ground.
I say good on 'em, perhaps it will show other people the light.
Well, Dale doesn't count as a member of the NetBSD crew as he does OpenBSD's PPC stuff; though I suppose that is good advise for us all:
Ignore any people that say they will help you by porting your operating system of choice to some new hardware if you help them get it folks. And for God's sake, whatever you do, don't donate 25 bucks to any causes you happen to believe in.
Really, all we're doing is giving this sad little man the attention he wants, if we ignore Dale surely he will do all the porting himself and support all the Apple hardware within minutes. This is obviously just him trying to be an attention whore, it's so apparent to me now.
Thank you Anonymous Coward, your jackassery has shown me the light! Surely Linus can afford to buy every kind of computer in the world! I'm off to the Linux section to call Richard and Linus teabaggers and teabaggees for doing free software developement! There I shall call every Linux fundraiser and developer names and proclaim the death of free software!
Dale Rahn is waiting for the G5 right now, there was a drive for money to get a dual G5 Mac sent to him, dunno if the box has gone yet, but the drive rounded up enough money to pay for it.
The money has almost all come in and the Mac should be bought or will be soon.
ipf wasn't GPL. It was a screwed up altered version of the BSD license; Darren Reed said that people couldn't go changing his ipf around (OpenBSD wanted to integrate it into their kernel) so the OpenBSD developers got a new packet filter.
This is different, yes OpenBSD developers are working at removing GPL tools, but that does not mean they aren't replacing things of other less-free origin.
Replacing the GnuCVS with OpenCVS isn't just over a license; it is more that as long as they're doing such a massive undertaking, they may as well go a little further and start fresh with a better license.
That is a fairly asinine assumption you make there.
What makes you think a smart user on a Linux system is more likely to report a problem then a smart user on a Windows system?
No, you're definately out there with your position. The Mozilla base has a much larger number of users, you cannot really argue the fact. There is a smaller number of people using Konquerer, I have nothing against the browser really, but that is the simple truth. Where there are more users, there are more people reporting their issues.
I think they made the assumption that because some of the developers seem to dislike screwing with the GCC to get it to work on some the platforms beyond ix86 and that there had been some talk about TenDRA some 7 or more months back. And therefore that means the whole team is just waiting for TenDRA to be good enough for OpenBSD.
The whole thing of people wanting tcc has been around longer than I've known of OpenBSD though, since like 1998.
I was of a mind that if yas wanted a BSD compiler that bad you'd have taken a stronger stance and started making tcc work on the platforms. Since you hadn't, I pretty much figured you all had your hands full enough and didn't want to take on such a big project in addition the operating system itself.
Would be pretty neat to have an occ though, I could just see a Puff with a Paul Teutul Sr. "handlebar" styled mustache for the mascot.
I am sorry, but any license that needs definitions to go with it is unacceptable.
This looks like the new Apache license with all the stupid patent crap and the Mozillia license put together, making it one of the worse licenses I've seen to be called open (though there is a chance it may never get the name, those are far too slim).
Let us take a look at the meaning of the REAL karma:
Karma:The total effect of someone's actions and conduct during their existance, positive actions being rewarded with gifts and negative actions resulting in punishment. Karma can be interpreted as the immediate reactions of the world to a person's actions or the result of actions taking in a previous life.
Nowhere within the defitition of karma does it say an ugly man may not have karma. By the very meaning of the word anyone and everything have a karma as long as it can pick what it does, anything with a will of it's own has karma.
You would be able to tell if I forked out "$" for it; I would have an asterisk (that little star sign on your keyboard, over the 8: Read "*").
I do not see why you anonymous people get so displeased with someone when instead of being a cockwad the try to be at least constructive in what they contribute.
You misunderstand coward. I do not attempt to mould my posts to the whims of the masses, my posts simply are not offensive to them, thus the high karma score.
I am not selling my ass or anything like that, I am simply saying my mind and people don't dislike what I say.
Redundant? Not really, someone else would need to have said the same thing first for my posts to be redundant (I admit that I have been redundant a couple times by a few minutes, but that is hardly most of my posts).
My parental post here wasn't either; the one following it was, as it said basically the same thing as me.
Conforming, yes, I conform with people's standard views of what is reasonable and constructive and sometimes amusing, else I could not get anything high on the karma-whoring train.
More likely it is based on the number of users; you see, Mozilla works on Windows (you know, where the users are). With the increasing number of Mozillia users they have more people testing their stuff, Konquerer doesn't have that Windows user base.
Your poor karma is easy to explain, it is because of the high number of Troll and Redundant posts you have, hell even your 4 Funny has a Troll and Flamebait in it.
I have Excellent karma because typically all I say are things like this; stuff which people are hard pressed to find insulting or inflamitory.
Unfortunately, I just ruined it by posting off topic.
I can handle the one question there about ekkoBSD.
It was started by some guy with a server, not a programmer. A project needs a lead that can actually lead it if it is to be a sucess, some guy that wants people to do some programming for him is not a lead but more of a figurehead.
BSD usage is on the rise, it has never stopped increasing in it's userbase.
BSD's overall market penetration on a purely single operating system basis (ie: take each Linux operating system as it's own operating system rather than they all being one operating system) is actually doing very good.
The sometimes conflicting personalities of major players in the BSD communities have resulted in some of the more interesting and vibrant projects around including a new idea for doing symmetric multiprocessing being implemented, a few new C functions which are better than their predecessors being created, a free SSH suite used by damn high most every operating system out there and many more things that would not have occured without these people having their own unique personalities.
BeOS is still poking around and Amiga based systems are as well, I guess that operating systems don't die.
Anyways, you guys need to be more original in your stupid trolls, they aren't entertaining, they aren't true and they don't even make sense half the time. You all need to go to a writing seminar. This stuff comes out like a really bad tabloid.
Sorry to break this to you, but not everyone on that list is really on your side.
IBM is mostly supporting Linux as a shtick rather than completely backing the system and it's ideals, they are not opening up their code in a great big flood of free IBM software.
Sun cannot keep it's mind set straight on what it thinks about damn near anything.
And no, Intel thinks that open isn't so good. It has outright refused requests for proper specs on it's hardware from open source developers that just want to make drivers.
Finally, Munich may have liked the LiMux deal more than the Windows one, but that conversion was halted because of Patent fears in the Union last I saw anything of it.
Re:There are more BSD than Linux boxes..
on
EuroBSDCon 2004
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
My OpenBSD can run most anything for Linux systems too, no modifications, just install some stuff from ports. Anyhow, on with the real post.
Unfortunately, to some it is trying to destroy the BSDs. I don't much like the Linux systems' users proclaiming how dead BSD is now because of Linux' existance, doesn't stop people from saying it. And in the other way, Linux systems' users don't take too kindly to BSD people talking about how screwed up the way the Linux operating systems are developed and how shitty the code is to read.
I would say that the two sides of the trolling have taken things that are partially based on fact and turned them into big stinking horse loads.
Such is life, BSDs have had their ability to penetrate the market limited by the existance of an alternative that some companies like to use in accordance with buzzwords.
Linux systems' development are less structured, from the kernel to the bringing together of the systems, at least from the eyes of anyone that has seen a more structured development style, this is seen as a bad thing. And the kernel code is not as well coded and commented as other systems, the functionality I cannot say is bad, but the reading is hard.
I would not say that this makes Linux a piece of crap out to destroy the BSDs, I would simply say that I greatly dislike the way it is developed. I also happen to prefer the more structured form of userland used by BSDs.
I prefer to take a look at things on a system by system basis, the one that to me makes the most sense is OpenBSD. It only needs one floppy and a nic to install, it has very clear man pages and as long as you read up first you are good to go for asking the community about damn near anything. That doesn't make Gentoo the evil anti-OpenBSD, nor is SuSE, Fedora, Slack or Mandrake; hell, I had a damned hard time trying to install any of them so I must be completely out there and outside the norm of computer users.
There are avantages to the way in which your kernel of choice is made and disadvantages; that your core developers don't control or know all the code is a disadvantage, that you have a far greater number of code submissions is an advantage. I may not agree with it, but that doesn't stop it, so keep going, it really won't hurt me any.
Re:NetBSD is faster and more scalable then OpenBSD
on
NetBSD 2.0 RC5 Tagged
·
· Score: 1
I didn't take it as an attack on me or anything, it is simply that one cannot expect other people to know everything that they do. I have read a few trans-operating system scalability tests, none of them really any good; so I cannot just magically know what one AC means in their post.
Federico there thinks these kinds of conferences should be expanded to be more of a bonding time for the various BSD related projects and I agree with that. However, he does not think they should be like the Hackathons of OpenBSD; I disagree there.
I think that it would be a very interesting thing to have a conference where as many developers as possible get together for a week long party and idea mixer.
One where the developers of things like OpenBGPd could talk straight to the developers of FreeBSD about how to properly integrate it, showing what was done to make it all work on OpenBSD and getting it to on FreeBSD.
Where people that make the systems and tools are face to face with one another and actually interact. How better can anyone spot the various pros and cons of the BSDs and improve on them then bringing together the people that work on the different codebases and getting them to talk and read eachother's stuff.
I am not saying that putting Darren Reed and Daniel Hartmeier in seats right next to each other would be the best thing, but getting people together really could help out the quality of all the projects.
Re:NetBSD is faster and more scalable then OpenBSD
on
NetBSD 2.0 RC5 Tagged
·
· Score: 1
Oh yes, of course, how silly of me. Instead of telling some anonymous poster why their post cannot really be taken seriously I should have just assumed what they were talking about; filling in any blanks and correcting faults myself. Oh and Netcraft has confirmed that BSD is dying, so I better stop using it.
I was not talking smack about NetBSD's architecture numbers, I was more saying they do alot of cross compiling; a bad idea in my eyes as you no longer know for sure that the system can rebuild itself.
Re:NetBSD is faster and more scalable then OpenBSD
on
NetBSD 2.0 RC5 Tagged
·
· Score: 1
Sorry about that, forgot to unselect HTML formatting.
Your post doesn't work very well for supporting
NetBSD nor Linux:
Which Linux distrobution was used? Which NetBSD release was used? OpenBSD? FreeBSD?
What tests were used to determine the scalability? Were the tests made fairly or optimized for one platform or system? Who ran them? Were developers contacted to help optimize the systems or were default installs used? What compilers were used? Which platform?
You need to put this information in a post for it to be taken seriously when you talk about a performance test of any kind.
NetBSD is not as secure as OpenBSD, there is no way one can prove otherwise, it is the way things are. Just as OpenBSD cannot claim to be on the most processor architectures, it simply isn't.
The NetBSD record for TCP/IP packet handling could probably be obtained by any system with a similar stack if the same test is done with them. If you are vaguely referring to the same record I think you are; then only NetBSD was tried for that test.
Once again, who did the test? What was used to test it? Etcetera...
I could care less what a university uses themselves; they also use Windows and Solaris. Perhaps if you said that MIT and NASA used it for their extremely important sevices and listed them it would matter to people.
Sure, NetBSD is a very slim looking operating system, I just happen to be doing her sister.
Re:NetBSD is faster and more scalable then OpenBSD
on
NetBSD 2.0 RC5 Tagged
·
· Score: 1
Your post doesn't work very well for supporting
NetBSD nor Linux:
Which Linux distrobution was used? Which NetBSD release was used? OpenBSD? FreeBSD?
What tests were used to determine the scalability? Were the tests made fairly or optimized for one platform or system? Who ran them? Were developers contacted to help optimize the systems or were default installs used? What compilers were used? Which platform?
You need to put this information in a post for it to be taken seriously when you talk about a performance test of any kind.
NetBSD is not as secure as OpenBSD, there is no way one can prove otherwise, it is the way things are. Just as OpenBSD cannot claim to be on the most processor architectures, it simply isn't.
The NetBSD record for TCP/IP packet handling could probably be obtained by any system with a similar stack if the same test is done with them. If you are vaguely referring to the same record I think you are; then only NetBSD was tried for that test.
Once again, who did the test? What was used to test it? Etcetera...
I could care less what a university uses themselves; they also use Windows and Solaris. Perhaps if you said that MIT and NASA used it for their extremely important sevices and listed them it would matter to people.
Sure, NetBSD is a very slim looking operating system, I just happen to be doing her sister.
You sure about that? Last hackathon there was a metric assload of improvements to the macppc port from what I hear; a fair number of developers use PowerBooks.
I realise that iBooks and PowerBooks use some different hardware, but the support should be there I'd think.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I mind mind you, I just didn't see why there have been to articles on OpenCVS starting up. At least this one isn't saying it was because OpenBSD hates the GPL and are trying to replace a GPL CVS system.
Luckily, it is times like this that I really am reasured that my choice to never buy one god damned thing they have touched is a good thing. More people should see things my way, but I am not a leader of men, I prefer to follow. Thus the unwashed masses generally don't see Electronic Arts for the bastards I that do.
Their "Challenge Everything" is just a hypocracy unless it applies soley to their worker's rights; the games they produce are just rehases of older games. They buy studios that come up with new ideas and run them into the ground.
I say good on 'em, perhaps it will show other people the light.
Thank you Anonymous Coward, your jackassery has shown me the light! Surely Linus can afford to buy every kind of computer in the world! I'm off to the Linux section to call Richard and Linus teabaggers and teabaggees for doing free software developement! There I shall call every Linux fundraiser and developer names and proclaim the death of free software!
Huzzah!
It has been in since at least OpenBSD 3.1, that much I know. I never used the 2.9 box anything but remotely.
Look real careful-like at the words used in the D.E.A.D.
The remade CVS because they already use CVS, they wish to keep their history in tact.
And Subversion is not, I repeat not, under a BSD license. It is like the Old Apache license, which is not a BSD license.
The money has almost all come in and the Mac should be bought or will be soon.
This is different, yes OpenBSD developers are working at removing GPL tools, but that does not mean they aren't replacing things of other less-free origin.
Replacing the GnuCVS with OpenCVS isn't just over a license; it is more that as long as they're doing such a massive undertaking, they may as well go a little further and start fresh with a better license.
What makes you think a smart user on a Linux system is more likely to report a problem then a smart user on a Windows system?
No, you're definately out there with your position. The Mozilla base has a much larger number of users, you cannot really argue the fact. There is a smaller number of people using Konquerer, I have nothing against the browser really, but that is the simple truth. Where there are more users, there are more people reporting their issues.
The whole thing of people wanting tcc has been around longer than I've known of OpenBSD though, since like 1998.
I was of a mind that if yas wanted a BSD compiler that bad you'd have taken a stronger stance and started making tcc work on the platforms. Since you hadn't, I pretty much figured you all had your hands full enough and didn't want to take on such a big project in addition the operating system itself.
Would be pretty neat to have an occ though, I could just see a Puff with a Paul Teutul Sr. "handlebar" styled mustache for the mascot.
This looks like the new Apache license with all the stupid patent crap and the Mozillia license put together, making it one of the worse licenses I've seen to be called open (though there is a chance it may never get the name, those are far too slim).
Karma: The total effect of someone's actions and conduct during their existance, positive actions being rewarded with gifts and negative actions resulting in punishment. Karma can be interpreted as the immediate reactions of the world to a person's actions or the result of actions taking in a previous life.
Nowhere within the defitition of karma does it say an ugly man may not have karma. By the very meaning of the word anyone and everything have a karma as long as it can pick what it does, anything with a will of it's own has karma.
You would be able to tell if I forked out "$" for it; I would have an asterisk (that little star sign on your keyboard, over the 8: Read "*").
I do not see why you anonymous people get so displeased with someone when instead of being a cockwad the try to be at least constructive in what they contribute.
I am not selling my ass or anything like that, I am simply saying my mind and people don't dislike what I say.
This isn't redundant.
Nor is this, though after reading it I wish I could edit it, oh such awful grammer.
My parental post here wasn't either; the one following it was, as it said basically the same thing as me.
Conforming, yes, I conform with people's standard views of what is reasonable and constructive and sometimes amusing, else I could not get anything high on the karma-whoring train.
More likely it is based on the number of users; you see, Mozilla works on Windows (you know, where the users are). With the increasing number of Mozillia users they have more people testing their stuff, Konquerer doesn't have that Windows user base.
I have Excellent karma because typically all I say are things like this; stuff which people are hard pressed to find insulting or inflamitory.
Unfortunately, I just ruined it by posting off topic.
It was started by some guy with a server, not a programmer. A project needs a lead that can actually lead it if it is to be a sucess, some guy that wants people to do some programming for him is not a lead but more of a figurehead.
BSD usage is on the rise, it has never stopped increasing in it's userbase.
BSD's overall market penetration on a purely single operating system basis (ie: take each Linux operating system as it's own operating system rather than they all being one operating system) is actually doing very good.
The sometimes conflicting personalities of major players in the BSD communities have resulted in some of the more interesting and vibrant projects around including a new idea for doing symmetric multiprocessing being implemented, a few new C functions which are better than their predecessors being created, a free SSH suite used by damn high most every operating system out there and many more things that would not have occured without these people having their own unique personalities.
BeOS is still poking around and Amiga based systems are as well, I guess that operating systems don't die.
Anyways, you guys need to be more original in your stupid trolls, they aren't entertaining, they aren't true and they don't even make sense half the time. You all need to go to a writing seminar. This stuff comes out like a really bad tabloid.
IBM is mostly supporting Linux as a shtick rather than completely backing the system and it's ideals, they are not opening up their code in a great big flood of free IBM software.
Sun cannot keep it's mind set straight on what it thinks about damn near anything.
And no, Intel thinks that open isn't so good. It has outright refused requests for proper specs on it's hardware from open source developers that just want to make drivers.
Finally, Munich may have liked the LiMux deal more than the Windows one, but that conversion was halted because of Patent fears in the Union last I saw anything of it.
Unfortunately, to some it is trying to destroy the BSDs. I don't much like the Linux systems' users proclaiming how dead BSD is now because of Linux' existance, doesn't stop people from saying it. And in the other way, Linux systems' users don't take too kindly to BSD people talking about how screwed up the way the Linux operating systems are developed and how shitty the code is to read.
I would say that the two sides of the trolling have taken things that are partially based on fact and turned them into big stinking horse loads.
Such is life, BSDs have had their ability to penetrate the market limited by the existance of an alternative that some companies like to use in accordance with buzzwords.
Linux systems' development are less structured, from the kernel to the bringing together of the systems, at least from the eyes of anyone that has seen a more structured development style, this is seen as a bad thing. And the kernel code is not as well coded and commented as other systems, the functionality I cannot say is bad, but the reading is hard.
I would not say that this makes Linux a piece of crap out to destroy the BSDs, I would simply say that I greatly dislike the way it is developed. I also happen to prefer the more structured form of userland used by BSDs.
I prefer to take a look at things on a system by system basis, the one that to me makes the most sense is OpenBSD. It only needs one floppy and a nic to install, it has very clear man pages and as long as you read up first you are good to go for asking the community about damn near anything. That doesn't make Gentoo the evil anti-OpenBSD, nor is SuSE, Fedora, Slack or Mandrake; hell, I had a damned hard time trying to install any of them so I must be completely out there and outside the norm of computer users.
There are avantages to the way in which your kernel of choice is made and disadvantages; that your core developers don't control or know all the code is a disadvantage, that you have a far greater number of code submissions is an advantage. I may not agree with it, but that doesn't stop it, so keep going, it really won't hurt me any.
I didn't take it as an attack on me or anything, it is simply that one cannot expect other people to know everything that they do. I have read a few trans-operating system scalability tests, none of them really any good; so I cannot just magically know what one AC means in their post.
I think that it would be a very interesting thing to have a conference where as many developers as possible get together for a week long party and idea mixer.
One where the developers of things like OpenBGPd could talk straight to the developers of FreeBSD about how to properly integrate it, showing what was done to make it all work on OpenBSD and getting it to on FreeBSD.
Where people that make the systems and tools are face to face with one another and actually interact. How better can anyone spot the various pros and cons of the BSDs and improve on them then bringing together the people that work on the different codebases and getting them to talk and read eachother's stuff.
I am not saying that putting Darren Reed and Daniel Hartmeier in seats right next to each other would be the best thing, but getting people together really could help out the quality of all the projects.
I was not talking smack about NetBSD's architecture numbers, I was more saying they do alot of cross compiling; a bad idea in my eyes as you no longer know for sure that the system can rebuild itself.
Your post doesn't work very well for supporting NetBSD nor Linux:
Which Linux distrobution was used? Which NetBSD release was used? OpenBSD? FreeBSD?
What tests were used to determine the scalability? Were the tests made fairly or optimized for one platform or system? Who ran them? Were developers contacted to help optimize the systems or were default installs used? What compilers were used? Which platform?
You need to put this information in a post for it to be taken seriously when you talk about a performance test of any kind.
NetBSD is not as secure as OpenBSD, there is no way one can prove otherwise, it is the way things are. Just as OpenBSD cannot claim to be on the most processor architectures, it simply isn't.
The NetBSD record for TCP/IP packet handling could probably be obtained by any system with a similar stack if the same test is done with them. If you are vaguely referring to the same record I think you are; then only NetBSD was tried for that test.
Once again, who did the test? What was used to test it? Etcetera...
I could care less what a university uses themselves; they also use Windows and Solaris. Perhaps if you said that MIT and NASA used it for their extremely important sevices and listed them it would matter to people.
Sure, NetBSD is a very slim looking operating system, I just happen to be doing her sister.
Your post doesn't work very well for supporting NetBSD nor Linux: Which Linux distrobution was used? Which NetBSD release was used? OpenBSD? FreeBSD? What tests were used to determine the scalability? Were the tests made fairly or optimized for one platform or system? Who ran them? Were developers contacted to help optimize the systems or were default installs used? What compilers were used? Which platform? You need to put this information in a post for it to be taken seriously when you talk about a performance test of any kind. NetBSD is not as secure as OpenBSD, there is no way one can prove otherwise, it is the way things are. Just as OpenBSD cannot claim to be on the most processor architectures, it simply isn't. The NetBSD record for TCP/IP packet handling could probably be obtained by any system with a similar stack if the same test is done with them. If you are vaguely referring to the same record I think you are; then only NetBSD was tried for that test. Once again, who did the test? What was used to test it? Etcetera... I could care less what a university uses themselves; they also use Windows and Solaris. Perhaps if you said that MIT and NASA used it for their extremely important sevices and listed them it would matter to people. Sure, NetBSD is a very slim looking operating system, I just happen to be doing her sister.
I realise that iBooks and PowerBooks use some different hardware, but the support should be there I'd think.