If Bob had proof, he'd mention the parts of Free/Net/Open BSD that have this problem. The source code is out there for ALL to see. Wouldn't take much to prove what he is saying.
Yet we'll never see proof....because Bob is a troll.
Compared to BSD....yes. At some point Linus will have to admit the kernel needs CVS or some form of control. It will be interesting to see how Linus handles the transition.
>How many other development methodologies have produced mature, stable, reliable, highly portable operating systems in under ten years?
Lets see, what was the methodology?
1) used SYSV Unix as a model (not much DESIGN here)
2) Used other people's BSD and GPL code. (again, falls short on design)
3) Used Minix as a base (again.... design)
Methodology - Copying and using parts that already work from others. Not alot of heavy mental lifting on design when you use others code.
Stable and reliable. Sure, compared to Windows 3.1 or Windows 95, or older versions of itself. But Linux is 'reliable and stable' compared to BSD? How about Solaris? AIX? Tru-Unix? Sco? QNX? (this is subject to debate....debate away)
Mature - BSD has the WHOLE CODE HISTORY of UNIX behind it. Linux - A unix copy. BSD wins here....no argument.
Highly portable - NetBSD says they have the highest portability.
>And because he decides, we get a decent platform in a reasonable time.
The long delayed release of 2.4 kernel is an example of this?
Or, how about all the userspace programs that make the kernel useful? Mostly unix code....and nothing that can't and doesn't exist on other unix kernels (BSD/Sun/SCO/Qnx etc la)
The stuff that makes Linux useful is all userland....and nothing Linus has control over. I maintain your 'decent platform in a reasonable time' is the hard work of the 100+ linux distro companies.
>Like I say, if you can do better, go ahead and do it. There is nothing stopping you.
Looks like it has been done. It is called BSD.
doesn't break memory management for smaller computers
But that would take talented people.
Perhaps exceeding the ability of the Uber-hacker Linus to do. If it was easy, it would have been done.
But who gives a damn about Big iron? (Ok, IBM and its users do.) The bigger number of sales of units and total profit is the embedded world. When you are writing your autobiography about your talent and helping the computer world, the metric of others (not to mention your employer) will measure you by the total profit.
Now, try to say with a straight face that the kernel is going to be the same for a limited resource machine (4-8 meg DRAM 32 bit address, 8 or 16 bit data bus) and your average desktop machine (128 Meg +, 700+mhz machine)
How many copies of OpenLinux (what they support) are out there?
Are you willing to claim MORE copies of OpenLinux are installed and used OVERALL when compaired to BSD? Are you even willing to name the Linux distros that have 15% or greater marketshare of the Open Source OS market?
>Powergoo
Hey...that is the example when I said "move these jobs to a big-assed SPARC. Then your big press won't be waiting on the machine anymore" The printer's lead tech said other names of apps that were mac-only at the time.
>Porting applications to Mac OS X has nothing to do with porting them to BSD.
Really? Gee. Before Apache supported Rhapsody^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMac OS X Server, I told Apache that "you are a freebsd box" and Apache compiled fine. Other less suitable options (say SYS V or Win32) didn't fair as well:-)
Given the progress of www.gnustep.org if one writes code with gnustep as a target, or thinks in terms of BSD-centric API calls, you *COULD* use the Mac OS codebase on other platforms.
WWDC 1998, Jobs announced the acceptance of YellowBox wasn't happening, so he renamed it to carbon/cocoa. Vendors could continue to use carbon API's, but Apple has already said Cocoa is the long term future.
So:
Do you write for BSD/Unix (if you watch your system calls the code is a "simple port")
Continue to use carbon, and eventually have to move? (If Apple doesn't dump carbon at some point, think about Microsoft. They have in some cases 4 different system calls to accomplish the same task. 3 of them are 'un-used', yet keep geting used, forcing M$ to support them)
Write for the present Apple API's? (and then if Apple's fortune change, now what do you do?)
Write for Gnustep? (the license on the GnuStep project causes some to have issues. Why, I'm not sure.)
Write to WINE32?
By picking a UNIX porting path, you CAN get
QNX/BSD/SCO/Solaris/SGI/DEC^H^H^HTru Unix/SYSV/HP-UX/Mac OS X/linux if you wish to work for it. About the only platform you don't get is Microsoft. And it won't matter if your customer base shifts from unix platform X to Y, you can support them on the platform of choice.
So you, the consumer have a choice. Support and ask companies to make UNIX ports, with your unix platform as a target, or ask them to make your os only port. If they are going through the work of making a port, is it better to have the option of the WHOLE Unix cloud, or just your little slice? What will work better....saying there are X seats of your OS they could sell to, or TotalNumberOfUnix()-X seats of AllUnixNames() they could sell to?
Back when Adobe made Solaris versions of thier programs, Desktop publishing shops, all wanting faster machines, didn't want to get Solaris boxes.
Why?
A lack of other tools they are used to. No powerGoo, etc la.
If you are feeding a 10 million dollar press a $150,000 print job, and are paying someone $60,000 a year, is the price difference between a Mac VS a Open Source Unix OS a worry? No.
If Apple is able to keep its user base on the move to BSD unix, eventually code will slide sideways to X86 based BSD, then X86 based *linux. So, just un-bind your underware.
Yes, the selection of the US President *DOES* matter on this small ball of dirt rotating around a disreguarded yellow sun, in teh unfashionable end of the western spiral arm.
However in the/. universe, if the people with moderation power opt to *NOT* post stories about the election, guess what? They stop existing in the/. universe.
>Licenses like the GPL are, at their heart saying, "you can do anything except re-license this code."
Err AJS, you are being sloppy wih your words here.
And you know better.
You can not **RE-LICENSE** BSD or GPL. (unless you are the original copywrite holder) It is a matter of ADDING another layer of license. The GPL does not allow for a way to add a new layer of license that restricts re-distribution of the source code. There may be a way to create a license that you can ADD to a GPL license, but I have never seen such. A BSD license allows you to add another license layer where you can take the code, make additions and then NOT release the changes.
>On the point of using BSD because it's not trendy, I have to agree with the original poster. Most BSD users that I know use it for that reason.
Errr, most use it because they find it to be a better product than other options.
Then why won't things like PICK run on anythoung other than the OS version its compiled/certified for?
Or, how RedHat, Mandrake, and others all ship with special kernel patches?
Looks like each distro is a fork.
No link for this...sorry
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 1
One TV show was talking about the insects of the world. And they talked about how people were 'starving' (ie: more people than the land hand traditionally supported) So, the US Ag specialists brought in our 'super rice' - a hybrid with alot of rice gains per stalk. And, with artifical watering, they were able to have full-time planting, as opposed to leaving the ground fsalow during the dry season.
The super rice was perfered by the local insects. Solution - insectiside. And, to increase growth, fertilizer. And, for a few years, better yeilds. Eventually, the sick field workers, costs of fertilizer and insectized caused these people to move back to more traditional methods.
Intergrated agriculture is important. Sometimes, this will mean the introduction of GM. Other times not.
But at this time, with our consumer economy, our 'needs' for electricity, etc....we humans will poison our way out of a home. This is more of a concern than GMO's.
>The fact that that code is not around anymore speaks for itself.
Really? The code isn't around anymore?
A search on Yahoo shows this: 386BSD - An older version of BSD now targeted exclusively at the research and academic community. CD distributions only, sold by Dr. Dobb's Journal.
Looks like the code is still around. And it was 'uncontaminated' in time for the 0.1 release.
>entrenched BSD partisans,
As opposed to the GPL zelots who can't explain why violations of the GPL go un-enforced?
If you looked here
ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/FreeBSD-curren t/src/share/misc/bsd-family-tree
You would see that legally encumbered BSD was shipping/aviable for download.
When you go back and resarch your unix history, you will see that the legal issues did not seem to bother the people who shipped 386BSD and FreeBSD 1.X.
If you want to talk about legal issues, then look into the GPLed code shipping on a virgin webplayer. Then, ask about the total *LACK* of action on the part of FSF and others to enforce the GPL.
Why don't you go through the list of ports/packages on FreeBSD and provide a detailed history of the packages/ports and see what 'is a linux program'
Once you get over your shock, you'd see that these programs are UNIX programs. You may have 1st seen them with Linux, and Linux has more hype, but that doesn't mean code was "Linux".
In fact, the only code that is "Linux" is the kernel.
Re:FreeBSD is an OS, not a distribution
on
FreeBSD 4.2 Is Out
·
· Score: 2
For the same reason various Linux distros have differently patched kernels. The people who package up the code think it would be better with their own changes.
>The idea of promoting KDE to a non-Linux audience is a worthwhile one
GNOME didn't do that in its begining....the code was very linux-centric. Only with repeated beatings with a clue-by-4 did they stop writing linux code and start writing portable Unix code.
Look at the comment by Chris Schlaeger:
So promoting KDE is almost as important as working on KDE. Recent studies show that KDE is used on more the 70% of all Linux desktops. We could fight for those remaining 30% but given that Linux has less than 5% of the overall desktop market we should rather target the 95% of desktop users than compete with our friends from the GNOME project.
Yea. Lets stop feuding with our GNOME friends.
What about making your code work with your UNIX relatives, instead of acting that the only desktop that matters is Linux? GNOME now has an decided to stop thinking 'we are a linux project' to 'we are a Unix project' GNOME can now shoot for the claim of 'BSD/HURD/Linux/SCO/Solaris/QNX' we work with them all.
A lead developer with KDE only talks about Linux. Way to build credibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at his posting past.
If Bob had proof, he'd mention the parts of Free/Net/Open BSD that have this problem. The source code is out there for ALL to see. Wouldn't take much to prove what he is saying.
Yet we'll never see proof....because Bob is a troll.
Bob posts start at 0.
>It's broken, is it?
Compared to BSD....yes. At some point Linus will have to admit the kernel needs CVS or some form of control. It will be interesting to see how Linus handles the transition.
>How many other development methodologies have produced mature, stable, reliable, highly portable operating systems in under ten years?
Lets see, what was the methodology?
1) used SYSV Unix as a model (not much DESIGN here)
2) Used other people's BSD and GPL code. (again, falls short on design)
3) Used Minix as a base (again.... design)
Methodology - Copying and using parts that already work from others. Not alot of heavy mental lifting on design when you use others code.
Stable and reliable. Sure, compared to Windows 3.1 or Windows 95, or older versions of itself. But Linux is 'reliable and stable' compared to BSD? How about Solaris? AIX? Tru-Unix? Sco? QNX? (this is subject to debate....debate away)
Mature - BSD has the WHOLE CODE HISTORY of UNIX behind it. Linux - A unix copy. BSD wins here....no argument.
Highly portable - NetBSD says they have the highest portability.
>And because he decides, we get a decent platform in a reasonable time.
The long delayed release of 2.4 kernel is an example of this?
Or, how about all the userspace programs that make the kernel useful? Mostly unix code....and nothing that can't and doesn't exist on other unix kernels (BSD/Sun/SCO/Qnx etc la)
The stuff that makes Linux useful is all userland....and nothing Linus has control over. I maintain your 'decent platform in a reasonable time' is the hard work of the 100+ linux distro companies.
>Like I say, if you can do better, go ahead and do it. There is nothing stopping you.
Looks like it has been done. It is called BSD.
doesn't break memory management for smaller computers
But that would take talented people.
Perhaps exceeding the ability of the Uber-hacker Linus to do. If it was easy, it would have been done.
But who gives a damn about Big iron? (Ok, IBM and its users do.) The bigger number of sales of units and total profit is the embedded world. When you are writing your autobiography about your talent and helping the computer world, the metric of others (not to mention your employer) will measure you by the total profit.
Now, try to say with a straight face that the kernel is going to be the same for a limited resource machine (4-8 meg DRAM 32 bit address, 8 or 16 bit data bus) and your average desktop machine (128 Meg +, 700+mhz machine)
How many copies of FreeBSD are there out there?
How many copies of OpenLinux (what they support) are out there?
Are you willing to claim MORE copies of OpenLinux are installed and used OVERALL when compaired to BSD? Are you even willing to name the Linux distros that have 15% or greater marketshare of the Open Source OS market?
Looks like your argument falls flat.
Ok...lets say:
Linux good - no forks (to day)
BSD bad - forks from 4.4 Lite tree
Then can linux be called BAD when Linux forks 3 ways? Present Linux, Embedded/small Linux, and Linux for big iron (IBM)
>Note that there was a NeXTstep version of Framemaker
This goes to show Adobe is not in a bad way WRT porting applications. The smaller software companies are the ones who have to make a decision.
Adobe can:
1) take their present Unix base and use that
2) use Carbon
3) revamp the NeXTSTEP version to work with Cocoa or even www.gnustep.org.
Path 1) keeps a UNIX version for the rest of us. 3) can get native Mac OS X support, and keeps an option open for other Unixes.
If Apple ever delivered on the promised YellowBox for Windows, 3) would get a true 'all platforms' option. Alas, that won't happen.
>Powergoo
:-)
Hey...that is the example when I said "move these jobs to a big-assed SPARC. Then your big press won't be waiting on the machine anymore" The printer's lead tech said other names of apps that were mac-only at the time.
>Porting applications to Mac OS X has nothing to do with porting them to BSD.
Really? Gee. Before Apache supported Rhapsody^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMac OS X Server, I told Apache that "you are a freebsd box" and Apache compiled fine. Other less suitable options (say SYS V or Win32) didn't fair as well
Given the progress of www.gnustep.org if one writes code with gnustep as a target, or thinks in terms of BSD-centric API calls, you *COULD* use the Mac OS codebase on other platforms.
WWDC 1998, Jobs announced the acceptance of YellowBox wasn't happening, so he renamed it to carbon/cocoa. Vendors could continue to use carbon API's, but Apple has already said Cocoa is the long term future.
So:
Do you write for BSD/Unix (if you watch your system calls the code is a "simple port")
Continue to use carbon, and eventually have to move? (If Apple doesn't dump carbon at some point, think about Microsoft. They have in some cases 4 different system calls to accomplish the same task. 3 of them are 'un-used', yet keep geting used, forcing M$ to support them)
Write for the present Apple API's? (and then if Apple's fortune change, now what do you do?)
Write for Gnustep? (the license on the GnuStep project causes some to have issues. Why, I'm not sure.)
Write to WINE32?
By picking a UNIX porting path, you CAN get
QNX/BSD/SCO/Solaris/SGI/DEC^H^H^HTru Unix/SYSV/HP-UX/Mac OS X/linux if you wish to work for it. About the only platform you don't get is Microsoft. And it won't matter if your customer base shifts from unix platform X to Y, you can support them on the platform of choice.
So you, the consumer have a choice. Support and ask companies to make UNIX ports, with your unix platform as a target, or ask them to make your os only port. If they are going through the work of making a port, is it better to have the option of the WHOLE Unix cloud, or just your little slice? What will work better....saying there are X seats of your OS they could sell to, or TotalNumberOfUnix()-X seats of AllUnixNames() they could sell to?
Mac OS X.
Back when Adobe made Solaris versions of thier programs, Desktop publishing shops, all wanting faster machines, didn't want to get Solaris boxes.
Why?
A lack of other tools they are used to. No powerGoo, etc la.
If you are feeding a 10 million dollar press a $150,000 print job, and are paying someone $60,000 a year, is the price difference between a Mac VS a Open Source Unix OS a worry? No.
If Apple is able to keep its user base on the move to BSD unix, eventually code will slide sideways to X86 based BSD, then X86 based *linux. So, just un-bind your underware.
The sad thing is this parent wasn't moderated up.
/. universe, if the people with moderation power opt to *NOT* post stories about the election, guess what? They stop existing in the /. universe.
Yes, the selection of the US President *DOES* matter on this small ball of dirt rotating around a disreguarded yellow sun, in teh unfashionable end of the western spiral arm.
However in the
>Licenses like the GPL are, at their heart saying, "you can do anything except re-license this code."
Err AJS, you are being sloppy wih your words here.
And you know better.
You can not **RE-LICENSE** BSD or GPL. (unless you are the original copywrite holder) It is a matter of ADDING another layer of license. The GPL does not allow for a way to add a new layer of license that restricts re-distribution of the source code. There may be a way to create a license that you can ADD to a GPL license, but I have never seen such. A BSD license allows you to add another license layer where you can take the code, make additions and then NOT release the changes.
>On the point of using BSD because it's not trendy, I have to agree with the original poster. Most BSD users that I know use it for that reason.
Errr, most use it because they find it to be a better product than other options.
Ajs is remembering the conversation fron the NetBSD side of things correctly.
>The linux kernel has never forked,
Really?
Then why won't things like PICK run on anythoung other than the OS version its compiled/certified for?
Or, how RedHat, Mandrake, and others all ship with special kernel patches?
Looks like each distro is a fork.
One TV show was talking about the insects of the world. And they talked about how people were 'starving' (ie: more people than the land hand traditionally supported) So, the US Ag specialists brought in our 'super rice' - a hybrid with alot of rice gains per stalk. And, with artifical watering, they were able to have full-time planting, as opposed to leaving the ground fsalow during the dry season.
The super rice was perfered by the local insects. Solution - insectiside. And, to increase growth, fertilizer. And, for a few years, better yeilds. Eventually, the sick field workers, costs of fertilizer and insectized caused these people to move back to more traditional methods.
Intergrated agriculture is important. Sometimes, this will mean the introduction of GM. Other times not.
But at this time, with our consumer economy, our 'needs' for electricity, etc....we humans will poison our way out of a home. This is more of a concern than GMO's.
>If you didn't mind the risk of being sued.
4.4 Lite was the 'at&t free' version, yet 386BSD 0.1 shipped. And 0.1 was not based on 4.4 lite.
0.1 386BSD was shipped 'at&t free' according to the 386BSD team.
So....where WAS the risk here?
>The fact that that code is not around anymore speaks for itself.
Really? The code isn't around anymore?
A search on Yahoo shows this: 386BSD - An older version of BSD now targeted exclusively at the research and academic community. CD distributions only, sold by Dr. Dobb's Journal.
Looks like the code is still around. And it was 'uncontaminated' in time for the 0.1 release.
>entrenched BSD partisans,
As opposed to the GPL zelots who can't explain why violations of the GPL go un-enforced?
If you looked heren t/src/share/misc/bsd-family-tree
ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/FreeBSD-curre
You would see that legally encumbered BSD was shipping/aviable for download.
When you go back and resarch your unix history, you will see that the legal issues did not seem to bother the people who shipped 386BSD and FreeBSD 1.X.
If you want to talk about legal issues, then look into the GPLed code shipping on a virgin webplayer. Then, ask about the total *LACK* of action on the part of FSF and others to enforce the GPL.
Then explain why the BSD code was circulated before the 4.4 lite code was released?
The number one problem facing Freebsd now is loss of marketshare. Week after week Freebsd keeps slipping lower in the marketshare surveys.
Really?
Got some URL's showing this on a week by week basis?
Really?
xv is a linux package?
xsane?
Why don't you go through the list of ports/packages on FreeBSD and provide a detailed history of the packages/ports and see what 'is a linux program'
Once you get over your shock, you'd see that these programs are UNIX programs. You may have 1st seen them with Linux, and Linux has more hype, but that doesn't mean code was "Linux".
In fact, the only code that is "Linux" is the kernel.
For the same reason various Linux distros have differently patched kernels. The people who package up the code think it would be better with their own changes.
>The idea of promoting KDE to a non-Linux audience is a worthwhile one
GNOME didn't do that in its begining....the code was very linux-centric. Only with repeated beatings with a clue-by-4 did they stop writing linux code and start writing portable Unix code.
Look at the comment by Chris Schlaeger:
So promoting KDE is almost as important as working on KDE. Recent studies show that KDE is used on more the 70% of all Linux desktops. We could fight for those remaining 30% but given that Linux has less than 5% of the overall desktop market we should rather target the 95% of desktop users than compete with our friends from the GNOME project.
Yea. Lets stop feuding with our GNOME friends.
What about making your code work with your UNIX relatives, instead of acting that the only desktop that matters is Linux? GNOME now has an decided to stop thinking 'we are a linux project' to 'we are a Unix project' GNOME can now shoot for the claim of 'BSD/HURD/Linux/SCO/Solaris/QNX' we work with them all.
A lead developer with KDE only talks about Linux. Way to build credibility.
No, BSD based system were the better choice.
Care to argue that a code base with all the years of development of BSD would make it a worse choice?
If the legal issues were truly a problem, would you have been able to ship the code?
>Palm had the advantage of being first to market,
The Newton was 1st to market.
When you say 'free software' do you mean Bruce Perens or FSF/RMS version?
At least Jon knows that Open Source OSes INCLUDE BSD. As opposed to others, who say they are Open Source advocates, then only talks about Linux.