My biggest gripe with perl is that there seems to be no mode to require variables to be declared beforehand. I really despise when I'm coding and do something like:
my ($fileName) = "/etc/blah/blah.cfg"; if ( $filename =~ m~^/etc~ ) { print "This is in/etc\n");
"use strict" (or "use strict 'vars'") is your friend.
BSD is great for Squid because of the excellent stack and reliability (and it's the platform of choice for Duane and most other leads developers), but Linux is better if you want performance. Async IO is only available under Linux and Solaris
Have a look at the man page for the FreeBSD mount command and say that (search for async while there). For those occasions when you don't mind flying by the seat of your pants, you can of course have async writes. It isn't a new option either. And there's always softupdates too.
I suppose it wouldn't be so easy to win arguments if people actually checked their assumptions...
How many readers here are actually from Northern Irealnd
More to the point, how many readers actually read the article and noticed that the survey was specifically not conducted in Northern Ireland? (It was conducted in other parts of the UK).
Re:The real reason they had ESR over to Ireland...
on
ESR talks in Dublin
·
· Score: 1
Whoever moderated this up to "funny" has a very warped sense of humour. (a calm observation)
However Germany does have more restrictions on certain freedoms than we do in the US
Hmm, let's see now:
Germany: Illegal to claim that the holocaust never took place. USA: Illegal, for three years of your adult life, during which you could be drafted and sent to die, to drink beer.
Germany: Roads that don't actually need speed limits don't have them. USA: Ermmm...
Germany: Relaxed attitude to controlling the media. USA: There's no law against most forms of content in the media, but you just watch the drop in advertising revenue if you offend various pressure groups.
Random drug tests in the workplace? Laws preventing the consumption of alcohol in public? Which country has those? Personally, I'd rather put up with laws that prevent me being a Nazi than ones that actually infringe on my everyday life. I do think it's unfair that Germany still has national service (for males), but since I'm not a German citizen, it doesn't worry me too much.
No, I was trying to address the issue "how would you interpret the fact of market success for BSD". I would attribute it, to some degree, to the success of Linux
Sure, it seems clear that Linux has produced UNIX users that might not otherwise have become UNIX users, and that some of them have discovered (and liked) Free BSD systems. There is, of course, a compelling theory that the BSD's would have gone places faster than they did if Linux hadn't captured user attention like it did (back around Linux 0.99, I mean, not recently). As we keep hearing on Slashdot, Linus would have simply used BSD instead of writing a whole new kernel had the BSD lawsuits not muddied the waters. None of this is important any more, though. I just think it's good that the BSD's, and not just Linux, should be publicly visible as credible UNIX platforms.
and I would point out that the market success (not it's existence, you are correct that BSD predated GNU/FSF) of BSD was only made possible by GPL'd software.
Well, you can't make that claim about SunOS, Ultrix or NextStep, which are the best examples of BSD commercial succuss I can think of at the moment. Though I don't think you meant to. FWIW, I think that the current BSD's would be much less useful without the various GPLed software they use.
Now, finally, there's the promise of a BSD that has Office Apps, and advanced Window Managers like Gnome and KDE and a whole wealth of other goodies that have suddenly become available.
It sounds like you're accusing the BSD systems of trying to soak up the credit for other people's work. There are a couple of flaws here. One of them seems to be a fundamental problem with how some folks in the Linux camp think - the notion that software developed on Linux should automatically be developed for Linux. We shouldn't forget that most of the really useful stuff that Linux systems use (the X-Window system, TCP/IP, BIND, Sendmail, various WWW servers and so on) were developed for UNIX systems generally (often under Open Source though non-GPL licences). It is good and proper that Linux systems should take advantage of this code that big-hearted people contributed to the community. But similarly, it is reasonable that people writing Linux-focussed software should (and generally do) write their software so that it will compile and run on just about any other UNIX system, including BSD. So Linux used existing UNIX services and GNU tools to build an OS and that BSD (or AIX or Solaris or whatever) users benefit from projects that gain their Oomph from Linux fever. That isn't riding on coat-tails, that's making the best use of the available technology, consistent with what the software authors wanted. And of course, it's what Open Source is all about...
In any case, any success that *BSD has is, in not small part, due to the availability, reliability and quality of gcc. Last I checked, gcc is Open Source. Thus, the lesson to be drawn from BSD's success is that Open Source is a powerful force.
Well, the first point to note is that BSD predates gcc (GNU anything, actually) by a number of years. The various Free BSD's today, of course, benefit greatly from gcc, and it's hard to see how they would get by without it. Nonetheless, I can't come to terms with your conclusion. The success of the current BSD generation is of course an indication of the strength of Open Source software. Because BSD _is_ open source software. Open Source != GPL.
Furthermore, I can honestly say that I'd be just as lost on AIX, Solaris and just about any other commercial UNIX without the option of installing gcc for free instead of an expensive vendor-supported compiler.
DEC 5000's (ultrix), and VAX Station 3100's (ultrix). None of them *BSD.
From http://kb.indiana.edu/data/agjx.html:
What is ULTRIX?
ULTRIX was Digital Equipment Corporation's Unix implementation for its PDP-11, VAX, DECstation, and Alpha computers. It is based on the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) of Unix, but also includes proprietary extensions such as DECwindows and DECnet.
Does a security problem of a program in the ports collection count as a BSD security problem?
The Security Officer certainly posts alerts based on them (we had one last week, related to three FTPD's). And yes, I would say they were a problem. However, the good news is that the system won't, as standard, install any ports on your behalf - the administrator needs to make the conscious decision to install them. If he's building a hardened box, he will obviously carefully consider the impact of any port he installs.
This cautious attempt to installing bundled stuff is another advantage that (Free anyway) BSD enjoys over many Linux distros. Obviously, this makes things slower for a user who would rather instantly install a KDE-based system with a slew of services ready and waiting. Everyone has to decide where their priorities lie.
Coexisting with other systems (Confusing Install?)
on
FreeBSD 3.3 Released
·
· Score: 2
The only portion of the install that particularly "phased" me was the scheme for establishing disk "slices." This results since the BSDs did not start with an attempt at interoperability with the MS-DOS partitioning scheme.
I feel that the system of splitting one partition table partition into several BSD-partitions actually enhances the chances of co-existence with other systems. The reason? You've only got four entries in the partition table. My favoured partitioning scheme would use three of three of them for file systems and one for swap. Yes, they _could_ go in an extended partition, but, in a sense, that's exactly what happens. It just isn't a Microsoft-style extended partition, which seems fair.
I very much enjoy the fact that my FreeBSD installation will never use more than one partition table entry, and find the system much more easy to use than the Linux way, once you've realised what's actually going on.
Well, I think folks are being unfair to the author's intent here. Leaving aside the number of crackers who _do_ prefer to use Linux (likely a large number, in proportion to Linux's general popularity), I feel sure most _target_ Linux to a greater extent than the BSD's, since there are more boxes out there that they can hope to break. A BSD box has the useful advantage of being immune to many Linux exploits, which is what I think the author was trying to say (yes, of course there are BSD-specific exploits too).
A BSD spokesperson taking the arrogant position that they are the answer because of their "technical superiority"
Two points here - one is that the author of the article is (according to the FreeBSD WWW site) neither a core team member nor a committer for the FreeBSD project. I'm not aware of his background, but there's no evidence in the article (which was, of course, written in an advocacy forum) that he is anything other than a keen FreeBSD user or a spokesperson for anyone other than himself.
Additionally, he didn't actually state as fact that FreeBSD was technically superior (though I'm sure he thinks, as I do, that it is - fair enough), rather he paraphrased what he saw as a common attitude on the part of FreeBSD users.
Anyone who has read public statements from actual FreeBSD co-ordinators (particularly jkh) will realise they are a lot less offensive to folks in the Linux camp.
It is, however, very common practice in Northern Ireland (mostly on the part of unionists, I would guess) to refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster Sure, but why propogate incorrect terminology? It's equally common practice among we Irish (from the Republic, anyway) to use the word "Ireland" when we're actually talking about the Republic (Irish law, Irish Constitution, etc.). Doesn't make it correct...
I'm not wrong. There are those that would have me believe that Irish is my native language - Éire _is_ the official name of the state (I recall that they provided an alternative English language version "Ireland"), the same state which is also officially described in the constitution as constituting the whole island. Éire is, I repeat, the Irish word for "Ireland". It in no way helps people who wish to unambiguously exclude their comments to the Republic.
Slashdot Mirror
my ($fileName) = "/etc/blah/blah.cfg"; if ( $filename =~ m~^/etc~ ) { print "This is in /etc\n");
"use strict" (or "use strict 'vars'") is your friend.
Have a look at the man page for the FreeBSD mount command and say that (search for async while there). For those occasions when you don't mind flying by the seat of your pants, you can of course have async writes. It isn't a new option either. And there's always softupdates too.
I suppose it wouldn't be so easy to win arguments if people actually checked their assumptions...
More to the point, how many readers actually read the article and noticed that the survey was specifically not conducted in Northern Ireland? (It was conducted in other parts of the UK).
Whoever moderated this up to "funny" has a very warped sense of humour. (a calm observation)
Hmm, let's see now:
Germany: Illegal to claim that the holocaust never took place.
USA: Illegal, for three years of your adult life, during which you could be drafted and sent to die, to drink beer.
Germany: Roads that don't actually need speed limits don't have them.
USA: Ermmm...
Germany: Relaxed attitude to controlling the media.
USA: There's no law against most forms of content in the media, but you just watch the drop in advertising revenue if you offend various pressure groups.
Random drug tests in the workplace? Laws preventing the consumption of alcohol in public? Which country has those? Personally, I'd rather put up with laws that prevent me being a Nazi than ones that actually infringe on my everyday life. I do think it's unfair that Germany still has national service (for males), but since I'm not a German citizen, it doesn't worry me too much.
Sure, it seems clear that Linux has produced UNIX users that might not otherwise have become UNIX users, and that some of them have discovered (and liked) Free BSD systems. There is, of course, a compelling theory that the BSD's would have gone places faster than they did if Linux hadn't captured user attention like it did (back around Linux 0.99, I mean, not recently). As we keep hearing on Slashdot, Linus would have simply used BSD instead of writing a whole new kernel had the BSD lawsuits not muddied the waters. None of this is important any more, though. I just think it's good that the BSD's, and not just Linux, should be publicly visible as credible UNIX platforms.
and I would point out that the market success (not it's existence, you are correct that BSD predated GNU/FSF) of BSD was only made possible by GPL'd software.
Well, you can't make that claim about SunOS, Ultrix or NextStep, which are the best examples of BSD commercial succuss I can think of at the moment. Though I don't think you meant to. FWIW, I think that the current BSD's would be much less useful without the various GPLed software they use.
It sounds like you're accusing the BSD systems of trying to soak up the credit for other people's work. There are a couple of flaws here. One of them seems to be a fundamental problem with how some folks in the Linux camp think - the notion that software developed on Linux should automatically be developed for Linux. We shouldn't forget that most of the really useful stuff that Linux systems use (the X-Window system, TCP/IP, BIND, Sendmail, various WWW servers and so on) were developed for UNIX systems generally (often under Open Source though non-GPL licences). It is good and proper that Linux systems should take advantage of this code that big-hearted people contributed to the community. But similarly, it is reasonable that people writing Linux-focussed software should (and generally do) write their software so that it will compile and run on just about any other UNIX system, including BSD. So Linux used existing UNIX services and GNU tools to build an OS and that BSD (or AIX or Solaris or whatever) users benefit from projects that gain their Oomph from Linux fever. That isn't riding on coat-tails, that's making the best use of the available technology, consistent with what the software authors wanted. And of course, it's what Open Source is all about...
In any case, any success that *BSD has is, in not small part, due to the availability, reliability and quality of gcc. Last I checked, gcc is Open Source. Thus, the lesson to be drawn from BSD's success is that Open Source is a powerful force.
Well, the first point to note is that BSD predates gcc (GNU anything, actually) by a number of years. The various Free BSD's today, of course, benefit greatly from gcc, and it's hard to see how they would get by without it. Nonetheless, I can't come to terms with your conclusion. The success of the current BSD generation is of course an indication of the strength of Open Source software. Because BSD _is_ open source software. Open Source != GPL.
Furthermore, I can honestly say that I'd be just as lost on AIX, Solaris and just about any other commercial UNIX without the option of installing gcc for free instead of an expensive vendor-supported compiler.
I know. I never suggested otherwise.
But stop the Linux security myth!
I never started it. That said, I do prefer BSD.
From http://kb.indiana.edu/data/agjx.html:
What is ULTRIX?
ULTRIX was Digital Equipment Corporation's Unix implementation for its PDP-11, VAX, DECstation, and Alpha computers. It is based on the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) of Unix, but also includes proprietary extensions such as DECwindows and DECnet.
You'd better wash your hands...
The Security Officer certainly posts alerts based on them (we had one last week, related to three FTPD's). And yes, I would say they were a problem. However, the good news is that the system won't, as standard, install any ports on your behalf - the administrator needs to make the conscious decision to install them. If he's building a hardened box, he will obviously carefully consider the impact of any port he installs.
This cautious attempt to installing bundled stuff is another advantage that (Free anyway) BSD enjoys over many Linux distros. Obviously, this makes things slower for a user who would rather instantly install a KDE-based system with a slew of services ready and waiting. Everyone has to decide where their priorities lie.
I feel that the system of splitting one partition table partition into several BSD-partitions actually enhances the chances of co-existence with other systems. The reason? You've only got four entries in the partition table. My favoured partitioning scheme would use three of three of them for file systems and one for swap. Yes, they _could_ go in an extended partition, but, in a sense, that's exactly what happens. It just isn't a Microsoft-style extended partition, which seems fair.
I very much enjoy the fact that my FreeBSD installation will never use more than one partition table entry, and find the system much more easy to use than the Linux way, once you've realised what's actually going on.
Well, I think folks are being unfair to the author's intent here. Leaving aside the number of crackers who _do_ prefer to use Linux (likely a large number, in proportion to Linux's general popularity), I feel sure most _target_ Linux to a greater extent than the BSD's, since there are more boxes out there that they can hope to break. A BSD box has the useful advantage of being immune to many Linux exploits, which is what I think the author was trying to say (yes, of course there are BSD-specific exploits too).
Two points here - one is that the author of the article is (according to the FreeBSD WWW site) neither a core team member nor a committer for the FreeBSD project. I'm not aware of his background, but there's no evidence in the article (which was, of course, written in an advocacy forum) that he is anything other than a keen FreeBSD user or a spokesperson for anyone other than himself.
Additionally, he didn't actually state as fact that FreeBSD was technically superior (though I'm sure he thinks, as I do, that it is - fair enough), rather he paraphrased what he saw as a common attitude on the part of FreeBSD users.
Anyone who has read public statements from actual FreeBSD co-ordinators (particularly jkh) will realise they are a lot less offensive to folks in the Linux camp.
Depends on what it's programmed to do - on the FreeBSD console (and maybe other BSD's?), switching on scroll lock puts you in rollback mode.
It is, however, very common practice in Northern Ireland (mostly on the part of unionists, I would guess) to refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster Sure, but why propogate incorrect terminology? It's equally common practice among we Irish (from the Republic, anyway) to use the word "Ireland" when we're actually talking about the Republic (Irish law, Irish Constitution, etc.). Doesn't make it correct...
(Original post was anon)
I'm not wrong. There are those that would have me believe that Irish is my native language - Éire _is_ the official name of the state (I recall that they provided an alternative English language version "Ireland"), the same state which is also officially described in the constitution as constituting the whole island. Éire is, I repeat, the Irish word for "Ireland". It in no way helps people who wish to unambiguously exclude their comments to the Republic.