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

Thank you!

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

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

BSD Usage Survey

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 9 years ago | from the stats-and-graphs dept.

BSD 74

hubertf writes "The BSD Certification Group announced the BSD Usage Survey today (non-English version also available). 'This survey aims to collect detailed statistics on how and where BSD systems are used around the world. The survey is short- only 19 questions- and should only take a few minutes to complete. The survey covers usage of the four main BSD projects - FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and DragonFly BSD.'"

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

I think... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13591186)

Er, dieing? Something like that. At least it's what Netcraft is bleating.

Personal use? (5, Insightful)

theapodan (737488) | more than 9 years ago | (#13591192)

The survey doesn't address personal use, which I would assume is a larger, more important part of the various BSD projects because with larger consumer market share, there is more of a push to develop drivers to support devices, and more reason for appliation developers to port apps.

I think that developing an operating system intended for business is a fine thing, but developing an operating system that can handle different markets in the event of a collapse of a market is better.

Re:Personal use? (3, Interesting)

Homology (639438) | more than 9 years ago | (#13591316)

Have a look at the OpenBSD Project Goals [] . Do you see any goal about "intended for business"? Here is the gist of it if you search the mailinglists: The OpenBSD developers develops for themselves, and that it incidentally is usefull for other is a nice bonus. They are not very interested in "markets" or "market share".

Re:Personal use? (2, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#13591376)

...Do you see any goal about "intended for business"?...


They are not very interested in "markets" or "market share".

If this is the case, then honestly, what is the purpose of a BSD Certification? Obviously the goal of such a certification (in fact all "professional" certifications) is acceptence of BSD (or whatever the product) in the business sector. Think about it.

Re:Personal use? (2, Insightful)

theapodan (737488) | more than 9 years ago | (#13592548)

What you seem to be ignoring is that the way to drive acceptance of *nix operating systems has been to bind them to hardware, sun, ibm, etc. Linux has rewritten paradigm to great success, and the BSD's also do so. However, without sufficient push for more devices, BSD can ONLY be targeted at the business sector.

So here's the question that I pose to you: what is the purpose of a BSD certification if only the business sector uses BSD? Without end users, there is nobody that needs a certified tech. There is less risk involved in hiring someone uncertified if there is no stake with end user consumers.

So before you go mouthing off that I should "Think about it," perhaps you should dwell on the relationship between software vendors and the consumer.

Or you could churn out 10 more posts in hopes of getting modded insightful again.

Re:Personal use? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13592647)

So before you go mouthing off that I should "Think about it," perhaps you should dwell on the relationship between software vendors and the consumer.

Jesus, dude. Pull the hot burr out of your ass!

Re:Personal use? (2, Interesting)

Homology (639438) | more than 9 years ago | (#13593277)

If this is the case, then honestly, what is the purpose of a BSD Certification? Obviously the goal of such a certification (in fact all "professional" certifications) is acceptence of BSD (or whatever the product) in the business sector. Think about it.

The BSD Certification "certifies" that you have a certain skill set level working with *BSD. This is about using an OS as distinct from creating one. So those making this BSD Certification has different goals than those creating the *BSD. See?

Really? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13593478)

That's nice, now go back to your porn masturbation.

Re:Personal use? (4, Interesting)

Shanep (68243) | more than 9 years ago | (#13595230)

If this is the case, then honestly, what is the purpose of a BSD Certification? Obviously the goal of such a certification (in fact all "professional" certifications) is acceptence of BSD (or whatever the product) in the business sector. Think about it.

As a very happy OpenBSD user, in my private and business life, since 2.5, I say... think about this... I view the fact that OpenBSD does not wish to impress any business clients as a priority, to be a HUGE benefit to OpenBSD quality.

They're not out to form a bullshit glossy image to sell product in a competitive marketplace full of other bullshit companies with bullshit glossy brochures, paid-for reviews and advertisements. OpenBSD sells itself on the merits of its code quality. People who care and know better enjoy and appreciate this.

And beleive it or not, OpenBSD (and the other BSD's), do actually get used in big business. I know of two major banks which use OpenBSD for firewall and VPN machines just as one example. I also use OpenBSD in various roles at certain firms where I provide support and consulting.

Re:Personal use? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13619750)

It is official; NetCraft has confirmed: OpenBSD 3.7 has been hacked by a rogue internet group less than 24 hours after release.

"We can't believe how easy this one was to crack. There are 3 exploits you can do over the internet right out of the box, and I think we're going to find more," said ZeroC00L, a leader of the X0r h@X0rs. The group claims responsibility for demonstrating exploits in the past 5 OpenBSD releases.

"I think the main reason that people think OpenBSD is 'secure' is because Theo [de Raadt, leader of the OpenBSD 'project'] says it is. The truth is about the opposite; we can't find a single exploit in the latest RedHat, but OpenBSD is OpenSwissCheese. All that crap legacy code from fucking Berkeley hippies, you know."

Theo de Raadt has apparently refused to comment.

Re:Personal use? (3, Informative)

KwKSilver (857599) | more than 9 years ago | (#13592013)

Good point. I had no trouble installing and using the 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 Free BSD O/S. It was for personal use & just to see ... Never could get a functioning system out of the 5.x series. It is silly for FreeBSD to be getting harder to istall while Debian has gotten trivially easy.

However, PC-BSD [] works quite well, but with limited software installation, unless one goes to the ports. The base is OK for someone who just wants to surf and e-mail. Getting OO installed is trickier. It got a good review from Dru Lavigne also here [] . There's a fresh beta, 0.8 just released.

There's also Desktop BSD over here [] , which I have not tried as there seem to be problems with installation on boxes with an Athlon CPU. When they get that fixed ... we'll see.

The loss of Matt Dillon hurt FreeBSD 5. (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13593348)

The loss of Matt Dillon truly hurt the FreeBSD 5 development efforts. That's why it has taken up until FreeBSD 5.4 before many people can even begin to get a system up and running, let alone stable enough for production work.

However, FreeBSD's loss has thankfully turned into DragonFlyBSD. Once the initial work of rearchitecturing DragonFlyBSD is complete, it is quite certain that we might have a platform to replace FreeBSD for server and workstation tasks. DFBSD will be able to handle the massively multicored CPUs that are about to become prevalent. FreeBSD will not. But the virtue of technological superiority, DFBSD will trump FreeBSD.

Re:The loss of Matt Dillon hurt FreeBSD 5. (5, Interesting)

Ecalos (908980) | more than 9 years ago | (#13603629)

I'm a *BIG* huge fan of DragonFly BSD and from everything I've seen and read, Matt Dillon and co. are fantastic coders. However, the reason why 5.x has for a long time sucked has far more to do with the fact that the FreeBSD Project bit off more than it could chew; they were adding far too many features all at one time for them to be able to do it all in a managable, and timely fashion, and not due to the loss of Matt Dillon.

SMPng (fine grained kernel locking), KSE (multi-threading the kernel, and providing both M:N and 1:1 threading for userland programs), TrustedBSD MAC Framework and POSIX ACLs, Itanium, AMD64, PowerPC and UltraSparc processor ports, GEOM and GBDE, full kernel preemption, new drivers (including a mass migration to NetBSD's BUSDMA APIs), inclusion of OpenBSD cryptographic code, a new SMP aware process scheduler (Shed_ULE), devfs, a few thousand new ports/packages and a ton of other things that I can't even remember right now were all begun around the same time, all requiring the others to be aware of the various changes that were being made all over the kernel and userland. Matt Dillon was around for at least half of that work, and even then, it was far too big a project for the FreeBSD developers to have undertaken all at one time.

Quite frankly, it was madness. Let's not forget that they also had to support the 4.x branch because it would have required one to be absolutely insane to employ 5.x in *any* mission critical tasks during most of it's lifetime. (OT: I remember when 5.0-RELEASE came out, I attempted to switch to another virtual terminal, only to be greeted with what I called the "Lava Lamp of Death," because that's what I saw on screen, and I was unable to get out of it without rebooting.)

I hold Matt Dillon in high regard, but his departure from the project was not the reason for it's woes over the last few years. Poor planning and a monsterous set of goals were the biggest reasons why it's taken so long for FreeBSD 5.x to get to where it is today.

DragonFly is not currently without it's problems either. The serializing token code will probably have to be completely replaced at least one more time (making it Matt's third attempt IIRC) because although he believes the current API to be both nice and correct, the implementation is bug-prone, having caused a number of issues that seriously impacted the stability of DragonFly in multiprocessor systems: -09/msg00018.html []

DragonFly also suffers from the lack of a proper package management system. FreeBSD 4.x ports with the dfports overrides is neither up to date, nor especially fun to make work when something breaks, and although pkgsrc is an option, not all of the most important ports (like currently build on DragonFly without a number of patches from Jörg Sonnenberger (which sadly have not yet been integrated into pkgsrc itself by the NetBSD folks), and even then (at least for me) it seems to be hit or miss.

I am not the most knowledgable person in regards to these issues; I'm not a programmer, but I read alot of documentation as well as the mailing lists for both projects, and I have used both systems over the past three years (and FreeBSD since 4.5), and I can safely say that it was not Matt Dillon's loss that was the cause of the nightmare that was 5.x until the most recent releases, but was rather due to people trying to do more in one go than was probably a good idea to have tried.

All that said, I am looking forward to both DragonFly 1.4 (which I hope will become my primary platform as overall it's bugged me far less than any other OS I've used), and FreeBSD 6.0 (despite the fact that it no longer feels "right" to me for day to day stuff anymore).

--Jeremy Almey

Jump Off The Boat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13685822)

Thus proving that any Linux distribution is superior to any *BSD. Time to switch, buddy. Jump off the boat before it goes under.

Re:Jump Off The Boat (1)

sp0rk173 (609022) | about 9 years ago | (#13701155)

Jump off your mom before she goes under.

Re:Personal use? (2, Insightful)

Huge Pi Removal (188591) | more than 9 years ago | (#13606689)

Harder to install? /stand/sysinstall (run from the boot CD) is functionally identical in 4 and 5. I've installed many FreeBSD servers down the years, and I can't say I've noticed any difference with 5. You just say "yes" or "no" to the options, hit install, then spend the next few minutes digging round the ports installing what you want (and the ports system is unchanged too).

What, precisely, did you have problems with?

Re:Personal use? (1)

gkndivebum (664421) | more than 9 years ago | (#13641514)

Odd. I've been a user of FreeBSD from 2.2; the 4.9 -> 5.3 transition was more or less painless for me.

Re:Personal use? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13619719)

To: Secretary of State Colin Powell

September 22, 2005

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am joining my colleague BeOS in submitting my resignation from the list of living operating systems (effective immediately) because I cannot in good conscience compete with Linux.

I have failed:

--To support SMP

--To generate media attention

--To spawn a professionally managed distribution

--To innovate

--To be relevant.

Throughout the globe *BSD is becoming associated with in-fighting and sloppy coding. My disregard for views of other operating systems, borne out by my neglect of technical competence, is giving birth to an anti-BSD century.

I joined the operating system world because I love technology. Respectfully, Mr. Secretary, I am now bringing this calling to a close, with a heavy heart but for the same reason that I embraced it.


Dead Operating System

Important Stuff

        * Please try to keep posts on topic.
        * Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
        * Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
        * Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
        * Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

Dragonfly BSD (3, Interesting)

dshaw858 (828072) | more than 9 years ago | (#13591197)

I'm took this survey earlier this morning, when I got it from a mailing list. It struck me as interesting that Dragonfly BSD is now considered one of the main BSD distros. I'm sure that I speak for a lot of Slashdotters when I say that I think that it's awesome that a small project like this can evolve so quickly and efficiently.

Kudos to the Dragonfly BSD team!

- dshaw

Re:Dragonfly BSD (1, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13591271)

But don't forget that the core DFBSD developers were a few years back amongst the core FreeBSD developers. They include guys like Matt Dillon, who basically was FreeBSD before the split. It's no wonder that DragonFlyBSD is now becoming the premiere production BSD: all of the developers who once made FreeBSD great are now working on it! Meanwhile we see FreeBSD still struggling to produce a stable branch. It was only with the latest FreeBSD 5.4 release that many people actually considered switching over.

Like it or not, DragonFlyBSD is bound to take the role FreeBSD has. DragonFlyBSD will soon be the BSD you use on your production server or workstation. Its revolutionary rearchitecturing will no doubt be quite beneficial when it comes to the multicore and multiprocessor systems which will soon become widespread. Meanwhile, systems like FreeBSD which have failed to make the transition to a far more threaded kernel design will lose the performance race.

Re:Dragonfly BSD (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 9 years ago | (#13591951)

Well, thanks for that hugely convincing, well thought out and detailed rational argument. Which two-word reply do you think you've earned?

Please try again, preferably with less handwaving. I'd be especially interested in MySQL benchmarks, if you have them, btw.

Re:Dragonfly BSD (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13592055)

'Thank you' would be sufficient.

While I do not have any MySQL benchmarks to provide you (I prefer to use the far more mature PostgreSQL myself), I do agree with you that Matt Dillon is by far one of the premiere BSD developers today.

It isn't surprising to consider that his project is bound to become the server/workstation BSD of choice in the near future. After all, it is built upon his decades of operating system development experience, in addition to his raw natural talent. From the perspective of the FreeBSD project, it is a shame for them that they no longer can boast his talent as their own.

Re:Dragonfly BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13594835)

Can you say "sarcasm"?

Re:Dragonfly BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13609015)

How can you breathe when you keep polishing this dude's glans with your tonsils?

MySQL benchmarks (3, Interesting)

tlambert (566799) | more than 9 years ago | (#13611424)

Well, I'm not the original poster, but I'll take a shot at discrediting the current crop of MySQL benchmarks.

What will likely become quickly obvious after DTrace is ported to FreeBSD is that MySQL has a number of architectural issues that lead to poor performance on non-Linux platforms because of certain assumption about the system call overhead, scheduler behaviour, scheduling priority, and two relatively major problems that would actually result in even better Linux performance, if they were resolved. Everyone else would also benefit, although it would likely be proprtionately more benefit on non-Linux platforms.

The primary reasons for this are:

(1) because of LMBench, Linux has always valued low individual system call overhead, sometimes at the expense of other aspects of the system. Because of this, there's a wrong-minded idea in some of the basic design decisions that "system calls are free". Any place they aren't as or more cheap than Linux suffers disproportionately poorer performance.

(2) the Linux thread scheduler does not try to attempt to provide any degree of fairness in thread scheduling in a multithreaded program like MySQL; as a result, you tend to get individual threads running all their tasks to completion at the exclusion of other work, whereas other systems end up with significant context switch overhead as they attempt to provide the fairness that Linux does not. You could easily whack the FreeBSD or DragonFly scheduler over the head with a large "don't context switch while there is still work to do in the queue" mallet and get similar performance, at the cost of really scattered latencies, just like Linux(+)

(3) the priorities that are set via pthread_setschedparam() are incorrectly scaled for most non-Linux systems, and assume that all implementation have the same bounded range of priorities; this tends to actually drop the server threads in favor of the client and other processes on the system (even cron).

(4) the MySQL server associates a single thread with a single client, rather than using a statite and scheduling work from various clients to the worker threads in thread-LIFO order. Yes, the conversion from a per-connection thread to a work-to-do model would be difficult, but arguably well worth the effort, and would significantly lessen the apparent performance advanatage of #2, while at the same time improving Linux performance as well. When we switched to this model in NetWare, it got us about a 25% performance improvement.

(5) the MySQL client library pays a very high system call overhead, which is mitigated somewhat by #1; however even Linux would *greatly* benefit by batching the calls. This would be done by ensuring that the client library performs larger reads, rather than a 4 byte read followed by another message-type specific read, followed by a 4 byte read on the other end, and another message-type specific read on the other end(*)

Overall, MySQL benchmarks are actually pretty useless as a measure of relative system performance, and will remain so, at least until the performance issues inherent in its architecture have been addressed.

(+) At this point, the question "what about mean measured transaction latency and standard deviation?" should be occurring to someone to include in a future MySQL benchmark.

(*) actually, an even more efficient mechanism could be had here, given that client caching on the server side of things won't work because of the per-connection threading model; the model that would work would be a modified "accept filter" approach, to ensure that the client or server connection only received whole request/response messsages that could then be processed to completion, rather than stalling the work pipeline on partial packets in the face of long messages or intermediate fragmentation.

-- Terry

Re:MySQL benchmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13617502)

But the MySQL benchmarks make a great way to measure the performance of the BSDs as a MySQL server platform, and in that regard it is behind Linux by a huge margin, and on OpenBSD is even behind Windows.

I will stick to Linux for now.

Plainer English: MySQL is broken. (1)

tlambert (566799) | more than 9 years ago | (#13620004)

Plainer English: MySQL is broken.

Linux could score about 20-30% better on these benchmarks by fixing MySQL.

FreeBSD et. al. would tend to score about 50%+ better if these same fixes were made to MySQL.

I don't know how comparable the performance would be, but a simple test with a cache in the client library (one of the fixes MySQL needs) show about a 20% performance improvement for a BSD-based system.

Maybe you don't care about MySQL performance being better overall, but the MySQL people should.

-- Terry

Re:Dragonfly BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13593633)

FreeBSD has lost all of its first tier talent. What remains are some well intentioned second and third string players. But good intentions are not enough. Without out any real leadership to guide it, FreeBSD has become the product of a committee. And it is talent and legitimate leadership which will determine success or failure in a free software project. The fact that FreeBSD has fallen so far behind really testifies to that harsh reality.

Re:Dragonfly BSD (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13594888)

Indeed. With the loss of Matt Dillon, Mike Smith and Jordan Hubbard, FreeBSD lost its essence. There are indeed good programmers like PHK still around, but nobody to truly lead the system into the future, as you have said. Perhaps FreeBSD will find replacements for those they have lost, but I fear by that time FreeBSD will be technically inept.

Re:Dragonfly BSD (4, Informative)

molnarcs (675885) | more than 9 years ago | (#13594461)

Oh please, don't spread misinformation:

"It's no wonder that DragonFlyBSD is now becoming the premiere production BSD.." Dragonfly is nowhere near production quality yet. It may or may not be better than FreeBSD in the future, but your fanatism (earning you +5 insightful apparently) blinds has blinded you to the fact that not even its developers recommended for production use.

"Like it or not, DragonFlyBSD is bound to take the role FreeBSD has.." Seeing how Dragonfly has a different set of goals than FreeBSD, I cannot see how it would take FreeBSD's role ... provided it becomes better, which is not proven yet! This is like saying that Open~ or Net~ will take FreeBSD's role in the future! It is stupid.: "Meanwhile, systems like FreeBSD which have failed to make the transition to a far more threaded kernel design will lose the performance race." Just as silly as the rest - FreeBSD 5/6 now shows very good performance on MP systems. Last time a more or less objective comparison [] was made, FreeBSD 5.x proved to be more scalable than 4.x - and the difference by which linux won was quite negligible, if you read the whole article. So, what you wrote is one of the silliest rants I have recently read.

Re:Dragonfly BSD (0, Troll)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13594920)

I think your inability to read English is causing you some problems here. Reread what I wrote. Notice that I used terms like "is now becoming" and "is bound to". The very nature of those phrases suggest that the event will occur in the future. You know, the "future" as in not now, but sometime soon.

FreeBSD 5 had better be more scalable than FreeBSD 4. I mean, come on. New releases are supposed to improve upon old releases! But DragonFlyBSD is being architectured to trump them all. Literally, to trump them all.

And regarding the study you mentioned, it looks like it was valid as of November, 2003. That was two years ago! Things have changed significantly since then. Besides, the machine used was a uniprocessor system. DragonFlyBSD will be capable of scaling on systems with a massive number of processors or multicore CPUs. Even FreeBSD 6 may struggle to offer suitable performance on such systems.

Re:Dragonfly BSD (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 9 years ago | (#13595277)

I think your inability to read English is causing you some problems here. Reread what I wrote. Notice that I used terms like "is now becoming" and "is bound to". The very nature of those phrases suggest that the event will occur in the future. You know, the "future" as in not now, but sometime soon.

Err.. I think his problem is more like mine; that is, an inability to trust in your clairvoyance. "Is bound to" suggests a definite future. I guess "Nostradamus" was taken as a slashdot ID, eh Miss Cleo?

And for the record, "is now becoming" uses the present tense of two verbs, plus an adverb denoting the present ("now"). Nothing to do with the future (the correct expression of which would be "will become"). So let's cut down on attacking someone else's grasp of English because you cannot express yourself clearly.

Re:Dragonfly BSD (0, Troll)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13597802)

The phrase "is now becoming" obviously suggests that DFBSD is not, as of now, the premiere BSD. But in time (ie. the future!) it will take the place of FreeBSD as the general purpose BSD of choice.

Doubt me all you want. The fact remains that the quality, usability, reliability and overall development of FreeBSD is seriously lacking these days. That is because the project no longer has the talents of an individual like Matt Dillon. Consequently, there is strong reason to believe that a project lead by Matt Dillon is sure to succeed. And that is what we are seeing: DFBSD is quickly becoming the leading general purpose BSD, soon to take over completely from FreeBSD.

Re:Dragonfly BSD (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599597)

The phrase "is now becoming" obviously suggests that DFBSD is not, as of now, the premiere BSD.

To join in on the pedantry, "is now becoming" suggests a definite transformation which is already underway. For example, if you had the phrase "Linux is now becoming the dominant server platform for web services", that doesn't suggest that perhaps in the indefinite future it's a possibility. Rather, it suggests a definitive trend which, if it continues, will make Linux the dominant platform.

You would need to add a lot of qualifiers to what you said to make it true. "If DF's basis is technically sound, and if that basis proves to result in a more mature and scalable platform, and if that platform is capable of accomodating new and unexpected shifts in technology, and if it ever becomes production ready, and if [additional qualifiers] THEN DragonFly BSD is likely to assume the role of the premiere production BSD... for me."

At the moment, it's not production, it's nowhere near the premiere, and it's not "bound to" replace any role as the roles of the different projects are different. "Bound to" means predetermined, certain, resolved... and it's rather premature to say with certainty that, even if the assumptions your statement uses were correct, the end result is inevitable.

Re:Dragonfly BSD (-1, Troll)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13600679)

To join in on the pedantry, "is now becoming" suggests a definite transformation which is already underway.

Indeed, the process has already started. But the final result, DFBSD trumping FreeBSD absolutely, will come in the future. Seeing as I'm correct on this issue, I feel no need to read the rest of your post. Good day, sir!

Re:Dragonfly BSD (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 9 years ago | (#13605328)

Seeing as I'm correct on this issue...

Hey, John Edward, what are next weeks lottery numbers?

Re:Dragonfly BSD (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599614)

Oh, and for some objective reference: []

"Present progressive (also called present continuous) tense indicates an action that is happening at the time it is written or spoken about. Present progressive is formed with am, is or are plus the present participle.

                    The crowd is looking up at a man standing on the ledge of a tenth story window.

                    Law is becoming an overcrowded profession."

So perhaps you need to revisit what you erroneously believed to be future tense.

Re:Dragonfly BSD (1)

Eivind Eklund (5161) | more than 9 years ago | (#13621480)

I'll note that your behaviour is *negative* influence when it comes to DFBSD achieving that goal.

Also, with all due respect to Matt, there are a LOT of others doing FreeBSD work, and while he is definately talented, he has never contributed anywhere near the same amount of code as all others combined.

As for problems with FreeBSD development: There have been some, and there's some that's resolved, and I definately welcome DFBSD to the table. It (fortunately) seems like it will be viable. Whether it will take the place of FreeBSD remains to be seen - their situation has both advantages and disadvantages, and in my opinion, only time can tell. I believe will depend more on the development of the two cultures and the infrastructure supporting them than on the present state of the codebases or particular individuals working on them (apart as culture providers.)

Eivind (FreeBSD developer).


Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13680524)

*BSD is Dying, Says Respected Journal

Linux advocates have long insisted that open-source development results in better and more secure software. Now they have statistics to back up their claims.

According to a four-year analysis of the 5.7 million lines of Linux source code conducted by five Stanford University computer science researchers, the Linux kernel programming code is better and more secure than the programming code of *BSD.

The report, set to be released on Tuesday, states that the 2.6 Linux production kernel, shipped with software from Red Hat, Novell and other major Linux software vendors, contains 985 bugs in 5.7 million lines of code, well below the average for *BSD software. NetBSD, by comparison, contains about 40 million lines of code, with new bugs found on a frequent basis.

*BSD software typically has 20 to 30 bugs for every 1,000 lines of code, according to Carnegie Mellon University's CyLab Sustainable Computing Consortium. This would be equivalent to 114,000 to 171,000 bugs in 5.7 million lines of code.

The study identified 0.17 bugs per 1,000 lines of code in the Linux kernel. Of the 985 bugs identified, 627 were in critical parts of the kernel. Another 569 could cause a system crash, 100 were security holes, and 33 of the bugs could result in less-than-optimal system performance.

Seth Hallem, CEO of Coverity, a provider of source-code analysis, noted that the majority of the bugs documented in the study have already been fixed by members of the Linux development community.

"Our findings show that Linux contains an extremely low defect rate and is evidence of the strong security of Linux," said Hallem. "Many security holes in software are the result of software bugs that can be eliminated with good programming processes."

The Linux source-code analysis project started in 2000 at the Stanford University Computer Science Research Center as part of a large research initiative to improve core software engineering processes in the software industry.

The initiative now continues at Coverity, a software engineering startup that now employs the five researchers who conducted the study. Coverity said it intends to start providing Linux bug analysis reports on a regular basis and will make a summary of the results freely available to the Linux development community.

"This is a benefit to the Linux development community, and we appreciate Coverity's efforts to help us improve the security and stability of Linux," said Andrew Morton, lead Linux kernel maintainer. Morton said developers have already addressed the top-priority bugs uncovered in the study.

Re:Dragonfly BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13679651)

I think your inability to read English is causing you some problems here. Reread what I wrote. Notice that I used terms like "is now becoming" and "is bound to". The very nature of those phrases suggest that the event will occur in the future. You know, the "future" as in not now, but sometime soon.


Err.. I think his problem is more like mine; that is, an inability to trust in your clairvoyance. "Is bound to" suggests a definite future. I guess "Nostradamus" was taken as a slashdot ID, eh Miss Cleo?

And for the record, "is now becoming" uses the present tense of two verbs ...

Gee -- I can never figure out where the *BSD guys get their widespread reputation for in-fighting. Thanks for helping me out.

Re:Dragonfly BSD (-1, Flamebait)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#13591286)

Yeh, "kudos" to Dragonfly, and all. But, I don't buy it. Sorry, it doesn't fly. That's not a ship that's going to float. Not in a million years. I mean really, are pigs flying?

Not really (3, Interesting)

JamesTRexx (675890) | more than 9 years ago | (#13591311)

From the start Dragonfly has been one of the main distros imho. They forked FreeBSD and have clear ideas about how it's supposed to work and work hard to get it done. They're part of the BSD landscape now and I think they'll be here for a long time.

Re:Not really (4, Informative)

Nimrangul (599578) | more than 9 years ago | (#13591903)

There have been plenty of forks that didn't do that though, almost all the forks have been so completely out of the 3 main BSD's league that they've been ignored. This is different for DragonFly BSD because it s run by Matt Dillon, the guy's got skill and determination - and I suppose enough money that he doesn't need to work too much to eke out a living.

DragonFly BSD's not been around as long as MirOS or many other projects, but it's got someone that knows what they're doing in charge, someone that would be doing it even without anyone else working with him.

Because of who started it and why DragonFly BSD has had an easy edge over the others, that is why it has become the fourth over time - but it did not start out as a full-blown contender, this took time.

FreeBSD, the race to oblivion (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13591489)

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.


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?


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.


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

And in real news... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13591954)

OpenBSD is near it's next release, Hackers of the Lost RAID. The news item I sent in for it 3 days ago obviously has been rejected. Check for the news.

Clue Stick? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13592164)

The news item I sent in for it 3 days ago obviously has been rejected.

Dude, look at the number of comments since this "story" was posted. Face it: BSD is dieing.

Re:Clue Stick? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13694384)

The number of trolls per story is directly correlated to the life an operating system has left.

Considering how riddled this story is by valient troll attacks, *BSD is clearly dying. Or perhaps dead already. Or whimpering and about to keel.

4 Main? (3, Interesting)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | more than 9 years ago | (#13592421)

I understood OS X to be BSD based, so I'm surprised that OS X is not counted as a distribution. I'd be interested to see posted why or why not OS X can be counted as a distribution of BSD; if it quacks like a duck, it seems like it should be included in a survey of this sort.

If OS X is truly a BSD distribution, doesn't it serve BSD evangelists to recognize and promote that?

Re: Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13592882)

I think the reason is that because it's covered already by Apple training and certification. Get Apple certs, and you've got Darwin covered.

I also don't think that Darwin sees much use outside of Mac OS X because people who are running Mac OS X already have it and a whole lot more, and people who would like to run Darwin on x86 simply have not had the driver support needed to make it a viable option.

Re:4 Main? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13593603)

OS X is not a BSD distribution, nor is OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonFly BSD, FreeBSD or FlyingWang BSD. Each BSD is it's own operating system, not that mangled mess that is used to refer to a Linux-based operating system.

Also, OS X contains BSD code, it is not based on BSD - it is based on OpenStep, which contained BSD code as well. Google's your friend.

Re:4 Main? (3, Informative)

drmerope (771119) | more than 9 years ago | (#13601020)

It would be more precise to say that it is based on Mach code and BSD code--especially the FreeBSD userland.

However, substantial work went in during the NeXT era and subsequently from Apple directly.

This is a minor quibble with the meaning of "based" as you use it.

OSX is decidedly not a BSD variant though--most notably it is not developed under a BSD license.

As a point of fact, Windows is BSD based because microsoft forked their tcp stack off an early BSD one...

But we can still distinguish it as being in another class entirely.

Re:4 Main? (1)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 9 years ago | (#13593805)

OS X isn't really BSD, because the kernel isn't a traditional BSD kernel, it's a Mach hybrid. The only thing that OSX inherited from FreeBSD (and others) are parts of the userland.

OSX and FreeBSD are actually quite dissimilar. I wish people would realise that not anything that is thought up for FreeBSD (like the Dtrace thing last couple of weeks) can be easily ported over to Darwin/OSX. They are two completely different beasts.

Re:4 Main? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13594152)

"The only thing that OSX inherited from FreeBSD (and others) are parts of the userland."

*Sigh* I had thought you'd know better than to say what you just did CoolVibe, and I'm quite dissappointed that you did say it. There is a significant amount of FreeBSD kernel code right along with the Mach bits.

For crying out loud, not only is it well documented, it's also open source! See for yourself, and quit spreading misinformation.

Re:4 Main? (1)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 9 years ago | (#13652555)

Sure, just like OpenBSD, NetBSD and DragonFly (for example) have FreeBSD kernel bits. That doesn't make them FreeBSD. The BSD's use each other's kernel code for stuff like bugfixes, drivers and what not. A good example is for instance DragonFlyBSD which has NetBSD's USB stack. That's kernel code. But that doesn't make DragonFlyBSD a NetBSD derivative.

Re:4 Main? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13663147)

Except for one minor issue. Darwin isn't simply integrating any single subsystem to support a single set of devices (like the USB stack). Major chunks of the kernel are taken from FreeBSD, and XNU would not function without them. Rip out the code taken from FreeBSD and you're left with half a kernel, and a system that does nothing.

That's what makes it a BSD derivitive. Let's not forget also, that Mach itself was derive from BSD (although obviously not FreeBSD). In all, it is correct to say that Darwin's kernel is derived from FreeBSD as well as Mach.

Re:4 Main? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13666481)

In all, it is correct to say that Darwin's kernel is derived from FreeBSD as well as Mach.

Yes, it is. The problem is that when you make that correct statement, a lot of people who aren't as smart as you are jump to the incorrect conclusion that OS X is therefore very similar to FreeBSD.

That's why it's important to explain what you mean when you say it, and not just make vague comments like "OS X is based on FreeBSD" which lead to people getting totally the wrong idea about it all. The post I'm replying to here is a good post, many of the ones above it in the thread are not.

FreeBSD for Snort Box. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13593817)

I always use FreeBSD for my Snort sensors, due to Snort always run better on top of FreeBSD than Linux.
For example, if you compare the output of 'kill -USR1 ' between Linux and FreeBSD, you will notice that Snort on FreeBSD drops much fewer packets than on Linux, on the same exact machine.

What good does an Intrusion Detection System do in inspecting packets if it keeps dropping packets?

Re:FreeBSD for Snort Box. (1)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 9 years ago | (#13611573)

Probably because quite some of the people involved with snort run FreeBSD..

Re:FreeBSD for Snort Box. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13648303)

The exact opposite is true. Linux packet-handling is about 400% faster and more efficient than *BSD. The Snort guys switched to Linux in 2003 for this very reason, particularly because of the improvements in kernel 2.6. Snort's recommended platform is Linux, not *BSD.

Your information is 2+ years out-of-date.

*BSD is dying (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13594088)

It is now official. Netcraft has confirmed: *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 [] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact: *BSD is dying

Requiem for the FUD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13594345)

// Please *don't* mod this up. It has [] already [] been [] done! [] Thx

... facts are facts. ;)

FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (Jun 2004) []
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (Jun 2004) []
"[FreeBSD] has secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003."
What's New in the FreeBSD Network Stack (Sep 2004) []
"FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps."

NetBSD, for When Portability and Stability Matter (Oct 2004) []
NetBSD sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (May 2004) []
NetBSD again sets Internet2 Land Speed World Record (Sep 2004) []

OpenBSD Widens Its Scope (Nov 2004) []
Review: OpenBSD 3.6 shows steady improvement (Nov 2004) []
OpenSSH (OpenBSD subproject) has become a de facto Internet standard. []

*BSD in general:
Deep study: The world's safest computing environment (Nov 2004) []
"The world's safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environment - operating system plus applications - is proving to be the Open Source platform of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) and the Mac OS X based on Darwin."
BSD Success Stories (O'Reilly, 2004) (pdf) [] ~ from Onlamp BSD DevCenter []
"The BSDs - FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin, and others - have earned a reputation for stability, security, performance, and ease of administration."
..and last but not least, we have the cutest mascot as well - undisputedly. ;) []

Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.

Requiem for the "Requiem" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13646912)

You know, this would be a lot more convincing if it wasn't a mere list of puff pieces and doubtable "facts." The real fact is that the market has spoken, and Linux is the next generation unix. *BSD has failed to catch on because of its own shortcomings and therefore is considered by most impartial technologists as "dead" -- shorthand for "not growing, not being adopted, saddled with legacy technology issues and endless community in-fighting."

If making this clear makes me a "troll," then by god, I am a troll. I guess in this era of Bush 1984-isms, calling a truth-teller a "troll" and a "flamebaiter" only makes sense.

I guess.

obligatory missing option (2, Funny)

messju (32126) | more than 9 years ago | (#13594727)

I'm missing CowboyNeal in almost every question.

Facts are Facts :-) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13646962)

Yet another sickening blow has struck what's left of the *BSD community, as a soon-to-be-released report by the independent Commision for Technology Management (CTM) after a year-long study has concluded: *BSD is already dead. Here are some of the commission's findings:

Fact: the *BSDs have balkanized yet again. There are now no less than twelve separate, competing *BSD projects, each of which has introduced fundamental incompatibilities with the other *BSDs, and frequently with Unix standards. Average number of developers in each project: fewer than five. Average number of users per project: there are no definitive numbers, but reports show that all projects are on the decline.

Fact: will not include support *BSD. The newly formed group believes that the *BSDs have strayed too far from Unix standards and have become too difficult to support along with Linux and Solaris x86. "It's too much trouble," said one anonymous developer. "If they want to make their own standards, let them doing the porting for us."

Fact: DragonflyBSD, yet another offshoot of the beleaguered FreeBSD "project", is already collapsing under the weight of internal power struggles and in-fighting. "They haven't done a single decent release," notes Mark Baron, an industry watcher and columnist. "Their mailing lists read like an online version of a Jerry Springer episode, complete with food fights, swearing, name-calling, and chair-throwing." Netcraft reports that DragonflyBSD is run on exactly 0% of internet servers.

Fact: There are almost no FreeBSD developers left, and its use, according to Netcraft, is down to a sadly crippled .005% of internet servers. A recent attempt at a face-to-face summit in Boulder, Colorado culminated in an out-and-out fistfight between core developers, reportedly over code commenting formats (tabs vs. spaces). Hotel security guards broke up the melee and banned the participants from the hotel. Two of the developers were hospitalized, and one continues to have his jaw wired shut.

Fact: NetBSD, which claims to focus on portability (whatever that is supposed to mean), is slow, and cannot take advantage of multiple CPUs. "That about drove the last nail in the coffin for BSD use here," said Michael Curry, CTO of "We took our NetBSD boxes out to the backyard and shot them in the head. We're much happier running Linux."

Fact: *BSD has no support from the media. Number of Linux magazines available at bookstores: 5 (Linux Journal, Linux World, Linux Developer, Linux Format, Linux User). Number of available *BSD magazines: 0. Current count of Linux-oriented technical books: 1071. Current count of *BSD books: 6.

Fact: Many user-level applications will no longer work under *BSD, and no one is working to change this. The GIMP, a Photoshop-like application, has not worked at all under *BSD since version 1.1 (sorry, too much trouble for such a small base, developers have said). OpenOffice, a Microsoft Office clone, has never worked under *BSD and never will. ("Why would we bother?" said developer Steven Andrews, an OpenOffice team lead.)

Fact: servers running OpenBSD, which claims to focus on security, are frequently compromised. According to Jim Markham, editor of the online security forum SecurityWatch, the few OpenBSD servers that exist on the internet have become a joke among the hacker community. "They make a game out of it," he says. "(OpenBSD leader) Theo [de Raadt] will scramble to make a new patch to fix one problem, and they've already compromised a bunch of boxes with a different exploit."

With these incontroverible facts staring (what's left of) the *BSD community in the face, they can only draw one conclusion: *BSD is already dead.

A quick peek... (5, Informative)

Foozy (552529) | more than 9 years ago | (#13595288)

All data below is preliminary:

Survey is less than a week old and there are at this moment over 2200 responses in several languages!

  • Usage: FreeBSD 74%,OpenBSD 32%,NetBSD 20%,DragonFly 3%
  • Number of companies with less than 10 systems- 1515; more than 1000 systems- 18
  • Where used: North America 44%; Europe 46%; Austrailia/New Zealand 6%; Asia 6%
  • Company size: Less than $500K- 1199; Greater than $100M- 117
Coolest 'Uses' comments:
  • Running large computational fluid dynamic model
  • Building access control
  • impress chicks on saturday night
  • Specialized image processing, touchscreen office appliance
The survey will run through at least the end of September, so these numbers will obviously change.

We can use your help. Join the mailing list and contribute ideas and expertise. We're in need of business as well as technical expertise. Let us know what you can contribute with the 'Contact Us' form on the website [] .

Thanks to everyone who filled out the survey!

Of course (i.e., common sense) (1)

WebHostingGuy (825421) | more than 9 years ago | (#13600516)

The usage is really only good for comparing BSD distributions between each other. If someone doesn't use BSD they most likely won't spend the time filling out a BSD survey when they don't use the product (and besides they probably won't know about it anyway).

I am surprised by how high OpenBSD and NetBSD is. I would have initially thought it would be lower.

Re:Of course (i.e., common sense) (2, Informative)

eneville (745111) | more than 9 years ago | (#13609028)

> I am surprised by how high OpenBSD and NetBSD is.
> I would have initially thought it would be lower.

OpenBSD is very good for firewalls, the pkgs are vetted carefully and the team do a great job in keeping it as secure as possible. FreeBSD is more desktop orientated these days from what I can tell, and this makes it a little less appealing to those who just want a firewall and nothing else.

Re:Of course (i.e., common sense) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13621365)

There is no such thing as a BSD distribution, each one is its own operating system.

Re:Of course (i.e., common sense) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13682102)

There is no such thing as a BSD distribution, each one is its own operating system.

Actually the Linux Community has decided that *BSD is *BSD. It's all the same dead crap.

*BSD Obituary (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13625628)

*BSD Obituary

*BSD, 28, of Berkeley, CA died Monday, Sept. 19, 2005. Born July 3, 1976, it was the creation of a cluster of pot-smoking hippies who went to Illinois and came home with a reel of tape. Rather than smoke the tape, they uploaded it and hacked on it a little.

*BSD was known for its C shell and early TCP/IP implementation. After being banished from UC Berkeley, it was ported to the x86 platform, where it fell into the hands of heavier pot-smokers who liked to argue. Soon, the project had splintered into 12 different Balkanized projects. Until its death, there was almost constant fighting in and amongst these groups, sometimes degenerating into out-and-out fistfights.

*BSD is survived by its superior, Linux, as well as several commercial unix implementations. It may be missed by some who knew it, although most of them are said to be mere OS dilettante dabblers.

A funeral will be held at 2 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 22, at the Berkeley Chapel on the UC campus, with interment to follow via the burning of the original *BSD tapes and scattering of the ashes over the San Francisco Bay. The Rev. Lou "Buddy" Stubbs will officiate.

The family will receive friends from 7 to 8 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 21, at the funeral home.

BSD is a dead corpse (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13616509)

BSD? Bones said it best:
It's dead, Jim.

A Poem (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13619704)

Although I could not stop for Death
He kindly stopped for *BSD
the carriage held but just ourselves
and our bad code in C


Using *BSD: beating a dead horse.

Kool-aid gargle (1)

relaxrelax (820738) | more than 9 years ago | (#13665599)

BSD developpers refuse to serve, drink, or believe in the kool-aid. That's what!

Of course people who do surveys gargle with it and as such can't add home users to the surveyed because then the survey may mean something more than they care about...

This is so funny! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13682157)

This is so funny! Why bother to take a poll of, like, 5 guys? That's all that's left of *BSD, right? About 5-6 guys.

Here's my poll results:

FreeBSD: .05%
NetBSD: .001%
HatersBSD: .001%
ClosedBSD: .001%
InfightersBSD: .001%
FlowerBlossomBSD: .001%
RevengeBSD: .001%
PissedOffBSD: .001%
LINUX: 99.953%

Average Linux user: well-paid expert administrator.
Average *BSD user: angry unemployed D&D player.

C'mon, you all know these are the real facts.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?