Nope, FreeBSD is a proper thing to say. They've imported some release from RELENG_3 (Can't recall which) to start with.
It's also based on Mach, which is cousins (second?) with FreeBSD. Or is Mach's FreeBSD's uncle? No, cousions seem right as Mach's is BSD's son. Semantics, bah! Anyhow, so this _does_ make Darwin kinda incestfull..
Re:about this fs argument.
on
Bostic on BSD
·
· Score: 2
This is a fairly moot argument, and I'll explain why in a moment.
FreeBSD, out of the box, mounts all of the filesystems with synchronous I/O. This isn't the fastest thing to do, but async is a _very_ dangerous thing to do, and isn't considered safe for mission critical deployment.
Now, the vast majority of BSD users use softupdates. These let safe writes to be performed, and crushing the speed of even async in many ways. Read more at http://www.mckusick.com/
The point is, you've got ext2 which is either slow and reliable or fast and easily corrupted, or FFS/Softupdates which is fast and doesn't corrupt easily.
Re:Just wait for the cardinal shortage
on
Netscape 6
·
· Score: 1
IPv5 is multicast. And I'm sure Word 3 is what Word '97 is called somewhere. (Forgive me if I've gotten the years wrong, I'm not too up to date on my microsoft programs)
Netscape 5... I don't know. I'm hearing conflicting reports... but you've got to remember that the engineering is 10% of a product's sucess and the marketing 90%. Take all version numbers with a grain of salt if you don't understand fully what they mean.
Lawton owned bochs. Lawton could have relicensed bochs at any time if he felt it was needed- why didn't he? Because of the money. Lawton has to eat, and therefore stated that he'd keep bochs as a revenue source. It isn't significant that bochs is being relicensed, it is significant that Lawton was hired.
Linux was written from scratch, and never contained any UNIX code. It wasn't based on patches to UNIX. Its authors did not have UNIX source. The only thing it inherits is its feel- which to most purists, isn't enough.
To draw an analogy to the logic behind this: Linux isn't the son of UNIX. It's a kid who happens to have an eerie resembalance to UNIX, dress like UNIX, act like UNIX, and copy UNIX in many ways. But, despite all of the similarities, they aren't technically related.
Re:Concerns about OpenBSD remarks in all the posts
on
FreeBSD 4.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Might I add that if you've ever audited code, it isn't easy. Many, many things slip through. Hell, go to www.openbsd.org and read the errata for 2.6, 2.5, etc. There are tons of security fixes.
I'm not convinced that OpenBSD's "increased security" is significant enough to justify using it over FreeBSD or NetBSD. Except I'm going to be likely to start off a religious war with THIS one.
You don't think our ancestors could afford to share the dead carcases of animals with others? Or even not pick up good meat he found for later? Greed has let the human race survive. We'd be dead without it- and it certainly isn't taught. Little babies are greedy too. Try having your average 2 year old share. It's instinctual, not cultural
I realize this. Lite/2 was CSRG's followup with bugfixes. But this isn't the major, painful merge that you make it out to be. It wasn't something that had to be done for 3.0, or technically had to be done at all.
So it isn't an excuse for the time of the release cycle (which doesn't need an excuse, by the way), is my point. Using the fixes in lite2 didn't make the path to RELENG_3 harder. It made it easier.
Yes, they amount to much. The system is overall _very_ snappy, regardless of load.
I use FreeBSD on all of my workstations. I don't know why one would see Linux as more fit- I'm running linux-netscape, wordperfect8, staroffice, etc. As for hardware, multimedia or otherwise, Linux and FreeBSD are about equal. FreeBSD has the edge on things like USB and NICs. FreeBSD supports TV cards and all of those other toys too.. Go read LINT for a good idea on the hardware supported in kernel:) (http://bugg.strangled.net/LINT)
My last linux installs were debian 2.0 hamm and redhat 5.something
Yes, FreeBSD's installer is considered the most userfriendly. I find an install easier, and more powerful (Do a "Standard" install, the power of Custom is there, except it makes it harder for you to shoot yourself in the foot) than either of these two Linux distributions.
Yes, you can set up XFree86 during installation. With either Windowmaker, fvwm, KDE, or Enlightment (maybe another choice?)
Yes, a FreeBSD install should be very easy to install and use./stand/sysinstall will hold your hand while you get used to the system./usr/ports will make software installation easy. You don't outgrow ports (But you'll outgrow sysinstall for post-installation administration)
Because the CSRG didn't write their OS from scratch and instead started with UNIX, you needed a UNIX source license to get BSD. When they were preparing their final release, they had two versions planned: 4.4BSD Encumbered (Which is like all of the other BSDs, source license required) and 4.4BSD Lite (Which had no UNIX source in it)
Check http://www.sco.com/offers/ancient_unix.html for information on getting a unix source license for free if you can fufill some requirements.
Yes AC, I know your knoweldge of UNIX history is sketchy:)
A license is like a contract, and if there is a termination clause, it can be terminated if the requirements are fufilled.
Even more blantantly wrong is your UNIX history.
AT&T and then Bell Labs after the monopoly was broken up has _always_ had UNIX as a commerical product. For tax purposes, educational institutions could get a source license cheap.
BSD was, and still is with the exception of the Lite versions, dependant on UNIX source. Which is why you need a unix source license to get BSD (encumbered) source. (Although you can get one for personal use for free as of a couple weeks ago) UNIX never was, and still isn't, in the public domain.
Moderators, shame on you for moderating up stuff that is incorrect:P
For one, there was and still is no problem with BSD/OS intergrating FreeBSD into its own product. You're free to do that whenever you want.
1. They wouldn't have had to merge to accompilsh this 2. If they contribute _one_ more (they've contributed stuff in the past) thing (And they've stated intent to contribute everything save code under NDA) to FreeBSD, it's all good. We aren't reliant on them to, but it'd be great. 3. Perhaps more important than the source base is the fact that BSDI has money and resources. This is A Good Thing.
As a desktop machine, the differences in speed shouldn't be too noticable for either side- when the VM system doesn't have to swap out pages (read: most desktop work on today's computer) the kernel isn't too stressed for I/O or CPU time, hence the system load isn't that high.
FreeBSD's VM system has been tweaked, fiddled with, and rewritten for 4.0 (by Matt Dillon) for efficent swapping. It swaps out idle pages when there is free I/O even if there is more physical ram available- so if a sudden demand for pages to be ran came up, it could easily kill one of the pages in ram as a copy exists on the swap, and then create another- so you aren't too stressed and swap out like mad when you need it.
I don't think Linux has preemptive swapping, and if it does it is new, and I'm doubtful that it is as mature.
Try putting the boxes under serious load and try again.
Actually, google has been switching over many of its boxen from Linux to FreeBSD. On a side note, Google is going the whole nine yards embracing BSD- they are considering setting up a BSD-specific search engine, not unlike their current linux engine. (I've talked to a guy from google about this, more at http://daily.daemonnews.org/view_story.php3?story_ id=562)
So, they aren't really a linux or a FreeBSD camp. Currently, they are both.
Re:Free speech, not free beer!
on
Giving Back
·
· Score: 1
BSD/OS has and MINIX used to have licenses where you paid for the source, and changes could be distributed only to other people with source licenses. Free in some sense of the word, non-free in others.
Re:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
on
Brainball!
·
· Score: 1
This may be off topic, jfunk, but I need your help.
Can you just help me move my sofa out of the hallway?
Linux doesn't count because IPv6 is both kernel and userland, and it will only "count" when there is a distribution that includes ipv6-ready userland tools as well as kernel sources that don't need external patches to turn on IPv6.
Slashdot Mirror
If OS/X "falls behind" (behind what?), that's because Apple was sleeping on the job. It'd be no different than if "OS 9 fell behind"
It's also based on Mach, which is cousins (second?) with FreeBSD. Or is Mach's FreeBSD's uncle? No, cousions seem right as Mach's is BSD's son. Semantics, bah! Anyhow, so this _does_ make Darwin kinda incestfull..
FreeBSD, out of the box, mounts all of the filesystems with synchronous I/O. This isn't the fastest thing to do, but async is a _very_ dangerous thing to do, and isn't considered safe for mission critical deployment.
Now, the vast majority of BSD users use softupdates. These let safe writes to be performed, and crushing the speed of even async in many ways. Read more at http://www.mckusick.com/
The point is, you've got ext2 which is either slow and reliable or fast and easily corrupted, or FFS/Softupdates which is fast and doesn't corrupt easily.
Have a nice day.
More like open-source community.
IPv5 is multicast. And I'm sure Word 3 is what Word '97 is called somewhere. (Forgive me if I've gotten the years wrong, I'm not too up to date on my microsoft programs)
Netscape 5... I don't know. I'm hearing conflicting reports... but you've got to remember that the engineering is 10% of a product's sucess and the marketing 90%. Take all version numbers with a grain of salt if you don't understand fully what they mean.
Lawton owned bochs. Lawton could have relicensed bochs at any time if he felt it was needed- why didn't he? Because of the money. Lawton has to eat, and therefore stated that he'd keep bochs as a revenue source. It isn't significant that bochs is being relicensed, it is significant that Lawton was hired.
To draw an analogy to the logic behind this:
Linux isn't the son of UNIX. It's a kid who happens to have an eerie resembalance to UNIX, dress like UNIX, act like UNIX, and copy UNIX in many ways. But, despite all of the similarities, they aren't technically related.
I'm not convinced that OpenBSD's "increased security" is significant enough to justify using it over FreeBSD or NetBSD. Except I'm going to be likely to start off a religious war with THIS one.
You don't think our ancestors could afford to share the dead carcases of animals with others? Or even not pick up good meat he found for later? Greed has let the human race survive. We'd be dead without it- and it certainly isn't taught. Little babies are greedy too. Try having your average 2 year old share. It's instinctual, not cultural
I realize this. Lite/2 was CSRG's followup with bugfixes. But this isn't the major, painful merge that you make it out to be. It wasn't something that had to be done for 3.0, or technically had to be done at all.
So it isn't an excuse for the time of the release cycle (which doesn't need an excuse, by the way), is my point. Using the fixes in lite2 didn't make the path to RELENG_3 harder. It made it easier.
I use FreeBSD on all of my workstations. I don't know why one would see Linux as more fit- I'm running linux-netscape, wordperfect8, staroffice, etc. As for hardware, multimedia or otherwise, Linux and FreeBSD are about equal. FreeBSD has the edge on things like USB and NICs. FreeBSD supports TV cards and all of those other toys too.. Go read LINT for a good idea on the hardware supported in kernel :) (http://bugg.strangled.net/LINT)
My last linux installs were debian 2.0 hamm and redhat 5.something
Yes, FreeBSD's installer is considered the most userfriendly. I find an install easier, and more powerful (Do a "Standard" install, the power of Custom is there, except it makes it harder for you to shoot yourself in the foot) than either of these two Linux distributions.
Yes, you can set up XFree86 during installation. With either Windowmaker, fvwm, KDE, or Enlightment (maybe another choice?)
Yes, a FreeBSD install should be very easy to install and use. /stand/sysinstall will hold your hand while you get used to the system. /usr/ports will make software installation easy. You don't outgrow ports (But you'll outgrow sysinstall for post-installation administration)
2.2.8->3.0 was aout-to-elf, however.
Because the CSRG didn't write their OS from scratch and instead
:)
started with UNIX, you needed a UNIX source license to get BSD.
When they were preparing their final release, they had two versions planned:
4.4BSD Encumbered (Which is like all of the other BSDs, source license required)
and 4.4BSD Lite (Which had no UNIX source in it)
Check http://www.sco.com/offers/ancient_unix.html for information on getting a unix source license for free if you can fufill some requirements.
Yes AC, I know your knoweldge of UNIX history is sketchy
A license is like a contract, and if there is a termination clause, it can be terminated if the requirements are fufilled.
Even more blantantly wrong is your UNIX history.
AT&T and then Bell Labs after the monopoly was broken up has _always_ had UNIX as a commerical product. For tax purposes, educational institutions could get a source license cheap.
BSD was, and still is with the exception of the Lite versions, dependant on UNIX source. Which is why you need a unix source license to get BSD (encumbered) source. (Although you can get one for personal use for free as of a couple weeks ago) UNIX never was, and still isn't, in the public domain.
Moderators, shame on you for moderating up stuff that is incorrect :P
1. They wouldn't have had to merge to accompilsh this
2. If they contribute _one_ more (they've contributed stuff in the past) thing (And they've stated intent to contribute everything save code under NDA) to FreeBSD, it's all good. We aren't reliant on them to, but it'd be great.
3. Perhaps more important than the source base is the fact that BSDI has money and resources. This is A Good Thing.
FreeBSD's VM system has been tweaked, fiddled with, and rewritten for 4.0 (by Matt Dillon) for efficent swapping. It swaps out idle pages when there is free I/O even if there is more physical ram available- so if a sudden demand for pages to be ran came up, it could easily kill one of the pages in ram as a copy exists on the swap, and then create another- so you aren't too stressed and swap out like mad when you need it.
I don't think Linux has preemptive swapping, and if it does it is new, and I'm doubtful that it is as mature.
Try putting the boxes under serious load and try again.
Actually, google has been switching over many of its boxen from Linux to FreeBSD._ id=562)
On a side note, Google is going the whole nine yards embracing BSD- they are considering setting up a BSD-specific search engine, not unlike their current linux engine. (I've talked to a guy from google about this, more at http://daily.daemonnews.org/view_story.php3?story
So, they aren't really a linux or a FreeBSD camp. Currently, they are both.
BSD/OS has and MINIX used to have licenses where you paid for the source, and changes could be distributed only to other people with source licenses. Free in some sense of the word, non-free in others.
Can you just help me move my sofa out of the hallway?
Linux doesn't count because IPv6 is both kernel and userland, and it will only "count" when there is a distribution that includes ipv6-ready userland tools as well as kernel sources that don't need external patches to turn on IPv6.
All the kids are doing it =)
Most radio stations use(d) audio CD players with caddies.. not something too popular in the home market, however.
I say used because a lot of them don't even use CDs anymore.
Perhaps I'm not seeing something, but I can think of very few situations in which 128-bits is a definite advantage over 64.
Bits != total computational power, people.