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!

DragonFly At DragonFly 1.0-CURRENT

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the nomenclature dept.

Operating Systems 108

CoolVibe writes "For months, the DragonflyBSD fork of FreeBSD was maintaining compatibility with the existing FreeBSD-STABLE branch by using the 'FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE' name internally. In a few commits, Matt Dillon changed all the names, and DragonFly is finally sailing under its own banner. Things that DragonFlyBSD already has that FreeBSD-STABLE doesn't are, among others, application checkpointing, variant symlinks (not unlike Domain OS), Light-weight kernel threads, a more efficient slab-allocator, a multithreaded network stack, and the rcNG system."

cancel ×

108 comments

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

Hooray! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7511022)

Hooray I say / for the end of BSD!

BSD LIVES! (-1, Offtopic)

unixbum (720776) | more than 10 years ago | (#7511032)

so BSD Lives! well maybe only D*f*BSD

I wonder (2, Interesting)

Leroy_Brown242 (683141) | more than 10 years ago | (#7511154)

One has to wonder if DFBSD will die due to lack of following, or if it will be the next awesome BSD. I am currently running FreeBSD 4.8 Release on my workstation. It might be worth it to grab a spare machine and install it to see what's up. Only if the distributed.net client [distributed.net] will work on it though. ]:3}>

Re:I wonder (5, Informative)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 10 years ago | (#7511371)

It's already very good (and stable). Well allright, sometimes it breaks (that's development for ya), but wait a few hours, and the system is stabilized again (patches are backed out, or bugfixes get in). It's not like CURRENT, where you can hose your system beyond recognition if your not careful.

Your Distributed.net client will Just Work Fine(tm). I'm still running that KDE 3.1.4 on my laptop that I compiled under 4.9-RCmumble, and that's still working quite spiffy.

Dragonfly is almost a drop-in replacement. You can just pull it over your existing 4.x-STABLE box, and all your apps should work fine (except for kernel modules). Oh, if you have an NVIDIA gfx card, I ported the binary kernel module to DFBSD, and it's sitting smugly in the override ports. (read dfly's UPDATING about dfports)

DragonFly as of current perfectly fills that niche where people want the latest and greatest, but don't want to run FreeBSD-CURRENT just yet. It's mostly production-safe. You can always revert back to your old FreeBSD-STABLE without much hassle.

So, if you're really curious, just give it a go!

What I know about DFBSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7514954)

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:I wonder (1)

kkenn (83190) | more than 10 years ago | (#7533628)

Sounds a bit unlikely to me..it might be stable now because relatively few major changes have occurred, but when you track a development version of an OS you will run into serious problems from time to time, especially as it diverges more from FreeBSD-STABLE.

Re:I wonder (1)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 10 years ago | (#7546628)

You are right of course. Eventually it will be virtually impossible to do a clean switchover. But the DragonFly community is doing as much as they can to make the upgrade path as uneventful as possible.

Even though it might not be possible in the future to 'upgrade' to DragonFly from a FreeBSD-STABLE machine, we'll try the hardest to keep the FreeBSD port system working until we have our package management sorted out. And boy, with the stuff that Matt has planned, that's going to be beautiful. Not the compilation of hacks that the package/port system is today. Not to blast the port system, it's serving us well at the moment, but there's always a better way :)

Re:I wonder (-1, Troll)

*BSD is Dead (726405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7543074)

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] 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.

Re:I wonder (4, Interesting)

merdark (550117) | more than 10 years ago | (#7514550)

I think this is one of the most promising new OS (or OS varient if you want to be picky). Personally, I can't wait for the package management system to get set up. Eventually, you will be able to run DBSD with binary only upgrades and installs. Should be cool.

Ports are great, but damn does my p2 400 dislike hours and hours of compiling. :)

What kind of chip are you running?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7518129)

damn does my p2 400 dislike hours and hours of compiling.

What kind of p2 do you have that not only does it have feelings (like/dislike) but said p2 is afraid of working?

Re:What kind of chip are you running?!?! (2, Funny)

merdark (550117) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525076)

Go touch the core of your P2 when it's working and it'll talk through you. Its a very intense experience. ;)

Re:What kind of chip are you running?!?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7538002)

Chew on this: *BSD is dead

Re:What kind of chip are you running?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7539855)

and your mother is a fat dirty whore. whats your point?

Re:I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7533359)

Difficult to say when few people out there have the ability to run it, since there's been no formal release yet. I hope I'll get the chance to try it out at some point. It would be nice also if they added DEVFS as well.

that's all well and good, but... (-1, Offtopic)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 10 years ago | (#7511217)

Does it stay crunchy in milk?

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

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7511294)

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] 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.

Re:What We Can Learn From BSD (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7529417)

Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.

Witness Redhat keeping its CVS out of public access. At least the BSD's allow one to track changes to their kernels and back out mistakes made by the developers.

Linux (as delivered by Redhat) is effectively a closed source operating system between releases.

Re:What We Can Learn From BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7543097)

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] 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.

FreeBSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7511312)

You don't keed to be Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to look into FreeBSD's future. Even a child knows that FreeBSD is dying. All major marketing surveys show that FreeBSD has steadily declined in market share. FreeBSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim.

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.

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. In truth, for all practical purposes FreeBSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking. It's a fact: FreeBSD is dying.

BSD makes the "B" team (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7511351)

We must report with a heavy heart that Bob "I'm still dead" Hope has gone on to join the "B" team. As you all may know, BSD has been part of the "B" team for quite some time.

The Year of Our Lord 2003 has been a particularly bad year for the "B"s,

  • Bob Hope
  • Buddy Ebsen
  • Buddy Hackett
  • Barry White
  • BSD
This honored list of dead is but a small token of adieu from the many fans of the deceased.
These dead were truly some American Icons. They will be missed.

Variant symlinks are really cool (5, Interesting)

Euphonious Coward (189818) | more than 10 years ago | (#7511456)

Variant symlinks as found in Domain OS (nee Domainix, nee Apollo Aegis) are symlinks that refer to environment variables, e.g.
ln -s '/etc-$(HOSTNAME)' /etc
to help enable sharing the root file system. (I don't know the variable-reference syntax used in Dragonfly). This was one of the really cool things about Aegis, which was based on Multics, not Unix. Unix/Linux/BSD have still not caught up to the networking capabilities of Aegis, and what they do have is usually clunkier than the way it was done in Aegis.

I thought about implementing variant symlinks on Linux. Probably it would need a new system call to tell the kernel where the process keeps its environment variables, to be run at each program startup, and a new process table entry field.

Re:Variant symlinks are really cool (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7512104)

Variant symlinks as found in Domain OS (nee Domainix, nee Apollo Aegis) are symlinks that refer to environment variables, e.g.
ln -s '/etc-$(HOSTNAME)' /etc


That's neat ... kinda. But any idea when we're likely to see plan9 namespaces hit any of the free *nix distributions? There's only so much you can do with environment variables after all.

Re:Variant symlinks are really cool (5, Informative)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 10 years ago | (#7512154)

Variant symlinks as found in Domain OS (nee Domainix, nee Apollo Aegis) are symlinks that refer to environment variables, e.g.
ln -s '/etc-$(HOSTNAME)' /etc

to help enable sharing the root file system. (I don't know the variable-reference syntax used in Dragonfly).

It's exactly the same. The variables for symlinks can be set with the varsym(1) tool, and of course the vfs.varsym_enable sysctl has to be set to '1'. You can set symlink variables in global, user and process context.

Re:Variant symlinks are really cool (1)

Euphonious Coward (189818) | more than 10 years ago | (#7514442)

I see, it doesn't depend on environment variables as such, but environment-variable-like definitions in another namespace entirely, already known to the kernel. That's probably for the best.

Where is this documented? A google search suggests [gmane.org] that it uses "${var}" bracket notation, not "$(var)" notation as I had written.

Re:Variant symlinks are really cool (4, Informative)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 10 years ago | (#7518523)

You are right of course. I don't use varsyms yet, but I had a look at the code [dragonflybsd.org] and that confirms what you said. Not much documentation yet, but the varsym tool has a manual page. It works like you expect. One sets a variable with varsym, and then you can use that variable (with ${} notation) in symlinks. Example:

> cat > file-file1
this is file 1
^D
> cat > file-file2
this is file 2
^D
> ln -s 'file-${foo}' test
> varsym foo=file1
> cat test
this is file 1
> varsym foo=file2
> cat test
this is file 2

Of course, varsym defaults to user context, which means that the var is only 'visible' to the user. With the -s flag, the var becomes system wide, and you can also restrict the view to the process.

There isn't much more to it. It's easy, clean and simple :)

Re:Variant symlinks are really cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7538186)

Looks nifty, but I can't say I've ever had a need for something along those lines. I get this nasty feeling that they'll be used gratuitously in DragonFly.

Re:Variant symlinks are really cool (2, Insightful)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 10 years ago | (#7546673)

They will be used, but not gratuitously. It's mostly to get our packaging system to go where we want to, without having to worry about the new VFS stuff yet. Variant symlinks solve about 90% of the problems at 10% of the cost, so that's why they were implemented. Also, it kinda depends on what the person that installed DFly on his machine is doing :)

When DFly's VFS subsystem is getting into shape, the need for varsyms will be less and less.

Re:Variant symlinks are really cool (0, Troll)

pfishse (726408) | more than 10 years ago | (#7543109)

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
In the 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

BSD Issues (-1, Troll)

*BSD is Dead (726405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7543083)

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:Variant symlinks are really cool (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7538848)

Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure, but why? 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 personas?

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.

Michael Jackson arrest warrant issued! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7511480)


Q :
What time is bedtime in the Michael Jackson household?

A: When the big hand touches the little hand.


[ note: sed -e "s/Jackson/Sims/" ]

Hmmm (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7511603)


"Things that DragonFlyBSD already has that FreeBSD-STABLE doesn't are, among others..."

  • A pleasant, non-corpse-like smell
  • A lust for life
  • ...and a future outside of a graveyard


Well F**K YOU KYLE! I HOPE YOU DIE! I hope you F**KING DIE! Superb.

A fork? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7511822)

Oh, I get it. That's like when the limbs fall off a rotting corpse.

Lamentations of *BSD (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7511861)

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

Notable quotables (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7512540)

FreeBSD? In the immortal words of DeForest Kelley:
"It's dead, Jim."

Don't forget pay to pay your $699.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7513183)

Strange that SCO are plundering the corpses though?

BSD and the homosexual "lifestyle" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7513234)

You BSD people and your homosexual "lifestyles" make me sick.

Maybe you are too busy worshiping your BSD devil to have a clue. But hey, no matter how often you bow down to the BSD devil, you can't get away from God's holy power.

BSD people, with His help you can be cured. Stop the devil idolatry. Stop the boy-man "love". And don't forget, that God created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve. If you don't like it, well that is too darn bad because it is His world not yours. He makes the rules, not you.

suck my dick faggots - bsd is dead (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7514741)

you cock smoking teabaggers are as limp as steve hawkings dick. bsd is dead. deal with it.

*BSD Sux0rs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7514917)


In a startling turn of events today, a previously little-known fact came into the public eye: "*BSD Sux0rs". This came as a complete surprise to the BUWLA, or BSD Users With Large Assholes, as they previously thought that *BSD 0wned.
"You see, even though I have never contributed code to any BSD project, I thought it was my duty to be a big asshole to others which don't use the OS I do, because it just 0wnz.", said one FreeBSD user. "Now that I know it sux0rs, though, I have to go find something else to be an asshole about."

One notorious OpenBSD fanatic known as WideOpen, told reporters, "I have to kill myself. This isn't how it was supposed to happen. My BSD has always been the best, and shouting that opinion in other people's faces at every chance I got has been my only hobby. It was all I ever did. It was what got me out of bed in the morning. Now I have to die. I will jam my bedpost up my ass until I hit my brain. It is the only way to go: BSD style."

In the volatile world of operating systems anything can happen. "At least we don't sux0r as much as Windows users", BigAzz, a relatively well-known NetBSD user said. "Screaming things in people's faces is my calling. Now I need to scream that BSD sux0rs. What a sad world. At least I won't kill myself like those uber-asshole OpenBSD guys. They are just way over the top. Or were, at least."

Nobody knows for sure what the future holds for the state of operating systems, but with Netcraft confirming the sux0r status, *BSD users all over the world will have to stick something else up their asses from now on or risk looking even more gay than they used to.

Lights out, pard. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7514937)

Somewhere, in a lonely hospital room,

*BSD is dying

Troll-in-one for the gay Linux fanboy wankers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7515523)

All the *BSD is dying posts are contained in this one post to spare the BSD section of the heavy trolling. If you have mod points and you're a wanking Linux fagboy whose momma never loved him, please mod this up so that everybody will know your dark and dirty private fantasy -- that *BSD is dying, and that you masturbate like a monkey on drugs! There's no need to post your own trolls, as they will only be redundant and you'll make yourself look even more like an asshole than you already are!

Oh, and if I've missed any, please add your troll as a reply and I'll include it in the next Troll-in-one. Keep your flames to yourself -- I already know you have a distorted psychological need to imagine BSD as dying because it only helps to relieve the cognitive dissonance you are currently experiencing with Linux. In reality, though, it only shows a deep-seated jealousy towards BSD, which you'll go to any lengths to deny.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

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
In the 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


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

  • flask of ripe urine
    pressed to bsd lips
    bsd drink up


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

I 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 machines 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.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying. Almost everyone knows 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 very 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

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

It doesn't matter, no matter how many time you try to recesitate *BSD, it's just doesn't matter. It's a plain and simple truth, *BSD is dying.

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Click here [planetquake.com] to see the most appropriate case mod for a *BSD system.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

If you can also print out your word processor documents on mummy-wraps, you've got it made.

Start by calling HP and asking for the special *BSD-compatible inkjet printer that shoots out embalming fluid instead of ink.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

I, for one, would like to welcome our dead operating system overlords.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

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.



_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure , but why? 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 personas?

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.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

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.



_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

  • Gaping holes filled

  • Rotting corpse obsolete code
    BSD end near



_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

BSD gets it's skeleton smashed at OSnews!

Trolls, here is some inspiration for future BSD trolls [osnews.com]

P.S, I deleted my freebsd partition last night and installed Linux back on it!


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Do people still actually USE FreeBSD? Wasn't it rendered obsolete by Linux YEARS ago?


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

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.



_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Roy Horn of the famous "Siegfried and Roy" magic ensemble was interviewed today from his hospital bed. Mr. Horn is recovering from a life threatening tiger attack. When asked about his condition Roy had this to say,

Don't worry. I'm doing OK. I'll be fine. However, on the other hand, *BSD is dying .

Hang in there Roy. We're all pulling for you!


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

That BSD daemon is so hot, I just want to suck his dick while jerking myself off and then bend him over and stick my dick in his tight red asshole. The fact that I'm an excellent artist only makes matters worse, since I tend to draw him during my Math class in sexually explicit positions instead of taking notes like I should, and I think people are noticing because they give me odd looks and this one guy even asked me if I was gay. Can somebody help me get rid of these urges? I'm sure they're perfectly healthy (hey, what slashdotter *hasn't* had a crush on another guy) but it's starting to intrude on my social life and I'd rather it not. Thanxz, AC


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Why you'd want to run an OS designed and coded by niggers is beyond me.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

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
In the 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



_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

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.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Four new security advisories about *BSD:

1) If something dead bites you, you will turn into a zombie yourself (see "Dawn of the Dead")

2) Children should not play with dead things.

3) Storing your *BSD distro install CD in formaldehyde will preserve the necrotic tissues from further rot.

4) Funerals can cost $4000. Don't forget to factor this in if you decide to go with *BSD.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

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] 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.

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

It is official; Netcraft confirms: The BSD dies.

A crippling impact of the bomb community of the BSDS, as IDC that confirmed
the market part, which is already besieged by the BSD left to the case however
another time, now for low smaller of than a break of 1 per cent of all users.
Come into the jumps of a new examination of Netcraft, that it obviously that
indicated the BSD lost more part of the market, hiving this message to
strengthen which we knew everything to the long. The BSD pulls down into
disarray complete, as fail absolutely last illustrated in the test exactly
described of the new network connection of the Admin system fittingly.

They do not need to be, a Kreskin for forecasting the future of the BSDS. The
letter of the hand is in the wall: The BSD confronts a bald future. In the
fact, which it not no future into everything for BSD because the BSD has,
dies. The things regard after the BSD very badly. So much starting from us
is already cliente, the BSD continues losing the market part. The red ink
flows as river of the blood.

FreeBSD is in the danger more from them all and loses 93% its coworker it
core. The sudden and only obviously vacation the long coworkers Jordao Hubbard
de FreeBSD of the time and the Serveunterstreichens Mikrophonsmith the point.
There the doubt any any more does not conserve time everything during many:
FreeBSD dies.

We go remaining, it the facts and regarding the numbers.

The leader Theo de OpenBSD indicates that it has 7000 users OpenBSD. Much
using NetBSD, which it has? We go seeing. The number of OpenBSD against
posts of NetBSD in the USENET is approximately in a relation of 5 the 1.
Consequently 1400 of NetBSD a 7000/5. The posts of BSD/OS have in the USENET
approximately to use are on half of the expenditure of the posts of NetBSD.
Consequently it has approximately 700 users BSD/OS. A new article used
approximately FreeBSD in 80 per cent the market of the BSDS. Consequently
it has (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 users FreeBSD. That is continuous with the
number of post the USENET de FreeBSD.

The problems tributary that had abysmal nut, vendas and therefore for in
front, FreeBSD it to the left the business and it examination on for BSDI that
in an educated manner, which is also nonfunctioning venda, which another one
disturbed now the BSDI, its however turned Corpse for another Hauscharnel.
All main examinations show that the BSD sank firmly in the market part. The
BSD is very ill and its prospects on a long-term basis surviving much makes
not blind. If the BSD must survive by the fact that it is dilettante between
amateurs of. The BSD continues spoiling. Wunderswims briefly of one could
conserve it on this moment the time. For all practical purposes the BSD is
nonfunctioning.

Fact: The BSD dies

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Danger Will Robinson - TOO MANY BUGS

Do not even attempt to install and use *BSD UNLESS you have done a full backup. The bugs in this are not fixed yet and you could lose EVERYTHING. Backup is a must. A word to the wise ...


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

When it comes to the subject of operating systems, most of us can agree on at least one thing, and that is the simple plain truth that *BSD is dying. But the deeper question is why? 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 personas?

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. That hope is long gone, replaced by an inconsolable despair. A mournful and plaintive nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

PROOF THAT *BSD INFRINGES SCO COPYRIGHTS

As you all know, Microsoft has recently paid license fees to the SCO group for Unix intellectual property in order to be legally allowed to distributed their services for Unix product. Since it is clear that this product is a derivative work of *BSD, this means that Microsoft must have decided that distribution of this work without a proper SCO license would be a legal risk. Now, no one is more protective of their own profitability than Microsoft, so you can be sure they wouldn't fork over a dime to anyone unless they absolutely had to. Therefore, anyone must accept that *BSD is clearly infringing SCO copyrights, and all *BSD users should begin negotiations with SCO for license fees immediately.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

FreeBSD is getting its sorry ass kicked from here to eternity.

That sucka be dead.

Also, the FreeBSD release engineering team consists of ten to twenty individually caged chimpanzees with WebTVs that are captured, infected with rabies, and replaced promptly upon death. If no chimpanzees are available, a core team member interested in streamlining the bureaucracy is used.

Deal with it. This is the truth.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

BSD is dead
Dead Dead Dead Dead Dead Dead Dead
It's quite dead


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Just goes to prove BSD is dying. Nobody fucking cares enough about it to post something relevant. In fact, if it weren't for us trolls this topic would have a grand total of one comment (as of Oct 11, 12:30 AM central time)

If you BSD die-hards still aren't getting the truth about BSD, consider this:

1. Is BSD being improved at a faster rate than Linux? (no, as if FreeBSD has a multibillion dollar company like IBM backing it with 3,000 developers - ha!)

2. Are the number of BSD users increasing?
(clearly not, and i'm talking about real BSD not Mac OS X bastardised UNIX)

3. What do most open source developers use (LINUX, nerds, LINUX)

You cannot escape the truth! BSD will be dead in 5 years! I guarantee it!

This post brought to you by a Truthmaster (aka a Linux user)


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Why does this section still exist?

Isn't it entirely disrespectful to the dead? We don't have a bobhope.slashdot.org now do we? Get some manners people.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Question - What do you call a gathering of BSD developers?
Answer - a funeral.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

BSD and AIDS

This just in: homosexuality among *BSD users has skyrocketed. The cause is yet to be determined, however most sources indicate that it has something to do with *BSD users comforting each other in an strictly unusual way, to be quite a frank about it, gay sex. On Monday *BSD was giving a sad prognosis, it was dying. It probably won't have much longer to live. So when news broke out hell broke loose. Jimmy an avid *BSD user had this to say:

"When I heard this news I was utterly devastated, so I went to my friend Darl, who is also a *BSD user. He didn't yet know of the unfortunate, and he didn't take it well. He broke down in tears, this is the second blow to him in a week, he found out that he contracted AIDS from a Black homosexual prostitute on the street one day. I said to Darl, 'well you know something *BSD is dying, and well, I'm going to die with it.'

I pulled down my pants and bent over, Darl took care of the rest. I don't know if I have yet to get AIDS, but we have gay anal sex everyday, without any lubricant for maximum ripage. The *BSD mailing list I joined reports the same thing happening among the other *BSD users. We are all planning on having one massive gay orgy on Saturday, so if you want to go out and be with *BSD up in heaven, come join us."

Well you've heard it folks from a true *BSD user. They have all turned gay because of these unfortunate happenings.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

It is with a heavy heart that we must report that Bob "I'm still dead" Hope has gone on to join the "B" team. As you all may know, BSD has been part of the "B" team for quite some time.

The Year of Our Lord 2003 has been a particularly bad year for the "B"s,

  • Bob Hope
  • Buddy Ebsen
  • Buddy Hackett
  • Barry White
  • BSD
This honored list of dead is but a small token of adieu from the many fans of the deceased.
These dead were truly some American Icons. They will be missed.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Lights out, pard.

Somewhere, in a lonely hospital room,

*BSD is dying


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

Hello. Your friendly neighborhood slasdotter here to let you know that BSD IS DEAD. Dead dead dead dead dead. You hear me? Dead. Very dead. Deadder than a doornail. Dead as Richard Nixon. That's how dead it is.

Now can we PLEASE move along and start talking about important tapiocas? Things like: "What color does Linus Torvalds paint his toenails?" This is Slashdot, [slashdot.org] right?


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

POS

Another BSD...tsk, tsk, tsk...that's all we need. ugh.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

BSD can suck my hairy cock

I mean who gives a flying fuck about it all.

Install something halfway good.

Hint: Use Tux's OS

P.S. *BSD is dying.

Zealot Out.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

BSD: Feeding tube re-iserted

Oct. 23 -- BSD resumed receiving life-sustaining care yesterday in a Florida hospital room, but many experts said there is virtually no hope that it will ever recover, despite it fan boy's desperate hopes.

"IF IT'S over a year, BSD's not ever going to get up," said Fred Plum, a professor emeritus at Weill Cornell College in New York. "You'd just don't see it. It just doesn't happen."

BSD, 39, has been in a persistent vegetative state since its heart stopped for unknown reasons in 1990. A feeding tube in BSD's stomach was removed this past Wednesday after its husband, Theo De Ratt, who said his wife had told him she (BSD) would not want to be kept alive under such circumstances, won a long series of court battles to have life-sustaining nourishment withdrawn so she (BSD) could die.


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

It's fucking dying 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] [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a cock-sucking 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 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.

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

THE DEAD BSD SKETCH

Cast:
Mr. Praline: John Cleese
Shop Owner: Michael Palin

A customer enters an operating system shop.

Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint. (The owner does not respond.)
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?
Owner: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Praline: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Owner: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this operating system what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, *BSD...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, it's uh,...it's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead operating system when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Owner: No no it's not dead, it's, it's restin'! Remarkable OS, *BSD, idn'it, ay? Beautiful kernel!
Mr. Praline: The kernel don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Owner: Nononono, no, no! It's resting!
Mr. Praline: All right then, if it's restin', I'll wake it up! (bashes at the keyboard) 'Ello, Mister *BSD! I've got a lovely fresh kernel update for you if you show...

(owner hits the keys)

Owner: There, it spewed some debug output to the command line!
Mr. Praline: No, it didn't, that was you hitting the keys!
Owner: I never!!
Mr. Praline: Yes, you did!
Owner: I never, never did anything...
Mr. Praline: (yelling and typing into the console repeatedly) 'ELLO COMMAND PROMPT!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock cron job!

(Rips out hard drive from computer case and thumps it on the counter. Shoves it back inside the case and reboots the system - blank screen.)

Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead operating system.
Owner: No, no.....No, it's stunned!
Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?
Owner: Yeah! You stunned it, just as it was finishing an I/O task! *BSD stuns easily, major.
Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That operating system is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of responsiveness was due to it bein' in the process of recompiling itself after a particularly comprehensive code update.
Owner: Well, it's...it's, ah...probably pining for some dilettante dabbling.
Mr. Praline: PININ' for some DILETTANTE DABBLING?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that? Look, why did it fall flat on its back the moment I started Emacs?
Owner: *BSD prefers swapping everything out to the hard drive! Remarkable variant, id'nit, squire? Lovely kernel!
Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining the system when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been printing any text at all to the screen was because of all the WORRYING COMPILER WARNINGS encountered while it was being rebuilt.

(pause)

Owner: Well, o'course it was spitting out those warnings! If I hadn't updated the kernel with an unstable development build, you might have had your FTP server compromised, and VOOM! Bye bye to your business.
Mr. Praline: "Server"?!? Mate, this OS wouldn't "serve" if you put four million volts through it! It's bleedin' demised!
Owner: No no! It's pining!
Mr. Praline: It's not pinin'! It's passed on! This OS is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! [lemis.com] It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. 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? 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? 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 an ex-operating system!!

(pause)

Owner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of UNIX variants.
Mr. Praline: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Owner: I got Microsoft Windows XP Professional.

(pause)

Mr. Praline: Pray, is it difficult to setup, use and maintain?
Owner: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Praline: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Owner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Praline: Well.

(pause)

Owner: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
Mr. Praline: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

It's not pinin'. It's passed on. This OS is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile. *BSD is an ex-operating system.

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

GET IT THR0UGH Y0UR FUCK1NG HEADS, BSD 15 FUCK1NG DEAD! G0 and 1NSTALL MANDRAKE L1NUX YOU DEV1L W0RSH1PERS!
_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

Ass pounding

*BSD Sux0rs

In a startling turn of events today, a previously little-known fact came into the public eye: "*BSD Sux0rs". This came as a complete surprise to the BUWLA, or BSD Users With Large Assholes, as they previously thought that *BSD 0wned.

"You see, even though I have never contributed code to any BSD project, I thought it was my duty to be a big asshole to others which don't use the OS I do, because it just 0wnz.", said one FreeBSD user. "Now that I know it sux0rs, though, I have to go find something else to be an asshole about."

One notorious OpenBSD fanatic known as WideOpen, told reporters, "I have to kill myself. This isn't how it was supposed to happen. My BSD has always been the best, and shouting that opinion in other people's faces at every chance I got has been my only hobby. It was all I ever did. It was what got me out of bed in the morning. Now I have to die. I will jam my bedpost up my ass until I hit my brain. It is the only way to go: BSD style."

In the volatile world of operating systems anything can happen. "At least we don't sux0r as much as Windows users", BigAzz, a relatively well-known NetBSD user said. "Screaming things in people's faces is my calling. Now I need to scream that BSD sux0rs. What a sad world. At least I won't kill myself like those uber-asshole OpenBSD guys. They are just way over the top. Or were, at least."

Nobody knows for sure what the future holds for the state of operating systems, but with Netcraft confirming the sux0r status, *BSD users all over the world will have to stick something else up their asses from now on or risk looking even more gay than they used to.

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

Rod Grimes - 10 Years Later

Actually, only 8 or 9 years later, since I haven't seen Rod in the last year or two. He's a bitter, angry asshole who's ruined more than a couple business deals with various people I've known. I don't think I've ever met anyone who actually /liked/ Rod. He was trying to run a business as a systems integrator in Gresham, Oregon and that failed miserably. He ran a spam operation for a good while, putting all that BSD knowledge to "good" use. Yes, BSD is dying, rightfully so.

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

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

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

BSD IS DEAD

"Do not stand at my hard disk and forever weep.
I am not there; I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow.
I am the diamond glints on snow.
I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn's rain.
When you reboot in the morning's hush
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circled flight.
I am the soft stars that shine at night.
Do not stand at my hard disk and forever cry.
I am not there. "

BSD IS DEAD

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
Mac OS don't fear the reaper
Nor do the windows, SUN or the rain..we can be like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper
Baby take my hand...don't fear the reaper
We'll be able to fly...don't fear the reaper
BSD's bought the farm....

Distro is done
Here but now they're gone
Romeo and Juliet
Are together in eternity...Romeo and Juliet
40,000 server crashes every day...Like Romeo and Juliet
40,000 workstations reformatted everyday...Redefine happiness
Another 40,000 coming everyday...We can be like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper
Baby take my hand...don't fear the reaper
We'll be able to fly...don't fear the reaper
BSD's bought the farm...

Love of two is one
Here but now they're gone
Came the last night of sadness
And it was clear she couldn't log on
Then the file was opened the wind appeared
The mobo blew then disappeared
The curtains flew then Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith appeared...saying don't be afraid
Come on baby...and she had no fear
And she ran to them...then they started to fly
They looked backward and said goodbye...she had become like they are
She had taken their hand...she had become like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper "


_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

BSD is a one legged man in an ass kicking contest

FreeBSD is a one legged man in an ass kicking -- It got its ass kicked, plain and simple.

Boo hoo hoo. Sob.

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

Hmm, well.. (3, Insightful)

JVStalin (671988) | more than 10 years ago | (#7515583)

Things that DragonFlyBSD already has that FreeBSD-STABLE doesn't are, among others, application checkpointing, variant symlinks (not unlike Domain OS), Light-weight kernel threads, a more efficient slab-allocator, a multithreaded network stack, and the rcNG system." Oh, boy! Let's look at 5.1-RELEASE's features: rcNG, KSE, Mandatory Access Control framework, better SMP, fast ATA drivers. I hate to say it, but, DragonFlyBSD is all most as silly as that xMach project. :-) It's about arrogance, not software.

Re:Hmm, well.. (1)

endx7 (706884) | more than 10 years ago | (#7516323)

[snip DragonFly stuff list]... Oh, boy! Let's look at 5.1-RELEASE's features: rcNG, KSE, Mandatory Access Control framework, better SMP, fast ATA drivers. I hate to say it, but, DragonFlyBSD is all most as silly as that xMach project. :-) It's about arrogance, not software.

It wouldn't surprise me if a good deal of the 'good' things will be ported back to FreeBSD. One of the things about the *BSDs is a lot of (code) sharing goes around.

I'm kinda wondering what DragonFly-STABLE has that FreeBSD-STABLE doesn't have...I mean..wait... >:P

Re:Hmm, well.. (1)

marcovje (205102) | more than 10 years ago | (#7527276)

I also have that feeling. (porting the best back to FreeBSD).

It seems that there is one production BSD, FreeBSD, and the other ones are research projects, the best of which will be snatched later by the production free Unices FreeBSD and Linux

- NetBSD : portability, cleanness
- OpenBSD: Security, also a bit portability and cleanness, and a huge batch of stubbornness.
- DragonFly: Mach kernel experiments.
- Darwin: Also Mach kernel experiments.

It's not that the above OSes don't have a merit for the user. They got the features in their own terrain first, and due to the fact that they are generally smaller and cleaner can copy eachother faster.

If you happen to really need the feats under research, that can be important.

However the forks can simply not live up to FreeBSD and Linux (and then specially /i386)'s driver base, release engineering, large scale package management and advanced enterprise features.

Hey Stalin, here is a message you fucking COMMIE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7519955)

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.

Re:Hey Stalin, here is a message you fucking COMMI (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525839)

Well, tell us how you really feel then....

Re:Hmm, well.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7529306)

Silly? Such a judgemental attitude seems much more silly than the fortitude it takes to accomplish what Matt has.

I'm happy Matt has a place to try his ideas which have been shouted down time and time again by loudmouth, arrogant Dane and Australian developers (you know who you are).

Dragonfly will either prove the latter to be the FUD frauds we suspect they are or to have been right all along.

Stay tuned, you might just learn something. Then again, maybe not.

Re:Hmm, well.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7537960)

You might want to take a look at the DragonFly design page. FreeBSD-CURRENT's SMP design is based
on the traditional "lock everything down" model, which has scaling problems with current hardware trends. In addition, their particular implementation will be particularly hard to maintain in the long run. Really, the only thing you mention that is
likely to be considered for incorporation in DragonFly is tht ATAng.

You sound like one of the BSD developers who dislikes Matt on principle. So you may be right in your case about the arrogance vs. software.

Re:Hmm, well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7538254)

Looking at his website and his screen name, it looks like he hates everybody, especially competent, intelligent, agreeable programmers who run their own businesses.

Re:Hmm, well.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7538211)

Hmm, well... at least Matt Dillon isn't arrogant enough to send millions of people off to Gulags and starve or shoot millions more.

BSD you are so Dead! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7517455)

Come on now try and go out with some dignity left.

P.S. Note to moderators: You have no sense of humour.

BSD problems (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7519995)


I 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 machines 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.

i have tried a snapshot of dragonfly... (1)

jms258 (569015) | more than 10 years ago | (#7521021)

it seems very stable, and we all know matt dillon does good work ...

i think the dragonfly theory of package management will really bring something new to the *BSD table and i plan on continuing my support for the project in the future

personally, i think we need more *BSD forks ... as long as they are productive and (somewhat) original .. i say the more the merrier.

BSD problems (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7524235)


I 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 machines 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

Re:BSD problems (-1, Troll)

Rush Limbaugh 'BFI' (724718) | more than 10 years ago | (#7527724)

Because you are clearly not a compitant sysadmin.

Remember: Nt4 works even if you don't know what you're doing. A properly setup BSD box is a little more difficult to setup correctly than just runing the install and typing your serial number, and hitting the 'next' button until it gives you one that says 'finish'.

This is the only nice thing about NT/2k/XP: It works even if the admin is a bungling fool.

I really wish I had a spare box right now... (5, Informative)

acidtripp101 (627475) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524305)

The ONLY thing that was keeping me from using dfbsd was the fact that I had to
a) install freebsd-stable
b) cvsup the dfbsd sources
c) recompile everthing
d) then have my system

Now that dfbsd has it's own ISO, I might have to find an old junk box somewhere to install it on (I actually like freebsd 4.x more than the 5.x series so far... MUCH faster, but I'm sure that'll change when it goes stable (no more debugging symbols, etc.)

Re:I really wish I had a spare box right now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7527685)

i thought debugging symbols only added size to the binary but exeutionshould be the same since the symbols aren't execuatable code... nless you are running out of memory...

Lights out, pard. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7535883)

Somewhere, in a lonely hospital room,

DFBSD is dying

Re:I really wish I had a spare box right now... (1)

Dwonis (52652) | more than 10 years ago | (#7543543)

Have you tried VMware [vmware.com] ?

Roy Horn speaks out (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7524586)

Roy Horn of the famous "Siegfried and Roy" magic ensemble was interviewed today from his hospital bed. Mr. Horn is recovering from a life threatening tiger attack. When asked about his condition Roy had this to say,
Don't worry. I'm doing OK. I'll be fine. However, on the other hand, *BSD is dying.

Hang in there Roy. We're all pulling for you!

MIDI support? (2, Interesting)

thanjee (263266) | more than 10 years ago | (#7526242)

Doe DFBSD have *WORKING* Kernel MIDI support?

The first BSD to have that will become my favourite. So far FreeBSD is in the lead :)

Re:MIDI support? (1)

unborn (415272) | more than 10 years ago | (#7547481)

It had it with my sb16 back on 3.x

DFBSD Ghetto (-1, Troll)

*BSD Necrophilia (726584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7551990)


DFBSD 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, DFBSD pimps and pushers, and the big money makers.

Thanks for the reminder... (1)

devphaeton (695736) | more than 10 years ago | (#7528611)

I spent last night looking at a spare machine that was given to me, trying to figure out what to put on it...

I would say that DBSD would be as good a choice as any :o)

Server Names (1, Offtopic)

devphaeton (695736) | more than 10 years ago | (#7528920)

Anyone have any trivia on why the servers that host the daily snapshots are named after an STD?

* FTP: ftp://chlamydia.fs.ei.tum.de/pub/DragonFly
* HTTP: http://chlamydia.fs.ei.tum.de/pub/DragonFly

(on the bottom of http://www.dragonflybsd.org/Main/download.cgi)

I mean, even in German, The Clap is The Clap, right?

-1, Offtopic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7535890)

More like "-1, Embarrased Our Big BSD Ego".

If this post is moderated down, then you know its true.

Re:Server Names (2, Interesting)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 10 years ago | (#7546642)

Might I refer you to RFC 2100 [faqs.org] ? It explains why some hosts have such weird names sometimes. :)

BSD problems (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7529711)

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 machines 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 .

BSD problems (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7532325)


I 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 machines 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 .

Re:BSD problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7536265)

This troll was already used for Apple. You might want to rephrase.

YHBT YHL HAND (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7536813)

Sorry, anyone stupid enough to reply to such an obvious troll deserves to be laughed at

Sifting through the ashes . . . (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7537984)

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] 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.

Death be not proud (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7538837)

Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure, but why? 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 personas?

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.

BSD problems (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7538878)

I 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 machines 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.

Re:BSD problems (1)

unborn (415272) | more than 10 years ago | (#7547413)

You know this is a troll since IT doesn't even mention which BSD flavour IT has problems with.

Try YHBT YHL HAND, douchebag (0, Troll)

*BSD Necrophilia (726584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7551960)

BSD problems (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7539124)

I 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 machines 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.

Re:BSD problems (1)

Dwonis (52652) | more than 10 years ago | (#7543562)

Enable DMA transfers on your hard disk?

YHBT YHL HAND (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7545515)

Only Bones Could Say It Better (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7540024)

_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

Only Bones Could Say It Better (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7541537)

_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

Bob Hope joins the "B" Team (0, Troll)

*BSD is Dead (726405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542113)

It is with a heavy heart that we must report that Bob "I'm still dead" Hope has gone on to join the "B" team. As you all may know, BSD has been part of the "B" team for quite some time.

The Year of Our Lord 2003 has been a particularly bad year for the "B"s,

  • Bob Hope
  • Buddy Ebsen
  • Buddy Hackett
  • Barry White
  • BSD
This honored list of dead is but a small token of adieu from the many fans of the deceased.
These dead were truly some American Icons. They will be missed.

*BSD Is Dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7542125)

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] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

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

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

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

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS 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

BSD Tombstone (-1, Troll)

*BSD is Dead (726405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542140)

"Do not stand at my hard disk and forever weep.
I am not there; I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow.
I am the diamond glints on snow.
I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn's rain.
When you reboot in the morning's hush
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circled flight.
I am the soft stars that shine at night.
Do not stand at my hard disk and forever cry.
I am not there. "

Coping with BSD's Death (-1, Troll)

*BSD is Dead (726405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542154)

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.

Elegy For *BSD (-1, Troll)

*BSD is Dead (726405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542167)


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.


The Failure of *BSD (-1, Troll)

*BSD is Dead (726405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542177)

Of course we can all agree 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.

*BSD Feeding Tube (-1, Troll)

*BSD is Dead (726405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542200)

Oct. 23 -- BSD resumed receiving life-sustaining care yesterday in a
Florida hospital room, but many experts said there is virtually no hope
that it will ever recover, despite it fan boy's desperate hopes.

"IF IT'S over a year, BSD's not ever going to get up," said Fred Plum, a
professor emeritus at Weill Cornell College in New York. "You'd just
don't see it. It just doesn't happen."
BSD, 39, has been in a persistent vegetative
state since its heart stopped for unknown reasons in 1990. A feeding
tube in BSD's stomach was removed this past Wednesday after its husband,
Theo De Ratt, who said his wife had told him she (BSD) would not want to
be kept alive under such circumstances, won a long series of court
battles to have life-sustaining nourishment withdrawn so she (BSD) could
die.

*BSD Problems (-1, Troll)

*BSD is Dead (726405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542216)

I 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 machines 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.

BSD Ghetto (0, Troll)

jihadsecx (724369) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542265)


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.

What I know about BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7545249)

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.

A quick check of the pulse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7546977)

Nah... Bones this bitch is still dead.

What we can learn from that damned corpse (0, Troll)

*BSD Necrophilia (726584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7547334)

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] 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.

What I know from fucking the corpse (0, Troll)

*BSD Necrophilia (726584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7547350)

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 .

Lights out, pard. (0, Troll)

*BSD Necrophilia (726584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7547382)

Somewhere, in a lonely hospital room,

*BSD is dying

I rimmed BSD's dead body. This is my lament. (0, Troll)

*BSD Necrophilia (726584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7547422)

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.

Truth (-1, Troll)

*BSD Necrophilia (726584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7547488)


In a startling turn of events today, a previously little-known fact came into the public eye: "*BSD Sux0rs". This came as a complete surprise to the BUWLA, or BSD Users With Large Assholes, as they previously thought that *BSD 0wned.
"You see, even though I have never contributed code to any BSD project, I thought it was my duty to be a big asshole to others which don't use the OS I do, because it just 0wnz.", said one FreeBSD user. "Now that I know it sux0rs, though, I have to go find something else to be an asshole about."

One notorious OpenBSD fanatic known as WideOpen, told reporters, "I have to kill myself. This isn't how it was supposed to happen. My BSD has always been the best, and shouting that opinion in other people's faces at every chance I got has been my only hobby. It was all I ever did. It was what got me out of bed in the morning. Now I have to die. I will jam my bedpost up my ass until I hit my brain. It is the only way to go: BSD style."

In the volatile world of operating systems anything can happen. "At least we don't sux0r as much as Windows users", BigAzz, a relatively well-known NetBSD user said. "Screaming things in people's faces is my calling. Now I need to scream that BSD sux0rs. What a sad world. At least I won't kill myself like those uber-asshole OpenBSD guys. They are just way over the top. Or were, at least."

Nobody knows for sure what the future holds for the state of operating systems, but with Netcraft confirming the sux0r status, *BSD users all over the world will have to stick something else up their asses from now on or risk looking even more gay than they used to.

BSD Reaper (-1, Troll)

*BSD Necrophilia (726584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7547573)

All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
Mac OS don't fear the reaper
Nor do the windows, SUN or the rain..we can be like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper
Baby take my hand...don't fear the reaper
We'll be able to fly...don't fear the reaper
BSD's bought the farm....

Distro is done
Here but now they're gone
Romeo and Juliet
Are together in eternity...Romeo and Juliet
40,000 server crashes every day...Like Romeo and Juliet
40,000 workstations reformatted everyday...Redefine happiness
Another 40,000 coming everyday...We can be like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper
Baby take my hand...don't fear the reaper
We'll be able to fly...don't fear the reaper
BSD's bought the farm...

Love of two is one
Here but now they're gone
Came the last night of sadness
And it was clear she couldn't log on
Then the file was opened the wind appeared
The mobo blew then disappeared
The curtains flew then Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith appeared...saying don't be afraid
Come on baby...and she had no fear
And she ran to them...then they started to fly
They looked backward and said goodbye...she had become like they are
She had taken their hand...she had become like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper "

BSD IS DYING! ROFL! (-1, Troll)

*BSD Necrophilia (726584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7547583)

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.

THIS BSD GIG SUCKS!! (-1, Troll)

*BSD Necrophilia (726584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7547607)


I 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 machines 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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>