[setagllib:] >The only downside is that the new gcc is very slow (that's GNU for you) compared to 2.95, but can generate faster code sometimes.
[Anonymous Coward:] Why not just switch to a BSD licenced compiler then? If one doesn't exist, the BSD community could simply write it. It would certainly be faster, more stable and "cleaner" than any of the alternatives. I'm sure it wouldn't take the hordes of BSD developers more than a week to complete. Of course the only evidence for this would be anecdotal and God help anyone who dared to publish a benchmark. On a serious note, I used to wonder why the BSD community got trolled so much. Then I came across such wonderful examples of advocacy as those produced by our friend "setagllib". Your attitude attracts ASCII art Goatse trolls in much the same way as shit attracts flies. To preempt your inevitable reply, no I am not a Linux user. I just find the majority of your posts arrogant and unhelpful.
I'm ready to bet that you are not only a Linux user, but a GNU zealot of the worst kind. Dear AC.
From time to time, it happens to say things in a way that offends some touchy people. Anyway, I still have to see a *single* BSD advocate deliberately spreading FUD over GNU/Linux. I see GNU/Linux advocates spreading FUD over *BSD everyday - and this has gone on for *years*. The "BSD is dying" campaign is just the most prominent example.
I remember a discussion some time ago (on OSnews if I recall correctly). It was a licensing issue - BSD vs GPL. Surprise, surprise..:) - and I stepped out of line by making a slightly inaccurate statement. Guess what, another BSD user stepped in and corrected me, asking me to be more precise. On the other hand, look at the FUD the GNU zealots are deliberately spreading on this board. This shouldn't be considered an acceptable behaviour among civilized people. And guess what, how many GNU/Linux advocates do you see stepping in (and, I'd say, defending *their own* reputation)? Easy answer: none, never.
There's a simple reason for this. GNU people think they're on a holy war: Stallman says that proprietary software is "immoral", and talks about "fundamental freedoms" that are violated when you get a software without the source included. It happens too often that these statements aren't generating the sound laughter that such words are calling for. Nope, they're taken seriously. And the obvious logical consequence is that in this holy war, where "freedom" is at stake, any means are legitimate - spreading FUD, creating destructive viruses, anything. The objective is no longer to produce better software, or to maintain decency: is to sink BigEvilCorporations and proprietary software. BSD's in the way? Well, let's try to sink it as well. If the means (FUD) are dishonest and disgusting, well who cares, it's for a good cause. It's for morality, it's for "freedom".
A BSD advocate is mainly interested in technical excellence. A Linux advocate is mainly interested in winning the holy war against proprietary software. This alone is enough to explain the different levels of decency, and the different opinions on what can be considered an acceptable behaviour, that are characterizing the GNU and BSD communities.
The worst thing is, I see no easy way this issue in the GNU/Linux community can be resolved over time. Well, maybe if they finally manage to lock up their most "religious" leaders in a nuthouse. Cos that's where they belong.
Just for the record: FreeBSD is growing, in numbers *and* in share. Troll messages on slashdot won't change this fact.. they didn't do it in the past *five years* (at least..), they won't do it in the future.:)
For some *real* research links...
on
EuroBSDCon 2004
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Needless to say, the MIT link this mindless GNU/troll's posting is *10 years old* (1994). No surprise that Research conducted at Harvard in year *2000* (here's the full text) tells a different story: BSD's Soft Updates technology is on par with journaling on the whole, and in many cases it provides superior performance.
It's nice to see the GNU fans spreading FUD about BSD (this, and the whole "BSD is dying" campaign). One might wonder what's the difference between GNU and the big and evil corporations they hate so much, since they're using the same dishonest marketing techniques - and spreading FUD is really the most disgusting.
Luckily, the OS world hasn't been monopolized yet by FUD-spreading corporations and FUD-spreading communists. There still is BSD - and it's here to stay.:)
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
...come on, your posts and mine have already convinced him that the "crap" thing was out of line. About the change of tone/sig: well, me too, for a while I thought he was a troll, then I realized he was sincere.
Stark changes are an ever-present part in every kind of process - and programmers, of all people, should know that very, very well.;)
Thanks for changing sig. You can rest assured that, if the new FBSD kernel should ultimately turn out to be crap (I really doubt that, but who knows for sure) I'll join you in kicking their ass - and I bet a lot of people will too;) -- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Well, that was too much: considered that you go on making interesting comments on other topics, I remove you from that 'list' - for what it's worth:)
But I really think you're talking about FreeBSD in a way that's neither constructive nor accurate. You would be right if you could actually say that the design they chose is *wrong*. And I bet you can't. Now, I don't have the background (yet;) to tell for sure that they're *right*. But, for the time being, I have faith in the fact that the FBSD developers are not clueless, and if they chose to overtake a huge task it's for a pretty valid reason. Read the FreeBSD mailing lists: a lot of people, in and out of the project, think likewise.
One thing is to criticize, another thing is to judge that something "is crap" - and such a judgement, since it's basically about the kernel framework they laid, implicitly involves the future releases too. It's really too early to judge what will come out of FreeBSD in the near future.
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Since the FreeBSD market share seems to be the issue (not the user base, that is unquestionably growing fast), these are the most recent facts I could find about it: Nearly 2 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (June 2003)
"[FreeBSD] is the only other operating system [besides Windows and Linux] that is gaining, rather than losing share of the active sites found by the Web Server Survey."
And these are the oh so wise things you uttered:
Heh, a *BSD fan came back from the dead to mod you down. I'm sure there's an overlap between them and the Apple faithful--both stung by legitimate criticism and in denial about an ever dwindling market share.
It's weird.. it really doesn't look so "dying" to me. Why oh why? I can come up with just 2 possible explanations: 1) I'm biased towards my favourite OS or 2) You're a clueless troll, using the karma bonus to make his bullsh*t resonate louder.
I really wouldn't know which one to pick... it's really hard.:)
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
>So I guess this now means Longhorn will support BGP.
Short answer: hopefully. Longer answers: here and here (..i'm starting to think that a bot could come in handy;) -- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Your post is very funny (that's why I'm answering to an AC). Now, back to the Land of Reason: the issue of course isn't rocket science, it's copyright infringement. Like a comment on this board pointed out, "Hubert's page shows portions of the scripts that are _character for character_ identical between g4u and g4l". And indeed, everybody can judge for themselves: I don't think the illicit ripoff can even be considered a debatable point.
What's particularly vile is the fact that the "author" of g4l (the ripoff) keeps hiding behind anonimity -..it's a *very big* AC.:)
I know the slashdot staff made a joke, but since sometimes these are not obvious to everybody (among the comments there's even an AC seriously talking about BSD "declining"), it could be useful to quickly review the facts: FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
I picked the articles about FreeBSD because it's the BSD "mainstream" version, and now I'm talking about popularity. Of course this means nothing about the quality (let's remember that Windows is the "mainstream" OS...;). In fact, NetBSD and OpenBSD are usually considered on the same level of excellence.
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
And here, dear AC, is what the same poster (who happens to be a competent developer) has to say, just a few months later.
While he understands that this -STABLE release is *not yet* optimized for performance, he recognizes the huge performance gains that this design will allow in the future.
And go figure.. We don't hear him uttering "FreeBSD 5.3 is crap", we hear him acknowledging the validity of the (costly!) groundwork laid by FreeBSD developers.
Again, instead of bitching and making groundless general statements (i.e. Trolling. You say "every bench shows it to be so": I wonder which one, since FreeBSD 5.3 has been released 2 days ago...), why don't you take a *real* tour of the FreeBSD mailing lists, expose *your* problem(s) (providing all the required details, not a vague/generalizing post like the one you linked...), and then come back here and we discuss the answer they give you? That would make a lot more sense. IMHO.
Well this is just ridiculous. I get modded "troll" for dealing out harsh facts and observations, all because some mod didn't want to admit it anyway.
Just my 2 p: Maybe you got modded Troll because somebody got tired of your bitching about an OS that introduced *a lot* of new features in this branch. The FreeBSD developers team undertook a very ambitious project, and the OS is *already* performing very nicely (here, again. It's true that any benchmark must be taken with a grain of salt, but I think it's enough to disprove whoever is oh so authoritatively stating that "FreeBSD is crap").
What's worst, you're blatantly ignoring that there's a *huge* room for performance improvement, since the Giant Lock still has to be pushed out of many subsystems. Hitting the -STABLE release means that it's production ready, not that it's as fast as it can. Have a look at what Scott Long has to say on the development process. It could be enlightening.
FreeBSD (just as any other OS) can always use some constructive criticism. Your comments really look like puerile complaints.
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Trolltalk is trolltalk, facts are facts. :)
on
FreeBSD 5.3 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Anything good they come up with will just be copied and made better in all the other operating systems.
Uh.. yeah. Aren't you happy with it? That's pretty much the BSD spirit: academical, not political. Anyway, since you insist, there are some OS's that *should* get better at copying: About FreeBSD's Network Stack Quote:"FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps.";)
And since there have been cases where GPL programmers *stole* BSD code (here), let me add that the BSD code is *not* public domain. So, even who "copies" it, must give proper credits to the author (here's the BSD license, for reference).
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
I know, I know.. one shouldn't judge things solely on the basis of who's saying them. ..But do you know who you're listening to?
"sold nearly 2,000 copies of my beta system"..
"remove assholes like x and y from the team"..
"I made money off *my* work"..
"it's not usable in a production environment, not without my patches"..
"they won't be getting my patches unless I see public apology from a and b".. ..Does this ring a bell??..:-DDD
-- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
TFA is really worth reading. And, as you say, moving to scheduled releases is a very good idea: even if 4.10 for production use is still very good in most cases, I think users are going to appreciate releases at more regular intervals. For all that they've done and all that they'll do, kudos to the FreeBSD team! -- Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
The more I think of this guy, the more I pity him. Not only he violates a BSD copyright (and to violate a *BSD* copyright, as little restrictive as it is, it takes really much!) but, after all the upheaval around his "project" (mandatory quotes..) he doesn't even have the guts to come out of the anonimity he hides behind.
Really, a clueless trolling/. Anonymous Coward looks like a brave hero compared to this person.:)))
Go to Freshmeats home page and search for g4l and read the freakin discussion. Its damn disgusting on this debat. I support both BSD, GPL licenses and not giving credit where its due is theft, in addition to being wrong. A project like g4l can only damage the community as a whole.
I say respect the licenses. Give credit where crdit is due.
Hubert, you have one supporter and I suspect many, many more.
Very well said - count me in as well. This is not about which license is better. This is, frankly, about complying with the basic rules of civilization...
Slashdot Mirror
>The only downside is that the new gcc is very slow (that's GNU for you) compared to 2.95, but can generate faster code sometimes.
[Anonymous Coward:]
Why not just switch to a BSD licenced compiler then?
If one doesn't exist, the BSD community could simply write it. It would certainly be faster, more stable and "cleaner" than any of the alternatives. I'm sure it wouldn't take the hordes of BSD developers more than a week to complete.
Of course the only evidence for this would be anecdotal and God help anyone who dared to publish a benchmark.
On a serious note, I used to wonder why the BSD community got trolled so much. Then I came across such wonderful examples of advocacy as those produced by our friend "setagllib". Your attitude attracts ASCII art Goatse trolls in much the same way as shit attracts flies.
To preempt your inevitable reply, no I am not a Linux user. I just find the majority of your posts arrogant and unhelpful.
I'm ready to bet that you are not only a Linux user, but a GNU zealot of the worst kind. Dear AC.
From time to time, it happens to say things in a way that offends some touchy people. Anyway, I still have to see a *single* BSD advocate deliberately spreading FUD over GNU/Linux. I see GNU/Linux advocates spreading FUD over *BSD everyday - and this has gone on for *years*. The "BSD is dying" campaign is just the most prominent example.
I remember a discussion some time ago (on OSnews if I recall correctly). It was a licensing issue - BSD vs GPL. Surprise, surprise.. :) - and I stepped out of line by making a slightly inaccurate statement. Guess what, another BSD user stepped in and corrected me, asking me to be more precise.
On the other hand, look at the FUD the GNU zealots are deliberately spreading on this board. This shouldn't be considered an acceptable behaviour among civilized people. And guess what, how many GNU/Linux advocates do you see stepping in (and, I'd say, defending *their own* reputation)? Easy answer: none, never.
There's a simple reason for this. GNU people think they're on a holy war: Stallman says that proprietary software is "immoral", and talks about "fundamental freedoms" that are violated when you get a software without the source included.
It happens too often that these statements aren't generating the sound laughter that such words are calling for. Nope, they're taken seriously. And the obvious logical consequence is that in this holy war, where "freedom" is at stake, any means are legitimate - spreading FUD, creating destructive viruses, anything. The objective is no longer to produce better software, or to maintain decency: is to sink BigEvilCorporations and proprietary software. BSD's in the way? Well, let's try to sink it as well. If the means (FUD) are dishonest and disgusting, well who cares, it's for a good cause. It's for morality, it's for "freedom".
A BSD advocate is mainly interested in technical excellence. A Linux advocate is mainly interested in winning the holy war against proprietary software. This alone is enough to explain the different levels of decency, and the different opinions on what can be considered an acceptable behaviour, that are characterizing the GNU and BSD communities.
The worst thing is, I see no easy way this issue in the GNU/Linux community can be resolved over time. Well, maybe if they finally manage to lock up their most "religious" leaders in a nuthouse. Cos that's where they belong.
Just for the record: FreeBSD is growing, in numbers *and* in share. :)
Troll messages on slashdot won't change this fact.. they didn't do it in the past *five years* (at least..), they won't do it in the future.
No surprise that Research conducted at Harvard in year *2000* (here's the full text) tells a different story: BSD's Soft Updates technology is on par with journaling on the whole, and in many cases it provides superior performance.
It's nice to see the GNU fans spreading FUD about BSD (this, and the whole "BSD is dying" campaign). One might wonder what's the difference between GNU and the big and evil corporations they hate so much, since they're using the same dishonest marketing techniques - and spreading FUD is really the most disgusting.
Luckily, the OS world hasn't been monopolized yet by FUD-spreading corporations and FUD-spreading communists. There still is BSD - and it's here to stay. :)
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (June 2004)
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (June 2004)
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
That would be quite a big zombie invasion. ;)
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
>..[some babbling]..
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (June 2004)
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (June 2004)
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
Bye, lamer, have a nice day. :)
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Stark changes are an ever-present part in every kind of process - and programmers, of all people, should know that very, very well. ;)
Thanks for changing sig. ;)
You can rest assured that, if the new FBSD kernel should ultimately turn out to be crap (I really doubt that, but who knows for sure) I'll join you in kicking their ass - and I bet a lot of people will too
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
>Welcome on my personal Troll list.
Well, that was too much: considered that you go on making interesting comments on other topics, I remove you from that 'list' - for what it's worth :)
But I really think you're talking about FreeBSD in a way that's neither constructive nor accurate. ;) to tell for sure that they're *right*. But, for the time being, I have faith in the fact that the FBSD developers are not clueless, and if they chose to overtake a huge task it's for a pretty valid reason. Read the FreeBSD mailing lists: a lot of people, in and out of the project, think likewise.
You would be right if you could actually say that the design they chose is *wrong*. And I bet you can't. Now, I don't have the background (yet
One thing is to criticize, another thing is to judge that something "is crap" - and such a judgement, since it's basically about the kernel framework they laid, implicitly involves the future releases too.
It's really too early to judge what will come out of FreeBSD in the near future.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Nearly 2 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (June 2003)
"[FreeBSD] is the only other operating system [besides Windows and Linux] that is gaining, rather than losing share of the active sites found by the Web Server Survey."
And these are the oh so wise things you uttered:
It's weird.. it really doesn't look so "dying" to me.
Why oh why? I can come up with just 2 possible explanations:
1) I'm biased towards my favourite OS
or
2) You're a clueless troll, using the karma bonus to make his bullsh*t resonate louder.
I really wouldn't know which one to pick... it's really hard. :)
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Short answer: hopefully. ;)
Longer answers: here and here
(..i'm starting to think that a bot could come in handy
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
>Of course, provided they learn to give proper credits.
I wanted to mod up this post. I can't, so I quoted it. :)
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Like a comment on this board pointed out, "Hubert's page shows portions of the scripts that are _character for character_ identical between g4u and g4l". And indeed, everybody can judge for themselves: I don't think the illicit ripoff can even be considered a debatable point.
What's particularly vile is the fact that the "author" of g4l (the ripoff) keeps hiding behind anonimity - ..it's a *very big* AC. :)
Not at all. Maybe you should read the whole thread of that message, like the author of this comment did.
And this is how you support your "every bench says so", "FreeBSD 5.3 is crap" statements?
Welcome on my personal Troll list.
To who might be interested, this comment by a developer and this post by a competent user can shed more light on this issue.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
I picked the articles about FreeBSD because it's the BSD "mainstream" version, and now I'm talking about popularity. Of course this means nothing about the quality (let's remember that Windows is the "mainstream" OS... ;). In fact, NetBSD and OpenBSD are usually considered on the same level of excellence.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
And here, dear AC, is what the same poster (who happens to be a competent developer) has to say, just a few months later.
While he understands that this -STABLE release is *not yet* optimized for performance, he recognizes the huge performance gains that this design will allow in the future.
And go figure.. We don't hear him uttering "FreeBSD 5.3 is crap", we hear him acknowledging the validity of the (costly!) groundwork laid by FreeBSD developers.
Again, instead of bitching and making groundless general statements (i.e. Trolling. You say "every bench shows it to be so": I wonder which one, since FreeBSD 5.3 has been released 2 days ago...), why don't you take a *real* tour of the FreeBSD mailing lists, expose *your* problem(s) (providing all the required details, not a vague/generalizing post like the one you linked...), and then come back here and we discuss the answer they give you? That would make a lot more sense. IMHO.
Just my 2 p:
Maybe you got modded Troll because somebody got tired of your bitching about an OS that introduced *a lot* of new features in this branch. The FreeBSD developers team undertook a very ambitious project, and the OS is *already* performing very nicely (here, again. It's true that any benchmark must be taken with a grain of salt, but I think it's enough to disprove whoever is oh so authoritatively stating that "FreeBSD is crap").
What's worst, you're blatantly ignoring that there's a *huge* room for performance improvement, since the Giant Lock still has to be pushed out of many subsystems. Hitting the -STABLE release means that it's production ready, not that it's as fast as it can.
Have a look at what Scott Long has to say on the development process. It could be enlightening.
FreeBSD (just as any other OS) can always use some constructive criticism. Your comments really look like puerile complaints.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
Uh.. yeah. Aren't you happy with it? That's pretty much the BSD spirit: academical, not political.
Anyway, since you insist, there are some OS's that *should* get better at copying:
About FreeBSD's Network Stack
Quote:"FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."
And since there have been cases where GPL programmers *stole* BSD code (here), let me add that the BSD code is *not* public domain. So, even who "copies" it, must give proper credits to the author (here's the BSD license, for reference).
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
..But do you know who you're listening to?
"sold nearly 2,000 copies of my beta system"..
"remove assholes like x and y from the team".. "I made money off *my* work"..
"it's not usable in a production environment, not without my patches"..
"they won't be getting my patches unless I see public apology from a and b"..
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
TFA is really worth reading. And, as you say, moving to scheduled releases is a very good idea: even if 4.10 for production use is still very good in most cases, I think users are going to appreciate releases at more regular intervals.
For all that they've done and all that they'll do, kudos to the FreeBSD team!
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
[nt]
Is there some way to rise the moderators' standard for "fun"? :)
--
Being able to read other people's source code is a nice thing, not a "fundamental freedom".
The more I think of this guy, the more I pity him. Not only he violates a BSD copyright (and to violate a *BSD* copyright, as little restrictive as it is, it takes really much!) but, after all the upheaval around his "project" (mandatory quotes..) he doesn't even have the guts to come out of the anonimity he hides behind.
Really, a clueless trolling /. Anonymous Coward looks like a brave hero compared to this person. :)))
I say respect the licenses. Give credit where crdit is due.
Hubert, you have one supporter and I suspect many, many more.
Very well said - count me in as well. This is not about which license is better. This is, frankly, about complying with the basic rules of civilization...