×

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!

The BSDs in the WSJ: "Help Build the Web"

Hemos posted more than 14 years ago | from the yesterday-but-it's-still-worth-it dept.

BSD 290

conio writes "The Wall Street Journal published an article on Friday about the open-source BSDs (mainly FreeBSD) and how they're silently serving the Net. " This was submitted yesterday quite a bit, but was in the pay area-thankfully it's free reading now. Good to see BSD get some of the limelight.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

290 comments

Doing *bsd a disservice? (0)

rde (17364) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689106)

I'm not sure he's being fair to the popularity of *bsd; pretty much everyone I know is aware of the fact that if you want a more secure server, BSD is the way to go. Regardless of how much we all love Linux, a lot of people feel a lot more secure.

(I'll reply too, to save some you the hassle).
U fukin luser if u cant configre linux 2b sekure u shoudnt b fuckin usin it

take that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689109)

you linux zealots (-1 that fast, damn)

Re:Doing *bsd a disservice? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689112)

Someone hasn't been reading Bugtraq lately. *Lots* o' BSD exploits lately. To claim that FreeBSD is *inherently* more secure than Linux is nothing more than silliness. OpenBSD, maybe...but only when appropriate services are running, and the system is regularly updated.

Linux vs. BSD is mostly a matter of taste. And license advocacy.

Re:Doing *bsd a disservice? (1)

lomion (33716) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689115)

Article seems like mostly a rehash of what every other BSD vs. Linux article is saying. This is mostly a fluff piece.

They don't get into why it's used by some of the heavily hit sites on the Internet.

BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689118)

BSD is great. It's about time it got some real recognition. Linux has its strong points, but it just doesn't have the edge. CMB - NBPS

Start Linux vs BSD Flame war here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689120)

I just know this is going to get FreeBSD likened to Al Gore by Linux enthousuiasts, and "While Microsoft almost never talks about it, its own Hotmail free e-mail service runs not on its flagship Windows NT but on FreeBSD." is going to invoke some heavy giggling. Finally a nice mentioning of "Factional battles and online fusillades" will grow a nice thread about BSD being "hopelessly divided" again.

FreeBSD can't keep up (0)

delmoi (26744) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689123)

Even if FreeBSD is technicaly ahead of linux now, it won't be for long, Company's like SGI, IBM, and others are behind Linux (and providing code). Those same companys arn't going to want to reliese there code under a BSD style licens beacuse it would enable there compeitors to pilfer there work.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

You've just gotta love diversity.. (3)

Kitsune Sushi (87987) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689126)

"The free programs are all variants of the venerable Unix system invented by AT&T Corp. And they aren't just running Yahoo. While Microsoft almost never talks about it, its own Hotmail free e-mail service runs not on its flagship Windows NT but on FreeBSD."

I wouldn't want to talk about either, since when Microsoft first acquired Hotmail, they switched over all the servers to Windows NT. Needless to say, their setup experienced mild "difficulties" as NT tried to handle the all the user load, and failed.. miserably.. After a short period (not short enough for many, I'm sure) they were forced to switch back. And they call their systems "advanced"?

"The Linux saga is already the stuff of modern legend. In 1991, Linus Torvalds, a 21-year-old student in Helsinki, began writing an operating system essentially from scratch so he could have something to use on his home computer. The programs FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, by contrast, are the descendants of code written in the late 1970s and early 1980s at UC Berkeley."

Oh please. No matter how technically accurate or inaccurate the media is, they always leave out some important aspects. I know I sound like a broken record, but I feel as if this is an important issue which needs to be addressed. Is there any way we can let the media know that we have GNU/Linux today because of both the GNU Project and Linus Torvalds, and not just Linus? Public perception is a big deal.. the only thing people listen to are just PR issues, anyway. Any insights on this? I don't believe I've heard of any before.

Ugh. Just killed article window. Too lazy to reopen. Hmm.. "no ego about letting people use their software"? I think I got that right, and it sounds egotistical in and of itself. What, GNU/Linux was all written by just one person? Ha!

Re:FreeBSD can't keep up (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689187)

Those same companys arn't going to want to reliese there code under a BSD style licens beacuse it would enable there compeitors to pilfer there work.

This is a very good point, and one that the BSD zealots often miss.

If companies are going to go open source, they are unlikely to use a BSD-style license, because the *last* thing they want is for some other company to take their code and use it in a proprietary program, as it doesn't generate good PR/goodwill.

So, in at least one way, the GPL makes more sense from a commercial open source standpoint.

Re:Start Linux vs BSD Flame war here (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689188)

Regards: --------- Finally a nice mentioning of "Factional battles and online fusillades" will grow a nice thread about BSD being "hopelessly divided" again. --------- There are more diferences between Red Hat and Slackware than any of the *BSD. Please, the kernel is just a piece of the engine, for the average user it is invisible and userland and configuration counts a lot

Re:You've just gotta love diversity.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689191)

"The free programs are all variants of the venerable Unix system invented by AT&T Corp. And they aren't just running Yahoo. While Microsoft almost never talks about it, its own Hotmail free e-mail service runs not on its flagship Windows NT but on FreeBSD."

Don't they actually use Solaris for the back end (with FreeBSD for the web servers)?

Re:FreeBSD can't keep up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689192)

GPL on the other hand makes commercial closed source software impossible. Both licenses have their limitations.

Re:You've just gotta love diversity.. (1)

lomion (33716) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689196)

Yes it's solaris on the back end, i think they were focusin on the web aspects though. Note the title of the article..


Re:FreeBSD can't keep up (2)

Oniros (53181) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689198)

Apple and I am sure some other big names are behind BSD too. I think Apple chose BSD over Linux for MacOS X because:
a) NexT was already using some flavor of BSD
b) the BSD license let them make proprietary extensions without having to release the source.

So with Darwin (the kernel used by MacOS X client & server) you have the BSD & Mach based kernel/core, and at the top of that Apple will put their proprietary technology (Mac GUI, Quicktime, etc etc.)

I'm not sure if they could do that with a Linux or another GPLed OS.

Janus

its the way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689201)

sure we all linux freaks love linux. But lets face it, if was to really set up server -meaning as to stay there 24/7 for bandwith usage, i go with a bsd depending on the type either NET, or Free... but surely BSD the way i see it Linux is out there -talking about RedHat kind of line for desktop support mainly. i want a server i go BSD. i want features, i want GIMP right i want games, i goto linux.

So far most of the comments have been negative (3)

jfunk (33224) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689204)

Why is that?

I read the article, and liked it.

These journalists have come a long way since the "UNIX has no GUI" days. The article was entirely positive, written to give credit where it was due (I'm a Linux guy, btw).

The article wasn't posted to start a flame war, but that's going to happen anyway. It's already started.

It's like Ford vs. GM vs. whoever. Strong points, weak points, there are always reasons behind one's choice, and they're always valid.

The noise has only been getting worse, and it's extremely redundant.

These articles are *good*. Please accept that.

Re:FreeBSD can't keep up (1)

HalJohnson (86701) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689208)

I haven't been able to find any absolute information regarding the FreeBSD license (if anyone has a good link, please share it with me), so excuse me if I'm totally off base here.

It was my understanding that the FreeBSD license put less restrictions on the use of the core code. So why wouldn't it be possible for these companies to release their contributions under any type of license they liked? If this were the case, I would think that FreeBSD would be a more enticing platform for them if anything.

Again, good chance I'm totally wrong here, would really love some definite information regarding the FreeBSD license (and it hasn't been for lack of trying).

Re:FreeBSD can't keep up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689210)

I'm not sure if they could do that with a Linux or another GPLed OS.

Of course they could; they would only need to make source available for any modifications/distribution of the GPLd software itself. That wouldn't stop them from distributing proprietary userland stuff. And if they needed additional kernel functionality, they could even add binary-only kernel modules.

I'm sure the decision to use BSD had a lot more to do with the fact that NEXTSTEP, which they were using as a base for MacOS X, was already BSD-based. Why fix it if it ain't broke?

Re:Doing *bsd a disservice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689217)

Hmmm, you say "*Lots* o' BSD exploits lately", summing up they're still less in number than a normal RH release two weeks later. And none of them is a remote xploit to date. I think its a bad idea to compare "linux" vs. "bsd" regards security, there is no such a thing "linux", we have distributions. Some of them (eg. Debian) are safe, others (RH) are like SunOS 4, use the insecurity as free marketing. Each time someone finds a new hole on RH it gets lots of midia for free.

Small Nitpick (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689218)

The Linux license, by contrast, requires users to make any use of the software -- such as a piece of specialized computer networking gear -- freely available to everyone else. That restriction keeps many companies from using Linux in key products.

Inaccurate. The GPL does not regulate any kind of "use"; it only regulates distribution. And it seems like they're saying that the use of Linux in a particular piece of hardware would make the hardware itself subject to the GPL. This is too silly to comment on, other than to simply say, "no, it wouldn't." They'd just have to make the source code (along with any modifications thereof) available to customers.

RESUME FLAMEFEST

Hey, lets do some math (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689221)

15% FreeBSD + 31% Linux = 46% of the web, we need the other 5% to dominate the net, not a flamewar

Re:Doing *bsd a disservice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689223)

others (RH) are like SunOS 4, use the insecurity as free marketing.

Of course you realize that SunOS 4.x was BSD-based? :-)

Solaris, OTOH, is SysV, mostly.

Re:Start Linux vs BSD Flame war here (1)

T-Punkt (90023) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689224)

> There are more diferences between Red Hat and Slackware than any of the *BSD.
> Please, the kernel is just a piece of the engine, for the average user it is invisible and userland and configuration counts a lot.

Yes, the other big point people flaming *BSD miss is that there is a lot of direct and indirect cooperation between the three BSDs, e.g.:

If OpenBSD finds and fixes a Bug, the other *BSDs will do the same with their code. FreeBSD has invented the package (they call it "ports") system all *BSDs now have and NetBSD brought USB to the *BSD world.

The *BSDs help each other *MUCH* more than they "fight". *BSDs diversity is on of its strengths and no weakness.

BSD people need to be loyal( like mac cronies) (1)

Whizziwig (23055) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689226)

Think about it, windows is the most prolific operating system on teh planet, no windows enthusiast sees it goign anywhere soon.

Linux is now in the mass media is gaining acceptance, and has a wider and wider userbase.

Mac people must be loyal, thier OS is an endangered species, why else would people put apple tatoos on thier bodies? Appple was *THE* premier computer in school,s then MS took over. They were *GUI*, then MS took over, they were teh renegade OS, then linux took over.

BSD is similar, they were the free unix, teh open source people, teh unix at home people. They were an elite club. Now linux is taking over, and they need to be defensive. BSD people are even more loyal then MacOS'ers, especially when in the company of linux geeks.

BSD is having much less of a problem keeping both old and new hardware supported (ie 386 - 8 way SMP Athalon). BSD has a great linux emulator, wwith full compatibility with any linux libs you can throw at it. NetBSD has a much wider range of hardware support. The port system is supposed to be a much better development model.

According to most BSD-ers, linux geeks are nuts, their fs sucks (ext2 vs. fsf) their competing package systems, their library incompatibilities, their little distro wars, the development model sucks. I don't know, I like debian, I like linux, I like glibc2, I liek our distro wars and library incompats, it makes life fun!

door bell.

---dave
What's brown and sounds like a bell? DUNG!

Pro-BSD moderation once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689229)

The BSD zealot moderators are in action again. Note how the above comment was moderated down as flamebait, when, in fact, it was the parent comment that should have been so moderated.

Re:You've just gotta love diversity.. (2)

PG13 (3024) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689231)

>Is there any way we can let the media know that >we have GNU/Linux today because of both the GNU >Project and Linus Torvalds, and not just Linus?

Look this is a silly stupid ego issue for Stallman. Is it true that much of what is considerd linux is actually GNU software? Yes. Is it true that plenty of other people but Linus deserve credit? Yes.

Does this mean it will benifit linux or the public at large by forcing GNU/Linux down their throughts? No!

The myth of Linus and his singlehanded development of the operating system plays an important role in the media recognition of linux. People's imaginations are not fired up by commitees, they are fired up by individuals and strong leaders. There is a reason we consider the president of the US to represent the United States when in reality congress hasmore to do with the present state of the US than the president.

Linux is succeding where BSD did not b/c linux is sexy. Stallman would take this away from us with his self serving whining about getting credit. If he truly cared about free software rather than his own image he would let it go for the greater good.

GNU/Linux is "fighting words" -- ban the name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689232)

The WSJ is to be commended for avoiding feeding the flames with this inanely unmerited and pretentious "GNU/Linux" moniker. Put simple, irrespective of what side of the matter you should happen to find yourself, it's "fighting words", plain and simple. Even if you are on the side that feels the appelation to be nothing more than awarding advertising/marketing credit where this is due, you're still generating more heat than light. Whining and name-calling is only going to make fewer people pay attention to you -- at least in a favorable light. Not all worship RMS, so cut the crap.

Keep in mind the audience (1)

warlocke (29338) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689237)

WSJ isn't aimed at geeks -- although I think they'd be surprised how many pay attention, especially after the RedHat IPO!

For the audience this is aimed at, it's a nice short 'executive summary.' Leaves out a lot of things some of us consider important, but that's the nature of the beast.

Don't expect a mass newspaper aimed at financial types, managers, etc. to cover (or be interested in) all the fiddlin' details. Instead, rejoice that they're paying any attention at all -- and be joyful and thankful that the errors are of omission. What's there is right, which is better than 90% of today's journalists can say.

Regards,
Ric

Re:FreeBSD can't keep up (1)

belswick (88287) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689238)

Supposedly TiVo's product is Linux-based, but I haven't seen any of their extensions released. Maybe I'm not looking in right places?

Umm.. (1)

Kitsune Sushi (87987) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689241)

"Look this is a silly stupid ego issue for Stallman."

This really has nothing to do with the point.

"Does this mean it will benifit linux or the public at large by forcing GNU/Linux down their throughts? No!"

I thought "people deserve to know the truth". Is this a dead concept?

"The myth of Linus and his singlehanded development of the operating system plays an important role in the media recognition of linux. People's imaginations are not fired up by commitees, they are fired up by individuals and strong leaders. There is a reason we consider the president of the US to represent the United States when in reality congress hasmore to do with the present state of the US than the president."

Commitees? Whatever. I don't think we have many things that are quite that formal in our community. Personally, I get fired up over the idea of people from all over the world working together to produce good, quality software without the concept of money driving them. And if you realize that it's silly to focus on the president of the U.S. when the legislature holds more of the real power, why would you try to spread an obviously flawed belief and even focus on it? Ignoring things of this nature only allows the problems we refuse to recognize to remain unattended.. and thus grow worse and spread into other areas.

Ugh! (1)

Kitsune Sushi (87987) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689244)

"The WSJ is to be commended for avoiding feeding the flames with this inanely unmerited and pretentious "GNU/Linux" moniker."

GNU is the OS, Linux is the kernel. How does that make it unmerited? And knowing that, how can anyone possibly think that GNU/Linux is more pretentious than Linux?

I don't worship Richard Stallman, either. It's no wonder this was an AC post. However, if not for his philosophy, Linus Torvalds wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Richard Stallman isn't important. What he did, what Linus did.. all of the people who have worked on GNU projects and GPL-covered software (including them) and what they did.. all of these things and people are. I thought I made that clear to begin with.

Re:FreeBSD can't keep up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689246)

naw, cause if the code is useful --even under the GPL -- anyone can and will pilfer code and include it in their own proprietary implementations.

Was linux "dying" before SGI/IBM showed interest?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689248)

Your argument is very odd - firstly, I don't know why SGI's support would have any real meaning to the growth or erosion of support for any OS.

Secondly, IBM still pushes AIX as a first order of business wherever it can - its support for linux has so far been fairly shallow - in case you haven't noticed from their tacit support of Java, IBM is more than willing to throw a hundred employees behind any hyped technology to get some good press.

*BSD unix is not dying. Its growing. More people than ever are using *BSD to get work done. They don't care if Apple is behind it, or that SGI and IBM aren't. Why would this matter?

If we judged technologies because of their popularity, we'd all be using Win95.

I'm sorry to sound like a flamer, but I don't understand the value of the oft-used argument here - because BSD isn't currently a bandwagon for every company looking for an anti-MS strategy, it must be dying. How odd.

Loving my FreeBSD-3.3 RC #3 Box (4)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689249)

There is no doubt that I am fervently in favor of the growing popularity of linux, but I have to say I am an unabashed fan of my ever-so-lovingly tweaked FreeBSD box. Whats to love?

1. Easy to harden. I have two ports open - X (6000, 6010) and SSH (22). It was very easy to get my box to this stage. Much easier than it was with RH 6.0, which I have also hardened.

2. Easy to upgrade. I have yet to see any tool surpass /usr/ports for pure ease of use. I cvsup my ports every night, and in the morning I check the logs to see what package have been tweaked and configured and are ready to be loaded up. Then once or twice I week I cvsup the source code for the OS and do a make world. Upgrading FreeBSD is very very easy - cvsup is gorgeous and I've found nothing like it.

3. Easy to play nice with linux. I can run linux binaries without recompiling. What else is there to say?

4. One distribution, great docs, great organization. FreeBSD.org maintains everything I need to deal with regarding the OS in a clear and concise manner. The FreeBSD handbook is available online. I get CD subscriptions multiple times a year, at a good price. I find the linux world of distros rather confusing. FreeBSD makes it easier for me to know the "source of truth".

Bravo to linux folks for making inroads into corporate America, and thanks to FreeBSD for a island of sanity in the OS archipeligo.

Factual issues (5)

gr (4059) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689251)

First off, let me say that it's good to see an article even addressing these issues in the Wall Street Journal, and as one poster said, they did a pretty good job for mainstream media. That said, the author tries to go into details and teach a history that he actually doesn't know, and that some /. readers also may not know, because it's pretty convoluted. These are arguably minor points, but I think they're important.
The BSD programs and Linux actually share a common lineage, a collective development process and a rambunctious cast of characters.


The free programs are all variants of the venerable Unix system invented by AT&T Corp.
This is basically untrue. All four BSDs (including BSDi's BSD/OS) stem from the AT&T Unix sources, Linux was written entirely without access to those sources. It behaves similarly in a lot of ways, but vastly differently in others (arp and routing tables, for instance).

This isn't to say that either Unix/BSD's or Linux's way is better (I personally prefer the methods that have been around and proven for twenty-odd years, but that's me).

The author may have been trying to straighten out this mis-statement when he wrote:
The Linux saga is already the stuff of modern legend. In 1991, Linus Torvalds, a 21-year-old student in Helsinki, began writing an operating system essentially from scratch so he could have something to use on his home computer. The programs FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, by contrast, are the descendants of code written in the late 1970s and early 1980s at UC Berkeley.
... but I'm not sure that really clarifies things for the average reader, and has some factual failings of its own (Linus wrote a kernel, not an operating system, and operating system needs basic software, Gnu had it, we all know the drill and the fanatics involved).
OpenBSD was started in 1995 by Theo de Raadt, a mountain biking 31-year-old Canadian after being kicked out of the NetBSD movement.
Okay, so maybe Theo didn't leave NetBSD under the friendliest of circumstances, but to claim he was "kicked out" isn't really fair. He had disagreements about what the focus of the program should be, so he broke off to pursue the focus he felt was more important. This doesn't make either focus invalid, just points up the fact that you can't have one set of people focusing on both spreading platform support and securing all OS processes. The above comments imply that there's some kind of lasting enmity between the Open- and NetBSD projects, which simply isn't true.

All of this said, the point an earlier poster made about how this is a pretty good article, and that the mainstream media is doing a much better job than they once did is quite valid. I'm also gladdened to see this article wasn't just more slobbering over RedHat... I've seen quite enough of that to last me the rest of my days.

Other side of the coin (1)

twit (60210) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689252)

You've illustrated both sides of the coin, really. It makes plenty of sense for any company to use BSD or BSD-like licensed code written elsewhere, since they can modify at will without releasing source of the end product.

Conversely it makes plenty of sense for any company to release their own code under the GPL, since no one else can modify at will without releasing source of the end product.

Fair's fair - these two competing urges drive licenses and by extension drive development methadologies and organizations. Personally, I prefer the GPL and use Linux, but that hasn't kept me from dabbling in BSD.

--

Re:Doing *bsd a disservice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689256)

"They don't get into why it's used by some of the heavily hit sites on the Internet. That's what I'd like to know, too! Surely, WSJ/DJ must have used Sun servers at one time along with Solaris/SunOs. The article didn't even let us know what type of servers they're running, just about the BSD OS.

Re:FreeBSD can't keep up (1)

xuvetyn (89257) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689258)

as far as the license, it boils down to: "Give us credit for our work, and don't sue us if something breaks".
try this [daemonnews.org]

xuvetn (proud freebsd-er)

Re:Umm.. (1)

PG13 (3024) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689259)

I am not implying that a flawed belif should be spread merely that people should be allowed to keep their icons. Everyone knows that congress has just as much if not more power than the president yet very few feel an emotional or patriotic attachment to congress.

This has nothing to do with actual knowledge, hell it would be a good idea to put a little footnote in every article explaining that GNU contributed most of the code etc.., it is about image. Example from science: does anyone think that Einstein spun modern physics out of whole cloth? No, everyone knows he built on work done by others, but *Einsteins* theory of relativity generated far more interest and respect for physics than "A thgeory partially developed by einstein moslty building on the work of others" would ever have.

And rah for you, you get fired up by the concept of open source. We wish there were many more people out their who shared your belifs, unfortunatly, many people do not, or at least do not yet. Linux grabs their attention in a way FreeBSD never has. If not for this myth of Linus Linux would never have made it into the lime light and free software would have suffered a large setback.

Looks like you forgot to take your prozac, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689261)

Your paranoid tendencies are getting the best of you again... --Lazlo knows if you've been bad or good.

Free BSD / Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689264)

Should we be argueing amongst ourselves about who provides the supirior product?

Is it not "horse's for course's" anyway?

We should stick together and promote the open source community as a whole, and not reserve our compliments for only that which we use.

Re:So far most of the comments have been negative (2)

randolfe (73819) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689266)

I'd just like to echo the comments above. Having attempted to bring sanity to a some of the perplexing "Linux vs. Java" flame wars, I see the same thing occurring with any article about BSD. I like your reference to Ford vs. GM. Where I grew up in Ohio you could get your ass kicked for something as silly as a stray comment about an American auto brand. They didn't even see the Japanese coming on.

Perhaps that analogy is relevant here. Linux proponents need to realize that there are many trends, currents, variables, forces at work in the market; more now than in the past 10 years. We all have a very small vote in forming the future. I, for one, cast my small vote for the power of diversity and choice. Read: BSD has a valid role to play and articles which help promote that message to the rest of the world are positive.

It's so much easier to deconstruct than to construct.

Natural Selection.. (1)

prodeje (58779) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689267)

With good press like this.. the other 5% is bound to come.. If it hasn't already since that survey was released.

...

From where did they take these numbers? :) (1)

hzo (3742) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689269)

could it be that..... (see footer)
--

BSD (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689270)

i learned UNIX when i was 12 on a FreeBSD system...i decided to use GNU/Linux instead of FreeBSD when i decided i knew enough to run *nix all the time...how ever, about a month ago, i've been moving everything on my home system over to FreeBSD.
I loved that article. it's great to see BSD getting the propaganda..i mean, recognition it needs. Only thing i want to know is, why is BSD a programme, and Linux an operating system, when *BSD is the kernel, and the libraries and the tools, and linux is just a kernel?
and also, i don't get why Linux users are agsinst BSD users and vice versa, just because of their OS? i think it comes for insecurites Linux people have about crappy memory managment, and BSD people getting defensive =0)
just my two cents

bsDaemon
dfree@inna.net
and my ISP runns FreeBSD, too!

Re:Start Linux vs BSD Flame war here (1)

randolfe (73819) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689271)

The *BSDs help each other *MUCH* more than they "fight". *BSDs diversity is on of its strengths and no weakness.

A good example of this is the recent beta release of the LAP (Linux Application Platform) for BSD/OS (BSDI). Our early testing has been extremely positive, with LAP running some native Linux bins faster than equivalent Linux installs. And, LAP was largely the efforts of cooperation between FreeBSD and BSDI, as I understand it.

Not limelight. (1)

doom (14564) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689272)

Good to see BSD get some of the limelight.

That's spotlight. Most of us here want to see free unixes in the spotlight. Microsoft, we want to see fading into the limelight.

Kids these days. No grasp of cliches at all.

Er.. I don't like all of that stuff you mentioned (2)

haggar (72771) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689273)

I love Linux, but the library incompatibilities not! That's a catastrophical issue that Debian seem to be taming somehow. Oh, and I don't like our little distro wars either!
In my company (it's a very huge neterprise) we are trying to estabilish a policy on using Linux in the labs. I have seen a lot of *BSD machines around, too, maybe as much as Linux hosts. However, noone seems to be supporting the *BSD people. They seem to be very quiet and just go along and use *BSD and not giving a dime about policies. Me being primarily a network man, I don't care that much if we use Linux or *BSD, I only care to find all the OSPF and BGP routing features on the platfor. The more TCP/IP management programs, the better. So far, *BSD has proved to be more useful to us. So I wish the *BSD people here could push with more force, even though I use Linux more.

Difference between *BSD and Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689274)

So what's the difference between *BSD and Linux (kernels) ? I mean in terms of features, speed,
and their merits.

(Everybody here says *BSD is superior to Linux,
I'm a Debian user, I don't have the time and
resources to try *BSD, so some explanations
are appreciated)

Re:Doing *bsd a disservice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689275)

Yep I'm not talking about flavours of Unix but intrinsic security, how many years did SunOS 4 fresh install put a /etc/hosts.equiv with a + + on your server? This has nothing to do with it being derived from 4.1BSD but with Sun bad practices. Compare Debian with RH and you'll got the point

Re:Difference between *BSD and Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689276)

There aren't enough differences to justify this flamewar and most of the flamers have no knowledge to understand most of the differences. Each kernel moves as its community needs changes. Its more a question of functionality/stability for a given set of applications than "speed". And its not just the kernel but userland too.One group of security paranoids created OpenBSD, a group of strict license terms is driving Debian, etc

"Supperior Security" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689277)

RH 6.0 Security Errata XFree86 (RHSA-1999:035-01) inews (RHSA-1999:033-01) amd (RHSA-1999:032-01) vixie-cron (RHSA-1999:030-02) wu-ftpd (RHSA-1999:031-01) in.telnetd (RHSA-1999:029-01) libtermcap (RHSA-1999:028-01) pump (RHSA-1999:027-02) squid (RHSA-1999:025-01) samba (RHSA-1999:022-02) gnumeric (RHSA-1999:023-01) net-tools (RHSA-1999:017-01) KDE (RHSA-1999:015-01) XFree86 (RHSA-1999:013-03) dev, rxvt, screen (RHSA-1999:014-01) kernel update Netscape INN xscreensaver That's definetely a lot of packages. Of course when you look at the package list, you'll notice, only 2 or 3 are Linux specific (e.g. Kernel update). That means, for the most part, the aforementioned programs are exploitable on all platforms they are used. Just because you are using freeBSD doesn't mean you are immune to the latest netscape hole, or the latest samba bug. Face it, most of the security problems in Linux are specific to applications. Most of those applications are shared among the free unices. That means they are also vulnerable on *BSD. Just because somebody doesnt mass distrubte an exploit, for the bsd's, doesn't mean they aren't vulnerable. This myth, of superior security, is just that, a MYTH.

Yes, limelight. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689278)

Limelight -is- an early form of spotlight, produced by a mixed-gas flame, directed at a cylinder of lime, concentrated by a lens into a strong beam. Look it up.

Re:Loving my FreeBSD-3.3 RC #3 Box (2)

guacamole (24270) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689279)

1. Easy to harden. I have two ports open - X (6000, 6010) and SSH (22). It was very easy to get my box to this stage. Much easier than it was with RH 6.0, which I have also hardened.

vi /etc/inetd.conf

2. Easy to upgrade. I have yet to see any tool surpass /usr/ports for pure ease of use.

apt-get install "insert-name-here" is even easier and faster.

I cvsup my ports every night, and in the morning I check the logs to see what package have been tweaked and configured and are ready to be loaded up. Then once or twice I week I cvsup the source code for the OS and do a make world. Upgrading FreeBSD is very very easy - cvsup is gorgeous and I've found nothing like it.

FreeBSDs package management is great but it is NO match to Debian GNU/Linux. Debian is even easier to upgrade.
1) You don't have to fix /etc by hand
2) You don't have to wait for hours for your stuff to compile (apt-get downloads binary packages unless told otherwise)
3) You have to remake all your ports one by one after upgrading system. On Debian all packages are a part of distribution. If you upgrade system everything is upgraded.

apt-get update; apt-get upgrade; will sync your system with the ftp mirror, download and install all updated packages.

On FreeBSD you need to 1)cvsup everything, 2)make buildworld, 3) make installworld, 4)see if /etc, changes, 5) remake new ports one by one ..

Sounds like it is more difficult to stay up to date on FreeBSD ..

4. One distribution, great docs, great organization. FreeBSD.org maintains everything I need to deal with regarding the OS in a clear and concise manner. The FreeBSD handbook is available online. I get CD subscriptions multiple times a year, at a good price. I find the linux world of distros rather confusing. FreeBSD makes it easier for me to know the "source of truth".

FreeBSD handbook is great, but then most of the major linux distributions(Debian and RedHat) have such handbooks too (usually online too) + a huge collection of online docs at LDP [unc.edu]

Don't get me wrong, FreeBSD is a great system, I would choose it over RedHat in most cases. However, I also choose Debian GNU/Linux over FreeBSD because this distribution is so well engineered and it is easier to maintain than any other *nix operating system.

Re:"Supperior Security" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689280)

Even as a Linux user ... you are in urgent need of some reading. BSD security is slightly different from running X or not running X. I'm using Linux too, mainly because when I started BSD was out of reach as the phone costs in Europe forbode me to download it via my crappy 9600 modem. Your argumentation though ... /dev/null.

Re:"Supperior Security" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689281)

would you care to provide more detail? I am using both, although I tend to lean more towards Linux. However, everytiem I hear this 'supperior security' bs, there is never any basis for it. Last time I checked, the majority of the code for X under Linux and X under BSD is the same. Of course, several distributions have different ways to make X somewhat more secure (e.g. Xwrapper, or what not), but teh buffer overflows exist in the versions for Linux and *BSD, not just Linux.

You, sir, do not understand cliches. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689282)

It's not "fading into the limelight", it's "wading into the slimefight". My, that's a lovely papaya.

Re:"Supperior Security" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689283)

Have you heard about "insecure install default packages and modes" ? Just look the latest vix cron xploit on RH only, or better, try to follow Venema and Postfix trying to don run the sendmail wrapper suid root on RH, or... That's the point, RH is running for nice features and user friendly setup, not for security. Even with massive distribution of script kiddies xploits the ratio of RH systems compromised far surpass the other Linux dists, even taken into account the relative numbers.RH behaves like a desktop os regards security

Re:Loving my FreeBSD-3.3 RC #3 Box (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689284)

Anyway I'd love to see a full system CVS tree for Debian plus a cvsupd server.

Free unix-like OS'es already dominate (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689285)

If you count by the number of users accessing sites - notice how all the big sites run BSD or Linux - Google, Yahoo, Hotmail... free OS's already dominate the web.

It's only when you treat lame FrontPage-generated websites that nobody ever visits as being EQUAL to the flagships of the web that NT pulls slightly ahead.

Re:"Supperior Security" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689286)

RedHat is not Linux.

The guy has a very good point; why can't you acknowledge that he's right?

Many of the pro-BSD advocates here act like MacZealots.

Re:Loving my FreeBSD-3.3 RC #3 Box (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689287)

Sounds like Debian is really well put together. I should probably take a look at it and install it over my RH 6.0, which I must say is simply a mess.

Thanks for the info.

Re:"Supperior Security" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689288)

Actually, there were two problems with vixie-cron (check bugtraq). One had been fixed in debain a while ago, while the otehr hadn't (see debain security advisory). I'm not sure if other distributions using vixie-cron are vulnerable, but I would imagine so. The problem with vixie-cron (besides tehf act that it does not have an active maintanier), was not a improperly setup package, it was insecure code. As for "ry to follow Venema and Postfix trying to don run the sendmail wrapper suid root on RH" .. I have no idea what that means. Even if your unscientific assumption that more rh boxes are hacked, the simple justification would be, that most of teh mass distributed exploits come with defaults set to exploits RedHat bins. Thus only a script kiddie with half a brain would be able to use the same exploit on another machine. 99% of the script kiddies dont have half a brain. The rest of your post deals with opinion and not fact.

Re:Free unix-like OS'es already dominate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689289)

In my country the .gov sites are the lame FP ones that make NT seems to be widespread. I believe this MS/gov afair is very common world wide.

Re:You know it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689290)

This must be faked!

Re:You know it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689291)

and this isn't flamebait because...?

Re:"Supperior Security" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689292)

Unscientific? Hu. Good Luck with RH.

Re:FreeBSD can't keep up (1)

bmetzler (12546) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689293)

GPL on the other hand makes commercial closed source software impossible. Both licenses have their limitations.

On the other hand, how many commercial closed source software packages do you see using the BSD license? The BSD License is an open source license, and although BSD licensed code can be used in a closed source project, the closed software isn't released under the BSD. I am making sense?

I agree with the poster above. If a company wants to develop open source software, they are going to use a self-defending license. However, I see a strong benefit to supporting BSD's in commercial closed source products over Linux. Linux carries the stigma of "requiring" an open source license to all software released for it. Think of the common response to when a company announces a product for Linux. "Where's the source?" The BSD's don't carry this stigma. I feel that no one in the BSD camp would have a problem if a company released a closed source application for a BSD. So I see, in the future, when people finally understand that Linux is a strong stable platform, and that the BSD's are no different, or perhaps even better, we'll see companies released closed products first for the BSD's, and open source products under the GPL for Linux first. But that's just MHO :-)

-Brent
--

Re:Doing *bsd a disservice? (1)

Zurk (37028) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689294)

what im curious about is why poeple use FreeBSD which has a lot more holes than OpenBSD and then claim its "more secure" than linux. thats a bunch of bullshit, IMHO. If you want security - go with OpenBSD..there is *no* other alternative among the BSDs which has the level of auditing openbsd has..or any other os has for that matter.

Re:Start Linux vs BSD Flame war here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689295)

That's true! That's why both Slackware and Red Hat will use multiple CPUs on SMP Intel boxes, whereas FreeBSD can but OpenBSD can't.

But enough sarcasm. I'd much rather have the same kernel and different userland (Linux) than different kernel and different userland (*BSD).

Re:Start Linux vs BSD Flame war here (1)

bugg (65930) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689296)

Both Open and FreeBSD have SMP support for x86 boxes. Theres more anti-FreeBSD FUD in the linux world then linux FUD in the windows world (no joke)

get your facts straight PLEASE! :P and of course the userland is the same!

Re:FreeBSD can't keep up (1)

Zurk (37028) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689297)

but not *legally*. thats the whole point of the GPL. If caught the company has to open *all* its code - and no one wants to do that.

Re:Umm.. (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689298)

I am not implying that a flawed belif should be spread merely that people should be allowed to keep their icons.

...but that doesn't ipso facto mean others are obliged not to say anything that would make it more difficult for those people to hold onto their beliefs. (You may believe it does, but I and I suspect many others don't, and aren't willing just to accept your belief that it does.)

If not for this myth of Linus Linux would never have made it into the lime light

Do you have any solid evidence to support this belief? Did the "myth of Linux" spring up prior to corporate/media/etc. interest in Linux, and help lead to that interest, or did it spring up as, or after, that interest started growing, with the myth being a hook on which journalists could hang their stories about Linux?

(I don't care whether people call it "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" or "Roland the headless Thomson gunner" - and there's a lot of stuff in a Linux distribution that doesn't come from the GNU project, so, if somebody insists that it be called "GNU/Linux" to give credit where credit is due, they should note that even "GNU/Linux" doesn't fully give credit where credit is due - but I've yet to see any solid evidence that the mere use of "GNU/Linux" somehow shatters a fragile myth upon which much of the popularity of Linux is based.)

Re:Loving my FreeBSD-3.3 RC #3 Box (1)

drachen (49779) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689299)

I've used both Linux (RedHat, Slackware, Debian) and FreeBSD. I started with Linux and eventually found my way on to FreeBSD (version 2.1.5 at the time). Everything about it was great. Stability, upgradability, documentation, hardware support, strong community development, code auditing, etc. FreeBSD pretty much could do everything that Linux could do, but usually better. Linux may be receiving all the glory these days, but the *BSD's are still alive and strong. I've seen just as rapid development of FreeBSD as I have seen with Linux. The ability to upgrade everything in one centralized way to keep everything relating to the operating system up to date is awesome. FreeBSD also supports a wide range of hardware like Linux (tho maybe not as much you will generally get most anything to work).

It's good to see the word continuing to spread about BSD and I hope this incites some of them "die hard" Linux users to give BSD a try. If you don't like it at first... you probably haven't used it long enough. I definitly love it.

--
James Crawford

Re:FreeBSD can't keep up (1)

Zurk (37028) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689300)

TiVo's giving the code to its customers on CDROM for $24..see the manual.

Re:its the way (1)

bugg (65930) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689301)

I get all of that with FreeBSD.
Games run fine with compat. /usr/ports/graphics/gimp, iirc
Features? How is that different?

Re:Umm.. (1)

Uart (29577) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689302)

Nobody is covering up the GNU participation, we just aren't changing the name of a successfull product. People know it as Linux. Half of the software in any given distribution is called GNU-somethingorother, isn't that enough recognition, that the GNU name is associated with the software written by the GNU??? I think it is. I know that Emacs is GNU, but emacs isn't linux, it isn't the kernel, it isn't the drivers, its a freat piece of software, and RMS deserves all the credit in the world for it, and the GNU derserves every bit of credit for, but Linus, and the community at large wrote Linux, its GPL, but ut isn't GNU.

Re:Factual issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689303)

Okay, so maybe Theo didn't leave NetBSD under the friendliest of circumstances, but to claim he was "kicked out" isn't really fair. He had disagreements about what the focus of the program should be, so he broke off to pursue the focus he felt was more important. This doesn't make either focus invalid, just points up the fact that you can't have one set of people focusing on both spreading platform support and securing all OS processes. The above comments imply that there's some kind of lasting enmity between the Open- and NetBSD projects, which simply isn't true. Go to theos.org and read the huge file Theo has there of the email exchange between NetBSD core and himself. "Kicked out" seems like a pretty good summary of the situation to me.

You are completly wrong (1)

delmoi (26744) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689304)

The person who *writes* the software can still do whatever they want with it, whether or not they use the GPL license. That includes selling it as closed source, or selling another license to someone who wants to use it in a close-source project.

so, SGI can still make money from XFS in IRIX, or they could sell it to Microsoft for use in windows NT. Right now, MS can't use XFS in windows without GPLing it. They can use anything that the BSD people think up however.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

Re:FreeBSD can't keep up (1)

bugg (65930) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689305)

Dont be silly. BSD style licensing makes more sense for a company that already has a codebase

Release a BSD-licensed version, watch the hackers improve it, take their improvments, encorporate it into their own commerical product

Plus theres the big 'ol advertising clause :D don't forget that.


I've yet to see someone release a lot of code under GPL or a similar license and have it not flop.

Look at Mozilla.

GPL is good for products by individuals with low resources and little code

BSD is good for established code bases. There. Its settled. End.

No Reason To Quarrel (1)

redmist (51090) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689310)


I think that an important thing to remember at this juncture in our *BSD/Linux discourse is that *BSD has strengths specific to itself, and so does Linux. *BSD may be more secure, and Linux may be more friendly to newbies and have more applications, but this is really besides the point.

The point is that they both have strengths and weakness's, but, after all, it's only an OS.

Re:You know it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689311)

NO ! Its OPENBSD you heretic !

Re:No Reason To Quarrel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689313)

These kiddies were created on a monopolistic OS world, they never worked on a mixed environment with VMS, VM, SunOS, DOS/packet drivers, OS/2, etc For them the world can have only one OS at a given instant of time, now it's Win* (were they type their homework) and tomorrow will be Linux. No space left for competition. This is just another evil consequence of Mr Gates culture on schools.

Re:Loving my FreeBSD-3.3 RC #3 Box (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689314)

Two points:

1. Debian package management is piss-poor in comparison to RH or FreeBSD when it comes to source. You simply can't do something equivalent to

rpm --rebuild ftp://foo.bar.com/baz.src.rpm

or

cd /usr/ports/baz ; make install

(system now downloads and compiles baz)

with any of the Debian package tools.

2. FreeBSD 3.3? Yeah, right. If you're going to be a liar, at least get your version numbers right. The latest is 3.2 or 4.0. There's no 3.3.

Re:Start Linux vs BSD Flame war here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689315)

different userland?

My experience with FreeBSD (2)

scrytch (9198) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689316)

Uses disklabel instead of partitions. Basically all of freebsd's partitions are extended partitions. Pain in the ass reading them in linux (I just gave up trying to mount one), but overall a rather nice feature.

Had to hand-edit a config file of nasty little abbreviated names to configure the kernel for reinstall. That just wasn't terribly fun.

No configurator/wizard for ppp, had to pretty much set that up by hand. Didn't take me long, but it sure was a speedbump.

Had some funny ideas about its root device when booted, had to fiddle with the boot loader to get it working. Comes up so often it's a FAQ, but maybe it should install the boot loader with the right parameters to begin with. Just a minor problem tho, and probably what i get for installing it on a secondary slave IDE drive in the first place.

Ports are great, but it also has a package manager that looked adequate at any rate. KDE installed as a package, worked nicely out of the box.

Now I'm wondering, will I be able to use the GLX 3d driver for my TNT card, and can I get sblive support for freebsd? I don't play many games on linux, but I like the possibility, and I do play the occasional mods or mp3's through it. Oh I wasn't too thrilled how aha152x support is specifically left out of the later kernels BTW. I know it's a crappy card, but I don't see it interfering with anything.

If only your article were not so full of FUD... (3)

cmc (44956) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689320)

FUD, you ask? Yes!

2. Easy to upgrade. I have yet to see any tool surpass /usr/ports for pure ease of use. apt-get install "insert-name-here" is even easier and faster.

FreeBSD also allows binary package installation.
$ pkg_add ftp//:url_to_package

FreeBSDs package management is great but it is NO match to Debian GNU/Linux. Debian is even easier to upgrade.
1) You don't have to fix /etc by hand

This is nonsense. Package management has nothing to do with the /etc directory. FreeBSD uses CVSup for that, and there is an excellent port which can update /etc for you automagically called mergemaster [freebsd.org].

2) You don't have to wait for hours for your stuff to compile (apt-get downloads binary packages unless told otherwise)

FreeBSD also has gradual binary upgrades for both the -STABLE and -CURRENT systems known as "snapshots". See ftp://current.freebsd.org [freebsd.org].

3) You have to remake all your ports one by one after upgrading system. On Debian all packages are a part of distribution. If you upgrade system everything is upgraded.

What gives you this idea? I've got a whole lot of ports I've preserved across many dozens of FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT recompiles over several months:

  • GIMP
  • Many KDE apps (though I use GNOME mainly now)
  • nmap
  • The XFree86 stuff
  • Window Maker
  • Eterm
  • pdksh
  • vMac
  • jade
  • XAnim
etc...
FreeBSD handbook is great, but then most of the major linux distributions(Debian and RedHat) have such handbooks too (usually online too) + a huge collection of online docs at LDP

Re:Loving my FreeBSD-3.3 RC #3 Box (1)

cmc (44956) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689321)

2. FreeBSD 3.3? Yeah, right. If you're going to be a liar, at least get your version numbers right. The latest is 3.2 or 4.0. There's no 3.3.

Actually, 3.3-RC is the branch that's going to become 3.3-RELEASE in a few days; if you'll notice, it's what you get when you CVSup your 3.2-STABLE system.

The average slashdotter..pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689329)

Regarding your first comment: apt-get source downloads the source to a package. Fix it up how you like it and run "debian/rules binary" to build a .deb. apt-get -b source downloads and rebuilds a package. Regarding your second comment: FreeBSD is developed using CVS using two source branches at once. One group focuses on the next major release, 4.0, in FreeBSD-CURRENT while another focuses on the next minor release, 3.3, in FreeBSD-STABLE. The guy said he is running 3.3 RC #3, so he must be running code he got out of FreeBSD-STABLE. Regarding the general tone of your post: Don't accuse people of being liars or it will come back and bite you in the ass

Re:Loving my FreeBSD-3.3 RC #3 Box (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689330)

2. FreeBSD 3.3? Yeah, right. If you're going to be a liar, at least get your version numbers right. The latest is 3.2 or 4.0. There's no 3.3.

Wrong! FreeBSD is at 3.3 Release Candidate 3. Please do a cvsup and check it out.

Re: Factual issues (2)

gr (4059) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689331)

Anonymous Coward wrote:
Go to theos.org and read the huge file Theo has there of the email exchange between NetBSD core and himself. "Kicked out" seems like a pretty good summary of the situation to me.

First off, that's theos.com [theos.com]

Second, the file you describe isn't up right now, but I imagine it belongs under theos.com/deraadt [theos.com] somewhere.

Third, I think I've read it before, and it displays some flaring tempers, but the basic issue was that Theo wanted to go a direction the Core didn't. Also, Theo has made it pretty clear that this is ancient history. The Open- and NetBSD projects are on amicable terms now and regularly kick code back and forth between their CVS repositories.

I've used it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689332)

I use FreeBSD every day, but I prefer Linux overall. It's just a matter of personal preference.

I like the fact that Linux leans more toward SysV, like the Solaris systems I also use. FreeBSD reminds me too much of SunOS 4 (at least the *BSDs have fixed the mbuf thing...hello, Sun!?!), which I never really cared for.

Runlevels are a Good Thing(tm). ps -ef...you'll feel better in the morning.

In the big picture, the differences between Linux, FreeBSD, other BSDs, Solaris, etc., are not all that great. Pick one, pick two, pick 'em all, and have fun.

I will use whichever of these gets the job done in the most efficient way possible, while still not being a major pain the ass.

The only OS I really *hate* dealing with is NT. It has earned my hatred over three years of flakiness.

Re:Loving my FreeBSD-3.3 RC #3 Box (1)

norn (19414) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689333)

pkg_add -r
-r Use the remote fetching feature. This will determine the appropriate objformat and release and then fetch and install the package.
(eg: pkg_add -r gimp)
You forget that ports are just the front
end to the package system. Packages are built
nightly.

'nuff said.

Re:BSD (1)

T-Punkt (90023) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689334)

> i don't get why Linux users are agsinst BSD users and vice versa, just because of their OS?

It's the typical stupid "my d*ck is longer" or "my daddy's car is faster" game kids play in kindergarden.

I try to care not too much about it but sometimes when I'm in this special mood I join the game.

*BSD or Linux?
The answer is: Yes!

Re:BSD (2)

Arandir (19206) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689336)

"Only thing i want to know is, why is BSD a programme, and Linux an operating system, when *BSD is the kernel, and the libraries and the tools, and linux is just a kernel?"

Simple, Linux is the name of the kernel, operating system, and the name of most distributions. Likewise, FreeBSD is also the name of the kernel, OS and distro.

Now I'm sure that this will get me flames since I didn't mention GNU/Linux. So I will. GNU/Linux is the name of a distribution, namely that non-existant distribution provided by the FSF. When RMS started the GNU project, he didn't set out to create an OS. Instead he wanted to make an OS plus everything else needed for normal everyday use. To quote, "The GNU system includes programs that are not GNU software, programs that were developed by other people and projects for their own purposes, but which we can use because they are free software." Thus, RMS was creating what we today call "distributions." Create a small core OS (which isn't complete yet) and add to it the best of free software in every category.

Who ever puts it names it. The first Linux distribution was called "Linux", so that's why people continue to say it, when technically it should be "Redhat Linux", "Debian GNU/Linux", "SuSE Linux", or whatever else the makers named it.

Re:FreeBSD can't keep up (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689338)

Under the GPL, their competitors can still pilfer their work, they just have to keep it open, that's all.

However, I see companies using other licenses instead: ASPL, Jikes, QPL, NPL, SCPL, etc.

GLX and the TNT2 on FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1689340)

There's an article up on FreeBSDRocks (http://www.freebsdrocks.com) telling how to compile the nVidia stuff to work on FreeBSD. It worked fine for me.

Re:My experience with FreeBSD (1)

T-Punkt (90023) | more than 14 years ago | (#1689342)

> Now I'm wondering, will I be able to use the GLX 3d driver for my TNT card

I can give you a definite "YES" to this question though I haven't tried it myself (don't have a TNT and don't run FreeBSD).

Here's a step-by-step instruction:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-i386/1999/07/0 4/0008.html

It's for NetBSD but better than nothing in case you don't find any HowTo for FreeBSD.
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...