Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

NetBSD 2.0 Released

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the unix-on-a-microwave dept.

Unix 574

Quique writes "NetBSD 2.0 is the tenth major release of the NetBSD Operating System, and has just been released. It can be downloaded from one of the mirror sites. NetBSD is widely known as the most portable operating system in the world. It currently supports fifty four different system architectures, all from a single source tree, and is always being ported to more. NetBSD 2.0 continues the long tradition with major improvements in file system and memory management performance, major security enhancements, and support for many new platforms and peripherals." The release announcement is also available.

cancel ×

574 comments

Don't forget... (0, Troll)

SCO$699FeeTroll (695565) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047762)

...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

Re:Don't forget... (0, Offtopic)

deflin39 (769464) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047774)

LOL, at least you'are consistant. deflin39

Re:Don't forget... (-1, Offtopic)

Blue-Footed Boobie (799209) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047822)

Mod parent up...

Excellent use of the term 'Tea-Baggers'.

Re:Don't forget... (-1, Offtopic)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047864)

Good to see you back SCO$699FeeTroll, it's been too long....

Please (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047765)

...no more pictures of that skank Ceren, okay?

Re:Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11048125)

Unless she's nekkid...

Re:Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11048181)

No thanks. This year's bondage poseur quotient has been met. Leather's been out since '98 - hair weaves and big 'ol booties are in. It's the "new" black.

NetCraft confirms it ... (-1, Troll)

Sonic McTails (700139) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047768)

NetBSD 2.0 is dead !

Re:NetBSD confirms it ... (3, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047784)

> NetBSD 2.0 is dead !

Only in Soviet Russia.

Everywhere else, NetBSD 2.0 confirms it... Netcraft is dead!

Re:NetBSD confirms it ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047950)

It is alive and well on South Korea, where is the most used by oldies.

Re:NetCraft confirms it ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047797)

Dude. You didn't even *try* to be funny.

This post was just plain pathetic. You
could have done something like a 'In Soviet
Russia, NetBSD...', etc. Or perhaps tried
to pick up on a recent headline or draw
some parallels with other news.

But no. Instead you treated us to your
complete lack of imagination.

Re:NetCraft confirms it ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047863)

At least he didn't cry like a little bitch having his candy taken away.

Re:NetCraft confirms it ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047936)

Or use an AC to followup to a criticism of his post...

Re:NetCraft confirms it ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047798)

in soviet russia BSD confirms netcraft is dead

Re:NetCraft confirms it ... (1)

Nirbo (781868) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047814)

And Linux is an illegal hacker OS :p, what's the point?

Re:NetCraft confirms it ... (1)

isny (681711) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048025)

I'm not dead yet!
I'm getting better.

Re:NetCraft confirms it ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11048072)

It comes as no surprise that NetBSD was soundly defeated in yet another benchmark. Everyone knows that ever hapless NetBSD is hopelessly mired in a 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 NetBSD but then again, FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.

Consider that because of the many 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.

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

Re:NetCraft confirms it ... (1)

kjs3 (601225) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048127)

You mean the benchmark where NetBSD set a world record transfer rate on the Internet 2 backbone?

Oh....AC + Troll == Assclown. Sorry, shouldn't have bothered to respond.

What are NetBSD's strengths? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047769)

Any reason I should test it out on another partition? Is it great for servers or what?

Re:What are NetBSD's strengths? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047792)

What are NetBSD's strengths?

Well, it's really good at dying, especially confirmed dying. It's been doing it for some time now, years even. In fact, I have never seen anything so good at dying.

Re:What are NetBSD's strengths? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047836)

BSD is the mythical phoenix.... always dying and new version coming out of the ashes... No little mortal penguin can compete with that. ;)
Oh yeah and the daemonettes... so cute! *sigh*

Re:What are NetBSD's strengths? (1)

bradkittenbrink (608877) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048057)

have I told you how much I love google images?

Re:What are NetBSD's strengths? (4, Informative)

Nirbo (781868) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047793)

NetBSD is often used in porting software and OSes to other processors, due to the wide range it runs on.

As a result of the massively postable code though, it has a footprint relatively smaller than most ofther OSes, and tends to be quite fast.

For servers, I'd stick with FreeBSD, and for ultra secure servers, OpenBSD...

Or Linux :p, whatever floats your boat. Hell, you could even use Windows 2003 Server if you've got a few thousand burnig a hole in your pocket and the server isn't too important :D

Re:What are NetBSD's strengths? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047838)

NetBSD is known for having a rock solid core. It has unified development (no forking off like FreeBSD).

It is extremely fast, and quite portable. It has a strong community, with lots of help available on the web and IRC.

NetBSD is extremely secure (many would argue moreso than OpenBSD). It comes with almost all services off by default.

NetBSD is the intelligent hacker's choice!

Re:What are NetBSD's strengths? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047854)

It comes with almost all services off by default.

Actually, it comes with all services off by default, and has for quite some time.

Re:What are NetBSD's strengths? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047874)

I wonder how they would argue it's more secure than OpenBSD. Faster, more portable... sure. But it's hard to be more secure than OpenBSD and still end up with a useful OS.

Re:What are NetBSD's strengths? (2, Interesting)

jr87 (653146) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048061)

It's just as secure as OpenBSD, not more. I can't think of anything more secure then OpenBSD at the moment though.

Re:What are NetBSD's strengths? (1)

kjs3 (601225) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048046)

I doubt many NetBSD folks would argue that it's more secure than OpenBSD. Rather, it's just as secure as OpenBSD, with the bonus that you don't get summarily pissed on if you have the audacity to ask for help on a mailing list or IRC.

Re:What are NetBSD's strengths? (1)

DashEvil (645963) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048239)

How can you claim that there is no forking off and then compare it to a project that forked off of it?

Are you an idiot or do you just not know what you're talking about? Seriously, what's the deal.

Re:What are NetBSD's strengths? (2, Informative)

bob beta (778094) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048262)

OpenBSD forked off of NetBSD and thus ceased to be NetBSD. That is different from certain other OSes, which are 'ported to other platforms' by creating forks that seldom merge back together ever again, yet are claimed to still be the same OS.

Can see the result of the logo change already (1)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047771)

Normally it escapes in a wild burst of savage, demonic power. This time they had to keep proding it until it eventually slouched away.

Well... (3, Funny)

Blue-Footed Boobie (799209) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047787)

Sure, but will it run on my toaster?

Re:Well... (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048082)

As they say, of course it does. It all depends on how you define toaster [theapplecollection.com] .

Re:Well... (1)

ToasterTester (95180) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048260)

I'm not done testing yet, giveme a week or ten...

first banana (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047803)

I ain't nobody's second banana

Yeah but, (3, Interesting)

Jason Hood (721277) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047804)

does it support SMP efficiently yet?

Re:Yeah but, (5, Informative)

canadianjoe (692195) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047866)

The addition of a native threads implementation for all platforms and symmetrical multiprocessing (SMP) on i386 and other popular platforms were long-standing goals for NetBSD 2.0. Both of these goals have now been met--SMP support has been added for i386, SPARC, and PowerPC, and the SMP support on Alpha and VAX has been improved.

RTFA?

Re:Yeah but, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11048028)

I'm not Trolling like the Grandparent probably was but you didn't exactly answer his question. He asked about Netbsd suppporting SMP efficiently. Doing SMP and doing it well are two Completely different things. Linux claimed have SMP years ago. We all know that it scaled like poop though at first. So again its quite possible that although Netbsd supports SMP it isn't doing it that well compared to Linux or other OS's and maybe that is what the grandparent is referring to. I'll leave it to the experts to describe if Netbsd's SMP is any good.

Re:Yeah but, (1)

canadianjoe (692195) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048140)

True, True. The other few articles I can find seem to indicate that the SMP support is "decent". As for what that means, I'm not sure. Is this good 4-way, 8-way? 128-way? Won't really know until it gets out there and tried I guess.

Re:Yeah but, (5, Informative)

little_fluffy_clouds (441841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047879)

Yes.
$ uname -a
NetBSD odyssey 2.0_BETA NetBSD 2.0_BETA (ODYSSEY) #1: Sun Aug 8 19: EST 2004

$ w
10:58AM up 121 days, 9 mins, 1 user, load averages: 0.37, 0.24, 0.26

$ dmesg | grep cpu
cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor)
cpu0: Intel Pentium III (686-class), 701.63 MHz, id 0x681
cpu0: features 383fbff<FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SE P,MTRR>
cpu0: features 383fbff<PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,MMX>
cpu0: features 383fbff<FXSR,SSE>
cpu0: I-cache 16 KB 32B/line 4-way, D-cache 16 KB 32B/line 4-way
cpu0: L2 cache 256 KB 32B/line 8-way
cpu0: ITLB 32 4 KB entries 4-way, 2 4 MB entries fully associative
cpu0: DTLB 64 4 KB entries 4-way, 8 4 MB entries 4-way
cpu0: calibrating local timer
cpu0: apic clock running at 100 MHz
cpu0: 8 page colors
cpu1 at mainbus0: apid 1 (application processor)
cpu1: starting
cpu1: Intel Pentium III (686-class), 701.59 MHz, id 0x681
cpu1: features 383fbff<FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SE P,MTRR>
cpu1: features 383fbff<PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,MMX>
cpu1: features 383fbff<FXSR,SSE>
cpu1: I-cache 16 KB 32B/line 4-way, D-cache 16 KB 32B/line 4-way
cpu1: L2 cache 256 KB 32B/line 8-way
cpu1: ITLB 32 4 KB entries 4-way, 2 4 MB entries fully associative
cpu1: DTLB 64 4 KB entries 4-way, 8 4 MB entries 4-way
cpu1: CPU 1 running

Re:Yeah but, (5, Funny)

flacco (324089) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048012)

What were the skies like when you were young?

They went on forever - they - When I - we lived in Arizona, And the skies always had these Little fluffy clouds in 'em, And they were long, clear, and There were lots of stars, at night. And when it would rain, they would all turn - They were beautiful, the most beautiful skies As a matter of fact. Um, the sunsets were purple and red and yellow And on fire, And the clouds would catch the colors everywhere. That's uh, neat cause I used to Look at them all the time, When I was little. You don't see that You might still see it in the desert.

Mod Parent (+1, Orb) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11048112)

n/t

Re:Yeah but, (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048165)

"The employee is required to stoop, kneel, crouch, and/or crawl." -- job description

Are you an embedded developer too!?

Re:Yeah but, (1)

Rosonowski (250492) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048245)

Oh god, I heard that peice, and I fell in love with that woman's voice.

Quique: NetBSD 2.0 Released (-1, Flamebait)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047824)

It's sort of ironic that a story about a dead operating system was submitted by someone with whose user name comes from a dead language...

Don't you think?

Re:Quique: NetBSD 2.0 Released (-1, Troll)

grahagre (459342) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047882)

it just seems dead to you because your a dumbass

biatch.

don't ever question the power of netbsd.

Re:Quique: NetBSD 2.0 Released (0, Offtopic)

agraboso (832821) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047932)

Since when is Spanish a dead language?!?!

Re:Quique: NetBSD 2.0 Released (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11048100)

Since Esperanto!

Re:Quique: NetBSD 2.0 Released (2, Insightful)

plasticsquirrel (637166) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048010)

It's sort of ironic that a story about a dead operating system was submitted by someone with whose user name comes from a dead language...

Is it? Maybe I'm not laughing because I just don't understand the constant need to disrespect everyone else's favorite Linux/BSD distro.

For many architectures there is no other modern operating system available, let alone a powerful open source Unix-like system. I think that NetBSD, although it has a relatively small user base, plays an important part in the open source community in this respect. Can't we all appreciate the fact that such a ported and portable open source operating system like NetBSD exists?

I wonder what sort of insecurities you have about your own operating system fuel your need to trash a such a benign project.

Beautiful irony, ugly irony (1)

Joseph_Daniel_Zukige (807773) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048161)

It's sort of ironic that a number of people don't see the irony in a dead operating system that isn't dead, and in a dead language that isn't dead.

Re:Quique: NetBSD 2.0 Released (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11048208)


It's sort of ironic that a story about a dead operating system was submitted by someone with whose user name comes from a dead language... Don't you think?
No.

Irony is an incongruity between what's to be expected and what actually happens. If NetBSD truly were a dead operating system, what's so incongruent about a fan of a dead language posting an article about a dead operating system? I vaguely recall something about "birds of a feather" banding together and forming small social orders based on similarities or something like that, so there's nothing surprising about a fan of an alleged dead language posting an article about an alleged OS.

Or were we playing buzzword-bingo and I missed the part where they handed out the game charts?

Hooray!! (1)

astyanax (8365) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047876)

But also, About time! Original ETA of Launch was May. Still nice to have a new release of this wonderfully portable OS. Hopefully the ddefault kernel install includes filesystem crypto.

Re:Hooray!! (1)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047971)

Please code an operating system yourself and test it on 54 different platforms. They have every excuse in the the world to be as behind schedule as they please, no corporation in the world would demand what they are doing. 54 platforms? What the hell do you do when 27 are affected by a bug and 27 aren't? I'll tell you what you do, you go insane:)
Regards,
Steve

Re:Hooray!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11048029)

> 54 platforms? What the hell do you do when 27 are affected by a bug and 27 aren't?

Insert some more if( )then{}else{} ?

Re:Hooray!! (1)

kjs3 (601225) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048064)

Now be reasonable...NetBSD is positively light speed compared to Debians "next major release" timetable...:-)

Re:Hooray!! (1)

nofx_3 (40519) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048266)

Debian has major releases? There hasn't been one since I've been using it and thats a couple of years at least.

-kaplanfx

This is a Lie! (-1, Flamebait)

JungleBoy (7578) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047894)

Oh come on people. We all know that BSD is dead. This article is a complete lie. It just has to be!

The JungleBoy

54 hippy architectures (0)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047895)

I find it interesting that a grep on the page of supported architectures does not get any hits for some of the more mainstream "modern" architectures being used in mobile space. No hits for OMAP or PXA families which are well supported by Linux. Sure there are some old boards (eg StrongARM) but this hardly suggests an OS that is being adopted in mainstream usage in mobile space like Linux is.

Re:54 hippy architectures (4, Informative)

pchan- (118053) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047928)

No hits for OMAP or PXA families which are well supported by Linux

Both the TI OMAP and the Intel PXA are ARM-architecture [netbsd.org] . The OMAP is pretty much a standard ARM-9, and the PXA is specifically mentioned on the evbarm page.

If you think something's missing, (1)

Joseph_Daniel_Zukige (807773) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048176)

DONATE HARDWARE!!!!!!!! Time would help, too. (As someone pointed out, you could look a little harder at what's available, but no reason to miss a chance to plug for more hardware and more hands.)

Re:54 hippy architectures (1)

kjs3 (601225) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048177)

Both OMAP and PXA are ARM architecture. A trivial amount of research on your part would show how well supported ARM is in NetBSD. Just because LinuxDevices.com and Slashdot don't report design wins by NetBSD in the ARM market doesn't mean they don't exist.

*BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047897)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact: *BSD is dying

Re:*BSD is dying (1)

kjs3 (601225) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048118)

Do not feed the troll...

Obligatory (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047901)

In Soviet Russia, NetBSD 2.0 Releases You!!!

Great for mini-processors (3, Insightful)

LM741N (258038) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047913)

I can see many microcontrollers going this route. One of the cheapest (and oldest) ways to get a u-controller up and running was to buy one of the 8086 based mini-boards and program it with the old Borland Turbo C.

Now with NetBSD, the same kind of boards could have a mini BSD OS, that could use all the free tools to have a more robust design. I'm not incredibly familiar with NetBSD, but I imagine they do have "real-time" control software for these small processors. Great job. And now of course the choice of processors is very large.

Re:Great for mini-processors (2, Informative)

kjs3 (601225) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048087)

One of the few hard-and-fast requirements of NetBSD is that it have an MMU. It can be a really brain damaged MMU (see arm26), but it's got to be there.

Thus, it's not going to be useful for an 8086.

Re:Great for mini-processors (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048143)

Actually, There isn't port for the 8086 (As another post has said you must have a mmu, which an 8086 lacks) but your point is still valid. I have found that by the time a project is complex enough (computationally speaking) to require an OS, most of the CPUs that fit the requirements have one. NetBSD can be pruned down to be quite small and I'm usually able to get the port working quickly and easily.

Idly I have pined for a busybox for NetBSD, I think it would be a great addition.

a *BSD carol (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047914)

"Spirit," said Scrooge, with an interest he had never felt before, "tell me if *BSD will live."

"I see a vacant seat," replied the Ghost, "in the poor chimney-corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved. If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, *BSD will die."

"No, no," said Scrooge. "Oh, no, kind Spirit! say it will be spared."

"If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race," returned the Ghost, "will find him here. What then? If it be like to die, it had better do it, and decrease the surplus operating system population."

Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief. It was sad to see any operating system die, even one so obviously flawed and useless as *BSD.

God bless us, every one.

Lessons from the Ashes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047944)

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.

Wow.... (5, Funny)

TheMadRedHatter (716344) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047946)

I just finished instaling NetBSD 1.6.2, and opened a new browser window on my iMac to look up how to install packages..... and what do I see on the front page of Slashdot? NetBSD 2.0 released. The same thing happened with OpenBSD a while back.

Maybe I should install Windows XP on one of my computers... Then maybe Longhorn would come out as I opened an IE window to get FireFox :-P.

-- TheMadRedHatter

Re:Wow.... (1)

TheDisturbedOne (741590) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048019)

I must say, good job sir. What are the odds...

Ah. Blissful clean architecture. (5, Informative)

pschmied (5648) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047962)

NetBSD is _the_ most underrated free OS project.

Do not be distracted by the fact that it can run on most every architecture. This is only a side effect of an uncompromisingly elegant design and clean implementation.

NetBSD is quite performant on modern hardware. It keeps pace with other operating systems in most areas, and exceeds in others. Remember, NetBSD was probably the first 64-bit clean open source operating system. It had USB support before Linux. It had IPv6 before... well... anybody.

NetBSD makes a great all around OS. NetBSD tends to be willing to break with tradition where others aren't. Proof is in things like its re-engineering of the BSD init system. It's so simply correct, that I can barely remember the traditional BSD inits. Hence, FreeBSD (and OpenBSD?) have adopted it.

So, run. Don't walk. Download, install, and enjoy.

-Peter

P.S. NetBSD's pkgsrc is only thing that comes close to a truly cross platform package management/build system. It supports Irix, Solaris, NetBSD, Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, OS X, and (to a lesser degree) AIX. I'm sure I'm leaving out a few.

Re:Ah. Blissful clean architecture. (4, Informative)

srvivn21 (410280) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048021)

Proof of performance (Coralized for politeness) http://bulk.fefe.de.nyud.net:8090/scalability/ [nyud.net]

The benchmarks on this page are a year old, but still show a very interesting picture of network socket performance.

Re:Ah. Blissful clean architecture. (1)

bfields (66644) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048126)

P.S. NetBSD's pkgsrc is only thing that comes close to a truly cross platform package management/build system.

Really?

It supports Irix, Solaris, NetBSD, Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, OS X, and (to a lesser degree) AIX. I'm sure I'm leaving out a few.

You might want to take a look at http://www.rpm.org/platforms/ [rpm.org] .

--Bruce Fields

Re:Ah. Blissful clean architecture. (1)

algae (2196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048220)

...and you might want to take a look at the page you just linked.

Quote:

Please note that no endorsement or indication of reliability or availability for a given port exists. This compilation is just that -- a compilation of links.

Re:Ah. Blissful clean architecture. (1)

bob beta (778094) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048241)

Who cares how many OSes have the RPM command implemented to them. What the grandparent is talking about is a CVS controlled tree of source patches that make a consolidated dependency-keyed build system. That builds with the same scripts on all architectures of NetBSD seamlessly.

What RPM has is a framework that all sorts of people roll out on all different sorts of OS architectures, all alike only in the base package structure.

Your claim is like arguing that the TAR command is a cross-platform build system because a lot of different systems can build source code that is stored in tarballs.

Re:Ah. Blissful clean architecture. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11048194)

openbsd had ipv6 first noob!

Re:Ah. Blissful clean architecture. (1)

Caligari (180276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048290)

It's so simply correct, that I can barely remember the traditional BSD inits. Hence, FreeBSD (and OpenBSD?) have adopted it.

No, OpenBSD has not adopted their new BSD init system. The project doesn't agree its quite "so simply correct" as you let on.

Torrent (5, Informative)

ethzer0 (603146) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047966)

Here's a direct link [netbsd.org] to the torrent for the x86 Binary ISO.

Re:Torrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11048152)

Thanks.

I love BitTorrent.

(Currently downloading at 500kB/s)

Live CD for i386 (1)

joshuaobrien (588416) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048212)

ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/iso/2.0/i386live.i so.torrent

rsync over NFS (1)

hey (83763) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047970)

Looks like rsync over NFS is one of the ways to download it. Pretty cool.

Yes, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047972)

Sure NetBSD is the most ported OS but does it have a cool song???

Didn't think so.

Sign me up for OpenBSD because of the groovy tunes!

w00t!! Now where's the ISOs?? (1)

mvdw (613057) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047986)

What I've been waiting for so I can reinstall the old alpha and sparcstation I have sitting around doing nothing! Ever since 2.0 went into RC, I've been waiting for it to be finalised to setup these old machines. I just need to get the isos, or better, a multi-iso with alpha and sparc + pmax would be nice for the decstation that's floating around somewhere.

Now I'll be just Waiting for the mirrors to catch up with isos.

Re:w00t!! Now where's the ISOs?? (1)

mvdw (613057) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048034)

Double w00t!! Checked my local mirror - isos are already there! Downloading even now...

Noo (1)

user32.ExitWindowsEx (250475) | more than 9 years ago | (#11047991)

Six minutes before I noticed it and started downloading....
No wonder the transfer is so slow.

Thought for Today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11047996)


Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil;

For thou art with me;
Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.

54 archs ? (3, Interesting)

phoxix (161744) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048002)

Not to flame, but I've often wondered how true this statement is. It seems as if a whole bunch of the archs are "quasi-archs". Meaning the under-lying core is still based on a fairly standardized CPU arch. An example is hpcram [netbsd.org] , which is based on the StrongARM cpu ...

Also, the offical release [netbsd.org] says 48 archs, not 54 as in the slashdot story

And finally, some asshole named Zafer Aydogan stole my NetBSD Toaster dmesg [netbsd.org] . Real original can be found at the NYCBUG *BSD dmesg project [nycbug.org] . (Very funny read!)

Cool, enough random crap from me, heh

Sunny Dubey

Re:54 archs ? (1)

name773 (696972) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048244)

when's your documentary on distaste for RPMs going to be up online? interested to read it...

Re:54 archs ? (2, Interesting)

WJMoore (830419) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048288)

This is partly true but architecture doesn't refer to just the CPU. There are many platforms that share the same CPU but doesn't mean that there still isn't effort required to make NetBSD work on them. As far as NetBSD is concerned they count the seperate projects as architectures. If a platform is unique enough to justify a separate project I think its valid to count it as an individual architecture.

reflections on NetBSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11048041)

NetBSD is not doing so well. I am sorry to sound a pessimistic note, but I think that this poor downtrodden operating system should be humanely euthanized. NetBSD is going to die anyway. Let me explain.

Once I had a cat who had feline leukemia, and we tried to keep him alive, with numerous trips to the vet. But, in the end, the disease just overwhelmed him. He had such a hard time. If I had another cat with the same diagnosis, then I would just have it put away immediately. Not being dismissive, but just realistic.

You are a very kind to have nursed NetBSD along and looked after it. At least this pathetic OS is being looked after. It is not out there frantically searching for a "home". No, it's found its final resting place.

If NetBSD does have to be euthanized, this is not a cruel act - it will pass away immediately without suffering.

Re:reflections on NetBSD (1)

kjs3 (601225) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048192)

AC + Troll. Do not feed the trolls...

NetBSD 2.0 is the tenth major release (1)

djocyko (214429) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048056)

I think, by definition, 2.0 is the second major release, no?

Just installed it... (5, Funny)

BossMC (696762) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048077)

I just installed NetBSD 2.0 about 1 hour ago, and I must say, I am quite impressed! Check this out:

$ uptime
8:40PM up 67 days, 1:56, 14 users, load averages: 1.02, 0.42, 0.35

I think the Platform support says it all... (1)

INetEngineer (816350) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048142)

I just found FreeOS...

http://www.freeos.com/ [freeos.com] lists NetBSD as supporting 30 platforms. Perhaps this is now even more with the v2.0 release? That's amazing!

Read the article below for comparisons of free operating systems...
http://www.freeos.com/compare/ [freeos.com]

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11048151)

So that means I have have every single device in my household (toaster included) running a dead OS!

Let me know when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11048180)

They choose to implement console scrollback, with something as simple and elegant as Shift+Pgup that Linux provides.

Until then, of course my systems don't run NetBSD; OpenBSD is just fine, sorry.

2.0 == Tenth? What? (1)

Finuvir (596566) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048249)

NetBSD 2.0 is the tenth major release of the NetBSD Operating System

Wouldn't 2.0 be the second major release? You know, given that its major version number is 2.

NetBSD - the path to nowhere (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11048268)

I regularly go to NetBSD.org, and see the pathetic hodge-podge of ports they've managed to achieve. They've ported their OS to Dreamcast's and Amigas, and a whole host of obsolete boxes.

But it makes me wonder why people would expend effort banging their heads against old obsolete junk that no one is ever going to run? Old VAXStations and VMEBus junk? What masochist would even bother trying to get that stuff to run?

I wish these people would use their talents for productive things...they could be making their OS better, more stable and easier to use. Not to mention the fact that NetBSD, like the other BSD's is pretty thin on driver support for most modern hardware. Couldnt they be writing drivers for harware that matters?

And the whole ease-of-use thing is not something you can dismiss either...NetBSD is harder to get installed than six-year-old Slackware. I'd really -LIKE- NetBSD and OpenBSD to be more popular among users and hackers, but people like that want to program and run apps, not solve a Rubik's cube!

As for the Alpha hardware...well, Alpha has seen it's day come and go -- at least as far as hobbyist hardware is concerned.

Back in the days of the 21164 (and 21164PC, and the old Multias) there was a chance, a brief window, in which Alphas might have become mainstream hardware. But Digital committed corporate suicide, and now the Alpha line is completely out of sight, pricewise. You're not going to find anything comparable to the Sun Blade for under $1000 (which, admittedly, isnt a particularly power machine). Alpha 21264 EV67/EV68 machines are insanely expensive and the performance gap between them, and high-end PCs is now disturbingly narrow.

Now we hear that Samsung seems to be moving away from Alpha Processors, Inc...and is seeking partnerships for AMD hardware?

Some annoying old coot on Usenet keeps saying about how "PC's have out-evolved Unix workstations and RISC architectures in every way", and I'd take his bait and counter his arguments, but it's sounding truer all the time.

RISC along with NetBSD, and for that matter, *BSDs in general, are dead.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...