Beta
×

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!

BSD Version Of Gentoo's Portage

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

Software 155

eugene ts wong writes "Here is some good news for BSD users. Gentoo Weekly Newsletter has an article that says that there is a BSD version of portage. It's still in a developmental stage, but it's definitely making progress."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Splitting the user base! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6861830)

Efforts like this could end up splitting the Gentoo user base. Will he go to BSD and kill Gentoo as we know it, or will he stay with Linux? :(

Re:Splitting the user base! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6861944)

No, not really.

People run Gentoo because it's based on Linux.

Get with the program sonny, *BSD is dead.

Re:Splitting the user base! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862222)

No, people run Gentoo because they don't know any better!

Re:Splitting the user base! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862531)

No, people run Gentoo because it's better than FreeBSD.

Why use FreeBSD when you can use Linux? FreeBSD used to have some speed advantages over Linux, but those days are long gone. *BSD is dead.

Re:Splitting the user base! (1)

The Mayor (6048) | more than 11 years ago | (#6863154)

FreeBSD has fewer buffer overflow exploits. It's that simple. Most BSD-based solutions (NetBSD & OpenBSD included) are considered more secure for server systems. Of course, application security is still an issue....

Re:Splitting the user base! (4, Insightful)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 11 years ago | (#6863661)

1) I shouldn't be answering to trolls, but the whole "my free x86 based UNIX OS that runs tons of software is SOOOO much better than your free x86 based UNIX OS that runs tons of software that you must be a luser and i rock!" thing is pathetically old. See a tree. Pet a dog. get laid. Get a life outside of petty arguments about free OSes showing "heh, I said BSD sucks, on a BSD FORUM, I sooooo rule".

2) FreeBSD is not about speed really, though it is fast, and in many ways faster than Linux. FreeBSD is about a system. Not a kernel with 24 vendor specific patches (I honestly can't read the patch version on my current RH kernel, nor do I bother to look it up) with a billion RPMs each with their own vendor specific patches or apt dpkges and a few tarballs here and there, but a cohesive system. The problem that "BSD SUXXORS" dorks have with FreeBSD is that its beauty is subtle; you don't really get it until you've had the system for a while and you realize how everything just feels right. They don't switch scheduler and VMs in the middle of a "stable" branch. They don't make you change firewall code with every major kernel release. It just works, and works well. If chasing every RPM, worrying abut what vendor has what is what you like doing, cool, go for it. But BSD users (like myself) will be quite happy with what we chose, for reasons you can't seem to understand.

Re:Splitting the user base! (1)

jcgf (688310) | more than 11 years ago | (#6863991)

preach on dude!

Re:Splitting the user base! (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 11 years ago | (#6864804)

They don't make you change firewall code with every major kernel release.

Thankfully, it's FreeBSD you're talking about, and not another unnamed BSD system that I am aware of :-)

Re:Splitting the user base! (1)

__past__ (542467) | more than 11 years ago | (#6867203)

Thankfully, it's FreeBSD you're talking about, and not another unnamed BSD system that I am aware of :-)
Yeah, that FreeBSD that ships with two packet filters out of the box (three if you count the one that comes with the ppp daemon), and the unnamed one in the ports - of course, without the slightest hint on which to use in what situation in the docs... ;-)

Re:Splitting the user base! (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 11 years ago | (#6870555)

But the point is you don't have to rewrite all your filter rules every other minor release. Plus you get the benefit of choice. Win win.

Re:Splitting the user base! (1)

CentrX (50629) | more than 11 years ago | (#6866156)

I don't know if you're implying that Debian is not a cohesive system by saying that FreeBSD doesn't have apt dpkges or whatever, but Debian is a cohesive system that doesn't change functionality in the middle of a stable branch. You don't have to chase packages around, they're easily downloaded and installed, and major upgrades are handled pretty seamlessly as well. It works and it works well. I'm sure there are other reasons why FreeBSD and Debian are better and worse than each other for different purposes, but Debian is not at fault for not being a cohesive, stable system.

Re:Splitting the user base! (1)

__past__ (542467) | more than 11 years ago | (#6867251)

The one thing I personally don't like about most Linux systems is that they seem to think that they are smarter than the upstream developers. The problem with heavily patched packages and funky custom installation layouts is that all the documentation, from howtos to security advisories, must first be "translated" to your local system. The BSD packages, and I guess this is true for gentoo and some other Linux-based systems as well, is that they mostly keep stuff as it was meant to be by the authors, except for patches neccessary to make it run at all.

I'm not sure about Debian, I haven't used it for some time now. But I do remember some horribly overengineered stupidities (like the "alternatives" system), so I wouldn't be surprised if they were guilty of that, too.

Re:Splitting the user base! (1)

irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) | more than 11 years ago | (#6867825)

"The BSD packages, and I guess this is true for gentoo and some other Linux-based systems as well, is that they mostly keep stuff as it was meant to be by the authors, except for patches neccessary to make it run at all."

Because BSD prefers being better for upstream maintainers than for end users. Why in the hell would I want to do a whereis every time I need to find some random binary that freebsd thinks should go in /usr/local/mysql/libexec/bin/ or whatever?

In deb, everything goes in standardized paths to save the end user time.

Re:Splitting the user base! (1)

tekvov (592924) | more than 11 years ago | (#6870863)

um... in FreeBSD one of their major philosophies is a consistent well defined file heirarchy. This is one of *most* BSD users complaints with Linux,there doesn't seem to be any standardized file structure which lends to chaos. It is my experiance that it is much easier to find binaries in FreeBSD (granted you do have to learn the system to start with) than in Linux Distros.

Re:Splitting the user base! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6870984)


Why in the hell would I want to do a whereis every time I need to find some random binary that freebsd thinks should go in /usr/local/mysql/libexec/bin/ or whatever?


Becuase anything else is stupid? Guess Debianists don't know much about system administration.

Re:Splitting the user base! (2, Funny)

harmgsn (612057) | more than 11 years ago | (#6867151)

Not to forget about having to chase down the dependancies, hoping they're the right version, then chasing down the dependancies' depandancies, etc., etc., etc. That's one of the major reasons I chose to stay away from the RPM-based systems and went with FreeBSD. The ports tree gets the dependancies for you (if you are in a lazy enough mood to go that route) or the pkg_add gets them as well. It's a lot less of a headache to worry about "oops, I forgot this dependancy!". I personally think that the RPM users who are die hard "OMFGZORZ MY RPMS PWNZORZ UR SYSTEM" just think that they are cool because they know how to use a search engine and find the rpm they need and spend 12 hours hunting down everything needed to get something installed whereas a FreeBSD user would get the software installed and move on to things that are more important (ie: life away from hunting rpms). Just my 2 cents.

dependencies or rpm based systems (1)

bradkittenbrink (608877) | more than 11 years ago | (#6871680)


automated dependency resolution (and a lot more) for rpm based systems: Red Carpet [ximian.com]

and if you need something that ximian doesn't have in their database you just pull it's dependency libraries from redcarpet and build it from an srpm. things definitely aren't as tough as they used to be

I have no experience with BSD, and I'm sure ports is great, but it isn't the only game in town anymore

Re:Splitting the user base! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6875325)

BSD people are losers who need to feel "different". It is much like self-proclaimed homosexuals. You have an empty spot in your psyche which requires you to always feel the need to be associated with the peculiar and different. Your most important concern in life is hardly the operating system itself. It is the need to feel "special". Maybe your momma didn't cuddle you enough, who knows.

Re:Splitting the user base! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862605)

As far as I know Windows has had native support for Java for ages. Actually since Microsoft and Sun signed an agreement about this back in 1997 that deals with this issue. So the fact that FreeBSD got this is fine but not exactly revolutionary.

Re:Splitting the user base! (2, Interesting)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 11 years ago | (#6863556)

Gentoo already forked; the coder base is split, though not sure about the user base.

ports vs. portage is a debate of utility. Its a meta-tool; how do I get the tools that I need in a better manner (* Better to be defined by the user). I sincerely doubt that the tipping point between selecting gentoo and FreeBSD is the difference in a metatool.

What they don't want you to hear... (-1)

cerskine (202611) | more than 11 years ago | (#6861844)

Fact: *BSD is dying

It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying, that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. The loss of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.

On the way out

All major marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is extremely sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.

*BSD's foot is in the grave.

Development of *BSD nowadays is mired by bylaws, committees, reports and milestones. Technically, the *BSD project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips the ability of the developers to deliver. There's no simple solution to this. Why would anyone choose to use a *BSD over other faster, more stable systems?

Why did *BSD fail?

We can all agree that *BSD is a failure. Yet why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between myriad incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personalities?

Ouija boards

The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Re:What they don't want you to hear... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6870908)

Why do you insist upon posting with out the facts? According to NetCraft Surveys (yes, I come from a world where we actually like to quote our sources.) Usage of the BSD's is actually increasing. And by most reports (including e-week, and linuxworld) *BSD's are more stable than any other system out there. Before you decide to make another idiot comment to make yourself feel better about who you are try to get the facts straight.

Re:What they don't want you to hear... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6875141)

I'm afraid you have it bass akward. BSD lost market share. Period. Fewer and fewer web site operators are using BSD. That's the way it is. Look at the whole statisical map, and not just a slice.

What We Can Learn From BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6861899)

What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore [slashdot.org] , Version 1.0

Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.

Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.

These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents [theos.com] [theos.com] on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.

As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT [mit.edu] found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study. [rice.edu]

Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar [tuxedo.org] , rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.

The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.

Something really smells in here. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6861926)

Dear GOD. That *BSD thing must have been dead for a week for it to smell this bad..

Re:Something really smells in here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6864213)

No, its your 3rd week w/o a bath.

You need to bathe more often, you are not a Marine in Iraq.

Elegy for *BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6861973)


Elegy For *BSD


I am a *BSD user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
*BSD's foot is in the grave.

I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
*BSD died so soon.

Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but *BSD is dying.

Stop the press! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6861975)

Fact: *BSD is dying

It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying, that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. The loss of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.

On the way out

All major marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is extremely sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.

*BSD's foot is in the grave.

Development of *BSD nowadays is mired by bylaws, committees, reports and milestones. Technically, the *BSD project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips the ability of the developers to deliver. There's no simple solution to this. Why would anyone choose to use a *BSD over other faster, more stable systems?

Why did *BSD fail?

We can all agree that *BSD is a failure. Yet why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between myriad incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personalities?

Ouija boards

The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Not good news (4, Insightful)

Geekboy(Wizard) (87906) | more than 11 years ago | (#6861986)

Most BSD users don't want this. Ports works quite well for us, thank you very much. Any shortcomings that Ports has, are being worked on.

Re:Not good news (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862061)

The End of FreeBSD

[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]

When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.

Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.

FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

Discussion

I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.

From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.

There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.

Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.

Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?

Shouts

To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.

To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.

To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.

To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the project to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were elected , we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.

Future

I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.

However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election, I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.

You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.

= Mike

Re:Not good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862951)

...let me translate that from FreeBSDish to plain English:

WAAAA! NIH! WAAAA! NIH! WAAAA!

Seriously though, portage is a good system, and it works well. It's better than ports in some areas. Instead of ignoring it because you have something that may catch up in the future, how about taking a look at it instead of acting so high & mighty?

Ports is not perfect at all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6864164)

First off, I love FreeBSD. I run FreeBSD on every system I own. FreeBSD simply rules. It's so clean, compact, organized, secure, fast, stable, sweet, kick ass, and kick fucking ass; but seriously - it's not perfect. I personally think package managment needs a lot of work. The Debian packaging system is by far superior to anything out there, and with apt-get you cannot loose. Pkg-add just sucks ass compared to debians tools. And Ports just gets messy really quick. Upgrading ports is damn ugly, especially with multiple dependancies. Anything to improve managing software on BSD is a good thing. I wish someone would write an application similar to WindowsUpdate for BSD. Don't flame me! Applying patches should be that easy on BSD (Click the check-mark and press install, done!).

Package managment is probably one of the most important things to have on a system. Installing, upgrading, and removing software should be simple, reliable, and accessable. Sure, Ports may offer some of this, but there's room for improvement. Portage can teach us something. Lets learn from Portage's ass kickedness and improve ports more!

Re:Ports is not perfect at all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6864513)

FreeBSD simply rules. It's so clean, compact, organized

and then...

And Ports just gets messy really quick. Upgrading ports is damn ugly,

Uh-huh... right.

Re:Ports is not perfect at all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6877376)

Well, it started out clean, compact, and organized, but then ports messes it up. Is that a good enough explanation?

Shortcoming #1: (1)

hummassa (157160) | more than 11 years ago | (#6864277)

USE flags. Gimme USE flags and I will concur that ports are OK.

Re:Shortcoming #1: (4, Informative)

Arandir (19206) | more than 11 years ago | (#6864729)

Do we really need to throw out stable and robust ports entirely just because you like the USE flags? If it's so desperately wanted by you, then perhaps you could actually code it up. It's all just simple makefiles, so you don't even need to learn python.

There already are "USE" flags of a sort, but they're more specific than the general purpose flags that Gentoo uses. Adding some new flags should be a piece of cake, if you can convince the committers of their need.

Re:Shortcoming #1: (2, Informative)

stab (26928) | more than 11 years ago | (#6865236)

OpenBSD has FLAVOR [openbsd.org] and MULTI_PACKAGES [openbsd.org] exactly for this. Each port has a set of knobs that can be twiddled, and the binary packages are generated and named appropriately.

Re:Not good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6868731)

I agree. I think this is as useful as Debian BSD. Are linux distributions preparing to bail out into FreeBSD or what??

Re:Not good news (1)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 11 years ago | (#6877846)

Most BSD users don't want this. Ports works quite well for us, thank you very much. Any shortcomings that Ports has, are being worked on.

Since Gentoo's Portage is based on Ports, wouldn't this just be them giving back to community they borrowed from?

Ease of Use for Package Management (4, Interesting)

eugene ts wong (231154) | more than 11 years ago | (#6861993)

1 of the things that I like about portage is the ease of use. You don't have to find dependencies. Nor do you have to find the web sites that host these packages. If you can find a place that's closer than the defaults, then you'll have the option of getting packages from there.

I think that these general advantages should be available all across the board for all OSes, unless of course there are specific needs for specific alternatives.

I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything. I'm just sharing my own likes & dislikes.

Re:Ease of Use for Package Management (5, Informative)

sporty (27564) | more than 11 years ago | (#6862010)

Do realize, that ports has done this for a long time. Only diff beween ports and portage are the command structure, some layout and the systems that they originated for.

The cool thing about ports in relation to freebsd, and prolyl the other bsd's.. is that they integrate with the package systems used. SO if you want, you can download the tbz (vs tgz) package or use /usr/ports.

Re:Ease of Use for Package Management (1)

eugene ts wong (231154) | more than 11 years ago | (#6863625)

Yeah, I just realized after I clicked Submit that Gentoo is a combination of BSD & various other distros/OSes. I feel bad. It's almost as if I didn't read the article that I submitted. On the other hand, it wasn't written in the article that I submitted, so my memory lapse may be somewhat excusable.

Wish List (1)

eugene ts wong (231154) | more than 11 years ago | (#6863689)

1 thing that I hope that they add is the abiblity to not update the entire portage tree. Otherwise, we are forced to download way too much data that we may never use, when all we want to do is update the packages that we have already.

Re:Ease of Use for Package Management (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6865238)

_d8b____________________d8b_______d8,
_?88____________________88P______`8P
__88b__________________d88
__888888b__.d888b,_d888888________88b_.d888b,
__88P_`?8b_?8b,___d8P'_?88________88P_?8b,
_d88,__d88___`?8b_88b__,88b______d88____`?8b
d88'`?88P'`?888P'_`?88P'`88b____d88'_`?888P'

______d8b________________________d8b
______88P________________________88P
_____d88________________________d88
_d888888___d8888b_d888b8b___d888888
d8P'_?88__d8b_,dPd8P'_?88__d8P'_?88
88b__,88b_88b____88b__,88b_88b__,88b
`?88P'`88b`?888P'`?88P'`88b`?88P'`88b

Developer laments: What Killed FreeBSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862012)

The End of FreeBSD

[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]

When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.

Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.

FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

Discussion

I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.

From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.

There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.

Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.

Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?

Shouts

To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.

To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.

To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.

To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the project to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were elected, we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.

Future

I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.

However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election, I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.

You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.

= Mike

--

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt

Unfortunately.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862030)

The End of FreeBSD

[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]

When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.

Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.

FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle ; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

Discussion

I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.

From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenge s that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.

There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.

Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.

Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?

Shouts

To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.

To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.

To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.

To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the projec t to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were electe d, we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.

Future

I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.

However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election, I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.

You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.

= Mike

BSD in trouble (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862082)

For gosh sakes, I really don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you BSD fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a BSD box (a PIII 800 w/512 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this BSD box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Emacs Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various BSD machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a BSD box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the BSD machine's faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 800 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that BSD is a "superior" machine.

BSD addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a BSD over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Why? (5, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6862102)

Then I first tried gentoo I thought portage was better than ports, but that was because I hadn't read the onlamp [slashdot.org] article about portupgrade.

The differences I've noted is that portage is upgraded every now and then which gives you the small trouble of running etc-update and upgrade it's config files. It might actually be broken at some times to.

Ports on the other side is rock solid and has been used for a much longer time. You can of course set compiler flags for ports to, and atleast for freebsd the upgrade tool is as good as the gentoo one. I do however like netbsds approch most since their pkgsrc seems most intelligent with their /usr/pkg path for everything installed from it. I must admit I don't know that much about their different port handling tools thought, I've mostly used make install.

The huge advantage of gentoos portage is the USE-flags, which I really like. Don't know if it would be hard to get the same functionallity in the BSDs without using portage, or if there already are a few alternatives which works almost the same way. Feel free to reply or e-mail me information about usefull ports tools if you have any.

Re:Why? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862117)

The End of FreeBSD

[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer
Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]

When I stood for election to the
FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series
of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much
formality would be a bad thing for the project.

Today, as I read the latest discussions on
the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old
going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes.
Frankly I'm sick of it.

FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the
right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores
of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend
your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling
others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the
loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is
best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going,
and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

So I'm leaving core. I don't
want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having
something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle;
I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally
consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

Discussion



I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll
have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a
sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing
your politics openly.

From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges
that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver
. Some of the resources that we need to
address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we
made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the
culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available
to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are
sorely diminished.

There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward,
one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its
laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering
project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.


Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the
important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort
of progress.

Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot,
no matter how distended. All I can really
ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture.
What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible?
How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?

Shouts

To the
Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your
soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See?
It's not so bad.

To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at
large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers
that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and
building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their
moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid
going backwards.

To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my
resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do,
may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems
that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't
escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.



To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade
stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more
grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.

To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the project
to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were elected
,
we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that.
A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they
learn from our errors.

Future

I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun.
If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to
do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.

However I don't feel
an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I
burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election,
I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.

You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to
play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.

=
Mike

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

Arandir (19206) | more than 11 years ago | (#6864910)

Don't know if it would be hard to get the same functionallity in the BSDs without using portage, or if there already are a few alternatives which works almost the same way.

There are things in FreeBSD that work almost the same way. But they tend to be much more specific than what Gentoo users are used to. They're informally called "knobs" and can be put in the global /etc/make.conf file to apply to everything, or used on a per-port basis. Adding new knobs is not that hard, but you have to go through and make sure the affected ports use them.

The biggest problem with the knobs is that they are not fully documented. For example, there is a very useful "WITHOUT_X11" knob that several ports respect, but which isn't mentioned in the Handbook or FAQ.

The "WITHOUT-X11" knob is described in the porter's handbook, but that isn't an end-user document, so many people skip over it. Perhaps the Handbook needs another page in the ports and packages section.

Re:Why? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6866175)

Nice to know, I'm sure I've added some option to the make command some time but I never used it regulary in BSD and had no idea they could be set in /etc/make.conf. Thanks.

Re:Why? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6876674)

I should have added that NetBSD has a page with documentation for their pkgsrc [netbsd.org] which sorts out most of the questions you could have for it. For example that you've got /etc/mk.conf with build configurations, audit-packages which keeps track of any security vulnerabilities in the pkg tree, pkglint which tells you if you have any outdated packages installed and that you can upgrade packages with the command make update.

Combined they make a very good package system to. Don't know if make update handles dependencies in both directions thought.

Portage versus Ports? (2, Insightful)

Mad Marlin (96929) | more than 11 years ago | (#6862113)

As a FreeBSD user, my question is this: How exactly is this different from the ports tree? I thought that it was basically the same. I am glad to see somebody doing it, though.

Re:Portage versus Ports? (2, Informative)

aliquis (678370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6862453)

The huge difference between ports and portage is that portage has replaced makefiles and instead uses a python based solution. They also got USE-flags there you can specify stuff like "X ssl gtk -kde -cups" and stuff like that, to make applications which can use X and ssl compile with those options enabled, but not compile kde and cups support.

Re:Portage versus Ports? -- IMHO/IMOE (3, Informative)

Ricin (236107) | more than 11 years ago | (#6863754)

Portage doesn't replace makefiles, at least not the ones provided to build the actual program.

The FreeBSD's ports' Makefile basically sets a load of build/package organization variables, almost the same as a portage "ebuild" does. An ebuild is a script though. I've submitted a few when I was trying out Gentoo a while ago.

Portage just happens to be written in python (good choice BTW IMHO) whereas the traditional pkg-tools for FreeBSD are C based and the portupgrade utility is written in Ruby.

Portage was inspired by NetBSD's pkgsrc which was derived from FreeBSD ports. Flags like PROVIDES are similar to USE and somewhat comparable to FreeBSD's make options for ports e.g. "NO_GUI"=true and stuff like that. I do like the USE idea though.

The interesting thing about portage as a FreeBSD user is two sided really: the pro would be that the functionality of portupgrade would be part of the portmanager tool (portage) itself, the con is that *BSD (even Net) are not a kernel with packaged userland, it is a full (perhaps small though) OS and the hard thing is always where to draw the line and whether or not the base system can and should be put into packages/ports/ebuilds also. Like any OS Gentoo Linux needs a bootstrap and a chaintool too to build the rest. LFS'ish (quite easy though, they have good docs).

The Gentoo "rc scripts" are also very NetBSD inspired and recently FreeBSD has followed this approach, e.g. using PROVIDES, and BEFORE, etc.

My (rather short) experience with portage was that I liked it, but it's definately more geared towards a linux (kernel+tools+pkgs) system. It also broke quite frequently though. And of course, python is always nice, if only to unbreak little things easily (I'm not much of a C person).

Re:Portage versus Ports? -- IMHO/IMOE (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6866159)

Portage doesn't replace makefiles, at least not the ones provided to build the actual program.

I know that, I just wanted to tell that portage didn't used Makefiles to make it work.

Portage was inspired by NetBSD's pkgsrc which was derived from FreeBSD ports. Flags like PROVIDES are similar to USE and somewhat comparable to FreeBSD's make options for ports e.g. "NO_GUI"=true and stuff like that. I do like the USE idea though.

I actually didn't thought about that possibility, even thought I've used it sometimes. But sure the USE-flags is more convenient. Will make for the BSD ports complain if the option isn't available? If not i suppose it would be quite easy to do your own script which just add the options you want in BSD aswell.

The Gentoo "rc scripts" are also very NetBSD inspired and recently FreeBSD has followed this approach, e.g. using PROVIDES, and BEFORE, etc.

Never heard of PROVIDES or BEFORE earlier, will ask google about that one.

Personally I like NetBSD most, but it got nothing with ports vs portage to do, it's just that all the BSDs got excellent documentation and that NetBSD has the files in intelligent places and that you don't have to upgrade the whole OS so often. OpenBSD is ok aswell but fails a little on the desktop side, and it's nice to see FreeBSD 5.x uses gcc 3.x now adays. Currently my machine runs gentoo since a half year or something because I bought a new one back then and wanted to try it out. We'll see then I have enough time and energy to switch back.

Re:Portage versus Ports? (1)

Mad Marlin (96929) | more than 11 years ago | (#6863832)

... portage has replaced makefiles and instead uses a python based solution.

I like Python and use it often, but makefiles are highly specialised for this sort of thing, so I don't really think that Python is appropriate here.

... you can specify stuff like "X ssl gtk -kde -cups" and stuff like that ...

This capability already exists within the BSD ports collection, with slightly different syntax. For example, I normally install new versions of Mozilla as such:
# cd /usr/ports/www/mozilla
# make install WITH_CALENDAR=yes
I use the Mozilla Calendar to keep track of when I am supposed to be somewhere even though it is currently considered development-only, and therefore isn't built by default.

Re:Portage versus Ports? (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 11 years ago | (#6864784)

but not compile kde and cups support.

"-gnome" would be much more useful example, since there are many apps that can be built with or without gnome support, but I am not aware of any that Qt applications that can optionally use KDE. If you don't want to build any KDE applications, then simply don't build any KDE applications. Since nothing but KDE applications depend on KDE, this is the simplest solution.

Re:Portage versus Ports? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862561)

As a FreeBSD user

My condolences. You should really move on tho, and let *BSD rest in peace.

Gentoo (2, Insightful)

rf0 (159958) | more than 11 years ago | (#6862146)

I can't see the difference. If anything pkg_add -r would almost be suprior

Rus

Re:Gentoo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6865209)


Elegy For *BSD


I am a *BSD user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
*BSD's foot is in the grave.

I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
*BSD died so soon.

Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but *BSD is dying.


Changes to ports (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 11 years ago | (#6866950)

I have a cron job which does a daily cvsup and `portupgrade -aRr' (disclaimer: Doing this on a production server is a bad idea. Always check ports before deploying them. On a workstation, however, in the unlikely event that it breaks I can spend some time avoiding work while I figure out why:). The problem with this is that some ports (e.g. ghostscript and php) have curses based front-end for selecting make flags. This causes portupgrade to wait for user input (which never happens, since it is not run in a terminal). I would like to see each port which has tweakable options list these in a standard format. Then, a single tool could be used for editing them in an interactive way (rather than a separate, but identical interface for ports like ghostscript and php), and auto-update tools like portupgrade could remember the make settings for each port and reapply the same ones when it was upgraded.

Re:Changes to ports (2, Informative)

__past__ (542467) | more than 11 years ago | (#6867185)

The problem with this is that some ports (e.g. ghostscript and php) have curses based front-end for selecting make flags. This causes portupgrade to wait for user input
Use portupgrade -m "BATCH=yes", and no user input will be required. You can also set the variables that you want your ports to be built with in /etc/make.conf, or, more flexibly, in /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf, based on the ports name (including wildcards). This is a good idea anyway, because you don't have to remember all these options, they will be the same on every update.

The only problem is finding the options you can use. The best approach is currently to simply examine the port's makefile, say by grepping for "^\.if", but that doesn't always work (for example, the postfix ports use a different mechanism). So learning to read and understand makefiles is a good idea, and reading the porter's handbook also pays off. A standardized mechanism to query a port for all available options would be definitly a Good Thing (it would also make writing graphical frontends for the ports tree way easier, for example) - there have been some ideas how this could be done, but nothing has worked good enough yet, and of course, switching ~8000 ports to a new system would be a lot of work.

Re:Changes to ports (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 11 years ago | (#6867209)

See? That's what I love about FreeBSD. You post something suggesting new features and someone tells you they were there already.

Thanks for the advice, I'll probably write some updates to the ports section of the handbook and see if they get accepted in the next few weeks.

Re:Gentoo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6870231)

Rus, check out the facts, and get a clue.

Rus, both you and I know that *BSD is dying. In fact it is common knowledge that *BSD is dying, that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The loss of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD 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 marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is extremely sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Why? (4, Insightful)

Arandir (19206) | more than 11 years ago | (#6862223)

The big question on my mind is "why?" Why would I want to use portage instead of ports? Why would I want to use a copy when I already have the original?

Re:Why? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862501)

Why did *BSD fail?

We can all agree that *BSD is a failure. Yet why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between myriad incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personalities?

Re:Why? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862599)

Why use a calculator when you can use an abacus?

Why?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6870383)

Yeah, why would I want the abacus portage?

Re:Why? (1)

Lucidor (181184) | more than 11 years ago | (#6864411)

I think it's mostly for gentooists wanting to use BSD.

Maybe they're getting redy to leave the ship if the SCO racket goes out of hands. I wouldn't mind using a different kernel (if it is as good as BSD's), but I don't really feel like learning new maintnance tools.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6869354)

"Why would I want to use a copy when I already have the original?"

Heheh! That one of the many reasons that I use BSD instead of Linux ;)

This reminds me... (1)

joeytsai (49613) | more than 11 years ago | (#6872890)

Homer Simpson on going to Canada:

"Canada? Why should I leave America to go to America junior?"

good (1)

bobtheheadless (467304) | more than 11 years ago | (#6862404)

I like the ports system n' all, but I certainly like portage a lot better.
I for one am glad to see it :)!

The End of FreeBSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862486)

The End of FreeBSD
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]

When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.

Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.

FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

Discussion

I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.

From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.

There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.

Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.

Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?

Shouts

To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.

To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.

To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.

To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the project to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were elected, we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.

Future

I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.

However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election, I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.

You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.

BSD ghetto (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862530)


BSD you grow in the ghetto, living second rate
And your eyes will sing a song of deep hate.
The places you play and where you stay
Looks like one great big alley way.
You'll admire all the numberbook takers,
Thugs, BSD pimps and pushers, and the big money makers.

BSD Troll Database: http://nero-online.org/trollse (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862557)

http://nero-online.org/trollse/BSD/ [nero-online.org]

The *BSD Wailing Song

What's left for me to see
In my ship I sailed so far
What can the answer be
Don't know what the questions are.
And after all I've done
Still I cannot feel the sun
Tell me save me
In the end our lost souls must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low.
Who knows what's really true
They say the end is so near
Why are we all so cruel
We just fill ourselves with fear.
And heaven and hell will turn
All that we love shall burn
Hear me trust me
Inthe end our lost sould must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low
Final curtain
Final curtain

What We Can Learn From BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6862632)

What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore [slashdot.org] , Version 1.0

Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.

Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.

These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents [theos.com] [theos.com] on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.

As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT [mit.edu] found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study. [rice.edu]

Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar [tuxedo.org] , rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the generous goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.

The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.

Why? (4, Insightful)

Matty_ (74368) | more than 11 years ago | (#6862917)

I see absolutely zero need for Portage on any of the popular BSD systems, except for Mac OS X. Having it on Mac OS X would be much better than using Fink.

I use Fink now, but I don't have flexibility in deciding what features I wish to have compiled in to my software (at least, not that I am aware of).

You completely inhale the pastes in crust (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6865191)

It has come to my attention that you completely inhale the pastes in crust. Read on for more about this fascinating topic.

The world went into shock a few weeks ago when goatse.info [goatse.info] reported the results of a study which concluded that inhaling paste is a very dangerous pastime, one that no one is advised to take up. Eventually, everyone adapted to the new state of affairs and began inhaling other things. Almost everyone, that is. But not you! According to my records, you still inhale paste!

Why?! What the fuck is wrong with you?!

You moron, you idiot, you imbecile, you gay nigger [nero-online.org] ! Arg! You make me so fucking sick! FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU.

also coming soon... (5, Funny)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 11 years ago | (#6863680)

  • vi keybindings for emacs
  • a Windows skin for MacOS X

Re:also coming soon... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6865112)

SHIT ON ME! It's official - Netcraft has fucking confirmed: *BSD is dying

Yet another cunting bombshell hit the "community" of *BSD asswipes when IDC recently confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of one single puny fucking percent of all servers. Coming hot on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more fucking market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is ingesting itself backwards, disappearing up its very own shitter, as fittingly exemplified by coming a piss poor dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a cock-sucking 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 fucking future at all for *BSD because that sorded, shit-filled, mutated testicle of an operating system is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink splashes across the accounting documents like a series of exploding bloodfarts. FreeBSD munches the most ass of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD cuntwipes Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying and its rotting corpse smells worse than a maggot, vomit, shit and piss cocktail.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the fucking numbers, shall we? OK!

OpenBSD wanker Theo states that there are a pathetic 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Oh, God, let's fucking see... The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore it's turd-suckingly obvious that 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, by simple fucking arithmetic, there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. Surprise fucking surprise, this is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of those arseholes at Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD showed themselves to be a bunch of retarded tossers, went out of business and were taken over by BSDI who sell another special needs OS. Now BSDI is also a miserable failure, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house... pathetic.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily fucking declined in market share. *BSD is where it belongs, at death's door and its long term survival prospects are almost non-fucking-existant. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among moronic, dilettante shitheads. *BSD continues to Chew Satan's Dick And Fuck The Baby Jesus Up The Pooper. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD IS A FUCKING USELESS WASTE OF BITS AND IS DYING LIKE THE DOG THAT IT IS. IT MAKES ME SICK JUST THINKING ABOUT IT.

vi bindings for emacs (1)

nuggz (69912) | more than 11 years ago | (#6871887)

Don't they already exist?
viper or something?

cross-platform package managment (4, Insightful)

jschauma (90259) | more than 11 years ago | (#6864569)

As usual, when this comes up, let's plug NetBSD's Packages Collection [netbsd.org] . ``pkgsrc'', as it's known, originally derived from FreeBSD's ports is available for a large number of platforms [netbsd.org] (Netbsd, of course, and then Darwin, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, Solaris and Irix), thus allowing system administrators who have to take care of more than one OS to take advantage of its strengths. So, uhm, sorry, but I'd also have to add my vote to the ``who needs portage'' camp.

Re:cross-platform package managment (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6865018)

Although it is true that BSD is dying, there are some helpful steps you can take ease your sorrow:
  • deal with the inevitable.
  • grieve for your loss.
  • move on. Never let your emotions get mixed up with something as silly as a computer operating system. It isn't healthy. So BSD fails. Big whoop. Deal with it and move on. Hope this helps.

Re:cross-platform package managment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6866238)

The true is that you're also dying, troll.

Re:cross-platform package managment (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6868092)

I'm not dying, you stupid loser who can't spell.

*BSD IS DEAD

Re:cross-platform package managment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6875220)

It is sort of a waste time learning this BSD stuff because, whether you like it or not, BSD is fading out. It is not in the mainstream. It is like the Amiga. Whether this fading from popularity constitutes "dying", I don't know, and I don't really care. What I do know is that when you chose a marginalized operating system you are not just choosing a tool, you are getting saddled with a hobby that you may not want.

Margialized operating systems require you to jump through more hoops to get things accomplished. Not only do you have to track changes in your operating system, but you have to track changes in unsupported software and emulation libraries. You always have to tweak and use "work-around" because your hardware is probably not supported by any vendor.

Things only get more hairy day by day as BSD becomes increasingly marginalized.

The reason portage is better (1)

IWasHopsoned (677895) | more than 11 years ago | (#6865031)

The real reason portage is better because portage has pretty colors. Take that ports!
[ ok ]
If you like ports, use ports. If you like portage, use portage. I use FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Gentoo Linux. I prefer portage over the ports system. So this is actually good news for some.

Re:The reason portage is better (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6865079)

It is now official - 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 fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] [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 hobbyist 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 dead

Re:The reason portage is better (1)

unclebulgaria (609635) | more than 11 years ago | (#6871083)

Yeah, colours are what do it for me!

*BSD is dying (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6865294)

Fact: *BSD is dying

It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying, that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD 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 marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is extremely sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Even Better News (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6866264)

The Even Better News (TM) than that for BSD users is, 99% of "BSD is dying" posted so far is rated with Troll, Offtopic, Flamebait, or Redundant. Hehe, trolls are really dying. :-)

*BSD is bloody well dead (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6866326)

_d8b____________________d8b_______d8,
_?88____________________88P______`8P
__88b__________________d88
__888888b__.d888b,_d888888________88b_.d888b,
__88P_`?8b_?8b,___d8P'_?88________88P_?8b,
_d88,__d88___`?8b_88b__,88b______d88____`?8b
d88'`?88P'`?888P'_`?88P'`88b____d88'_`?888P'

______d8b________________________d8b
______88P________________________88P
_____d88________________________d88
_d888888___d8888b_d888b8b___d888888
d8P'_?88__d8b_,dPd8P'_?88__d8P'_?88
88b__,88b_88b____88b__,88b_88b__,88b
`?88P'`88b`?888P'`?88P'`88b`?88P'`88b

The software is only the smallest part (2, Interesting)

R.Caley (126968) | more than 11 years ago | (#6866700)

Who is going to meta-port the 7000 (or whatever it is) ports to whatever format portage needs it's information in and then keep them up to date?

What I know about *BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6866892)

1. You can not play games on it.
2. It cannot be used by my grandma.
3. It lacks a GUI of any note.
4. There is no support available for it.
5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.
6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform.
7. You have to compile everything and know C.
8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.
9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux.
10.It is dying.

Re:What I know about *BSD (1, Informative)

qmrq (648586) | more than 11 years ago | (#6872181)

1. You can not play games on it. 2. It cannot be used by my grandma. 3. It lacks a GUI of any note. 4. There is no support available for it. 5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes. 6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform. 7. You have to compile everything and know C. 8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor. 9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux. 10.It is dying. 1. Of course you can play games on it. 2. Sure it can. 3. You can use any popular GUI. wm, KDE, GNOME etc. 4. Are you too stupid to figure out mailing lists? 5. No, it's not. 6. Ehm. Yes it can. 7. Wrong again. 8. Sometimes. Same thing with any *NIX though. 9. ? Wrong wrong wrong. :( 10. Hah! Not hardly.

Bones: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6868411)

BSD's dead, Jim.

Good news? (1)

dodell (83471) | more than 11 years ago | (#6869151)

Did anybody tell the developers that we already have ports? (That they stole portage from, BTW). Wait, wait, we didn't have packages? No... I thought we had pkgsrc...

Why the hell do we need portage? We've already got our system. It works (for us) better than portage. We don't need it. Stop wasting your time.

Hard Times for *BSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6876455)

It is no secret that *BSD is a failure. But why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personalities?

The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.

Obligatory *BSD Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6876668)

Does this mean that Gentoo is dying? :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?