I am seriously waiting for Stallman to get a hair cut and start acting like Stalin, he's slowly growing his list of enemies and each time people seem to be less and less alarmed by is crazed behaviour.
When Linus dies and Stallman takes a greater control of the Free Software nutters, well, then we'll see how deep the madness of this man goes. The Users' Revolution will probably not be as bloody, but it will be just as good for the Users as Stalin's leadership of the People was.
It's supposed to be comparable to the FreeBSD 5 series for speeds, I've seen no benchmarks against the newer 6 series, but can assume they're still within a pretty reasonable range of eachother, not too much else unless you want to run on a platform other than i386.
As far as OpenBSD comparisons go; performs better overall, less secure, pf is not integrated into the system as tighly, and it's support of it's various platforms aren't always as good as those of OpenBSD's, since they do their support through cross compiling instead of native work.
You may prefer NetBSD's speed over OpenBSD or NetBSD's support for alternative platforms, it's all in what you're trying to do.
Re:The VAX port stopped working a long time ago
on
NetBSD v3.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's funny, on OpenBSD stories people ask for cross compiling and on NetBSD stories people talk smack about it. Not that you're wrong, cause you're not. I just find that funny that the OpenBSD people are always saying why cross compiling isn't an answer when NetBSD fans talk about it on OpenBSD stories and here it is spilling in the opposite direction.
It may not have anything to do with the slashdot posting at all, they may have already gotten more than enough critical commentary about the old-new name that they decided it would avoid further problems to just go back, and then the slashdot posting just really pissed them off.
Don't forget, when you presume, you make a pres out of u and me.
Ah yes, so you're one of the people that believe that replacing a hundred year old tree with a sapling is being an environmentalist?
That's maintaining your own industry, not helping the environment. That'd be like, oh, I dunno, sending some of the used water back into the lake you draw from if you're a Coke bottling plant.
No, we're the ones logging the shit out of BC and selling it to you Americans, so you can tax the shit out of us against the terms of the NAFTA. That we know about it and keep logging anyways means we can't really be such big environmentalists.
We have more natural resources and are generally more socialistic in our views, but we have greedy, evil money-grubbing companies just the same as you. Like where you have the evil lobby group the MPAA, the CMPDA lobbies here.
Re:some improvements to the OSPF daemon
on
OpenBSD 3.8 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
This is the second release of OpenBSD that the daemon has been available in. The deamon hasn't had a portable release yet, that's all.
Since noone has been bothered to try adding the portability goop to the daemon and send in patches there hasn't been one. You going to step up and give out some code?
They do use available drivers, they port drivers from NetBSD and FreeBSD all the time. They also read through that code and modify it to run with the kernel.
If you mean Linux-kernel drivers, no, because all drivers in OpenBSD are a part of the kernel and GPL code does not get added to the OpenBSD codebase.
Right on fatcatman, most people aren't even smart enough to know how to use their car right, let alone understand how to navigate a windows-based graphical interface. How do you think they will react to one that depends more on the command line? You'll end up with people who refuse to use their systems if you try to get them on a Linux distribution, because a text command is scarey.
Unix-like systems are not for all operating system users and operating systems are not for all people. Hell, do you realise how many people cannot manage to set a clock on a VCR or microwave?
Unless you are you cannot say that this will or will not do something.
If the benefits of using OpenBSD are seen to be significant enough, with a smaller budget, then the international big-wigs may actually look into how they can further lighten the bill for their technical needs through further usage of such systems.
If one of the heads of the company notices the change and likes it, they can in fact cause a domino effect over the entire company.
Ah, but it is you who are incorrect. Once people truly do look around they realise that your "Open Source" is a very small niche section of an already small group of people that support varying levels of openness and restriction on the release of source code for programmes and operating systems. Your crusade to gain control of a general term for a specific usage is foolhardy and I cannot see any reason why your organisation even bothers to do it.
It's like Eric Raymond and his idiotic bazaar/cathedral nonsense, he's a complete loon that some people listen to for Lord knows what reason and think that what he says has some sort of power behind it.
He's diluted too. Like your organization, of which he is associated so it explains a fair bit, Eric could do with a good leukotomy, because the bits in charge are really messed up.
And you, friendless, brainless, helpless, hopeless! Do you want me to send you back to where you were? Unemployed! In Greenland!
If the open door has a sign saying, "do not enter." Then yes, it's not possible to pass through the door. That would be the wrong thing to do. That doesn't say you cannot see through the door, you just can't go in. Are you saying that an open door with a half dozen locks suddenly is good to go through then? What if the window is broken, does that mean the door is good to go through?
You're just trying to redefine something that is much broader, your nonsense about being able to make derivatives is just as bad as the Free Software Foundation trying to redefine the meaning of Freedom.
Open source, in it's purest meaning, is something that allows you to see the source, nothing more. If I make a licence that doesn't allow anything, not even the compilation of binaries, but release the source under it, it's still open source.
You people are just nutcases trying to make your own opinion a fact, which rubs me so very, very wrong.
It's madness, like you're trying to take things away from other people, take away the meaning of a word, so that you alone possess that word. Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
Who cares if it's compatible with the GPL? The GPL isn't the only open source licence. And who cares if the OSI supports these new licences? The OSI doesn't actually hold any power or significance. All the OSI does is state their opinion, just like the FSF, they tell people that something agrees with them, hardly a big deal. They don't actually have any authority over what is or isn't open source.
You do get what you ask for around here, if you hate on the central topic of the article you're either going to be supported or attacked, you just hated on a BSD in a BSD article, instantly making you an overrated flamebaiting troll.
If you'd just chosen not to make a dumbass comment you'd not have had the horrific loss of karma. You know, if you don't have anything nice to say, and care about your karma, don't say anything at all.
If you read their damned FAQ you'd know that it is going to be GPL. The only thing stipulated will be that code submitted to them will be granted to them, so they can continue to multilicence it including patches from outside contributors.
That's nothing, they consistantly reject 2/3s of the stories I submit, and the stories I submit have never once been duplicated in the days surrounding my submissions. Infact, I had submitted about when OpenBSD 3.8 went to beta and Theo called for testers and nothing, hell noone else seems to have gotten it through to the newspage. Not even the release of the 3.8 music got through.
The editors just don't like getting too many BSD articles in a short time I think.
Yeah, when I first saw the site I was expecting the to see phrases like, "using our optimal community user-base, FreeBSD intensely expands its marketecture through a synergy between private and public parties which desire optimum performance on the Intel architecture," or, "through the maturation of our dynamic enterprise system, FreeBSD has engineered the means for swift, clean and easy vulnerability handling, taking the worry away from end-users," and, "with FreeBSD's worldwide penetration of the enterprise server market, FreeBSD has become one of the most essential operating systems to have in your NOC.
You know what I mean? I thought we'd see; "In today's ever-shifting market one must dynamically synergize when the chance arises, in order to properly facilitate the introduction of vital new resources for the further progressive development of their intellectual property portfolio."
Or at least something more along the lines of, "here's where it all comes together in one operating system; Middleware, Applications and Management Tools."
Slashdot Mirror
I am seriously waiting for Stallman to get a hair cut and start acting like Stalin, he's slowly growing his list of enemies and each time people seem to be less and less alarmed by is crazed behaviour.
When Linus dies and Stallman takes a greater control of the Free Software nutters, well, then we'll see how deep the madness of this man goes. The Users' Revolution will probably not be as bloody, but it will be just as good for the Users as Stalin's leadership of the People was.
It's supposed to be comparable to the FreeBSD 5 series for speeds, I've seen no benchmarks against the newer 6 series, but can assume they're still within a pretty reasonable range of eachother, not too much else unless you want to run on a platform other than i386.
As far as OpenBSD comparisons go; performs better overall, less secure, pf is not integrated into the system as tighly, and it's support of it's various platforms aren't always as good as those of OpenBSD's, since they do their support through cross compiling instead of native work.
You may prefer NetBSD's speed over OpenBSD or NetBSD's support for alternative platforms, it's all in what you're trying to do.
It's funny, on OpenBSD stories people ask for cross compiling and on NetBSD stories people talk smack about it. Not that you're wrong, cause you're not. I just find that funny that the OpenBSD people are always saying why cross compiling isn't an answer when NetBSD fans talk about it on OpenBSD stories and here it is spilling in the opposite direction.
When the code is good, clean, free and something the developers want.
You did say your crazy distribution is easier, that would imply that OpenBSD is harder.
It's called a joke son, obviously you've never heard of the saying, "when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me."
Don't forget, when you presume, you make a pres out of u and me.
That's maintaining your own industry, not helping the environment. That'd be like, oh, I dunno, sending some of the used water back into the lake you draw from if you're a Coke bottling plant.
We have more natural resources and are generally more socialistic in our views, but we have greedy, evil money-grubbing companies just the same as you. Like where you have the evil lobby group the MPAA, the CMPDA lobbies here.
Since noone has been bothered to try adding the portability goop to the daemon and send in patches there hasn't been one. You going to step up and give out some code?
If you mean Linux-kernel drivers, no, because all drivers in OpenBSD are a part of the kernel and GPL code does not get added to the OpenBSD codebase.
Unix-like systems are not for all operating system users and operating systems are not for all people. Hell, do you realise how many people cannot manage to set a clock on a VCR or microwave?
Unless you are you cannot say that this will or will not do something.
If the benefits of using OpenBSD are seen to be significant enough, with a smaller budget, then the international big-wigs may actually look into how they can further lighten the bill for their technical needs through further usage of such systems.
If one of the heads of the company notices the change and likes it, they can in fact cause a domino effect over the entire company.
It's like Eric Raymond and his idiotic bazaar/cathedral nonsense, he's a complete loon that some people listen to for Lord knows what reason and think that what he says has some sort of power behind it.
He's diluted too. Like your organization, of which he is associated so it explains a fair bit, Eric could do with a good leukotomy, because the bits in charge are really messed up.
And you, friendless, brainless, helpless, hopeless! Do you want me to send you back to where you were? Unemployed! In Greenland!
An open door does not mean an open building.
Go away or I'll call the brutesquad.
Open source, in it's purest meaning, is something that allows you to see the source, nothing more. If I make a licence that doesn't allow anything, not even the compilation of binaries, but release the source under it, it's still open source.
You people are just nutcases trying to make your own opinion a fact, which rubs me so very, very wrong.
It's madness, like you're trying to take things away from other people, take away the meaning of a word, so that you alone possess that word. Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
Who cares if it's compatible with the GPL? The GPL isn't the only open source licence. And who cares if the OSI supports these new licences? The OSI doesn't actually hold any power or significance. All the OSI does is state their opinion, just like the FSF, they tell people that something agrees with them, hardly a big deal. They don't actually have any authority over what is or isn't open source.
And what ever happened to trimming down the number of licences that the OSI backs? I thought they were trying to trim it down to the GPL, BSD and MPL?
If you'd just chosen not to make a dumbass comment you'd not have had the horrific loss of karma. You know, if you don't have anything nice to say, and care about your karma, don't say anything at all.
DragonFly BSD is clean and it is stable with it's releases, so you are wrong.
DragonFly BSD's next release will use pkgsrc, the NetBSD package management system - so you're ignorant.
So you know nothing and believe nonsense, how lovely, keep your bullcrap to yourself.
Are you on crack or something?
If you read their damned FAQ you'd know that it is going to be GPL. The only thing stipulated will be that code submitted to them will be granted to them, so they can continue to multilicence it including patches from outside contributors.
Well, if you use Opera at least.
The editors just don't like getting too many BSD articles in a short time I think.
You know what I mean? I thought we'd see; "In today's ever-shifting market one must dynamically synergize when the chance arises, in order to properly facilitate the introduction of vital new resources for the further progressive development of their intellectual property portfolio."
Or at least something more along the lines of, "here's where it all comes together in one operating system; Middleware, Applications and Management Tools."