×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

128 comments

Cool. (3, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424332)


Now we can have Netcraft confirmation of the death with a long DTrace log to back it up.

Re:Cool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424420)

More FreeBSD hype for a barely working feature. DTrace is yesterday's news anyway: SystemTap [redhat.com] is the new hotness.

Re:Cool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424443)

SystemTap is the new hotness

Only for the worst breed of inept, disgustingly ugly Linucks-monkeys who would not even admit their OS is crap if it would be ready for the desktop.

I'm suprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424570)

You didn't call it "Spinal Tap".

Re:Cool. (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424487)

It would appear that SystemTap barely works, for their site.

"SystemTap is still under rapid development, so it is not appropriate to use it on production systems."

Re:Cool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15425018)

So? You are under developed but we let you post on /.

Re:Cool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15425507)

Let us know when you are using DTrace in a production system with your FreeBSD box.

Re:Cool. (2)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 7 years ago | (#15425586)

One can use DTrace in production under Solaris 10.

Re:Cool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15425717)

DAldredge can go fuck himself with his Pink Ranger Action Figure/Dildo.

Re:Cool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15425854)

Hello... FreeBSD plug/article.

Re:Cool. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424754)

OK this raises an interesting point. WTF do linux users go onto bsd articles anyway? You guys aren't bleeding edge enough to use a more obscure OS. It was kewl to run linux in 1998, now its just IBM monkey time. Linux still hasn't replaced Windows on the desktop or server. Sure its put a serious dent in server numbers, but its a joke on the desktop.

Linux is like running solaris was in the 90s.. mainstream, obvious, boring. Hell you even pointed out redhat which most uber linux geeks don't even like. I ran redhat 5-9 and even tried WS3 and WS4. Its not l33t ok?

Re:Cool. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15425231)


Elegy For *BSD


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

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

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

It is official; Netcraft confirms it: BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424335)

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 close 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 a 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 cockeyed miracle could save *BSD from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Re:It is official; Netcraft confirms it: BSD is dy (0, Troll)

antik2001 (535940) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424398)

I see... "BSD is dying" trolls are immortal... Netcraft confirms it!!!

Re:It is official; Netcraft confirms it: BSD is dy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424414)

..."BSD is dying" trolls are immortal.

I'm sure that this stuff will be ported to DeadBSD. See DeadBSD.org for downloads and information.

Re:It is official; Netcraft confirms it: BSD is dy (1)

antik2001 (535940) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424430)

http://deadbsd.org/ [deadbsd.org]

Authorization Required
Browser not authentication-capable or authentication failed.

Ouch- my browser:
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.5; FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE) KHTML/3.5.2 (like Gecko)

Holyshit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424462)

There's actually a site called "deadbsd.org" ?!? I posted the gp as a joke. Holyshit!

Re:Holyshit! (1)

antik2001 (535940) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424586)

dead...bsd.org but I see FreeBSD live and kicking here: Telekom Malaysia Berhad Network Strategy 5th Floor, North Wing Menara Telekom Jalan Pantai Baru 50672 Kuala Lumpur 218.111.126.29 FreeBSD Apache 4-May-2004

Re:Holyshit! (1)

trewornan (608722) | more than 7 years ago | (#15426264)

It's registered to some Real Estate Company, "Windermere Technology" in Seattle, Washington. Odd domain name for a Real Estate Company to register.

NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424339)

it kind of proves a point to all those nay sayers that said that Sun had nothing to offer the open source community

what point, SUN still choose not to GPL solaris and java?

I dont think DTrace on FreeBSD is going to sway over and change the mind of those who use and pay and contribute to the GPL. From a strategy point of view it just made BSD's that much more competitive with Solaris and Sun offers. With the GPL you at least get some improvemnts back if your contribution is of value and nobody can close its acess.

As a developer, if you value your work, the GPL is the better license under which to release code, as it means no-one can take your work, close the source, and sell it as their own. It means every change is visible to you, and that you are free to incorporate the changes other people have made to your product back into it, or into other projects you are working on. This encourages collaboration, and thus helps the advancement of software engineering.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1, Troll)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424400)

So, let me get this right, the developers of FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD have 0 value in their work. The code they have written in will be ripped off and sold back to them, as proved by ClosedBSD, an improved BSD OS that I can buy.

> This encourages collaboration, and thus helps the advancement of software engineering.

Is this some sort of joke ?

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424418)

The code they have written in will be ripped off and sold back to them, as proved by ClosedBSD, an improved BSD OS that I can buy.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/ [apple.com]

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (3, Interesting)

antik2001 (535940) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424460)

All the code Apple borrowed from BSDs and changed is contributed back with DarWin OS. It is also the core set of components upon which Mac OS X was developed. In July 2003 Apple released Darwin under version 2.0 of the APSL license, which the Free Software Foundation (FSF) approved as a free software license. Previous releases had taken place under an earlier version of the APSL that did not meet the FSF's definition of free software, although it met the requirements of the Open Source Definition.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424508)

is contributed back with DarWin OS

Yeeps! Don't do that! I got a horrible shiver up my spine when I read that...

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1)

antik2001 (535940) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424598)

is contributed back with DarWin OS Yeeps! Don't do that! I got a horrible shiver up my spine when I read that...
Calm down, this is tYpo mkEy?

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1)

Eivind Eklund (5161) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424550)

Apart from the public release of Darwin, we (FreeBSD) have gotten changes back from that. Not an infinite amount of changes, yet still noticable value.

Eivind.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1)

mccp (977696) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424489)

The code they have written in will be ripped off and sold back to them, as proved by ClosedBSD, an improved BSD OS that I can buy.
 
Wrong. Very very wrong. ClosedBSD is a stripped down implementation of the FreeBSD kernel used for booting a machine as a router.
 
From the ClosedBSD mainpage: "ClosedBSD is a firewall and network address translation utility which boots off of a single floppy disk or CDROM, and requires no hard drive. ClosedBSD is based off of the FreeBSD kernel, and uses ipfw as its native ruleset management system, and natd as it's network address translation utility."
 
The BSD name is trademarked, so you won't have linux-like branches coming around that cost money. If it's BSD, it's free.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424526)

my fault, I thought I was making the name up.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1)

msh104 (620136) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424558)

I don't think any commericial distro would call itself closedbsd...
for some reason i think it doesn't look good in your advertisement :p
but it's still quite funny to see that it actually exists.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (4, Insightful)

Eivind Eklund (5161) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424541)

So, let me get this right, in your world you get ZERO value from utilization of code, and you get ZERO value from having people contribute changes back, ALL your value is from "not getting ripped off"?

That's one hell of an emotional world.

I'm glad I don't live in that world, and can be a FreeBSD developer instead ;)

Eivind, who recognize that when people develop things based on his code, he's got a chance of getting things back, and when they choose another codebase because his is GPL-licensed, he has ZERO chance of getting anything back.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (2, Insightful)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424757)

hmm, did you reply to the wrong post ?

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15425274)

You just got schooled and you didn't even know it. Too funny.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1)

Eivind Eklund (5161) | more than 7 years ago | (#15427149)

No, I replied to the one where you had the naive idea that we (BSD developers) have zero value in our work, and that we get "ripped off". Of course, your naivety is sort of excusable - the GPL contains propaganda to encourage it, it is common among the GPL people, and parrotting your peer group is easy.

However, if you read the signature to my previous reply, you'll find a crucial clue for why the BSD license usually is MORE efficient for getting changes back (with the occasional generic closed derivate as a result; SunOS was the last one we didn't get much back from, AFAIK.)

Eivind.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (4, Insightful)

foreverdisillusioned (763799) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424574)

In a word, yes. You just need to replace "ClosedBSD" with "OS X."

Fortunately, Apple was kind enough to open source Darwin, but it didn't need to, and it choose not to open source the Aqua UI and the Finder shell. I could be mistaken, but I don't think they would have been able to do this had Darwin been based on GPL'ed software.

A better example of the GPL's strength would be the Linksys WRT54G router. I've got one myself and it does all kinds of awesome things it wasn't able to do out of the box (hell, you can even run an OpenVPN server on it), all because Linksys was forced to release their source code under the GPL.

That said, the BSDs are great projects (as are public domain projects like SQLite) and I wouldn't want to see them disappear. I believe that the core focus of the OSS community should be on GPL'ed software (because "embrace and extend" does in fact happen), but there's definitely an argument and a place for BSD-style licenses.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1, Troll)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424748)

Yeah, killing the product line of a Linux based router is definitely a win, they won't make that mistake again.

OSX - you seem to have missed the caveat : improved.

License wars, yawn.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424866)

Fortunately, Apple was kind enough to open source Darwin, but it didn't need to, and it choose not to open source the Aqua UI and the Finder shell. I could be mistaken, but I don't think they would have been able to do this had Darwin been based on GPL'ed software.

The probability that Apple would have based OS X on GPL'd code is approximately zero. If there had been no BSD codebase to use, Apple most probably would have either licensed a proprietary Unix implementation, or developed its own (non-standard) kernel in-house.

Developing a kernel for a small set of hardware (like Apple's) isn't a monumental task, and could easily have been done. Apple clearly benefits from being able to use BSD codebases instead, and vice-versa, but it was not at all necessary.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1, Flamebait)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424920)

Fortunately, Apple was kind enough to open source Darwin, but it didn't need to.

Apple has closed part of the Kernel now called XNU. [infoworld.com]

Is Apple kind, or are they just putting up a facade, closing the source where they see fit?

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15426792)

Clearly you have not read why they've done it. To prevent piracy of their source. Do some google searches before spouting off.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (3, Insightful)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 7 years ago | (#15425093)

Fortunately, Apple was kind enough to open source Darwin, but it didn't need to,

Not only that, they also contribute code back to FreeBSD, which they also don't have to. It is directly to their advantage to do this however (if it gets accepted it means it gets maintained without Apple having to pay developers to do so). Now, Apple isn't exactly alone in this either, considering things like FreeBSD's netgraph and jails just to name some other things contributed by conpanies who could also have decided to keep those things to themselves.

and it choose not to open source the Aqua UI and the Finder shell. I could be mistaken, but I don't think they would have been able to do this had Darwin been based on GPL'ed software.

You are wrong.

Those are applications runniong on top of the core system, and they can be kept closed source just as much as you can have a closed source application for the GPLed Linux, and it is legal to create a CD that distributes both.

For that matter, there exist closed source X implementations and desktops that run on Linux as well, giving you a near equivalent (as in, a gui 'engine' and a desktop environment, not judging that they are of eqivalent quality)

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#15426342)

I could be mistaken, but I don't think they would have been able to do this had Darwin been based on GPL'ed software.

A good point. You have BSD software to thank for all standards.

NFS still hasn't seen any replacement, even though it has serious limitations, because most all the alternatives are GPLd, or otherwise encumbered like AFS.

Telnet had vastly outlived it's useful life, but was still forced into service, with a few hacks like skey auth, kerberos auth, and encryption. It remained in service until OpenSSH came along.

PGP/GPG, though being very good, have not become standard at all, and instead e-mail and other communications channels remain plain-text.

The MKV (matroska) file format is quite good, but GPLd, and so the Ogg/Ogm container remains more popular, although it is admitedly quite limited and flaky, so it isn't getting too widely adopted, either.

Hardware players like the Rio Karma include support for formats like Vorbis and FLAC, but not musepack and the like, because it was previously GPL'd, and releasing their firmware, or making the firmware modular to keep the code seperate, was unacceptable to the developers. While Vorbis and FLAC may not be quickly taking over the world, they do continue to get wider support every day. Before FLAC was BSD licensed, you couldn't even find any hardware players with lossless compression at all, even though there were several popular formats. Their license were too restrictive.

People talk about how great Aqua is, but it's not exactly taking the world by storm. OpenStep is GPLd, and is really failing miserably to get a foothold against GTK, QT and Motif toolkits, as well as native X11 (QT and Lestif are GPL'd, but they have closed-source commercial counterparts for those willing to pay).

I could go on, and on, but I think that's enough to make my point. If you want a standard, you can't use the GPL.

A better example of the GPL's strength would be the Linksys WRT54G router. I've got one myself and it does all kinds of awesome things it wasn't able to do out of the box (hell, you can even run an OpenVPN server on it), all because Linksys was forced to release their source code under the GPL.

That's a very trivial example. The same could be said of something like the iPod, which doesn't use GPL'd software at all, and you can still load Linux on it and get extra features unavailable with the built-in firmware. Or most other embedded hardware, like hundreds of handhelds which have Linux/BSD ported to them.

I believe that the core focus of the OSS community should be on GPL'ed software (because "embrace and extend" does in fact happen)

What people fail to realize is that "embrace and extend" doesn't take away any of the work you've done, never manages to catch-on, and you're really throwing the baby out with the bathwater trying to prevent it.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15425014)

The only joke in this thread is you, asshat.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1)

smash (1351) | more than 7 years ago | (#15426313)

Erm... actually it goes like this:

Free OS (the BSDs) gets DTrace. If a commercial OS wants to implement it, they get DTrace (easily, as the code is open). Net result = better software in BOTH the free and payware segments.

How is this bad?

One thing the GPL weenies just don't seem to get, is that BSD people *DON'T CARE* if people use their code to make money/sell commercial software, because the aim is to improve the quality of software in general - not to impose some sort of political agenda.

No one is going to FORCE you to BUY Dtrace in a commercial OS when the free version exists - but, if the commercial OS has features that you personally need, the option is there.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 7 years ago | (#15427056)

That's right. The GPL just don't get that.

I've never seen anyone complain that a commercial entity used some BSD code as the basis for a project (except for Theo and his SSH rant =).

Imagine the devastation if the first TCP/IP stack out of Redmond had been all their own work!

I wonder how many of the "gpl stops you getting ripped off" people have ever PAID for Linux ?

I've bought it twice and I don't even like it !

GPL != Open Source (5, Informative)

nsayer (86181) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424448)

The GPL is not the only Open Source license. Dig your head out of the sand and see how may others there are [opensource.org].

The CDDL under which the code in question was released is a slightly modified version of the Mozilla Public License. So if you used Mozilla or firefox or whatever to post that screed, then you've clearly sinned against the church of RMS.

Oh, and the CDDL IS [sun.com] an OSI approved license, so that means DTrace IS (by the definition most programmers who don't wear Birkenstocks agree on) Open Source.

As a developer, if you value your work, the GPL is the better license under which to release code, as it means no-one can take your work, close the source, and sell it as their own.

CDDL Section 3.1:

Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License. You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code form of the Covered Software You distribute or otherwise make available. You must inform recipients of any such Covered Software in Executable form as to how they can obtain such Covered Software in Source Code form in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange.
So try again.

Re:GPL != Open Source (2, Informative)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424663)

The CDDL under which the code in question was released is a slightly modified version of the Mozilla Public License. So if you used Mozilla or firefox or whatever to post that screed, then you've clearly sinned against the church of RMS.
Nonsense; Mozilla is tri-licensed under the GPL, LGPL and MPL.

Re:GPL != Open Source (0, Troll)

nsayer (86181) | more than 7 years ago | (#15425176)

I stand by my statement - Church of RMS commandment #1 is that thou shalt have no other licenses other than GPL. Tri-licensing is clearly sinful. It may not be a mortal sin, like the Microsoft EULA, but clearly the Mozilla folks have strayed off the straight and narrow.

Re:GPL != Open Source (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 7 years ago | (#15425815)

Wow that looks like a lot of fun. Let's all make up arguments for other people and then shoot the arguments down with nonsensical rhetoric.

You should get a patent on that idea.

Re:GPL != Open Source (2, Informative)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 7 years ago | (#15425454)

Directly from the Church of RMS (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html ):
------
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. It requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.

Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual property".
---------
Also (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1754155,00.a sp): "according to Mark Webbink, Red Hat Inc.'s associate general counsel. "Some of the license attributes that Sun trumpets actually have the potential of making the software not fully open," he said. "For example, by permitting a different license for the binaries, it will be possible for the binaries to have all of the attributes of proprietary code."

Re:GPL != Open Source (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 7 years ago | (#15425793)

The Mozilla was re-licensed to be more compatible with the GPL. CDDL was very carefully written so as to prevent their code to be migrated to GPLed software. Sun is deathly afraid that their software will fork under a GPL license and that they won't be able to keep up with the GPLed coders.

They wanted to make sure the no extra features of Solaris made it into Linux.

Looks like it's not going to work though. My guess is that there is already a port of dtrace happening in Linux and if they get stuck there is all the BSD code that can be used.
 

Re:GPL != Open Source (2, Informative)

eviltypeguy (521224) | more than 7 years ago | (#15426433)

CDDL was very carefully written so as to prevent their code to be migrated to GPLed software. Sun is deathly afraid that their software will fork under a GPL license and that they won't be able to keep up with the GPLed coders.

Stop spreading FUD. Anyone involved in the pilot process for OpenSolaris can tell you that those are NOT the reasons why the CDDL was created or used for SUN's code. The GPL was also one of the licenses considered.

Personally, I think the GPL is very selfish. GPL projects can take all the BSD code or code from other compatibly licensed files they want, incorporate and improve it but the GPL prevents BSD developers from getting back most of those improvements unless the project incorprating gives them back under the original license (so it would seem anyway, someone correct me if wrong and explain).

Re:GPL != Open Source (1)

jrockway (229604) | more than 7 years ago | (#15427012)

> GPL projects can take all the BSD code or code from other compatibly licensed files they want, incorporate and improve it but the GPL prevents BSD developers from getting back most of those improvements unless the project incorprating gives them back under the original license (so it would seem anyway, someone correct me if wrong and explain).

Whoa, whoa, whoa! That is the whole point of the BSD license, and is why many slashdotters dislike it. If you want your changes back, you would NEVER license code under the BSD license!

This is why we have the GPL. The developer of (and community around) the software will ALWAYS get ALL changes back, and will be able to merge those changes with the mainline version of the application (no matter what).

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424515)

Linux already uses BSD code, so why wouldn't they want to use some more?

I develop under both GPL and BSD licenses, based on the particular piece of code. If I think the code has strategic value (typically a library or framework), I'll develop under BSD so I can use it in any of my closed-source software too. Software which only has utilitarian value is typically released under GPL.

GPL is of good use to a lot of projects, but IMHO it's a terrible license for frameworks and libraries. The LGPL does improve the situation for libraries somewhat, but it's won't work for all situations. That's why many "standard" libraries use more open licenses than (L)GPL; if you're not allowed to use the canonical library in all situations, it's not a useable standard.

You can do that under the GPL (1)

Morosoph (693565) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424589)

I'll develop under BSD so I can use it in any of my closed-source software too.
...You own the copyright, after all.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424697)

LGPL is the most misunderstood open source license.

LGPL allows you to create both "derived works" and "works based on the library" and provides an option for either using LGPL or "using your own terms" for the resulting work.

HOWEVER: if you choose to "use your own terms" then those terms MUST include certain conditions required by LGPL such as allowing reverse engineering, etc.

I bet 99+% of coders that use LGPL libraries don't understand that their "own terms" must include certain conditions.

In other words, "your own terms" cannot be whatever the hell you like.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424786)

I develop under both GPL and BSD licenses, based on the particular piece of code. If I think the code has strategic value (typically a library or framework), I'll develop under BSD so I can use it in any of my closed-source software too. Software which only has utilitarian value is typically released under GPL.
That makes no sense at all. Of course you can license your code to others under the GPL and still use it in your own proprietary products. You're not limited by the terms under which you license your code to others. That's like accusing Microsoft of hypocrisy for mass-duplicating their own software while also pressing piracy charges.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (2, Insightful)

trip23 (727132) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424943)

That makes no sense at all. Of course you can license your code to others under the GPL and still use it in your own proprietary products. You're not limited by the terms under which you license your code to others. That's like accusing Microsoft of hypocrisy for mass-duplicating their own software while also pressing piracy charges.
The point is that if others contributed to your GPL'ed code, you have to get their permission to use the code in a closed-source environment. With a BSD license you don't have to worry about this. With the GPL it's hard to change the license, if there are a lot of contributors. Just take a look at the discussion about the Linux Kernel und GPL 3.0. Getting the consent of all copyright-holders in order to upgrade to 3.0 would be a nightmare.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15425790)

you have to get their permission to use the code in a closed-source environment. With a BSD license you don't have to worry about this... .. because nobody will contribute to your project.. :o) /me ducks!

(man, these license wars are FUN!)

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (2, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424525)

As a developer, if you value your work, the GPL is the better license under which to release code

Isn't it up to each individual developer to decide what license to use for their original code? Isn't that what choice is all about? If I choose not to use one license or another for my code, why should you care? It is, after all, my code.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424818)

Try leaving things "up to each individual developer" in a basic include file. Licenses are not a good place to be "individual", they're a place where using a standard saves time, space, and money wasted on weird lawsuits and legal conferences to protect people's work.

If your license is weird and prevents us from doing good work with it, then we will choose not to use it. Please look at the demise of the WU mail client, Pine, for an example. The software was written by people like Mark Crispin, the creator of IMAP. But because the licensing is so restrictive, no Linux distribution can include it as part of their default installation without facing lawsuit from WU for patching it to fit their layout, at last without explicit permission from Washington University. And WU just doesn't grant such permission, or at least never that I have seen. Qmail has the same problem, so did XFree86: by tightening up licensing to prevent software forks, they've effectively doomed their software.

XFree86, fortunately, got forked off to Xorg. Pine and Qmail, however, seem to be evaporating from servers and distributions as "too dangerous to use". Those are real licensing issues where "individual" licensing efforts have interfered with the software's development and use.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 7 years ago | (#15425250)

You misread my message. I did not mean to imply that each developer should create his or her own new license, but that each developer has the right to choose what existing license to use.

On the other hand, if a developer wants to create a new license, who are we to say he cannot? I appreciate the concern regarding the proliferation of OSS licenses of late, and I (as a user of and contributor to OSS) agree with you that fewer licenses are better than more licenses. However, we cannot dictate to anyone which license must be used for their original code. If you don't like the license someone chooses to use, then don't use the code that was written under that license. It's really a simple concept.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (4, Interesting)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424665)

I dont think DTrace on FreeBSD is going to sway over and change the mind of those who use and pay and contribute to the GPL. From a strategy point of view it just made BSD's that much more competitive with Solaris and Sun offers. With the GPL you at least get some improvemnts back if your contribution is of value and nobody can close its acess.

Well, or GPL people could take the fine contribution of the BSD people, and port it to GPL. Therefore both communities can benefit. If Sun had released it under GPL, the BSD people would have been prevented from doing this. At least that is my understanding. So in this case the BSD licence seemed like a good choice, the one that maximises freedom for developers.

Furthermore, I believe Sun has stated that they would be happy if DTrace was ported to Linux, and though they can't pay developers to do it, they can provide other help (perhaps like the testsuites).

Again I'm baffled by the level of hostility towards Sun on Slashdot. Here they open source an amazing tool, and help us port it, and they get a lot of nasty comments for it.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (1)

compass46 (259596) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424990)

"Well, or GPL people could take the fine contribution of the BSD people, and port it to GPL. Therefore both communities can benefit. If Sun had released it under GPL, the BSD people would have been prevented from doing this."

Sun's Dtrace is CDDL licensed, not BSD. Also, we wouldn't have been prevented from anything if Sun had released it under the GPL. We just would have imported GPL software over CDDL software.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (5, Insightful)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424735)

From a strategy point of view it just made BSD's that much more competitive with Solaris and Sun offers.

Now, last time I checked, Sun regards Redhat as one of its main competitors for 'enterprise unix' systems. So, since you are saying is that due to dtrace, FreeBSD became more competitive with Solaris, doesn't that mean it became that much more competitive with at least Redhat Linux?

With the GPL you at least get some improvemnts back if your contribution is of value and nobody can close its acess.

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Ah, I see, you were just looking for a reason to do some 'GPL advocacy'.. Let me make some small suggestion: Advocacy like this is just annoying the hell out of people, and makes you look like a fanatic idiot.

Not to mention that the fud you are spreading is just that, fud. Nobody can close access to existing BSD licenced code EVER, got that? (and yes, people can derive from a BSD licenced work, and keep their source changes private while distributing the binaries. If people want to do that with GPLed code, they cannot distribute, or have to obtain an alternative licence from the authors, see the Trolltech business model)

As a developer, if you value your work, the GPL is the better license under which to release code, as it means no-one can take your work, close the source, and sell it as their own.

Now, the modern BSD licence only contains 2 clauses, is really easy to read, and yet you fail to understand it. You think anyone should take your advice?

You can NOT take a BSD licenced work and claim it as your own, that is basicly the one and only thing that licence prevents you from doing. All you can do which you cannot do with the GPL is keep changes to the source private while distributing the binary result. You may believe that is bad, and you are entitled to your own beliefs there. I happen to believe otherwise, and with me, there seem thousands of people who believe otherwise, but again, that is a matter of opinion, and not a matter of fact.

It means every change is visible to you,

No, it does not. It only guarantees that if you get back a binary of some derived program, that you also have a right on getting the source with the changes. You have no right to see anyones changes if they decide to not distribute the result but use it for their own internal work for example.

and that you are free to incorporate the changes other people have made to your product back into it, or into other projects you are working on.

Not if you are for example called Trolltech (qt), Sun (OpenOffice) or anyone else who deals with dual licencing, but generally that is the idea of the GPL indeed. It is a good argument for it, despite it not always working out.

This encourages collaboration, and thus helps the advancement of software engineering.

The fact that all TCP/IP (ip4) implementations are mostly compatible, that most of the basic protocols used on it are compatible between vendors and such are pretty much because there is good and for any purpose usable BSD code around to implement those things, which was either used directly or used as a reference implementation to test against.

This single tiny detail makes that there is actually some choice instead of having ended up with a proprietary network owned by either aol, microsoft, ibm or some other big entity.

I leave it to your imagination what this means for software development.

I will give you one more suggestion, learn to appreciate someone elses work, esp. when that work is pretty good and they actually insist on publishing that work such that everyone can use it. If you just feel that instead of appreciating such things, you must use the occation to spread lies and fud then I call you a moron.

Re:NOT Open Source (was: GPL) (3, Informative)

trifish (826353) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424869)

> It means every change is visible to you,

That's not always true. If you modify a GPL-ed web application (or server software) and don't distribute it (only run it for / show output to your visitors) -- the you don't have to publish (open source) the modifications.

Linux pwn3d j00 (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424366)

Dtrace is useless, transparent xterms are the new hotness.

I think the GPL weenies are jealous (2, Insightful)

Dopeskills (636230) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424444)

Sorry, but DTrace is a really great feature regardless of what your political OSS views are. Porting it to BSD only makes it that much cooler.

What's that? I can't hear you... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424759)

... over the din of BSD coders whining for cash. Remember kids, BSD is "free" software, except you had better give the developers cash or something might "accidentally" happen to your critical data.

Re:I think the GPL weenies are jealous (1, Flamebait)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424845)

The point is how useful the gathered info is. In my experience more or less all OSs do not have problems with stats one can gather. It's the stats one can NOT gather.

E.g. under Linux most of the memory is file cache. What would you gain by knowing that cache went from 95% to 96% of RAM and then went down to 94%?If you can't dissect the value (e.g. 10% belong to that file, 20% to that process, 40% are that info, etc) nor change the behaviour of kernel - there is no point in knowing that info.

And again, if there is tool which provides some info, there are good chances that people looked at that info and already optimized/tuned all what was possible to optimize/tune.

Remember, problems most of the time lie somewhere we cannot look at.

Re:I think the GPL weenies are jealous (4, Informative)

Winter Lightning (88187) | more than 7 years ago | (#15426214)

The whole point of DTrace is that it allows you to gather information
that you couldn't obtain before. See some examples here:
  http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/bmc/20040805 [sun.com]
here:
  http://users.tpg.com.au/adsln4yb/dtrace.html#OneLi ners [tpg.com.au]
and here:
  http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/howtoguides/dt racehowto.jsp [sun.com]

Declaration of interest: I work for Sun, use DTrace, demonstrate it and
see the expressions of stunned delight on the faces of people
when they suddenly recognise its power.

Re:I think the GPL weenies are jealous (1)

penguin-collective (932038) | more than 7 years ago | (#15426919)

Sorry, but DTrace is a really great feature regardless of what your political OSS views are. Porting it to BSD only makes it that much cooler.

There are lots of "really great features" you could put into an OS. The devil is in the details. What's the cost of maintaining it? What is the actual utility? Etc.

I think DTrace doesn't come out well in that regard. Pretty much all the things people regularly want to measure already have hooks in BSD and Linux. Furthermore, if one is going to put something of DTrace's complexity and pervasiveness into the kernel, I'd like to be able to use it for other purposes as well.

To me, DTrace is typical Sun thinking: too focused on kernel and systems issues. It's the reason I quit Solaris long ago, and I hope this sort of stuff won't infect too many other operating systems.

HAH! (0)

wmajik (688431) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424479)

You think this will let my employer figure out where that memory leak is coming from?! You can't trace me! I've got... TraceBuster!

(Ok that was seriously cheesy, but I relive the golden days of my youth by quoting movies with Marky Mark apparently. *sob*)

Dtrace - is often referred to as "error vomit" (-1, Troll)

plembo (977702) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424522)

Is this really a killer feature for most, I say no. For whom is it a killer feature? Level 3 Backline support at best and maybe some devs, maybe. Anyone so busy praising it ever actually used it? What is Solaris really lacking - mega-detailed error reporting? That's why they'll be another round of layoffs, couldn't get DTrace out soon enough?! Please. How about put effort into features IT folks really need and will use. SUN has missed that boat for years now and gotten by on momentum. If this is good for BSD then great, really, but I don't see how people will choose a distro for DTrace, look how well its worked for SUN! -P

Re:Dtrace - is often referred to as "error vomit" (5, Informative)

asaul (98023) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424605)

Dtrace is the exact opposite of error vomit, and I dont recall ever hearing it called that anyway. The entire principle is that you dont need to go inserting metric shitloads of debugging and printf("we got here") statements all through your code, recompile it and then see that the error doesnt occur because all your debugging has now slowed your code enough to prevent the race condition that caused the original error.

True - its a L3 and developer tool for the most part, but there are plenty of scripts out there to show what it can do for an admin. Take a look at http://users.tpg.com.au/adsln4yb/dtrace.html [tpg.com.au] for starters. Stuff like iosnoop, iotop, opensnoop and kill.d can be used quite regularly by admins without the need for putting debugging into active applications.

Maybe you should wipe your mouth after vomiting (4, Insightful)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424715)

Last week I had a major problem trying to get Linux nfs4 clients to mount from Solaris 10 servers. Even though on the Linux client the domain uid mapping superficially worked (I saw the correct user/groups displayed) the NFSv4 Server Kernel Module was still using LINUX uid/gid combinations supplied by the linux client to go to the filesystem driver with to ask for permission.

You, sir, obviously don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Here's my script, btw

#!/usr/sbin/dtrace -Cs

#define ACCESS4_READ 1
#define ACCESS4_LOOKUP 2
#define ACCESS4_MODIFY 4
#define ACCESS4_EXTEND 8
#define ACCESS4_DELETE 16
#define ACCESS4_EXECUTE 32

fbt:nfssrv:rfs4_op_access:entry {
        requested_access = ((struct ACCESS4args *) arg0)->access;
        cs = (struct compound_state *) arg3;
        cr = (struct cred *) cs->cr;
        printf ("uid = %d gid = %d\n", cr->cr_uid, cr->cr_gid);
        printf ("ACCESS4_READ = %s\n", requested_access & ACCESS4_READ ? "yes" : "no");
        printf ("ACCESS4_LOOKUP = %s\n", requested_access & ACCESS4_LOOKUP ? "yes" : "no");
        printf ("ACCESS4_MODIFY = %s\n", requested_access & ACCESS4_MODIFY ? "yes" : "no");
        printf ("ACCESS4_EXTEND = %s\n", requested_access & ACCESS4_EXTEND ? "yes" : "no");
        printf ("ACCESS4_DELETE = %s\n", requested_access & ACCESS4_DELETE ? "yes" : "no");
        printf ("ACCESS4_EXECUTE = %s\n", requested_access & ACCESS4_EXECUTE ? "yes" : "no");
}

Re:Maybe you should wipe your mouth after vomiting (1)

plembo (977702) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424784)

Really, I don't? You sir were too busy with dreams of 3l33t points...

Try refuting my argument instead of my catchy subject line next time. Let's review -

1. Dtrace has got hordes of people adopting Solaris again?
2. Its going to do wonders for BSD too?
3. Dtrace is useful for regular IT folks, i.e. people who don't read and write C every day?

Its just another engineer tool for engineers, and thats fine, really, but despite SUNs attempt to trumpet this tool as a revolution, no one much cares and I don't think its going to do much for BSD either. Do you think it will?

I never said it sucks or it doesn't work. Error vomit is what some Level 3 support guys @ SUN in Bulington call it that I've spoken with, they dislike it for the reasons I've mentioned above. I didn't make that up either way so go tell them they don't know.

Re:Maybe you should wipe your mouth after vomiting (1, Troll)

cduffy (652) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424843)

Dtrace is useful for regular IT folks, i.e. people who don't read and write C every day?

I don't care about choosing an OS and toolkit for people that suck, I care about choosing a toolkit for me. Seriously. I'm responsible for maintaining the template that our servers (which run a *lot* of interdependent services -- Oracle, Tomcat, etc) are built off of. Finding and fixing performance problems in the template means that the low-level support folks have less angry customers on the phone -- and having the tools to find hard-to-locate issues on the deployed servers means customers' issues, once elevated, can get resolved quickly. Will the low-level support staff understand or use DTrace? Maybe not. Do I care? No. Right now I'm stuck using OProfile -- and while it's a good tool as far as it goes, I've seen what DTrace can do and I want some of that, damnit!

Error vomit is what some Level 3 support guys @ SUN in Bulington call it that I've spoken with, they dislike it for the reasons I've mentioned above.

They're not using it correctly, then. The whole point of folks writing scripts for DTrace is to provide the information one needs (as opposed to "vomit"). If you're using pre-canned scripts that spit out everything under the sun -- that's your problem, not the tool's.

Re:Maybe you should wipe your mouth after vomiting (1)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 7 years ago | (#15425001)

I just can't resist. I think you meant to say: If you're using pre-canned scripts that spit out everything IN the sun -- that's your problem, not the tool's.

Here. Use one of my napkins then. (3, Informative)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424988)

Hi there, first I don't give a flying fsck whether i get l33t points over this or really whether I get modded down.
I hope however that either of our posts get modded up so that people actually take notice of this thread.

That out of the way I don't really care whether droves of Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD etc.etc. users rush and adopt
(Open)Solaris. I would definitely switch to Solaris also at home instead of Linux if it supported all of my hardware
but I guess the home-user is besides the point I suppose you trying to make. Suffice it to say I can see no rush to
AIX on the pseries or to HP-UX either but that has more to do with market saturation than anything else.
The more interesting statistic to look into is how many Solaris 2.5-9 users have upgraded to Solaris 10. We admittedly
didn't get all excited about DTrace alone, actually it was Solaris Zones that pulled us in.
Oh I forgot. Microsoft Windows. Either risking to come off arrogant or preaching to the choir here, I suppose people
using that can't be expected to migrate to Solaris either, mainly because of their investment in "Microsoft Technologies" but also from my personal experience due to an (utter) lack of broad technical background on behalf of their staff.
These people for the most part don't trace first and see if they can tackle the problem. They consult "Knowledgebases" or call Microsoft.

So the question is, what rush are you expecting that nobody else is (well apart from the marketing/sales depts trying
to justify their upkeep) ??

2. Is it definitely going to work wonders for BSD. It made my life on Solaris a hell of a lot easier. It'll make
people's lives on (Free)BSD a hell of a lot easier. Soon I'm sure it will do that on Linux and after that on AIX,
HP-UX oh and maybe in a few years hence even on more esoteric systems like Stratus VOS etc.

As an administrator it does wonders for me over and over, because now I can trace SCSI cmds/responses from devices,
trace NFS problems like the one I just bragged about and the like. I get so much faster and easier clued in where
the problem is by looking at what's going on under the hood so yes it is making me vastly more productive as an admin.

3. DTrace is also useful for "regular IT folks" and I guess that's where our real mentality problem kicks in. Firstly,
even you who is definitely not an engineer can use DTRACE scripts other people develop. It's easy, at times all you
need to do is dtrace -s script.d and there you are. But going back to our mentality problem. You're right. I think
DTRACE is not really made for "regular IT folks" that are not fluent in C or don't have a working knowledge of processes/threads/user virtual address space vs. kernel address space etc. etc. I guess "regular IT folks" like that wont get much mileage out of DTRACE but still like I said they can use already developed scripts with maybe someone over the phone helping them. And that brings us to some Level 3 support guys @ SUN in Bulington... their main problem with DTRACE is not that it's of no help or no value. In fact our competition at one site opened a call with Sun on an issue we were already working on and then sent us a DTRACE script Sun support wanted to run. We compared it to our own script we had started on the problem and Sun support was looking exactly at the same cause of the problem we were :-). I guess the real
issue some of the Level 3 Support guys @ SUN in Bulington have is that DTRACE gives third parties like us a hell of a lot more clout in diagnosing problems which results in a lot less calls to them and that's making them vomit.
To tell you the truth I mulled this aspect of DTRACE over too, that it would give the customer and competitors more
insight and transparency into the system, but like you said yourself DTRACE is nothing for "regular IT folks" so
on the bottomline it's a definite plus for us.

Plembo - Troll account (1)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 7 years ago | (#15425575)

On an impulse I looked up what other things Plembo has to say on slashdot and I found only today's two posts.

http://slashdot.org/~plembo [slashdot.org]

Re:Maybe you should wipe your mouth after vomiting Monday May 29, @11:51AM 2 0
Dtrace - is often referred to as "error vomit" Monday May 29, @10:37AM 2 0, Redundant

Of course, either this gentle(wo)man happened across Slashdot where he or she saw DTrace on FreeBSD being discussed
and feeling strongly about DTrace and how it was purportedly perceived as "error vomit" by one or two individuals at Sun Support in Bullington and immediately signed up over that... or a really envious Troll who just dropped by to upset some
(Free|Net|Open|Dying)BSD people either for fun or profit. We'll never know what's the score here but I also doubt we'll hear much more from Plembo.

A couple of years ago I busted a wannabe Monsanto shill who just had three posts to his name. Professional shills take time on a discussion board to build reputable accounts developing rapport with the group and then in time become opinion leaders. On second thought if you work for one of Sun's PR companies and just conned me into attacking and beating the shit out of would-be Solaris 10 deriders, man you did a great job here, more power to you.

Re:Dtrace - is often referred to as "error vomit" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15426699)

Something as FUCKING AWESOME as DTRACE and YOU DARE to come here and open our SHIT MOUTH and speak out against it?

objectivity? (0, Flamebait)

XiQ (776289) | more than 7 years ago | (#15424583)

"...and is one of the coolest features in Solaris 10."
This is clearly an objective writer.

(and he doesn't even say why)

Not ready for -CURRENT? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424682)

Dtrace is one of the best Unix development tools around, no joke. However the project is nowhere near available for FreeBSD users....

From Bryan Cantrill's blog: "If you run FreeBSD in production, you're going to want John's port as it stands today -- and if you develop for the FreeBSD kernel (drivers or otherwise), you're going to need it."

Now compare this to Birrell's announcement: "There is still a lot of work to do and while that goes on, the code has to remain in the FreeBSD perforce server. It isn't ready to get merged into CVS-current yet."

Great news and nicely done... but, um, come back when it's ready for -CURRENT primetime before telling Zdnet it's ready ;)

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

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424827)

The End of FreeBSD

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Shouts

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

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

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

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

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

Future

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

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

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

= Mike

--

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

moderate this shit down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15425413)

it's old, tired crap.

Re:Developer Laments: What Killed FreeBSD (1)

linimon (736674) | more than 7 years ago | (#15426476)

msmith's last commit was 20020504. This posting probably predates that.

Since his last commit, FreeBSD has released, in order: 4.6, 4.7, 5.0, 4.8, 5.1, 4.9, 5.2, 4.10, 5.3, 4.11, 5.4, 6.0, 6.1, and 5.5. That's 14 releases from 3 different release branches.

The current codebase bears only a vague resemblance to what was in 4.6. After 4.6, 4.X was made far more stable; then 5.X incorporated major new features including rewritten SMP support and added support for laptops and wifi; and now 6.X is consolidating those changes and concentrating on performance and bugfixing as well as adding features.

We probably have far more developers now than we ever have had in the past. People have come and go but development has continued, if not accelerated.

Four years is an eternity in Open Source. Our troll needs to get over it.

Highly desirable toolkit, but not universal. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15424970)

I saw Bryan Cantrill give a demo of DTrace at my university. I was pretty impressed.

I wanted to use it for my application to diagnose performance and race condition problems. However, then I realized I'd have to wrap all the instrumentation so that it would still work portably. Then I thought it seemed like an awful lot of bother just to get some profiling in there, especially if I was going to support an alternate method of collecting the same events so as to make the whole application (which includes profiling support) portable.

"Sorry, we have to run it on Solaris or FreeBSD to debug/optimize" was ultimately what made me stay away from it. I looked into getting OpenSolaris working, and by the time I'd finally finally discovered from Sun's extremely confusing website and the equally confusing OpenSolaris webpages that what I wanted was Solaris Express:Community Release (SX:CR) so that I could get some interesting DTrace fixes and features, and had even burnt the 4 CDs and was all ready to commit to the Solaris way of life, I just got the heebie jeebies.

Hopefully, just hopefully, the FreeBSD port works out well, and there will be a version for Linux sometime soon... there's hope that the advent of the GPLv3 will ease a lot of political slash licensing problems.

DTrace is really incredible for application developers. You can insert lightweight, shippable, debugging and profiling points wherever you want them. I just feel you can't outright commit your project to it yet which is sad. It's the kind of stuff that should be made a POSIX standard, quite frankly.

Re:Highly desirable toolkit, but not universal. (1)

Profound (50789) | more than 7 years ago | (#15426232)

I have also heard about this tool and wanted to try it out but didn't have Solaris. From reading about it, it appears to be very system specific for speed reasons, I think you could get it to work with porting effort, or perhaps adding a virtualization layer. A hack would be a VM w/no cost Solaris.

Re:Highly desirable toolkit, but not universal. (1)

sethmeisterg (603174) | more than 7 years ago | (#15426782)

There is way too much FUD around people who "thought they wanted to try DTrace but it was just too hard to get Solaris running". That's a total cop-out. So it took you a few clicks to download Solaris Express-- big freakin' deal. If you're not willing to put in a little time to get Solaris running, you won't reap the reward. Solaris runs out of the box on tons of hardware, including VMware. Just grab a free copy of VMware, then load a free copy of Solaris and you're done. It'll take you an hour (after you download the images). If that's too long for you, then don't bitch about it-- just realize that you skipped the benefit because you were too damn lazy to put in some time up front.

real men don't use licenses ... (2, Funny)

retiarius (72746) | more than 7 years ago | (#15426964)

... they use the public domain. public domain is the stem cell
of licensing, whereby you can take such code and graft any damnfool
license onto it if you have the inexplicable urge to think smaller.

oh, and real men don't use 'dtrace', they use 'printf()' --
if it's good enough for ritchie & thompson, it's good enough for me!

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...