Re:This project should help MySQL
on
MySQL FS
·
· Score: 1
A kernel in and of itself is rather boring yes.
But 'GNU system'? Its Unix userspace tools, no matter what Lineo says in press releases....Linux is a unix-like OS. RedHat used many hunks of BSD code....hardly a "GNU system."
A GNU system is HURD. And, well, few seem modivated to work on a true GNU system. If there WAS interest in HURD, there would be more movement than there has been since 1997.
Given the president elect is an oil man, and the VP is an oil man, the views of the people in charge are NOT going to go out of their way and move to convince people to use LESS energy.
The last president who was 'into renewables' was Jimmy Carter. It will take a major spike (ala 1970 gas price hikes) in energy costs before the US will shift toward using renewables or even the concept of co-generation/micropower.
The rolling backouts are comming for you where you live. Give it time.
Eazel is trying to make the Gnome inerface to Linux seriously cool and seriously usable.
And here all this time I thought Gnome was a UNIX program that had Linux as a list of target OSes.
Perhaps in a 'GNU/Linux rules' world, Gnome is a Linux program. But in the real world, GNOME is a unix app, ported to Linux.
Rather than seeing a whole market that can grow, there is a group of linux marketteers who believe that for them to be 'on top', they must push down others. So much for the talk of 'a new world of Open Source changing everything.' It is the same OLD world of 'my platform must be #1 and to hell with the others'.
>Recently, Real Media has begun streaming audio in with their banner ads, so when you load up a page, the banner will start spewing out reasons for you to click it. Sounds awful, huh? But it works.
Not if you run a browser with it disabled or not even aviable.
Sites that run Flash or streaming-whatever tend to break on things like *BSD or *linux* or BeOS or (insert your non Windows or Mac)
Let 'them' load up such crap....until 'they' support *BSD or *linux*, they won't reach the people who use such OSes.
At this time, some benchmarks done by some people show BSD running 10-30% faster than the linux distro of the month. Even the linux compatibility mode runs faster. Given the speed of machines these days....such matters little today.
The design methodology of a group of people VS linus is an advantage. (FreeBSD gets out releases once a quarter. the linux kernel has been delayed) Because of the design of BSD, updating a BSD box goes like this:
become root
cd/usr/src
make update
make buildworld
make installworld
And the BSD license is a difference. If Micro$oft 'attacks' GNU/Linux, Micro$oft will use the GPL as the vector of the attack.
Applications: Rate shaping for TCP/IP traffic is an example. How about Office 2001 for MAc OS X? (the whole Mac OS X stuff)
Lets just hope we dont have to learn another whole new letter and charictor layout like the palm has. That is the most annoying part of pen computing in my opinion.
Really? The Newton 130 and 2x00 are pen computing devices. And they don't require a whole new character/letter layout. (the pre 2.x versions of Newton Intelligence, well, sucked.)
Perhaps with newer and faster palms, these faster palms will be able to have useable handwriting interface without having to re-train the user.
The pocket PC line has the processor cycles, but many do not find the software compelling.
Its too bad the parent was marked as flamebait, but Micro$oft has (almost) always beaten its software rivals, and knows how to and has lots of practice. Beating the soverign? Well, a lot less practice, but like the slashdot article or the 'astroturf' campaign shows, Micro$oft can PR with the best of them.
Alas, the lessons of the political season are so soon forgotten!
Or the DeCSS, or the.....
Its too bad that technocrat.net shut down. But then, technocrat never did a good job of driving the points home.
Battling the soverign is a loosing battle most days.
In a battle of techies VS law...the courts are gonna kick your ass.
The people who have the money are going to get the laws in their favor.
'We' may be the governments boss, but if 'we' don't know what the boss is up to, how can 'we' effect policy?
The closest most/.ers come to the political-legal world is talking about how the GPL is wonderful and powerful.
I'm not in the best position to comment on BSD/OS.
However, posts based on what people think are facts VS, like REAL facts are rampant on/., so what the hell.
At one time, the only way to sell/publish/hand out BSD based code was to buy an AT&T Unix license. BSDi went ahead and did this, and were then able to offer up BSD based Unix at a time when the great Unix unification effort was focused on getting everyone to be SYS V. BSD/OS at that time was cheaper than, say ESIX, SCO, UnixWare etc la. BSDi was also able to bundle and sell support for BSD/OS, making it a 'corporate supported Unix'
Because they were a closed source Unix, they have been able to get some code included into their OS via licensing that you won't see EVER (ok, almost ever) in open source OSes.
BSD/OS is unix, just like FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Mac OS X, Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, IRIX or the 180+ versions of Linux are unix. (Sorry if I forgot anyone...but given QNX isn't qunix, I opted to skip them) As such, it has all the wholesome goodness that is unix. The rumor is the SMP is some of the best in the business, but even this is trickling down to FreeBSD.
BSD/OS is listed more often on the netcraft uptime survey more than any other OS, it has 24x7 support, can come pre installed on hardward and if your co-workers (PHB, Lawyers) don't want Open Source OSes, but you want BSD, BSD/OS is about the only choice for X86 processors. These are about the only 2 things I can easly point to for why pick BSD/OS.
1) Use GNU/Linux because they think its trendy/hip/geeky/some social reason
2) Wanting the power of Unix and didn't know that NetBSD or OpenBSD will work on the Mac
3) Want to squeeze performance out of the Mac
Users type 1 *MIGHT* decide Rhapsody^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMac OS X is hip enough. Effect: some movement to X
User type 2 has no reason to stay with GNU/Linux, given Mac OS X is a full-blown Unix.
Effect: most will move to X
User type 3 has machines with 680x0, or pre g3 machines. No way they can move.
So, there still will be a place for a PPC based Linux release. There are alot of old macs out there.
I think LinuxPPC is in serious risk of dying here. If Linux is some magically portable kernel, so long as the effort exists on X86 and other processors, Linux on a PPC will do fine. A GNU/LinuxPPC company was never on the path to an IPO or mega-corporate profitability. So, if your metric of 'GNU/LinuxPPC success' was going to be a $250 share price...that ain't gonna happen. It is more likely that Apple will stop making PPC machines before there stops being a few people who want to hack Linux kernels on PPC chips.
Besides, if you get desperate for PPC based Unix boxes....go talk to IBM. I hear IBM has money, and likes linux.:-)
It is more likely that Darwin will overtake LinuxPPC in number of units running on Macs but so what? Isn't the 'richness' of the 'linux distro world' its strength? If one Linux disro fails, 5 seem to pop up, feeding on the corpse of the fallen.
But why is it the 'linux camp' thinks the game is a 'total markshare and nothing else'? Smacks of the egotisim of Microsoft. If Apple is able to make and sell a better unix on thier own box, more power to them!
Each distro of *linux* is differernt than every other one. If you aren't different....then what is your point in existing?
If you claim the "Open Source OS Market" is 10 million machines, then BSD has 2 million units. (BSD marketshare is at 20%)
Given there are 180+ different versions of Linux out there, you have 180+ linux distros all fighting over 8 million users. That means each distro has an average of 44-45 thousand users.
45 thousand per linux distro VS 2 million for BSD.
When Apple ships Mac OS X, if Apple keeps selling its normal 2 million a year units, that means BSD users will double in a year. Apple will be shipping a 'consumer grade' BSD long before any linux distro, and will sell more of them in 6 months than most linux distros have shipped to date.
Your criteria is "small, fast, and compatible" not to mention "freely hacked"
Yet BSD is a BETTER choice based on your criteria.
Small - PicoBSD is a fully functioning Unix OS on a floppy.
Fast - BSD on benchmarks runs FASTER than linux. 10-30% faster.
Compatible - The result of the X86Open group (creation of a common binary format for X86 unixes) was a Linux ELF format. Thusly products like FreeBSD can run Linux binaries. And, FreeBSD can run Quake III linux binaries FASTER than Linux does. And, it is well known and accepted that NetBSD is ported to more platforms.
And, "freely hackable", the BSD license allows the user of the code to commericalize their product without the worry of having to release the IP the company uses in the product. The code is MUCH more free to do what a human wants to than other licenses.
Looking at 2 'linux' projects that are willing to admit they used the pioneering work of NetBSD are the dreamcast port (acknolodge the boot code is NetBSD inspired) and Linux on WinCE
Linux may 'work well', but in the world of computer code, the BSD tree is BETTER!
I see. So if Macs were to operate on hardware generated interrupts or have a Basic Input/Output System this would make them unworthy of operation or even purchase by "Mac Customers"?
The software Apple computer BOUGHT ran on X86 based machines.
The software promised at WWDC 1997 as the next generation of Mac OS software was to run on X86 processors.
You see, the next generation of Mac OS was to be able to run on X86 processors. And DR2 of that OS did, and Darwin - the base of the OS, DOES run on X86 boxes.
Which is why MAc OS X could run on X86 op-code boxes, if Steve Jobs were to will it. No technical reason, as they did this in the past. Business reasons, like the possibility of 'clones', or cutting into the gross mark-ups on the hardware, but not the technical ones you list.
To what the x86 family? You're kidding me right? IRQ mean anything to you? How about BIOS?
Lets see.... OpenSTEP, yup runs on X86 op-code machines. Rhapsody DR1 and DR2, yup runs on X86 op code machines.
Darwin - Yup, runs on X86 hardware.
Looks like Mac OS X *CAN* run on X86 hardware. But the 1997 statement by Gil that the new Mac OS (then called Rhapsody) would run on X86 hardware. And Mac OS X server edition says its name is Rhapsody. Guess the X86 got Steved.
There has to be some real numbers somewhere for us mear mortals to look at.
I'd like to see a OS is use numbers, the 'number of linux distros website' (often re-quoted, seldom linked to here on/.), or even links to articles/stuff over at the advocacy.deamonnews.org. (the links are kinda thin.)
I've been hoping that someone would actually have some of these '4 years running' reports, but with a lack of production, I'm guessing they don't exist.
Besides, I'm not worried about troll-girl. When she has some facts, and a troll turns out to be correct, *THEN* I'll start to worry.
In the "Open Source OS market", the BSD's have 20% marketshare.
Given there are 185+ seperate linux distros, the average marketshare is less than 1%.
1% is far less than 20%. Almost all linux distros are therefore nothing but money-pits for the VC's that are backing them, or are hobby projects.
There's more commercial installations out there based on BSD code than on Linux code. Stop hiding behind big boys fudster Sorry to tell ya this, but without BSD code, Linux won't work.
/usr/src/linux-2.2.12/include/linux/in_systm.h
is an example how without BSD, Linux won't work in any useful manner. Therefore, the original statement is 100% correct, because Linux uses BSD code. Programs using BSD code include BSD + Microsoft + Intel + IBM + linux is greater than linux, which uses BSD code.
If *BSD is so crappy, why does Linux use the code?
(extra bonus point question: Why was this code used w/o proper licensing? RMS/the FSF says old-style 4 clause BSD code it incompatible with the GPL, yet this code from 1993 is old enough to have had the 4 clause license...a license that can't be GPLed...yet a GPL was placed on the code in 1993, according to the version code. Not to mention the code is in PRESENT violation....clause 1 requires the 'above copywrite notice' and list of clauses. Wonder if UoC will ask all the copies of Linux to be recalled? Guess respect for a license only matters if it is the GPL eh?)
I look *SO* forward to your informed reply, linux zelot.
Slashdot Mirror
What? First to *use* USB (not just put it on the board).
Sorry. FreeBSD had a release version of FreeBSD a week before the MacWorld announcement of USB on macs.
"Where do you want to go today" - windows
"Where do you want to go tomarrow" - gnu/linux
"Hey, are you guys comming or what?" - BSD
The PPC A/UX is a re-labeled AIX.
A kernel in and of itself is rather boring yes.
But 'GNU system'? Its Unix userspace tools, no matter what Lineo says in press releases....Linux is a unix-like OS. RedHat used many hunks of BSD code....hardly a "GNU system."
A GNU system is HURD. And, well, few seem modivated to work on a true GNU system. If there WAS interest in HURD, there would be more movement than there has been since 1997.
Given the president elect is an oil man, and the VP is an oil man, the views of the people in charge are NOT going to go out of their way and move to convince people to use LESS energy.
The last president who was 'into renewables' was Jimmy Carter. It will take a major spike (ala 1970 gas price hikes) in energy costs before the US will shift toward using renewables or even the concept of co-generation/micropower.
The rolling backouts are comming for you where you live. Give it time.
Eazel is trying to make the Gnome inerface to Linux seriously cool and seriously usable.
And here all this time I thought Gnome was a UNIX program that had Linux as a list of target OSes.
Perhaps in a 'GNU/Linux rules' world, Gnome is a Linux program. But in the real world, GNOME is a unix app, ported to Linux.
Rather than seeing a whole market that can grow, there is a group of linux marketteers who believe that for them to be 'on top', they must push down others. So much for the talk of 'a new world of Open Source changing everything.' It is the same OLD world of 'my platform must be #1 and to hell with the others'.
Which Versionn of A/UX?
The 68X00 version, or the re-labeled AIX for PPC?
If you want A/UX today, go buy AIX.
Would the kernel be anywhere near where it is today if people hadn't gotten others interested by writing intriguing, linux-only apps? Probably not.
Your analysis is wrong.
Most anything shipped on linux distro is nothing more than a Unix program PORTED.
Unless GCC, X and others are 'linux only' apps.
>Recently, Real Media has begun streaming audio in with their banner ads, so when you load up a page, the banner will start spewing out reasons for you to click it. Sounds awful, huh? But it works.
Not if you run a browser with it disabled or not even aviable.
Sites that run Flash or streaming-whatever tend to break on things like *BSD or *linux* or BeOS or (insert your non Windows or Mac)
Let 'them' load up such crap....until 'they' support *BSD or *linux*, they won't reach the people who use such OSes.
At this time, some benchmarks done by some people show BSD running 10-30% faster than the linux distro of the month. Even the linux compatibility mode runs faster. Given the speed of machines these days....such matters little today.
/usr/src
The design methodology of a group of people VS linus is an advantage. (FreeBSD gets out releases once a quarter. the linux kernel has been delayed) Because of the design of BSD, updating a BSD box goes like this:
become root
cd
make update
make buildworld
make installworld
And the BSD license is a difference. If Micro$oft 'attacks' GNU/Linux, Micro$oft will use the GPL as the vector of the attack.
Applications: Rate shaping for TCP/IP traffic is an example. How about Office 2001 for MAc OS X? (the whole Mac OS X stuff)
Lets just hope we dont have to learn another whole new letter and charictor layout like the palm has. That is the most annoying part of pen computing in my opinion.
Really? The Newton 130 and 2x00 are pen computing devices. And they don't require a whole new character/letter layout. (the pre 2.x versions of Newton Intelligence, well, sucked.)
Perhaps with newer and faster palms, these faster palms will be able to have useable handwriting interface without having to re-train the user.
The pocket PC line has the processor cycles, but many do not find the software compelling.
Its too bad the parent was marked as flamebait, but Micro$oft has (almost) always beaten its software rivals, and knows how to and has lots of practice. Beating the soverign? Well, a lot less practice, but like the slashdot article or the 'astroturf' campaign shows, Micro$oft can PR with the best of them.
.....
/.ers come to the political-legal world is talking about how the GPL is wonderful and powerful.
Alas, the lessons of the political season are so soon forgotten!
Or the DeCSS, or the
Its too bad that technocrat.net shut down. But then, technocrat never did a good job of driving the points home.
Battling the soverign is a loosing battle most days.
In a battle of techies VS law...the courts are gonna kick your ass.
The people who have the money are going to get the laws in their favor.
'We' may be the governments boss, but if 'we' don't know what the boss is up to, how can 'we' effect policy?
The closest most
I'm not in the best position to comment on BSD/OS.
/., so what the hell.
However, posts based on what people think are facts VS, like REAL facts are rampant on
At one time, the only way to sell/publish/hand out BSD based code was to buy an AT&T Unix license. BSDi went ahead and did this, and were then able to offer up BSD based Unix at a time when the great Unix unification effort was focused on getting everyone to be SYS V. BSD/OS at that time was cheaper than, say ESIX, SCO, UnixWare etc la. BSDi was also able to bundle and sell support for BSD/OS, making it a 'corporate supported Unix'
Because they were a closed source Unix, they have been able to get some code included into their OS via licensing that you won't see EVER (ok, almost ever) in open source OSes.
BSD/OS is unix, just like FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Mac OS X, Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, IRIX or the 180+ versions of Linux are unix. (Sorry if I forgot anyone...but given QNX isn't qunix, I opted to skip them) As such, it has all the wholesome goodness that is unix. The rumor is the SMP is some of the best in the business, but even this is trickling down to FreeBSD.
BSD/OS is listed more often on the netcraft uptime survey more than any other OS, it has 24x7 support, can come pre installed on hardward and if your co-workers (PHB, Lawyers) don't want Open Source OSes, but you want BSD, BSD/OS is about the only choice for X86 processors. These are about the only 2 things I can easly point to for why pick BSD/OS.
mea culpa Correct on the ppc/m68k
:-)
NetBSD doesn't have that problem however
Of course they'll rush back to Mac OS X.
:-)
There are 3 kinds of Linux users here.
1) Use GNU/Linux because they think its trendy/hip/geeky/some social reason
2) Wanting the power of Unix and didn't know that NetBSD or OpenBSD will work on the Mac
3) Want to squeeze performance out of the Mac
Users type 1 *MIGHT* decide Rhapsody^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMac OS X is hip enough. Effect: some movement to X
User type 2 has no reason to stay with GNU/Linux, given Mac OS X is a full-blown Unix.
Effect: most will move to X
User type 3 has machines with 680x0, or pre g3 machines. No way they can move.
So, there still will be a place for a PPC based Linux release. There are alot of old macs out there.
I think LinuxPPC is in serious risk of dying here.
If Linux is some magically portable kernel, so long as the effort exists on X86 and other processors, Linux on a PPC will do fine. A GNU/LinuxPPC company was never on the path to an IPO or mega-corporate profitability. So, if your metric of 'GNU/LinuxPPC success' was going to be a $250 share price...that ain't gonna happen. It is more likely that Apple will stop making PPC machines before there stops being a few people who want to hack Linux kernels on PPC chips.
Besides, if you get desperate for PPC based Unix boxes....go talk to IBM. I hear IBM has money, and likes linux.
It is more likely that Darwin will overtake LinuxPPC in number of units running on Macs but so what? Isn't the 'richness' of the 'linux distro world' its strength? If one Linux disro fails, 5 seem to pop up, feeding on the corpse of the fallen.
But why is it the 'linux camp' thinks the game is a 'total markshare and nothing else'? Smacks of the egotisim of Microsoft. If Apple is able to make and sell a better unix on thier own box, more power to them!
Each distro of *linux* is differernt than every other one. If you aren't different....then what is your point in existing?
If you claim the "Open Source OS Market" is 10 million machines, then BSD has 2 million units. (BSD marketshare is at 20%)
Given there are 180+ different versions of Linux out there, you have 180+ linux distros all fighting over 8 million users. That means each distro has an average of 44-45 thousand users.
45 thousand per linux distro VS 2 million for BSD.
When Apple ships Mac OS X, if Apple keeps selling its normal 2 million a year units, that means BSD users will double in a year. Apple will be shipping a 'consumer grade' BSD long before any linux distro, and will sell more of them in 6 months than most linux distros have shipped to date.
Your criteria is "small, fast, and compatible" not to mention "freely hacked"
Yet BSD is a BETTER choice based on your criteria.
Small - PicoBSD is a fully functioning Unix OS on a floppy.
Fast - BSD on benchmarks runs FASTER than linux. 10-30% faster.
Compatible - The result of the X86Open group (creation of a common binary format for X86 unixes) was a Linux ELF format. Thusly products like FreeBSD can run Linux binaries. And, FreeBSD can run Quake III linux binaries FASTER than Linux does. And, it is well known and accepted that NetBSD is ported to more platforms.
And, "freely hackable", the BSD license allows the user of the code to commericalize their product without the worry of having to release the IP the company uses in the product. The code is MUCH more free to do what a human wants to than other licenses.
Looking at 2 'linux' projects that are willing to admit they used the pioneering work of NetBSD are the dreamcast port (acknolodge the boot code is NetBSD inspired) and Linux on WinCE
Linux may 'work well', but in the world of computer code, the BSD tree is BETTER!
Consider the case of Kerberos.....
Do you think this is right?
What to *YOU* think of people who don't follow others copywrites?
Yes it is possible. However, more modern cards/machines/busses may not be supported.
Your best bet is to load up darwin/BSD/or gnu/linux, add GNUStep, and windowmaker. FreeBSD has windowmaker as a default desktop choice.
t takes some BSD stuff and glues that 1985 crApple interface on it.
The interface shares more with NeXTSTEP and OpenSTEP than it does 1985 Mac/Lisa/crApple interface.
I see. So if Macs were to operate on hardware generated interrupts or have a Basic Input/Output System this would make them unworthy of operation or even purchase by "Mac Customers"?
The software Apple computer BOUGHT ran on X86 based machines.
The software promised at WWDC 1997 as the next generation of Mac OS software was to run on X86 processors.
You see, the next generation of Mac OS was to be able to run on X86 processors. And DR2 of that OS did, and Darwin - the base of the OS, DOES run on X86 boxes.
Which is why MAc OS X could run on X86 op-code boxes, if Steve Jobs were to will it. No technical reason, as they did this in the past. Business reasons, like the possibility of 'clones', or cutting into the gross mark-ups on the hardware, but not the technical ones you list.
To what the x86 family? You're kidding me right? IRQ mean anything to you? How about BIOS?
Lets see.... OpenSTEP, yup runs on X86 op-code machines. Rhapsody DR1 and DR2, yup runs on X86 op code machines.
Darwin - Yup, runs on X86 hardware.
Looks like Mac OS X *CAN* run on X86 hardware. But the 1997 statement by Gil that the new Mac OS (then called Rhapsody) would run on X86 hardware. And Mac OS X server edition says its name is Rhapsody. Guess the X86 got Steved.
Nick Pertley, Joe Barr, and even IBM have all moved on. They are pumping Linux.
There has to be some real numbers somewhere for us mear mortals to look at.
/.), or even links to articles/stuff over at the advocacy.deamonnews.org. (the links are kinda thin.)
I'd like to see a OS is use numbers, the 'number of linux distros website' (often re-quoted, seldom linked to here on
I've been hoping that someone would actually have some of these '4 years running' reports, but with a lack of production, I'm guessing they don't exist.
Besides, I'm not worried about troll-girl. When she has some facts, and a troll turns out to be correct, *THEN* I'll start to worry.
In the "Open Source OS market", the BSD's have 20% marketshare.
Given there are 185+ seperate linux distros, the average marketshare is less than 1%.
1% is far less than 20%. Almost all linux distros are therefore nothing but money-pits for the VC's that are backing them, or are hobby projects.
There's more commercial installations out there based on BSD code than on Linux code.
Stop hiding behind big boys fudster
Sorry to tell ya this, but without BSD code, Linux won't work.
/usr/src/linux-2.2.12/include/linux/in_systm.h
is an example how without BSD, Linux won't work in any useful manner. Therefore, the original statement is 100% correct, because Linux uses BSD code. Programs using BSD code include BSD + Microsoft + Intel + IBM + linux is greater than linux, which uses BSD code.
If *BSD is so crappy, why does Linux use the code?
(extra bonus point question: Why was this code used w/o proper licensing? RMS/the FSF says old-style 4 clause BSD code it incompatible with the GPL, yet this code from 1993 is old enough to have had the 4 clause license...a license that can't be GPLed...yet a GPL was placed on the code in 1993, according to the version code. Not to mention the code is in PRESENT violation....clause 1 requires the 'above copywrite notice' and list of clauses. Wonder if UoC will ask all the copies of Linux to be recalled? Guess respect for a license only matters if it is the GPL eh?)
I look *SO* forward to your informed reply, linux zelot.