×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Summary of Changes to NetBSD's Packages Collection

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the more-and-more-and-more dept.

BSD 33

Dan writes "NetBSD's Alistair Crooks indicates in his December 2002 report that there are 3402 packages in the NetBSD Packages Collection, up from 3327 the previous month, a rise of 75. The Package of the Month award goes to pkgsrc/pkgtools/pkgdepgraph, nominated by Andrew Brown - you'll need graphviz to look at the dependency graph that it produces, but the output is quite fascinating."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

33 comments

*BSD Is Dying (-1)

Original AIDS Monkey (315494) | more than 11 years ago | (#5157084)

Netcraft has confirmed: *BSD is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save *BSD at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

*BSD is dead

pkgsrc on linux (2)

noselasd (594905) | more than 11 years ago | (#5157194)

the pkgsrc is supposed to be portable, anyone have any experience on usng it on a Linux distro ?

Re:pkgsrc on linux (4, Informative)

jschauma (90259) | more than 11 years ago | (#5157226)

Yes, it works beautifully. There have even been reports of a Linux installation that is _entirely_ managed by pkgsrc (that is, including the base system, glibc, kernel etc.). Certainly beats rpm, apt and the like.

Furthermore, pkgsrc also works under Darwin, FreeBSD, IRIX, OpenBSD and Solaris. See http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/software/packa ges.html#bootstrap [netbsd.org] for details.

Re:pkgsrc on linux (1)

Bishop (4500) | more than 11 years ago | (#5158274)

Cool.

Do you have any documentation of a strict pkgsrc Linux install?

I was looking to use Open Packages [openpackages.org], but that project seems to have stalled. I will give this a try instead. Thank you for the pointer.

Re:pkgsrc on linux (2, Informative)

jschauma (90259) | more than 11 years ago | (#5158447)

Search the NetBSD mailinglists for ``linux pkgsrc'' (Google powered NetBSD searches are here [netbsd.org]). One helpful message should be this one [netbsd.org].

Re:pkgsrc on linux (1)

alan_d_post (120619) | more than 11 years ago | (#5166759)

Even more fun would be a pkgsrc-ized *NetBSD* system! Death to the monolithic base system! That is one thing, at least, that Red Hat got right.

Re:pkgsrc on linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5175159)

In fact there is the syspkg effort which goes away from the monolithic *.tgz installs and instead manages system packages (i.e. all the base system, what now is installed via *.tgz sets) in the style of syspkg, including possibilities to partially upgrade, deinstall etc. those packages. IIRC at current the dependancies are not gotten right, and I assume that in the light of the nathanw-sa merge the nbsd developers really had better things to do than grooming that :) I don't exactly remember how to get a syspkg'ized base system, but if you build from source, you can make register or something like that in usr/src/distrib/syspkg/sets which will register the installed system in DESTDIR into I think var/db/syspkg (but as I said, I don't think the dependancies are gotten right atm!) and you can use that to remove stuff you don't need from the base system (like e.g. isdn stuff etc.). I succeussfully used this to do an install of a base system including gcc and a tclsh (yes yes, flame me for it not being perl :) and manpages etc. without stuff I did not need onto my 70 MB HD of my 486/4MB laptop. Hope that brought some light at least into that dark corner.

Re:pkgsrc on linux (1)

alan_d_post (120619) | more than 11 years ago | (#5179076)

That's all well and good -- but why a separate package system? Why not make the packages /var/db/pkg packages?

Re:pkgsrc on linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5181921)

It is NO different package system, it uses all the tools you are used to. It just stores system packages in another hierarchy, that's all.

You can use pkg_add, pkg_delete et al. just like you would for pkgsrc packages.

Re:pkgsrc on linux (1)

alan_d_post (120619) | more than 11 years ago | (#5186667)

Neat! Thanks for the pointers. I guess there is intelligent life on Slashdot after all!

Re:pkg'ized base system (1)

msw2 (586996) | more than 11 years ago | (#5193002)

One more note on this, you actually can't use pkg_*
tools *exactly* like you would for packages, you will have to set PKG_DB_DIR (I think) by hand to /var/db/syspkg when you use it. But the plan (as far as I understand it) is to remove the need to that, too; if I'm not mistaken, the first pkg'ized netbsd should be 2.something (former 1.7 ? the next major thing :) At current it's mostly usable only for micro update when you know what you're doing (tm) as the dependancies are somewhat ... weak. But still, nothing holds you back from testing some... especially if you have more than one system you can easily build on one, and install, for example, comp-gcc-1-6-M (or something like that - the release version including all minor stuff goes into the package name) on other machines if you know that you will want a new gcc on other machines but not all other stuff from the comp.tgz set.
Again, it's not in the release yet, it's not (yet) advocated, I think there's a reason for it :) Not holding ME back at least from sniffing into it (and I enjoy(ed) the tour).

*BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5160564)

It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. The plain truth is that *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Confidential (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5157374)

IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED
: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

FROM: GEORGE WALKER BUSH
DEAR SIR / MADAM,

I AM GEORGE WALKER BUSH, SON OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH, AND CURRENTLY SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE
NOT MET NEITHER IN PERSON NOR BY CORRESPONDENCE.

I CAME TO KNOW OF YOU IN MY SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND REPUTABLE PERSON TO HANDLE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS TRANSACTION, WHICH INVOLVES THE TRANSFER OF A HUGE SUM OF MONEY TO AN ACCOUNT REQUIRING MAXIMUM CONFIDENCE.

I AM WRITING YOU IN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE PRIMARILY TO SEEK YOUR ASSISTANCE IN ACQUIRING OIL FUNDS THAT ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ.

MY PARTNERS AND I SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING A TRANSACTION BEGUN BY MY FATHER, WHO HAS LONG BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE EXTRACTION OF PETROLEUM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND BRAVELY SERVED HIS COUNTRY AS DIRECTOR
OF THE UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.

IN THE DECADE OF THE NINETEEN-EIGHTIES, MY FATHER, THEN VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUGHT TO WORK WITH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ TO REGAIN LOST OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE
NEIGHBORING ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. THIS UNSUCCESSFUL VENTURE WAS SOON FOLLOWED BY A FALLING OUT WITH HIS IRAQI PARTNER, WHO SOUGHT TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING EMIRATE OF KUWAIT, A
WHOLLY-OWNED U.S.-BRITISH SUBSIDIARY.

MY FATHER RE-SECURED THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF KUWAIT IN 1991 AT A COST
OF SIXTY-ONE BILLION U.S. DOLLARS ($61,000,000,000). OUT OF THAT COST,
THIRTY-SIX BILLION DOLLARS ($36,000,000,000) WERE SUPPLIED BY HIS PARTNERS IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER PERSIAN GULF MONARCHIES, AND
SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS ($16,000,000,000) BY GERMAN AND JAPANESE PARTNERS.

BUT MY FATHER'S FORMER IRAQI BUSINESS PARTNER REMAINED IN CONTROL OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ITS PETROLEUM RESERVES.

MY FAMILY IS CALLING FOR YOUR URGENT ASSISTANCE IN FUNDING THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ACQUIRING THE PETROLEUM
ASSETS OF HIS COUNTRY, AS COMPENSATION FOR THE COSTS OF REMOVING HIM FROM POWER. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR PARTNERS FROM 1991 ARE NOT WILLING TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF THIS NEW VENTURE, WHICH IN ITS UPCOMING PHASE MAY COST THE SUM OF 100
BILLION TO 200 BILLION DOLLARS ($100,000,000,000 - $200,000,000,000), BOTH IN THE INITIAL ACQUISITION AND IN LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT.

WITHOUT THE FUNDS FROM OUR 1991 PARTNERS, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE OIL REVENUE TRAPPED WITHIN IRAQ. THAT IS WHY MY FAMILY AND OUR
COLLEAGUES ARE URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR GRACIOUS ASSISTANCE. OUR DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES IN THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION INCLUDE THE SITTING
VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD CHENEY, WHO IS AN ORIGINAL PARTNER
IN THE IRAQ VENTURE AND FORMER HEAD OF THE HALLIBURTON OIL COMPANY, AND CONDOLEEZA RICE, WHOSE PROFESSIONAL DEDICATION TO THE VENTURE WAS
DEMONSTRATED IN THE NAMING OF A CHEVRON OIL TANKER AFTER HER.

I WOULD BESEECH YOU TO TRANSFER A SUM EQUALING TEN TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (10-25 %) OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME TO OUR ACCOUNT TO AID IN THIS IMPORTANT VENTURE. THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL
FUNCTION AS OUR TRUSTED INTERMEDIARY. I PROPOSE THAT YOU MAKE THIS TRANSFER BEFORE THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) OF THE MONTH OF APRIL.

I KNOW THAT A TRANSACTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD MAKE ANYONE APPREHENSIVE AND WORRIED. BUT I AM ASSURING YOU THAT ALL WILL BE WELL AT THE END OF
THE DAY. A BOLD STEP TAKEN SHALL NOT BE REGRETTED, I ASSURE YOU. PLEASE DO BE
INFORMED THAT THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO CO-OPERATE IN THIS TRANSACTION, PLEASE CONTACT OUR INTERMEDIARY
REPRESENTATIVES TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE MATTER.

I PRAY THAT YOU UNDERSTAND OUR PLIGHT. MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOREVER GRATEFUL. PLEASE REPLY IN STRICT CONFIDENCE TO THE CONTACT
NUMBERS BELOW.

SINCERELY WITH WARM REGARDS,

GEORGE WALKER BUSH

Switchboard: 202.456.1414
Comments: 202.456.1111 Fax: 202.456.2461
Email: president@whitehouse.gov

MOD PARENT UP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5160731)

This is the funniest post I have seen this month! I guess it's insulting to the hard working nigerian scam artists to compare them with someone like Bush, but that's no reason to mod it as troll.

Re:Confidential (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5166777)

EXCELLENT!

Thanks for posting this highly entertaining silliness!

Size (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 11 years ago | (#5157473)

the output is quite fascinating.

The output is quite *large*. I saw a full dependency graph of the (smaller) set of RH packages once, and that isn't as many packages by a long shot. Ick.

There was some program (forget the name, and isn't free) that lets you examine large graphs, hundreds of thousands of nodes, and get useful information from them...you can view all nodes/edges N hopes away from a given node, and things like that.

I don't think there's a free equivalent, though.

5 comments? (4, Interesting)

Dr. Photo (640363) | more than 11 years ago | (#5157966)

Hmm... this story's been up for 3 hours, and has garnered a total of 5 comments.

I think NetBSD wins the award for "Most Underrated Operating System"....

IMHO it's really worth a try, and it's a shame that it's gone so largely unrecognized, at least here in the States. I for one, have fallen in love with the clean and elegant design, and with the general philosophy that keeps it that way. This plucky little OS [netbsd.org] deserves to win.

So, get the spare parts out of the closet, cobble together a working system, and set up a webserver or something, dag-nabbit! :)

which file system... (2)

zogger (617870) | more than 11 years ago | (#5158276)

...which file system on install do you recommend, and why? And try 1.6 stable first, or a newer release?

Re:which file system... (4, Informative)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 11 years ago | (#5158365)

The 1.6.1 release will be out shortly, in a matter of a few weeks judging by credible reports. I would strongly suggest you go with that release for a first taste of NetBSD. The "stable" CVS branch is akin to Debian testing, and is the branch from which 1.6.1 will be cut. With the release so close it's not really worth rolling your own, although pre-compiled binaries are available on ftp://releng.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-daily/.

The equivalent of Debian unstable is known as "current" in NetBSD land. It is the cutting edge CVS branch, and contains notable new features like scheduler activations (the cool threading support just merged from another branch), and major SMP changes. Given the scale of these changes, installing current is definitely not a good introduction to NetBSD. I'm running 1.6 on the machine that I'm typing this, and 1.6M (the official version of current as we speak) on another machine. The 1.6M machine has been very stable for me, but there are a few quirks with things like Mozilla.

Chris

Re:which file system... (2, Informative)

Dr. Photo (640363) | more than 11 years ago | (#5158367)

Well, I'm running with the default "FFS" filesystem, and I have no complaints. :)

I'm running 1.6 stable with all the patches, but I suggest NetBSD-1.6-release [netbsd.org], which is basically the formal 1.6-stable release, but with all the patches already applied for you. The link I gave you is for the most recent daily snapshot, which is probably what you'll want.

Re:5 comments? (4, Informative)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 11 years ago | (#5158331)

I have to second this recommendation to try out NetBSD. I've used various Linux distros and all three of the free BSD's on a regular basis, but keep on coming back to NetBSD. It just exudes quality, and even a cretin like me can understand large chunks of the codebase.

The package system is brilliant, and has really come into its own now that broadband Internet is affordable. I can do a CVS update of my pkgsrc tree once in a while, and then just update the handfull of apps I need. In the process, any underlying libraries also get updated. Debian users get all smug about the apt* suite of tools, but frankly they leave me underwhelmed in comparison to NetBSD.

Finally, the mailing lists are well organised with a list for each port and others for key features of the system. The subscribers are friendly, informed and rarely descend into the sad bickering that's all too frequent in the Linux world.

Chris

Re:5 comments? (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 11 years ago | (#5158725)

May I ask.. does netbsd come with everything like kde3 etc?
Also how would you rate all the gnu-tool equivalents? I mean, don't they have their own version of things like even "ls" ?

Re:5 comments? (3, Informative)

Dr. Photo (640363) | more than 11 years ago | (#5159615)

May I ask.. does netbsd come with everything like kde3 etc?

Yes. It's in the package tree. When you first install, you have the base system by default; then you decide which packages you wish to install (available both as binaries via pkg_add, or as source via the pkgsrc tree [downloadable via ftp or CVS]).

Also, the GNU tools are available, and in most cases enabled by default in the base system. And the rest are available as packages (frankly I would have gone insane if I didn't have my bash :-)

And yes, they have their own version of 'ls', though I don't see any reason why you couldn't replace it, if you really wanted to.

Re:5 comments? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5164098)

I mean, don't they have their own version of things like even "ls" ?
NetBSD's utilities such as ls(1) comply with the appropriate standards such as POSIX.

Re:5 comments? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5166785)

But how will you live without ls --color???!??!?!?!?

It is the only way I can face reality!

Re:5 comments? *BSD is dying (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5160545)

It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a mere fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Re:5 comments? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5172717)

The designers don't make it easy. I've had plenty of Linux experience and currently run Slack (ftp, sshd gateway, NFS), FreeBSD (NFS and halflife server) and Gentoo (desktop and laptop.) NetBSD's installation routines suceeded where FreeBSD's threw a kernel panic, but at the end of it left me staring a vi setup. I have no desire to learn vi just to install an OS. It would take so little effort to make NetBSD more accessible.

*BSD is dying (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5160534)

It is official--Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Protocol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5160584)


--

1. Switch to windows
2. ????
3. Profit!!

Was that an additional 75 users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5160736)

Bringing the grand total to 76.

And who said that *BSD was dying.

Re:Was that an additional 75 users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5166267)

No, it was an additional 75 packages. Try reading the original message.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...