Erm, doesn't really answer the question. Still not as quick as one single "apt-get" command is it?
Depends on what you're trying to get. Prebuilt Kernel? Maybe good for that if you're happy with the default one. As for packages, FreeBSD has something similar to apt-get.
Thats all I have to do for a package that is listed in ports. The only benefit apt-get has over this is that you can do a dist-upgrade.
Again, nowhere near as quick as apt-get. Hey, I'm no Debian zealot by any means, but when there's a nasty exploit in the wild and I need to patch lots of boxes quickly, Debian's system is much quicker and far more elegant than FreeBSD's. And that matters to a helluva lot of people, evidently...
The pkg_add command is just as quick as apt-get in most ways. To update the kernel, when you have a custom configuration, you cant really rely on apt-get, atleast from personal use I cant. However, with cvsup, the best part of it is if there is only one file has been updated, thats all you download. Then you run two commands. The compile may take 10 minutes or so. Then after it finishes compiling, assuming all your servers in the server farm are the same, all you have to do is SCP the new kernel to each machine...which you could write a perl script to do it. First time writing the perl script may take a while, but if you plan it ahead before an update, and keep it modular so the server list is like a plain text file then the whole process can be as seemless. We've done something similar at where I work. When UNIX first went out. System Administrators needed to write their own shell scripts to automate stuff. I would consider updating all boxes a tedious task even if you had to run one command on each. If you need to update each box with a package, you could write a perl script that would go on each box and run apt-get to update the package. Have the perl script accept for a parameter the package name. The only issue is this, with ssh, the first time you connect you'll need to accept the host key, after that, it wont be any trouble.
This is incorrect, and no offence but it makes you look stupid. Let's try to understand, OK? The GPL doesn't mandate anything like that.
I can make any modifications I want to a GPLed program without having "make it available to everyone in the world". I can hack it, put my name all over it, change it to what I want; it's only if I _distribute_ it that I need to also release the source. You see?
Better than watching some company take my enhancements and use them for their own gain.
I like the last part of your comment there. It proves the point I made. You can never be free if you are told what you can and can not do. The only stipulation in the BSD license that maybe a concern is the keeping headers intact. However your personal bias to what a corporation can't do with your source code is no place for an arguement when you're trying to prove the other person wrong.
Can FreeBSD competently handle more than one CPU? Linux can. You lose!
I lost? how did I lose? Sure it has SMP, but even then, I betcha a one cpu FreeBSD box can handle more requests then a dual cpu linux box.
Basically, there's nothing concrete in your post, just meandering diatribe with no facts behind it. In the real world, among experienced users, it's accepted that good Linux distros are just as fast and stable as FreeBSD, and offer greater benefits, so you'll have to live with it. Does it really bother you that an OS might be better than your beloved FreeBSD?
Linux doesnt offer greater benefits, read some benchmarks before you make opinionated statements. I know of only one other operating system that was a superior multiuser OS on x86 platform, it was called OS/2. You see I want an OS that can get the job done. Just because I didnt jump on the bandwagon like you, doesnt mean Linux is superior, it makes you look like a comformist. So if you can prove to me that Linux is superior to FreeBSD in the server market, then I'll start believing you. Oh and to wrap up, "there's nothing concrete in your post" (sorry it applies to you).
Unless you intentionally left 'build' out of that sentence before 'server' this is a stupid statement. Since when is it a good idea to have a compiler on your server? Even if you did specifically mean build server, in most cases that just means running remote shells to do the compiling (like rsh or ssh) and not some spiffy server app that receives build requests from a build client (yes I know there are distributed build systems like Rational's clearmake, but that's not the norm). Besides all that it can handle multiple compiles. I have a build host which runs at least 9 builds at the same time every day, works just fine. The applications being built are used by major oil companies for geophysical mapping and surveying, so they're not exactly trivial, either.
You would have a point if we're talking about a production webserver. Infact its proven that Linux isnt good for multitasking between applications. In the 2.4 kernel watch a DVD while doing compiles, in 2.6 (which isnt even released yet) will have a proper scheduler.
Some people do need the latest nVidia cards to be supported, so if FreeBSD doesn't support it, it's not a viable solution. People doing graphical modeling software in the oil industry need good 3d hardware support. I work for such a company (subsidiary of Haliburton), and we are getting pressure from Shell to support Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0 (we already wupport 2.1, but they want to upgrade).
Workstation, desktop, samething in my mind. The only difference is a desktop is in my mind a home user, and workstation is a corporate user. If you read my original paragraph, FreeBSD is meant to be a work horse, not a graphics workstation.
To say that either system is always faster or more stable or more secure is pure nonsense. anyone can misconfigure a system and make it perform like shit. Anyone can tweak a system and make it scream. Developers of different projects have different goals, so they get different results.
You're absolutely right about system security. The question is which one is more secure out of the box? Red Hat Linux? If you think so, then you're dead wrong. FreeBSD asks you if you want to enable a higher kernel security mode after setup. If you go with extreme, only way on the box is through the console. Linux allows users to su to root without being in the wheel group, which is also a security risk. I'm not going to point out the security hazzards with Linux and FreeBSD, I just wanted to give a point of view. Ultimately the only way to make a computer truely secure is to not plug in the power.
Different licenses fill different needs. With the BSD license I am not free to ensure that people benefiting from my work return anything to the community.
You're wrong, with the BSD License you are free, with the exception of removing existing headers, to do whatever you want. You want to release code that is open source or close sourced? Well you have that option with the BSD License. That is the reason its more free then the GPL cause you can do whatever you want, with the exception of removing headers. GPL makes it law that you have to release your source code that uses any GPL licensed code. Thus you're not free to close source it.
I dont know maybe you're one of those people who caught into the "Linux" phase of life. I dont see how you can view the GPL as being free when it literally pushes you to do things. The only free part of the GPL is the cost ownership of it. You dont have to pay a dime to use it.
1) Make sure you have the development toolset installed (already a potential security problem)
If it is a "potential" security problem, then all you need to do is build the kernel or application in a sandbox environment and copy the kernel out.
2) Enter a few CVS commands to get the fixed source
Not for me. All I have to do is run cvsup with my sup file and I get the sources right away. Then all I have to do is rebuild the kernel, which is very simple too, or I can rebuild the components themselves quickly.
3) Wait as the relevant components are recompiled
Which wont take as long.
4) Install them in the right places
Done for you by the make install:).
If a hole in Debian is found, one "apt-get update" and you're sorted.
You arent fetching sources, you're fetching compiled binaries. The beauty of FreeBSD is you can optimize your system. When you download a binary package, the binary maybe optimized for a certain processor, or not optimized at all. If you build it from sources on your system based on your make.conf you can optimize it.
Another thing is this. Its not the FreeBSD teams concern whether or not you implement a security fix, they're concerned with giving you the noose to hang yourself if the exploit is used. So if you have a security exploit that was exploited, then you didnt patch your system...
Final Note: You looked at FreeBSD as a Desktop environment for a user, it is not a desktop environment, it is a server platform.
You get more x86 hardware and software support in Linux, it's just as stable (if not more so) with solid distros such as Debian and Slackware, it's faster (as reports have shown), it scales much better and it has heaps of commercial support.
Lets take apart your statement by piece. It is not as stable, I've proven this...Linux can not handle multiple compiles at once, hence its not really meant as a server OS, atleast not yet.
As for the drivers issue, big deal, BSD isnt meant for desktop, its meant for doing work, I dont need my nVidia card to be supported to do email and crap.
Linux is the buzz word, because people think its "free", its not free, you make any changes to it, you lose out. BSD is truely free in the respects you can redistribute it in binary form and charge for it. Free means to do with as you wish, the only stipulation in the BSD License is the copyright headers have to stay intact.
The compelling reason to use FreeBSD over Linux is that it is faster, it crashes far less, you can handle more, and you can do whatever you want to the source code without having to make it available to everyone in the world, with the exception of the copyright headers, which to me is true freedom.
Honestly...some of you Linux zealots are just as bad as the windows people.
I like to view Linux zealots as the little children playing soldier in a sandbox, "You're Dead!" "No I'm not dead, I'm superman!" "No! I am superman"...If you dont know what I'm referring to, Linux people are the only ones who refer that their OS is the best in the world and nothing can top it:)
Umm numb nuts, most firewalls, load balancers, etc run BSD. Its not advertised like Linux, but Nokia, F5's, etc, etc...List really goes on, run BSD. Imagine for every certain router/firewall/load balancer you had to pay $1399 ontop of paying for your linux servers too.
Also the hard working people on the *BSD teams, I'm sure they dont appreciate you calling their OS dead since practically every OS out there in main stream borrows from them, *INCLUDING LINUX*.
God! I hate trolls that are moderated funny or insightful.
No problems? The Linux kernel has a far broader range of features being put to good use, and you couldn't just switch to FreeBSD's kernel without losing a large amount of functionality and having to make many sweeping changes.
You are correct if you mean in for the average desktop user. However, FreeBSD has been known to blow linux out of the water with speed. Further more, try on a 2.4 kernel compiling 4 different apps at once, it slows the machine down to a crawl if not locks it up. You'll never see that happen on a BSD box.
I thought the Linux users at the one show were the socially inept losers since the BSD people had the women in the tight clothing....My how the times changed.
Amen! Linux is still not stable like *BSD yet. I've ran into a few issues with a top of the line system running Red Hat 9 doing more then 4 compiles at once would cause the box to hang and have to be reset, but my Dinky P166, 64 meg FreeBSD box can handle like 10 compiles at once.
I find it easier to goto google then run to a library to look something up or learn how to do something. The internet is what it is, a great big network of knowledge sharing, p2p, and porn!
5) What, apart from no longer having the sexually sensitive bit of their penis attached? I'd say that was a pretty major dysfunction
For crying out loud this is about paper with magic ink, not an anatomy lesson...Besides, its not the top cut off, its just the skin around the top. I take it you havent had it done to you? If so, I think they took a little bit too much off the top with you!
Not true, but then again BSD operating systems were never meant for a gaming workstation, more on the lines of running the internet.
2. It cannot be used by my grandma.
I doubt your grandmother could use linux or windows either way.
3. It lacks a GUI of any note.
GUI is for the people who have to have others hold their hand. BSD doesnt need a GUI, but you can get Xwindows installed with it if you wanted it.
4. There is no support available for it.
Correction, there is no free support. This is true of Windows and Linux. However, there are mailing lists and chat rooms, much like there is for Windows and Linux.
5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.
Uhh get your facts straight idiot. BSD was developed from AT&T Unix.
6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform.
Maybe not the very first BSD operating system, but now any BSD os can run on x86, including Darwin. Hence get your facts straight
7. You have to compile everything and know C.
Compiling everything is a good thing, it allows for applications to be more robust, it allows for features to be added instead of packaged without some features.
8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.
Maybe support for latest 3d video cards, but its always had good support for server hardware.
9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux.
Actually FreeBSD with linux compat libraries is faster then Linux. Get your facts straight.
10.It is dying.
Linux is dying, windows is dying, I'm dying, you're dying, everything will die. Your point? Exactly that, you have no point.
The catch is, you have to be running it on HP equipment;)
If I were going to take pain, grief, and suffering for someone, they better be using my products otherwise there is no justification for the money being spent, the manhours, and etc.
How can you hold your head up for your children while you work for an immoral employer?
If SCO was literally killing people directly, then yeah I could see a person walking out, BUT since they arent, you have to look beyond your personal beliefs and ideals if others are dependent on your income.
Have you no sense of shame? How can your children be proud of you when they knew that your work upheld the SCO business? How can your children ever be proud of you? They may not understand when they are young. But when they are older, if they find out, they will never understand.
If I had children and I was an employee of SCO (Which I'm not), they would be proud of me for the fact that I put their well being ahead of my own beliefs. I think them knowing that I stuck it out in a crappy job and made sure they lived a good life is more honorable then ditching a job and making them live a shitty life. You may not agree but thats where you are a zealot and I'm a normal person. As I said before, when people depend on you, you have to make correct decisions that are not based on impulsive ideas.
Hiring an ex-SCO programmer at this point, given the attitude and practices of their previous employer, is risky as shit.
It doesnt only pertain to the programmers, Damage Studio didnt specify, they flat out said any SCO employee after May 2003. That could mean a receptionist who has no legal binding to anything. To deny a person a job because of ethics of their previous employer is ethically wrong.
Besides, how good can anyone who programs for SCO be, really? Their products are outdated, underperforming, etc... I suspect that anyone who had any decent skills left a long time ago. So the SCO group is what is known as a "self-selected set" - in this case, a self-selected set of unemployables.
You dont work in a real corporation then. If a product is outdated, under performing, and etc. Its not the programmers fault, its managements. You cant as a grunt go ahead update software and say "Look New version!" to the public, it doesnt work that way.
To be on the safe side, I don't think I would even want to have a private meeting with a former or (especially) current SCO employee. Public meetings, with witnesses, are another matter, as you can then document who said what, but private meetings, given what we've seen of the corporate culture there, would be a definite no-no. Don't need any more stupid lawsuits.
As I said before in my previous paragraph, you dont work in a real corporation. A private meeting in a real corporation, using what you said, is basically between you and your boss and him saying "You're slacking". 99% of the meetings that go on in corporations are private and not public. And the 1% that takes place in public are usually teleconferences like what SCO has been doing, but they're not a real corporation. Oh on a last note, your fears could happen with any former employee of any company. Guilty by association is not a reason, its an excuse. Do I assume you're a geek, with zits, and never had sex just because you post on slashdot? Hence guilty by association is an excuse not a reason.
To put it into a clearer perspective - your:friends" hold up a bank, you drive the getaway car. It's not illegal to drive a car, but you're still guilty, because w/o you, they would have had a harder time completing their heist successfully.
Wow talk about really disconnecting from reality. Lets talk reality since you need a lesson. When a bank is robbed and a person is driving the get away car, the person driving knows what they're doing, they agree to the concept, and if they dont they dont drive. As for your typical SCO programmer, they dont know what is truth or not, since more then likely only a handle full of people have seen this "infringing code" just so that way if it leaks out they know who had access to it (Also legal reasons as well). So you're telling me some person on the low end of the food chain is just as guilty as the greedy fat CEO? Just because he works in the same company!? Have you completely lost your mind?!
There is a fine line between normal and being a zealot. Damage Studio drew a line in the sand, which also put them into the Zealot side. Think about this because as one guy said before, what is a person going to tell his kids after he walks out of his job? Yeah there is always Unemployment for 6 months, then welfare. So a family living in a normal house has to go live in a ghetto worrying about being shot every 10 minutes just because the major source of income decided to say "I have to put a idea before my family!"
Hey, you're right. Dont let anyone tell you different, most of the people who replied so far that I've seen said that its wrong to stay at a job where the company is doing extortion. What they dont have is kids, but since this is slashdot they dont have a woman either.
As for the rest of you geeks, stop thinking about the right thing to do and think about what it is like to have people solely dependent on you. You lose your income, it wont possible affect them, IT WILL AFFECT THEM.
Slashdot Mirror
What you call a "chick" is a pale 12 year old girl.
Sick pedos.
I dont know about you, but the one I saw, she said she was like 18 or 19.
Erm, doesn't really answer the question. Still not as quick as one single "apt-get" command is it?
/usr/ports/www/lynx] pkg_add -r lynxa ges-5.1-release/Latest/lynx.tbz... Done.
Depends on what you're trying to get. Prebuilt Kernel? Maybe good for that if you're happy with the default one. As for packages, FreeBSD has something similar to apt-get.
[root@revan
Fetching ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/pack
Thats all I have to do for a package that is listed in ports. The only benefit apt-get has over this is that you can do a dist-upgrade.
Again, nowhere near as quick as apt-get. Hey, I'm no Debian zealot by any means, but when there's a nasty exploit in the wild and I need to patch lots of boxes quickly, Debian's system is much quicker and far more elegant than FreeBSD's. And that matters to a helluva lot of people, evidently...
The pkg_add command is just as quick as apt-get in most ways. To update the kernel, when you have a custom configuration, you cant really rely on apt-get, atleast from personal use I cant. However, with cvsup, the best part of it is if there is only one file has been updated, thats all you download. Then you run two commands. The compile may take 10 minutes or so. Then after it finishes compiling, assuming all your servers in the server farm are the same, all you have to do is SCP the new kernel to each machine...which you could write a perl script to do it. First time writing the perl script may take a while, but if you plan it ahead before an update, and keep it modular so the server list is like a plain text file then the whole process can be as seemless. We've done something similar at where I work. When UNIX first went out. System Administrators needed to write their own shell scripts to automate stuff. I would consider updating all boxes a tedious task even if you had to run one command on each. If you need to update each box with a package, you could write a perl script that would go on each box and run apt-get to update the package. Have the perl script accept for a parameter the package name. The only issue is this, with ssh, the first time you connect you'll need to accept the host key, after that, it wont be any trouble.
This is incorrect, and no offence but it makes you look stupid. Let's try to understand, OK? The GPL doesn't mandate anything like that.
I can make any modifications I want to a GPLed program without having "make it available to everyone in the world". I can hack it, put my name all over it, change it to what I want; it's only if I _distribute_ it that I need to also release the source. You see?
Better than watching some company take my enhancements and use them for their own gain.
I like the last part of your comment there. It proves the point I made. You can never be free if you are told what you can and can not do. The only stipulation in the BSD license that maybe a concern is the keeping headers intact. However your personal bias to what a corporation can't do with your source code is no place for an arguement when you're trying to prove the other person wrong.
Can FreeBSD competently handle more than one CPU? Linux can. You lose!
I lost? how did I lose? Sure it has SMP, but even then, I betcha a one cpu FreeBSD box can handle more requests then a dual cpu linux box.
Basically, there's nothing concrete in your post, just meandering diatribe with no facts behind it. In the real world, among experienced users, it's accepted that good Linux distros are just as fast and stable as FreeBSD, and offer greater benefits, so you'll have to live with it. Does it really bother you that an OS might be better than your beloved FreeBSD?
Linux doesnt offer greater benefits, read some benchmarks before you make opinionated statements. I know of only one other operating system that was a superior multiuser OS on x86 platform, it was called OS/2. You see I want an OS that can get the job done. Just because I didnt jump on the bandwagon like you, doesnt mean Linux is superior, it makes you look like a comformist. So if you can prove to me that Linux is superior to FreeBSD in the server market, then I'll start believing you. Oh and to wrap up, "there's nothing concrete in your post" (sorry it applies to you).
Unless you intentionally left 'build' out of that sentence before 'server' this is a stupid statement. Since when is it a good idea to have a compiler on your server? Even if you did specifically mean build server, in most cases that just means running remote shells to do the compiling (like rsh or ssh) and not some spiffy server app that receives build requests from a build client (yes I know there are distributed build systems like Rational's clearmake, but that's not the norm). Besides all that it can handle multiple compiles. I have a build host which runs at least 9 builds at the same time every day, works just fine. The applications being built are used by major oil companies for geophysical mapping and surveying, so they're not exactly trivial, either.
You would have a point if we're talking about a production webserver. Infact its proven that Linux isnt good for multitasking between applications. In the 2.4 kernel watch a DVD while doing compiles, in 2.6 (which isnt even released yet) will have a proper scheduler.
Some people do need the latest nVidia cards to be supported, so if FreeBSD doesn't support it, it's not a viable solution. People doing graphical modeling software in the oil industry need good 3d hardware support. I work for such a company (subsidiary of Haliburton), and we are getting pressure from Shell to support Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0 (we already wupport 2.1, but they want to upgrade).
Workstation, desktop, samething in my mind. The only difference is a desktop is in my mind a home user, and workstation is a corporate user. If you read my original paragraph, FreeBSD is meant to be a work horse, not a graphics workstation.
To say that either system is always faster or more stable or more secure is pure nonsense. anyone can misconfigure a system and make it perform like shit. Anyone can tweak a system and make it scream. Developers of different projects have different goals, so they get different results.
You're absolutely right about system security. The question is which one is more secure out of the box? Red Hat Linux? If you think so, then you're dead wrong. FreeBSD asks you if you want to enable a higher kernel security mode after setup. If you go with extreme, only way on the box is through the console. Linux allows users to su to root without being in the wheel group, which is also a security risk. I'm not going to point out the security hazzards with Linux and FreeBSD, I just wanted to give a point of view. Ultimately the only way to make a computer truely secure is to not plug in the power.
Different licenses fill different needs. With the BSD license I am not free to ensure that people benefiting from my work return anything to the community.
You're wrong, with the BSD License you are free, with the exception of removing existing headers, to do whatever you want. You want to release code that is open source or close sourced? Well you have that option with the BSD License. That is the reason its more free then the GPL cause you can do whatever you want, with the exception of removing headers. GPL makes it law that you have to release your source code that uses any GPL licensed code. Thus you're not free to close source it.
I dont know maybe you're one of those people who caught into the "Linux" phase of life. I dont see how you can view the GPL as being free when it literally pushes you to do things. The only free part of the GPL is the cost ownership of it. You dont have to pay a dime to use it.
1) Make sure you have the development toolset installed (already a potential security problem)
:).
If it is a "potential" security problem, then all you need to do is build the kernel or application in a sandbox environment and copy the kernel out.
2) Enter a few CVS commands to get the fixed source
Not for me. All I have to do is run cvsup with my sup file and I get the sources right away. Then all I have to do is rebuild the kernel, which is very simple too, or I can rebuild the components themselves quickly.
3) Wait as the relevant components are recompiled
Which wont take as long.
4) Install them in the right places
Done for you by the make install
If a hole in Debian is found, one "apt-get update" and you're sorted.
You arent fetching sources, you're fetching compiled binaries. The beauty of FreeBSD is you can optimize your system. When you download a binary package, the binary maybe optimized for a certain processor, or not optimized at all. If you build it from sources on your system based on your make.conf you can optimize it.
Another thing is this. Its not the FreeBSD teams concern whether or not you implement a security fix, they're concerned with giving you the noose to hang yourself if the exploit is used. So if you have a security exploit that was exploited, then you didnt patch your system...
Final Note: You looked at FreeBSD as a Desktop environment for a user, it is not a desktop environment, it is a server platform.
You get more x86 hardware and software support in Linux, it's just as stable (if not more so) with solid distros such as Debian and Slackware, it's faster (as reports have shown), it scales much better and it has heaps of commercial support.
Lets take apart your statement by piece. It is not as stable, I've proven this...Linux can not handle multiple compiles at once, hence its not really meant as a server OS, atleast not yet.
As for the drivers issue, big deal, BSD isnt meant for desktop, its meant for doing work, I dont need my nVidia card to be supported to do email and crap.
Linux is the buzz word, because people think its "free", its not free, you make any changes to it, you lose out. BSD is truely free in the respects you can redistribute it in binary form and charge for it. Free means to do with as you wish, the only stipulation in the BSD License is the copyright headers have to stay intact.
The compelling reason to use FreeBSD over Linux is that it is faster, it crashes far less, you can handle more, and you can do whatever you want to the source code without having to make it available to everyone in the world, with the exception of the copyright headers, which to me is true freedom.
Honestly...some of you Linux zealots are just as bad as the windows people.
:)
I like to view Linux zealots as the little children playing soldier in a sandbox, "You're Dead!" "No I'm not dead, I'm superman!" "No! I am superman"...If you dont know what I'm referring to, Linux people are the only ones who refer that their OS is the best in the world and nothing can top it
The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most.
Hmmm either the regular troll has finally died, or he is focusing finally on just one BSD.
10 years, and still dying strong!
:)
Atleast BSD gets the chicks at the conferences, Linux gets the geeky looking guys
now SCO is targetting DEAD OSes! ;-)
Umm numb nuts, most firewalls, load balancers, etc run BSD. Its not advertised like Linux, but Nokia, F5's, etc, etc...List really goes on, run BSD. Imagine for every certain router/firewall/load balancer you had to pay $1399 ontop of paying for your linux servers too.
Also the hard working people on the *BSD teams, I'm sure they dont appreciate you calling their OS dead since practically every OS out there in main stream borrows from them, *INCLUDING LINUX*.
God! I hate trolls that are moderated funny or insightful.
Hey, don't forget the 82nd blowfish division.
They arent invited...They ditched their guns for a bow and arrow....
Except now to compliment your pengiun army with midgit devils with pitch forks...We'll truely defeat them now.
Hey Hey! One problem at a time.
No problems? The Linux kernel has a far broader range of features being put to good use, and you couldn't just switch to FreeBSD's kernel without losing a large amount of functionality and having to make many sweeping changes.
You are correct if you mean in for the average desktop user. However, FreeBSD has been known to blow linux out of the water with speed. Further more, try on a 2.4 kernel compiling 4 different apps at once, it slows the machine down to a crawl if not locks it up. You'll never see that happen on a BSD box.
I thought the Linux users at the one show were the socially inept losers since the BSD people had the women in the tight clothing....My how the times changed.
Amen! Linux is still not stable like *BSD yet. I've ran into a few issues with a top of the line system running Red Hat 9 doing more then 4 compiles at once would cause the box to hang and have to be reset, but my Dinky P166, 64 meg FreeBSD box can handle like 10 compiles at once.
I find it easier to goto google then run to a library to look something up or learn how to do something. The internet is what it is, a great big network of knowledge sharing, p2p, and porn!
5) What, apart from no longer having the sexually sensitive bit of their penis attached? I'd say that was a pretty major dysfunction
For crying out loud this is about paper with magic ink, not an anatomy lesson...Besides, its not the top cut off, its just the skin around the top. I take it you havent had it done to you? If so, I think they took a little bit too much off the top with you!
1. You can not play games on it.
Not true, but then again BSD operating systems were never meant for a gaming workstation, more on the lines of running the internet.
2. It cannot be used by my grandma.
I doubt your grandmother could use linux or windows either way.
3. It lacks a GUI of any note.
GUI is for the people who have to have others hold their hand. BSD doesnt need a GUI, but you can get Xwindows installed with it if you wanted it.
4. There is no support available for it.
Correction, there is no free support. This is true of Windows and Linux. However, there are mailing lists and chat rooms, much like there is for Windows and Linux.
5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.
Uhh get your facts straight idiot. BSD was developed from AT&T Unix.
6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform.
Maybe not the very first BSD operating system, but now any BSD os can run on x86, including Darwin. Hence get your facts straight
7. You have to compile everything and know C.
Compiling everything is a good thing, it allows for applications to be more robust, it allows for features to be added instead of packaged without some features.
8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.
Maybe support for latest 3d video cards, but its always had good support for server hardware.
9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux.
Actually FreeBSD with linux compat libraries is faster then Linux. Get your facts straight.
10.It is dying.
Linux is dying, windows is dying, I'm dying, you're dying, everything will die. Your point? Exactly that, you have no point.
The catch is, you have to be running it on HP equipment ;)
If I were going to take pain, grief, and suffering for someone, they better be using my products otherwise there is no justification for the money being spent, the manhours, and etc.
How can you hold your head up for your children while you work for an immoral employer?
If SCO was literally killing people directly, then yeah I could see a person walking out, BUT since they arent, you have to look beyond your personal beliefs and ideals if others are dependent on your income.
Have you no sense of shame? How can your children be proud of you when they knew that your work upheld the SCO business?
How can your children ever be proud of you? They may not understand when they are young. But when they are older, if they find out, they will never understand.
If I had children and I was an employee of SCO (Which I'm not), they would be proud of me for the fact that I put their well being ahead of my own beliefs. I think them knowing that I stuck it out in a crappy job and made sure they lived a good life is more honorable then ditching a job and making them live a shitty life. You may not agree but thats where you are a zealot and I'm a normal person. As I said before, when people depend on you, you have to make correct decisions that are not based on impulsive ideas.
Hiring an ex-SCO programmer at this point, given the attitude and practices of their previous employer, is risky as shit.
It doesnt only pertain to the programmers, Damage Studio didnt specify, they flat out said any SCO employee after May 2003. That could mean a receptionist who has no legal binding to anything. To deny a person a job because of ethics of their previous employer is ethically wrong.
Besides, how good can anyone who programs for SCO be, really? Their products are outdated, underperforming, etc... I suspect that anyone who had any decent skills left a long time ago. So the SCO group is what is known as a "self-selected set" - in this case, a self-selected set of unemployables.
You dont work in a real corporation then. If a product is outdated, under performing, and etc. Its not the programmers fault, its managements. You cant as a grunt go ahead update software and say "Look New version!" to the public, it doesnt work that way.
To be on the safe side, I don't think I would even want to have a private meeting with a former or (especially) current SCO employee. Public meetings, with witnesses, are another matter, as you can then document who said what, but private meetings, given what we've seen of the corporate culture there, would be a definite no-no. Don't need any more stupid lawsuits.
As I said before in my previous paragraph, you dont work in a real corporation. A private meeting in a real corporation, using what you said, is basically between you and your boss and him saying "You're slacking". 99% of the meetings that go on in corporations are private and not public. And the 1% that takes place in public are usually teleconferences like what SCO has been doing, but they're not a real corporation. Oh on a last note, your fears could happen with any former employee of any company. Guilty by association is not a reason, its an excuse. Do I assume you're a geek, with zits, and never had sex just because you post on slashdot? Hence guilty by association is an excuse not a reason.
To put it into a clearer perspective - your :friends" hold up a bank, you drive the getaway car. It's not illegal to drive a car, but you're still guilty, because w/o you, they would have had a harder time completing their heist successfully.
Wow talk about really disconnecting from reality. Lets talk reality since you need a lesson. When a bank is robbed and a person is driving the get away car, the person driving knows what they're doing, they agree to the concept, and if they dont they dont drive. As for your typical SCO programmer, they dont know what is truth or not, since more then likely only a handle full of people have seen this "infringing code" just so that way if it leaks out they know who had access to it (Also legal reasons as well). So you're telling me some person on the low end of the food chain is just as guilty as the greedy fat CEO? Just because he works in the same company!? Have you completely lost your mind?!
There is a fine line between normal and being a zealot. Damage Studio drew a line in the sand, which also put them into the Zealot side. Think about this because as one guy said before, what is a person going to tell his kids after he walks out of his job? Yeah there is always Unemployment for 6 months, then welfare. So a family living in a normal house has to go live in a ghetto worrying about being shot every 10 minutes just because the major source of income decided to say "I have to put a idea before my family!"
Hey, you're right. Dont let anyone tell you different, most of the people who replied so far that I've seen said that its wrong to stay at a job where the company is doing extortion. What they dont have is kids, but since this is slashdot they dont have a woman either.
As for the rest of you geeks, stop thinking about the right thing to do and think about what it is like to have people solely dependent on you. You lose your income, it wont possible affect them, IT WILL AFFECT THEM.