A. Beastie will continue to represent the FreeBSD Project as our mascot. We won't kill Beastie. The closest logo-like thing that we have now is shown below, and we are looking for other options to be used like there. The new logo design may or may not include Beastie, or even a stylized representation. Again, Beastie is still alive!
There are times when you want to present yourself with a logo, not with an image of the mascot. That's how I understood it, and to me it makes a lot of sense.
?? It's a collection of pretty relevant BSD-related *facts*. It's hardly "bullshit" - and hardly a "troll".
If you read the first line, you'll see that it's meant to stay under the +1 level, in order not to disturb those who already read it. If you have seen it, it's because you read slashdot under the +1 level - i.e., you are reading tons of *actual* crap and *actual* troll posts. That makes your complaining really weird - not to say totally absurd.
A couple of other things: >twice the number No. That comment gets posted once per thread at most - and only when FUD gets spread. >Noone cares [...] noone wants to see I really don't think so - that post got modded up wildly in the past. Please don't talk like you're representing everybody: *that* is actually kind of annoying.
Re:What's the point in trolling?
on
FreeBSD 5.4 Review
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Since you're self-proclaimed clueless, maybe next time you could limit yourself to asking "Why should *I* use FreeBSD?", instead of asking "What's the point in FreeBSD?" - that definitely sounds like a troll, looks like a troll and smells like a troll.
Anyway, here are my humble reasons for choosing FreeBSD over any Linux distro.
Another not-so-secondary reason is security. Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004) "The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
And to me, a very important reason is also the license. I have a very strong preference for the academic licenses (BSD, MIT) towards the copyleft licenses (GPL, LGPL). And it looks like I'm not the only one Eric Raymond advocates BSD license over GPL (June 2005) "Freedom and choice are pretty cool. But we should talk about many other things. GPL is based on the belief that open source software is weak and needs to be protected. With it, we continue injuring ourselves, cutting ourselves from the economic benefits of BSD license".
I know, facts like this one are little known on Slashdot - for a reason, I'm afraid. The same reason why lousy "reviews" like this one get produced by NewsForge and posted on Slashdot (they belong to the same company), and the same reason why in the/. BSD section, in the latest 20+ news items, only 2 (two) are about FreeBSD (the 5.4 release, and this piece of crap), notwithstanding its huge user base. That alone says that FreeBSD is a strong Linux contender: if it weren't, there would be no point in obscuring it.
Btw this is an observation, it's not a complaint. FreeBSD has already shown that it can thrive even without the hype.
how GM engineers their engines and why may be none of my business, but being allowed to tear it apart and replace parts myself for my own use should be a basic right. If I then want to tell others what I did to my GM engine to make it better, so they can do it to theirs, that should be fine too.
I think we're talking about two different things: the right to see the software source code is like the right to have the *blueprints* of that engine (i.e., the right to have their knowledge and know-how, the "recipe" of their product). OTOH, I think your example is comparable to be allowed to *reverse engineer* the software (according to the philosophy, with which I tend to agree, that since I bought it I should be allowed to do with it whatever the heck I want).
Anyway, it ultimately depends on the license/EULA that the software comes under. I think (and here's where my favouring BSD over GPL/GNU/Linux comes out) the ideal scenario is the one in which any vendor can choose for his code the license/EULA that he wants, with no GPL-like restrictions, and the *market* is the one that decides if he's gonna succeed or fail. After all, according to history, this is the scenario that yields the best results for the economy - and not only in software production.
(Needless to say, all other things being equal, I prefer software that comes with no anti-reverse-engineering EULAs - and *much* more, of course, I like Free/Open software that comes with the complete source.)
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
I wish I could mod you up. After his FreeBSD 5.3 "review", it's amazing that a piece written by this guy - who rarely does argue so well as himself:D - can make news *anywhere*, let alone on Slashdot.
Thanks for revealing another one of these trollish characters - you really seem to have a talent for spotting them.;)
(Yes, I want to be on his s**t list too. Does it show?:D)
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
I also forgot: this is a very nice place to find competent and informative answers to BSD and Unix related issues http://bsdforums.org/forums
Btw, one little thing that the forum above has, and IMHO Slashdot is missing *badly*, is the ability to edit comments to add things you forgot (damn it). -- Requiem for the FUD
I simply told you which one I like better and why (i.e. what you asked for). I didn't tell you what are the differences between them, so your deduction is wrong. In fact, the main differences are technical, in their very goals: while FreeBSD focuses mainly on features and i386 performance, OpenBSD focuses mainly on code correctness and security.
>Do these two share between each other?
Sure they do - and massively. For example, one little jewel that came from OpenBSD to the other *BSDs is pf (packet filter), that has an excellent reputation for its being very clean and easy to use.
>Is there a common BSD kernel or anything like that?
No. The *BSDs are developed like OSes, not "distros". So, while they massively share code, they maintain their own kernels.
To better understand the differences, it helps to notice that OpenBSD was born as a NetBSD fork, 8 years ago - and even today, it shares more code with NetBSD than with FreeBSD.
FreeBSD because of the number of ports, i386 optimization, availability of features that one day could turn out handy (like jails). There are also other reasons related to the goals of the projects - I like FreeBSD for emphasizing the "tool" aspect of software, keeping policies/politics completely out of the door. But it's not that I don't respect OpenBSD activism, as a matter of fact I do, they have a point (and by pressing hardware vendors they've already got amazing results). It's just that the FreeBSD point of view happens to be closer to mine. (Btw this last issue influences which one I like better, not which one I use, since IMHO this is not a reason to use one over the other.) Anyway, I think that what the *BSD projects have in common is far more important - that is, the academical spirit of the BSD license. -- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
If the number of ports/packages is one of your main concerns, FreeBSD currently has more than 12.000 ports. -- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
What's the point? To me and many others *BSD is about 1) a different license and 2) a different philosophy of development - that is, centralised development of an entire operating system, not just a kernel.
I definitely agree, but let's remember that KDE on FreeBSD is hardly news. http://freebsd.kde.org/
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Woa, thanks for the news! I kinda thought that the 2.5 million active sites that FreeBSD is serving (it's much more than any given Linux distro; and it had a *25%* increase in one year) was a sign of imminent death.;)
>Call me ignorant, but what does KDE have to do with BSD? No can do. I hate to call people names. http://freebsd.kde.org/ -- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Parent is indeed redundant: my apologies to readers (especially BSD users) for posting it. I did it because I thought that the other equivalent message wouldn't get modded up, but it did. I'll pay more attention in the future.:-)
The guy asked: "So why would anyone consider BSD over Linux?"
Modding "redundant" my one line answer is just stupid - or dishonest.
Let's not forget that BSD is about cooperation
on
The Case for FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
I think the other messages in the thread on FreeBSD-current are also worth a glance, especially this one by Robert Watson, which stresses the strong cooperation and code sharing that is actually connecting the BSD projects. -- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
I disagree. To me, NetBSD logo looks very clean, tasteful and appropriate - come on, it's a *logo* we're talkin about. It should be sthg like that, IMHO.
>With most OSes, if you have a competent admin, then you can have a secure system.
This is totally false. If there's a bug that's exploitable as a remote hole and a malicious fellow discovers it before you, even if you're the most competent sysadmin on earth, you're still screwed.
For a sysadmin that's paranoid about security there's one, easy answer: OpenBSD. "Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 8 years": it's a slogan, but it's true. For somebody who's not paranoid and who's normally concerned about security, any BSD would do. This study suggests that when security matters the *BSDs (& the Mac) are the best choice. The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004) "The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin." -- Requiem for the FUD
.. it's a *logo contest*. Kinda difficult to submit a new logo 2 days after the official announcement, I think..:) Anyway, for NetBSD's logo contest over 400 logos were submitted. Given FreeBSD's much wider user base, the numbers will probably be higher - and making a choice will be even harder. -- Requiem for the FUD
Even more interesting than old troll posts.
on
The Case for FreeBSD
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Mod me down if you like, but if an old rant from an ex developer is considered "interesting", whis should be as well. Facts are facts.;)
As much as I actually did think the site was a fake ( wishful thinking ) after being told it was, I have to agree with fm6 that you've made a very weak argument here.
"A very weak argument".. Am I the only one *not* blind here? For christ's sake, have a decent look at the two pictures before talking (one and two). The *only* difference between them is a manipulation of the eyes (which don't belong to the same person, it's quite evident) and of the colors. *Everything else* is exactly the same: look at the mouth, the nose, the hair, the tie. The pics are based on the same head shot.
I stopped answering to that other guy because I came to the conclusion that he was simply trolling. Now I don't know what to think.. is it a troll festival, or is there an epidemy of impaired eyesight?..
The manipulation *proves*, exhaustively, that the site's a fake. A brilliant satire, if you ask me - since sadly there are too many religious nuts asserting such things for real - but still a fake (luckily).
Slashdot Mirror
There are times when you want to present yourself with a logo, not with an image of the mascot. That's how I understood it, and to me it makes a lot of sense.
--
Requiem for the FUD
>Will you people [...]
??
It's a collection of pretty relevant BSD-related *facts*. It's hardly "bullshit" - and hardly a "troll".
If you read the first line, you'll see that it's meant to stay under the +1 level, in order not to disturb those who already read it.
If you have seen it, it's because you read slashdot under the +1 level - i.e., you are reading tons of *actual* crap and *actual* troll posts.
That makes your complaining really weird - not to say totally absurd.
A couple of other things:
>twice the number
No. That comment gets posted once per thread at most - and only when FUD gets spread.
>Noone cares [...] noone wants to see
I really don't think so - that post got modded up wildly in the past. Please don't talk like you're representing everybody: *that* is actually kind of annoying.
--
Requiem for the FUD
Anyway, here are my humble reasons for choosing FreeBSD over any Linux distro.
The main one is definitely the wonderful ports system. The only thing that comes close to it in the Linux world is Gentoo portage: I didn't try it, but those who did didn't find it as good.
The following four links (the Handbook and three excellent tutorials) contain everything one needs to understand and use FreeBSD ports
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/h andbook/ports.html
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/07/FreeBSD _Basics.html
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/08/28/FreeBSD _Basics.html
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/09/18/FreeBSD _Basics.html
Another not-so-secondary reason is security.
Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004)
"The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
And to me, a very important reason is also the license. I have a very strong preference for the academic licenses (BSD, MIT) towards the copyleft licenses (GPL, LGPL).
And it looks like I'm not the only one
Eric Raymond advocates BSD license over GPL (June 2005)
"Freedom and choice are pretty cool. But we should talk about many other things. GPL is based on the belief that open source software is weak and needs to be protected. With it, we continue injuring ourselves, cutting ourselves from the economic benefits of BSD license".
Btw, it seems that *somebody* is sharing my preference, since FreeBSD is used on web servers much more than any Linux distro (2.5 million active sites, against 1.6 million of Red Hat). And from Netcraft numbers (June 2004), FreeBSD had a 25% increase in the last year.
/. BSD section, in the latest 20+ news items, only 2 (two) are about FreeBSD (the 5.4 release, and this piece of crap), notwithstanding its huge user base.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/06/07/nearl y_25_million_active_sites_running_freebsd.html
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/03/14/fedor a_makes_rapid_progress.html
I know, facts like this one are little known on Slashdot - for a reason, I'm afraid. The same reason why lousy "reviews" like this one get produced by NewsForge and posted on Slashdot (they belong to the same company), and the same reason why in the
That alone says that FreeBSD is a strong Linux contender: if it weren't, there would be no point in obscuring it.
Btw this is an observation, it's not a complaint. FreeBSD has already shown that it can thrive even without the hype.
--
Requiem for the FUD
how GM engineers their engines and why may be none of my business, but being allowed to tear it apart and replace parts myself for my own use should be a basic right. If I then want to tell others what I did to my GM engine to make it better, so they can do it to theirs, that should be fine too.
I think we're talking about two different things: the right to see the software source code is like the right to have the *blueprints* of that engine (i.e., the right to have their knowledge and know-how, the "recipe" of their product).
OTOH, I think your example is comparable to be allowed to *reverse engineer* the software (according to the philosophy, with which I tend to agree, that since I bought it I should be allowed to do with it whatever the heck I want).
Anyway, it ultimately depends on the license/EULA that the software comes under. I think (and here's where my favouring BSD over GPL/GNU/Linux comes out) the ideal scenario is the one in which any vendor can choose for his code the license/EULA that he wants, with no GPL-like restrictions, and the *market* is the one that decides if he's gonna succeed or fail.
After all, according to history, this is the scenario that yields the best results for the economy - and not only in software production.
(Needless to say, all other things being equal, I prefer software that comes with no anti-reverse-engineering EULAs - and *much* more, of course, I like Free/Open software that comes with the complete source.)
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
I wish I could mod you up. :D - can make news *anywhere*, let alone on Slashdot.
;)
:D)
After his FreeBSD 5.3 "review", it's amazing that a piece written by this guy - who rarely does argue so well as himself
Thanks for revealing another one of these trollish characters - you really seem to have a talent for spotting them.
(Yes, I want to be on his s**t list too. Does it show?
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
I linked to the FreeBSD Handbook, that is the user documentation. But for more general info about the FreeBSD project you might want to have a look at the FAQ firstf aq/index.html
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/
I also forgot: this is a very nice place to find competent and informative answers to BSD and Unix related issues
http://bsdforums.org/forums
Btw, one little thing that the forum above has, and IMHO Slashdot is missing *badly*, is the ability to edit comments to add things you forgot (damn it).
--
Requiem for the FUD
I simply told you which one I like better and why (i.e. what you asked for). I didn't tell you what are the differences between them, so your deduction is wrong.
h andbook/index.html
In fact, the main differences are technical, in their very goals: while FreeBSD focuses mainly on features and i386 performance, OpenBSD focuses mainly on code correctness and security.
>Do these two share between each other?
Sure they do - and massively.
For example, one little jewel that came from OpenBSD to the other *BSDs is pf (packet filter), that has an excellent reputation for its being very clean and easy to use.
>Is there a common BSD kernel or anything like that?
No.
The *BSDs are developed like OSes, not "distros". So, while they massively share code, they maintain their own kernels.
To better understand the differences, it helps to notice that OpenBSD was born as a NetBSD fork, 8 years ago - and even today, it shares more code with NetBSD than with FreeBSD.
But to understand even better, well.. FreeBSD and OpenBSD are renowned for their excellent documentation, that is well worth having a look at.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/
http://openbsd.org/faq/index.html
--
Requiem for the FUD
FreeBSD because of the number of ports, i386 optimization, availability of features that one day could turn out handy (like jails).
There are also other reasons related to the goals of the projects - I like FreeBSD for emphasizing the "tool" aspect of software, keeping policies/politics completely out of the door. But it's not that I don't respect OpenBSD activism, as a matter of fact I do, they have a point (and by pressing hardware vendors they've already got amazing results). It's just that the FreeBSD point of view happens to be closer to mine. (Btw this last issue influences which one I like better, not which one I use, since IMHO this is not a reason to use one over the other.)
Anyway, I think that what the *BSD projects have in common is far more important - that is, the academical spirit of the BSD license.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
If the number of ports/packages is one of your main concerns, FreeBSD currently has more than 12.000 ports.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
>Now my mom even knows what it is.
Your mom knows a lot of other things you wouldn't suspect.
Oh, and btw BSD rules. So, you *please* stay away from it. Thanks
(No, I didn't forget the "post anonymously" blah blah)
--
Requiem for the FUD
Some of the major operating systems *are* BSD. FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD.
GNU/Linux for Cubans and pot smokers.
--
Requiem for the FUD
What's the point? To me and many others *BSD is about 1) a different license and 2) a different philosophy of development - that is, centralised development of an entire operating system, not just a kernel.
I definitely agree, but let's remember that KDE on FreeBSD is hardly news.
http://freebsd.kde.org/
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
> And no, FreeBSD 5 is not dying.
;)
Woa, thanks for the news!
I kinda thought that the 2.5 million active sites that FreeBSD is serving (it's much more than any given Linux distro; and it had a *25%* increase in one year) was a sign of imminent death.
--
Requiem for the FUD
>Call me ignorant, but what does KDE have to do with BSD?
No can do. I hate to call people names.
http://freebsd.kde.org/
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
> [...] You're a genius!
If the 50.000 offer were anything near serious, he definitely would be!
Parent is indeed redundant: my apologies to readers (especially BSD users) for posting it. I did it because I thought that the other equivalent message wouldn't get modded up, but it did. :-)
I'll pay more attention in the future.
The guy asked: "So why would anyone consider BSD over Linux?"
Modding "redundant" my one line answer is just stupid - or dishonest.
I think the other messages in the thread on FreeBSD-current are also worth a glance, especially this one by Robert Watson, which stresses the strong cooperation and code sharing that is actually connecting the BSD projects.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
I disagree. To me, NetBSD logo looks very clean, tasteful and appropriate - come on, it's a *logo* we're talkin about. It should be sthg like that, IMHO.
>With most OSes, if you have a competent admin, then you can have a secure system.
This is totally false. If there's a bug that's exploitable as a remote hole and a malicious fellow discovers it before you, even if you're the most competent sysadmin on earth, you're still screwed.
For a sysadmin that's paranoid about security there's one, easy answer: OpenBSD. "Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 8 years": it's a slogan, but it's true.
For somebody who's not paranoid and who's normally concerned about security, any BSD would do. This study suggests that when security matters the *BSDs (& the Mac) are the best choice.
The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004)
"The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
--
Requiem for the FUD
Already gave my answer to this - right here. :)
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
.. it's a *logo contest*. Kinda difficult to submit a new logo 2 days after the official announcement, I think.. :)
Anyway, for NetBSD's logo contest over 400 logos were submitted. Given FreeBSD's much wider user base, the numbers will probably be higher - and making a choice will be even harder.
--
Requiem for the FUD
Mod me down if you like, but if an old rant from an ex developer is considered "interesting", whis should be as well. ;)
Facts are facts.
FreeBSD:
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (Jun 2004)
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (Jun 2004)
"[FreeBSD] has secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003."
What's New in the FreeBSD Network Stack (Sep 2004)
"FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."
NetBSD:
NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004)
NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (30 Sep 2004)
OpenBSD:
OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004)
Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004)
*BSD in general:
..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;)
Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004)
"The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
As much as I actually did think the site was a fake ( wishful thinking ) after being told it was, I have to agree with fm6 that you've made a very weak argument here.
"A very weak argument".. Am I the only one *not* blind here?
For christ's sake, have a decent look at the two pictures before talking (one and two). The *only* difference between them is a manipulation of the eyes (which don't belong to the same person, it's quite evident) and of the colors. *Everything else* is exactly the same: look at the mouth, the nose, the hair, the tie. The pics are based on the same head shot.
I stopped answering to that other guy because I came to the conclusion that he was simply trolling. Now I don't know what to think.. is it a troll festival, or is there an epidemy of impaired eyesight?..
The manipulation *proves*, exhaustively, that the site's a fake. A brilliant satire, if you ask me - since sadly there are too many religious nuts asserting such things for real - but still a fake (luckily).