There are ISO's but they only include the boot image and install program.
With that said, it's easy enough to just create your own ISO using the boot ISO's. With a little shell scripting, you can totally automate pulling the install files off the FTP's and creating ISO's with them. Running my script makes me images for i386, sparc32, sparc64, and alpha all at once, including a copy of the source, ports, and all the packages I commonly use for each, which is read from a pkg_info dump.
Do you actually know anything about how FreeBSD and OpenBSD are developed?
FreeBSD has separate branches, -STABLE and -CURRENT for a reason. Only stable and PROVEN features are merged into -STABLE. NetBSD does not test features this thoroughly; they simply don't have anywhere near the base of users to test them.
OpenBSD on the other hand audits all its code line by line.
If anything, I would say NetBSD is the quickest to bring new features in.
Linux running on other operating systems is useful in a production environment how exactly?
The point of running Windows is the apps. The point of running Linux is the kernel. Why would you want to run Linux apps on a Windows kernel, getting the worst of both worlds?
Likewise, there really is no reason to run Linux on top of BSD. Native versions can be compiled easily enough, and you can run linux binaries anyway for the closed source apps out there.
Just because Linux supports something doesn't mean it supports it well. A lot of what is "supported" is beta quality at best. Just because Linux has looser standards on what it considers production ready doesn't mean everything it doesn't explicitly state as beta is production ready.
When NetBSD has a port in its main support branch on the other hand, you will have the same consistent quality and reliability as other architectures.
For the last year, I've mainly used fluxbox but just recently I installed GNOME2 and I am quite pleased with it.
My most major gripe is that you have to restart the whole thing in order for menu changes to be updated. I don't remember this being an issue in GNOME1, and I find it quite tedious to have to close everything and restart GNOME to see if the menu changes I made worked like I wanted them to.
Just because SCO would've been able to distribute their own distro for Linux under its own license if the Linux kernel used BSD licensing doesn't mean that the Linux kernel would stop being free for everyone else. So how exactly would SCO hijack it? They'd be able to sell linux for a profit (like they do anyway), and everyone could still use linux for free.
Re:Why is this a good thing?
on
Announcing WiFiBSD
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Thus the WiFi vendor does not adopt linux, and no one benefits because of the restrictiveness of the GPL.
On the other hand, that same WiFi vendor adopts BSD since it can without any negative repercussions. Although it is not legally compelled to disclose its modification, it still makes good business sense for the vendor to support the BSD community since their products are based on it. It is thus likely for them to make some contribution, the extent depending on the vendor's management. In any event, the BSD community has benefitted.
In addition, the consumers of that vendor's product benefit. The savings of the vendor over producing something inhouse or purchasing from a 3rd party can be passed on to consumers. As well, the consumers receive a quality product based on tried and true BSD.
Thus, plenty of good things come from the vendor's adoption of BSD. Nothing good results when the vendor simply decides not to use linux.
Improvements over PicoBSD?
on
Announcing WiFiBSD
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Running a BSD based wireless router off a floppy has been possible with PicoBSD for years. I fail to see how WiFiBSD accomplishes anything, aside from distributing the floppy image, which has already been done by theWall
There are a few fallacies to your argument.
1) Development does not stop on Project Foo because it is used as the base of a commercial product. What if in that same amount of time, Project Foo increases performance by 25?
2) Even if development stagnates on Project Foo itself, it still offers the same functionality as it originally did, remaining an equally apt tool for the job. The fact that a better tool exists out there may or may not make it more desirable, depending on your budget, but does not affect Project Foo's ability to meet its original requirements, as those have not changed.
The BSD license is more free in the sense that there are no restrictions to how it's used, whereas the GPL is more free in a monetary sense. People who release code under BSD are interested in people benefiting from its use, be it in a free or commercial product. The GPL on the other hand ensures that improvements are available to the public, if the original author sees fit. There is no guarantee that he does.
He included the commercial unices that he did because they were certified. He included Linux and the *BSD's because they are open source. A better question would be why he included BSD/OS, which I would either attribute to his lumping them in with the *BSD's, or because it's a direct competitor to SCO on the IA32 platform.
Also, Mac OSX may be widely deployed for desktops, but its share of the server market is even smaller than its share of the MS dominated desktop market.
In any event, there is not much reason to draw a comparison between SCO and Mac OSX, which is probably why he excluded mentioning it. He also left out IRIX and HP-UX by the way, so his list was hardly exhaustive bar Mac OSX.
It tells you that you need to futs around and configure things. If I wanted to do that, I'd install stuff by hand. I just want to update my ports - I don't think that's too much to ask.
I say it is too much to ask. When it comes to FreeBSD, editing files by hand goes with the territory. Why should the developers waste their valuable time making something already mind-numbingly simple into a completely thoughtless task? That's not in line with the goals of the project nor should it be.
Why do BSD users have to brag about how l33t they are?
Because sometimes, they let their indignation get the better of them. Especially when they see how the exact same arguments Linux users use against Windows can also be used against Linux.
I'm sure the BSDs rock, but they are still much harder to leap into.
As someone who's used Linux, Solaris, and IRIX, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to learn FreeBSD. Some people often confuse pretty installer colours with user-friendliness. FreeBSD's ncurses installer is menu based, and in my opinion quite simple and straightforward (Definitely easier than Slackware, Debian, or Gentoo in my opinion). The FreeBSD handbook will walk you through almost anything, and is clear and easy to understand. The other BSD's are another story.
Just because someone doesn't run EVERYTHING in Linux doesn't mean they can't have an advanced understanding of Linux.
Slashdot is about providing information, so that the readers can decide what the best solution is for a given problem. As much as people would like to push Linux's merits in every possible category, it simply isn't always the best option available.
Windows is still the best choice for gaming, as most games are still only developed for it. It is still the best choice for web browsing, as most websites are designed with Internet Explorer in mind. For many, these are the two most important functions of a desktop computer, so it makes sense for someone to run Windows most of the time.
At the same time, this same Windows user may run other machines as well, which may or may not include a Linux machine. They may have an intimate knowledge of Linux, program for Linux, or even develop Linux kernel code.
I like to play games, so I run Windows on my most powerful machine. And since it is my most powerful machine, I spend more time on it than on any of my other machines. However, I also run a multitude of other boxen at home, including 3 FreeBSD, 2 OpenBSD, 1 IRIX, 1 Solaris, and 2 Linux. I perform a variety of tasks on these other machines, and each is customized for its function. I would say I know *nix, and Linux, quite well. However, I still run Windows on my main machine. Not because I don't know Linux, but because I use "the right tool for the job".
So, the point is, for someone to slashdot from IE doesn't prove they're a Linux newbie, it just proves they're not a Linux zealot.
You can do this with PicoBSD.
http://people.freebsd.org/~picobsd/picobsd.html
Note that to build your own customized version (for CD), you will need a working install of FreeBSD.
The GPL does not stop you from releasing your own code under any other licence; it can't. It can stop you from releasing code incorporating somebody else's GPLed code, but then again that's the point-- to protect the original author from having their code used in a way they don't want.
What happens if the author of the work you derived your code from decides to disclose all the changes to the source you have made? Now, what happens if your work is the 10 generation derivative of a GPL work? I don't know what free means to you, but to me if there are strings attached, it's not free.
The BSD license on the other pretty much lets you do anything you want with the code, as long as you don't sue the author if it breaks. To me, this is true licensing freedom.
Here's why FreeBSD decided against the GPL: http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=278 Jordan Hubbard: There was never any consideration of using the GPL. We liked the BSD license specifically because it's flexible, simple and short. It's easy for both engineers and lawyers to read and it achieves our ends, which is to limit our liability but still make the code available to as many people as possible and for any purpose. The GPL is not something we really considered to be a license so much as a political manifesto, and speaking purely for myself, I prefer to keep my license agreements and my politics separate. I feel that code which isn't being used in a situation where it COULD be used is code which isn't achieving its full potential and the GPL scares a lot of potential users away, which is simply counter-productive in my opinion. I don't care whether or not the users give their changes back to me, that's just an added bonus if it happens and nothing I'd want to try and enforce at the point of a gun.
Anyway, if the LRP were based on BSD instead of Linux, he would have had more options, including releasing the sum of his work and source under the GPL. The reverse, starting with Linux and releasing the sum of the work under BSD licensing, however, is not possible. Not to mention, it would've been called BRP and everyone could pronounce it as burp just for kicks:P
My thoughts exactly... I think this is one of the reasons the 3 BSD's are able to accomplish so much despite having a fraction of the developer resources of the Linux community. Although each project is developed independently according to their respective goals, they share their solutions that the others are free to adopt or improve upon.
Slashdot Mirror
Your experience probably had more to do with it being IRC than the BSD community itself. IRC is notorious for elitism.
There are ISO's but they only include the boot image and install program. With that said, it's easy enough to just create your own ISO using the boot ISO's. With a little shell scripting, you can totally automate pulling the install files off the FTP's and creating ISO's with them. Running my script makes me images for i386, sparc32, sparc64, and alpha all at once, including a copy of the source, ports, and all the packages I commonly use for each, which is read from a pkg_info dump.
Central America encompasses parts of North America.
Do you actually know anything about how FreeBSD and OpenBSD are developed? FreeBSD has separate branches, -STABLE and -CURRENT for a reason. Only stable and PROVEN features are merged into -STABLE. NetBSD does not test features this thoroughly; they simply don't have anywhere near the base of users to test them. OpenBSD on the other hand audits all its code line by line. If anything, I would say NetBSD is the quickest to bring new features in.
Linux running on other operating systems is useful in a production environment how exactly? The point of running Windows is the apps. The point of running Linux is the kernel. Why would you want to run Linux apps on a Windows kernel, getting the worst of both worlds? Likewise, there really is no reason to run Linux on top of BSD. Native versions can be compiled easily enough, and you can run linux binaries anyway for the closed source apps out there. Just because Linux supports something doesn't mean it supports it well. A lot of what is "supported" is beta quality at best. Just because Linux has looser standards on what it considers production ready doesn't mean everything it doesn't explicitly state as beta is production ready. When NetBSD has a port in its main support branch on the other hand, you will have the same consistent quality and reliability as other architectures.
For the last year, I've mainly used fluxbox but just recently I installed GNOME2 and I am quite pleased with it. My most major gripe is that you have to restart the whole thing in order for menu changes to be updated. I don't remember this being an issue in GNOME1, and I find it quite tedious to have to close everything and restart GNOME to see if the menu changes I made worked like I wanted them to.
Just because SCO would've been able to distribute their own distro for Linux under its own license if the Linux kernel used BSD licensing doesn't mean that the Linux kernel would stop being free for everyone else. So how exactly would SCO hijack it? They'd be able to sell linux for a profit (like they do anyway), and everyone could still use linux for free.
Thus the WiFi vendor does not adopt linux, and no one benefits because of the restrictiveness of the GPL.
On the other hand, that same WiFi vendor adopts BSD since it can without any negative repercussions. Although it is not legally compelled to disclose its modification, it still makes good business sense for the vendor to support the BSD community since their products are based on it. It is thus likely for them to make some contribution, the extent depending on the vendor's management. In any event, the BSD community has benefitted.
In addition, the consumers of that vendor's product benefit. The savings of the vendor over producing something inhouse or purchasing from a 3rd party can be passed on to consumers. As well, the consumers receive a quality product based on tried and true BSD.
Thus, plenty of good things come from the vendor's adoption of BSD. Nothing good results when the vendor simply decides not to use linux.
Running a BSD based wireless router off a floppy has been possible with PicoBSD for years. I fail to see how WiFiBSD accomplishes anything, aside from distributing the floppy image, which has already been done by theWall
There are a few fallacies to your argument. 1) Development does not stop on Project Foo because it is used as the base of a commercial product. What if in that same amount of time, Project Foo increases performance by 25? 2) Even if development stagnates on Project Foo itself, it still offers the same functionality as it originally did, remaining an equally apt tool for the job. The fact that a better tool exists out there may or may not make it more desirable, depending on your budget, but does not affect Project Foo's ability to meet its original requirements, as those have not changed. The BSD license is more free in the sense that there are no restrictions to how it's used, whereas the GPL is more free in a monetary sense. People who release code under BSD are interested in people benefiting from its use, be it in a free or commercial product. The GPL on the other hand ensures that improvements are available to the public, if the original author sees fit. There is no guarantee that he does.
He included the commercial unices that he did because they were certified. He included Linux and the *BSD's because they are open source. A better question would be why he included BSD/OS, which I would either attribute to his lumping them in with the *BSD's, or because it's a direct competitor to SCO on the IA32 platform. Also, Mac OSX may be widely deployed for desktops, but its share of the server market is even smaller than its share of the MS dominated desktop market. In any event, there is not much reason to draw a comparison between SCO and Mac OSX, which is probably why he excluded mentioning it. He also left out IRIX and HP-UX by the way, so his list was hardly exhaustive bar Mac OSX.
It tells you that you need to futs around and configure things. If I wanted to do that, I'd install stuff by hand. I just want to update my ports - I don't think that's too much to ask.
I say it is too much to ask. When it comes to FreeBSD, editing files by hand goes with the territory. Why should the developers waste their valuable time making something already mind-numbingly simple into a completely thoughtless task? That's not in line with the goals of the project nor should it be.
Portage on BSD is about as necessary as another Linux distribution.
Why do BSD users have to brag about how l33t they are?
Because sometimes, they let their indignation get the better of them. Especially when they see how the exact same arguments Linux users use against Windows can also be used against Linux.
I'm sure the BSDs rock, but they are still much harder to leap into.
As someone who's used Linux, Solaris, and IRIX, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to learn FreeBSD. Some people often confuse pretty installer colours with user-friendliness. FreeBSD's ncurses installer is menu based, and in my opinion quite simple and straightforward (Definitely easier than Slackware, Debian, or Gentoo in my opinion). The FreeBSD handbook will walk you through almost anything, and is clear and easy to understand. The other BSD's are another story.
Just because someone doesn't run EVERYTHING in Linux doesn't mean they can't have an advanced understanding of Linux.
Slashdot is about providing information, so that the readers can decide what the best solution is for a given problem. As much as people would like to push Linux's merits in every possible category, it simply isn't always the best option available.
Windows is still the best choice for gaming, as most games are still only developed for it. It is still the best choice for web browsing, as most websites are designed with Internet Explorer in mind. For many, these are the two most important functions of a desktop computer, so it makes sense for someone to run Windows most of the time.
At the same time, this same Windows user may run other machines as well, which may or may not include a Linux machine. They may have an intimate knowledge of Linux, program for Linux, or even develop Linux kernel code.
I like to play games, so I run Windows on my most powerful machine. And since it is my most powerful machine, I spend more time on it than on any of my other machines. However, I also run a multitude of other boxen at home, including 3 FreeBSD, 2 OpenBSD, 1 IRIX, 1 Solaris, and 2 Linux. I perform a variety of tasks on these other machines, and each is customized for its function. I would say I know *nix, and Linux, quite well. However, I still run Windows on my main machine. Not because I don't know Linux, but because I use "the right tool for the job".
So, the point is, for someone to slashdot from IE doesn't prove they're a Linux newbie, it just proves they're not a Linux zealot.
You can do this with PicoBSD. http://people.freebsd.org/~picobsd/picobsd.html Note that to build your own customized version (for CD), you will need a working install of FreeBSD.
The GPL does not stop you from releasing your own code under any other licence; it can't. It can stop you from releasing code incorporating somebody else's GPLed code, but then again that's the point-- to protect the original author from having their code used in a way they don't want.
What happens if the author of the work you derived your code from decides to disclose all the changes to the source you have made? Now, what happens if your work is the 10 generation derivative of a GPL work? I don't know what free means to you, but to me if there are strings attached, it's not free.
The BSD license on the other pretty much lets you do anything you want with the code, as long as you don't sue the author if it breaks. To me, this is true licensing freedom.
Here's why FreeBSD decided against the GPL: http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=278 Jordan Hubbard: There was never any consideration of using the GPL. We liked the BSD license specifically because it's flexible, simple and short. It's easy for both engineers and lawyers to read and it achieves our ends, which is to limit our liability but still make the code available to as many people as possible and for any purpose. The GPL is not something we really considered to be a license so much as a political manifesto, and speaking purely for myself, I prefer to keep my license agreements and my politics separate. I feel that code which isn't being used in a situation where it COULD be used is code which isn't achieving its full potential and the GPL scares a lot of potential users away, which is simply counter-productive in my opinion. I don't care whether or not the users give their changes back to me, that's just an added bonus if it happens and nothing I'd want to try and enforce at the point of a gun.
Anyway, if the LRP were based on BSD instead of Linux, he would have had more options, including releasing the sum of his work and source under the GPL. The reverse, starting with Linux and releasing the sum of the work under BSD licensing, however, is not possible. Not to mention, it would've been called BRP and everyone could pronounce it as burp just for kicks :P
My thoughts exactly... I think this is one of the reasons the 3 BSD's are able to accomplish so much despite having a fraction of the developer resources of the Linux community. Although each project is developed independently according to their respective goals, they share their solutions that the others are free to adopt or improve upon.