Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

OpenBSD Foundation Announced

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the check-it-out dept.

BSD 151

OpenBDSfan writes "KernelTrap is reporting on the creation of the OpenBSD Foundation, a Canadian not-for-profit corporation intended to support OpenBSD and related projects, including OpenSSH, OpenBGPD, OpenNTPD, and OpenCVS. The announcement explains, "the OpenBSD Foundation will initially concentrate on facilitating larger donations of equipment, funds, documentation and resources. Small scale donations should continue to be submitted through the existing mechanisms.""

cancel ×

151 comments

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

too bad *BSD is dying (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19993749)

..yep. Dying, as in going to die. The end.

Re:too bad *BSD is dying (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19994319)

Link to netcraft or it didn't happen!

Accounced? (5, Funny)

Shambhu (198415) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993755)

s/check-it-out dept./spell-check-it dept./

Re:Accounced? (0, Offtopic)

howlingmadhowie (943150) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993791)

i read 'asconced'. which reminded me of drinking a yard of ale at ocford university. though i can't imagine theo being against that.

Re:Accounced? (1, Funny)

jkrise (535370) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993807)

s/check-it-out dept./spell-check-it dept./

Heh... actually, the spell-check-it dept. accounced they are absconscding, it seems they have abandondoned /. after spelling nazis attack them everyday!

Re:Accounced? (0, Offtopic)

AliasTheRoot (171859) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994455)

Godwined already...

NOT a mispelling. (2, Funny)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993985)

'Accounced' is an openBSD style announcement - one that can be held accountable

Re:NOT a mispelling. (-1, Redundant)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994159)

'Accounced' is an openBSD style announcement - one that can be held accountable

Yeeeesh! Informative? WTF do I have to do to get the +1 Funnies I so desperately crave?

Re:NOT a mispelling. (1, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994213)

well hmmm.. like.. "Yay we're almost #1 in google rankings for accounced!" and given the reputation of the site, the word and definition would be retrieved from the internet by alien lifeforms thus coming to earth saying, "Accouncing Peace to all Toons..."

Accountable, but... (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994571)

'Accounced' is an openBSD style announcement - one that can be held accountable


Yes, that's great. But... does it actually have drivers for modern hardware? ;)

*BSD Troll-in-One returns! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19994137)

All the *BSD is dying posts are contained in this one post. If you have mod points, please mod this up so that everybody will know that *BSD is dying! No need to post your own, as it will only be redundant!

Oh, and if I've missed any, please add your troll as a reply and I'll include it in the next Troll-in-one.


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

The *BSD Wailing Song

What's left for me to see
In my ship I sailed so far
What can the answer be
Don't know what the questions are.
And after all I've done
Still I cannot feel the sun
Tell me save me
In the end our lost souls must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low.
Who knows what's really true
They say the end is so near
Why are we all so cruel
We just fill ourselves with fear.
And heaven and hell will turn
All that we love shall burn
Hear me trust me
In the end our lost sould must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low
Final curtain
Final curtain


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

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


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

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you BSD fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a BSD box (a PIII 800 w/512 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this BSD box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Emacs Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various BSD machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a BSD box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the BSD machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 800 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that BSD is a "superior" machine.

BSD addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a BSD over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.


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

It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying. Almost everyone knows that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.

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

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

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

Fact: *BSD is dying

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

1. You can not play games on it.
2. It cannot be used by my grandma.
3. It lacks a GUI of any note.
4. There is no support available for it.
5. It is an assortment of fragmented OSes.
6. It cannot be run on the x86 platform.
7. You have to compile everything and know C.
8. Support for the latest hardware is always poor.
9. It is incompatiable with GNU/Linux.
10.It is dying.



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

Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure , but why? Why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personas?

The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.


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

Elegy For *BSD

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

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

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



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

  • Gaping holes filled

  • Rotting corpse obsolete code
    BSD end near



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

BSD gets it's skeleton smashed at OSnews!

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

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


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

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


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

BSD you grow in the ghetto, living second rate
And your eyes will sing a song of deep hate.
The places you play and where you stay
Looks like one great big alley way.
You'll admire all the numberbook takers,
Thugs, BSD pimps and pushers, and the big money makers.



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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

What's left for me to see
In my ship I sailed so far
What can the answer be
Don't know what the questions are.
And after all I've done
Still I cannot feel the sun
Tell me save me
In the end our lost souls must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low.
Who knows what's really true
They say the end is so near
Why are we all so cruel
We just fill ourselves with fear.
And heaven and hell will turn
All that we love shall burn
Hear me trust me
In the end our lost sould must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low
Final curtain
Final curtain



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

Although it is true that BSD is dying, there are some helpful steps you can take ease your sorrow:

  • deal with the inevitable.
  • grieve for your loss.
  • move on.


Never let your emotions get mixed up with something as silly as a computer operating system. It isn't healthy. So BSD fails. Big whoop. Deal with it and move on.

Hope this helps.


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

Four new security advisories about *BSD:

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

2) Children should not play with dead things.

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

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


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

What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org], Version 1.0

Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.

Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.

These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents [theos.com] [theos.com] [theos.com] on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.

As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT [mit.edu] [mit.edu] [mit.edu] found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study. [rice.edu] [rice.edu] [rice.edu]

Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar [tuxedo.org] [tuxedo.org] [tuxedo.org], rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.

The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.

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

It is official; Netcraft confirms: The BSD dies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact: The BSD dies

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

Danger Will Robinson - TOO MANY BUGS

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


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

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

Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personas?

The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. That hope is long gone, replaced by an inconsolable despair. A mournful and plaintive nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.

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

PROOF THAT *BSD INFRINGES SCO COPYRIGHTS

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


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

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

That sucka be dead.

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

Deal with it. This is the truth.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Why does this section still exist?

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


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

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


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

BSD and AIDS

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Lights out, pard.

Somewhere, in a lonely hospital room,

*BSD is dying


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

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

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


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

POS

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


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

BSD can suck my hairy cock

I mean who gives a flying fuck about it all.

Install something halfway good.

Hint: Use Tux's OS

P.S. *BSD is dying.

Zealot Out.


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

BSD: Feeding tube re-iserted

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

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

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


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

It's fucking dying SHIT ON ME! It's official - Netcraft has fucking confirmed: *BSD is dying

Yet another cunting bombshell hit the "community" of *BSD asswipes when IDC recently confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of one single puny fucking percent of all servers. Coming hot on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more fucking market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is ingesting itself backwards, disappearing up its very own shitter, as fittingly exemplified by coming a piss poor dead last [samag.com] [samag.com] [samag.com] [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a cock-sucking Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] [amazingkreskin.com] [amazingkreskin.com] [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any fucking future at all for *BSD because that sorded, shit-filled, mutated testicle of an operating system is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink splashes across the accounting documents like a series of exploding bloodfarts. FreeBSD munches the most ass of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD cuntwipes Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying and its rotting corpse smells worse than a maggot, vomit, shit and piss cocktail.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the fucking numbers, shall we? OK!

OpenBSD wanker Theo states that there are a pathetic 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Oh, God, let's fucking see... The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore it's turd-suckingly obvious that there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore, by simple fucking arithmetic, there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. Surprise fucking surprise, this is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of those arseholes at Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD showed themselves to be a bunch of retarded tossers, went out of business and were taken over by BSDI who sell another special needs OS. Now BSDI is also a miserable failure, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house... pathetic.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily fucking declined in market share. *BSD is where it belongs, at death's door and its long term survival prospects are almost non-fucking-existant. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among moronic, dilettante shitheads. *BSD continues to Chew Satan's Dick And Fuck The Baby Jesus Up The Pooper. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD IS A FUCKING USELESS WASTE OF BITS AND IS DYING LIKE THE DOG THAT IT IS. IT MAKES ME SICK JUST THINKING ABOUT IT.

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

THE DEAD BSD SKETCH

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

A customer enters an operating system shop.

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

(owner hits the keys)

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

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

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

(pause)

Owner: Well, o'course it was spitting out those warnings! If I hadn't updated the kernel with an unstable development build, you might have had your FTP server compromised, and VOOM! Bye bye to your business.
Mr. Praline: "Server"?!? Mate, this OS wouldn't "serve" if you put four million volts through it! It's bleedin' demised!
Owner: No no! It's pining!
Mr. Praline: It's not pinin'! It's passed on! This OS is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! [lemis.com] It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. All major marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is extremely sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.*BSD's foot is in the grave.Development of *BSD nowadays is mired by bylaws, committees, reports and milestones. Technically, the *BSD project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips the ability of the developers to deliver. There's no simple solution to this. Why would anyone choose to use a *BSD over other faster, more stable systems? We can all agree that *BSD is a failure. Yet why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between myriad incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personalities? The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD. Fact: *BSD is an ex-operating system!!

(pause)

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

(pause)

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

(pause)

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

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

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

When spell-naziing, don't ever forghet (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994661)

Greenrd's Law [kuro5hin.org] .

not-for-profit? Off-topic, but.. (0, Offtopic)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994779)

Article says "non-profit", summary says "not-for-profit". Geez OpenBSDfan, what's wrong with the term "non-profit" ?

"Not-for-profit" only started being used when Americans started hating the French for not joining them at the beginning of the war with Iraq, for the exact same reason people starting renaming everything "freedom", like "freedom fries" et al. During that period at the beginning of the war, all I could think about was the Statue de la Liberté. Think about it.

It's nothing personal, I'm just venting because the term "not-for-profit" gets on my nerves, it's longer, awkward, and it came into being because of patriotic bigots who wanted to remove all things French with the mot du jour (freedom).
Disclaimer: I'm French Canadian, which may explain why I hate the unnecessary change, because it has unfortunately crossed the borders and begun getting used by some Canadians.

not-for-profit vs. non-profit (1)

zenyu (248067) | more than 7 years ago | (#19996239)

not-for-profit was being used long before the US invaded Iraq the first time. Each State in the USA and each Country has it's own laws and names for non-profits. Some even have both not-for-profits and non-profits and there is a slight difference between the two. "non-profit" is a good generic term, but if you are going by what is actually filed, it may be one or the other.

WTF (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19993757)

is accounced? http://www.google.com/search?q=accounced [google.com]

Re:WTF (4, Funny)

Antarius (542615) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994011)

I was accounced once. It's on my permanent record.

Another time I accounced my neighbours dog for barking while I was trying to sleep. I used a teaspoon. It was fun.

OpenCVS? (3, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993765)

Yep, cause this license [tigris.org] ain't free enough and, besides, we don't want anything that is better than CVS.

You're a codin' machine Theo, but I wish you could learn to play well with others.

Re:OpenCVS? (1, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993835)

we already have something that's better then CVS, it's called SVN. all this bickering and duplicated effort does is help the bad guys win.

Re:OpenCVS? (1, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993875)

Yep, I agree. It seems that the OpenBSD folks (not just Theo) think that SVN is too complicated to be secure. They want to stick with the "proven" CVS protocols and RCS file formats. And yeah, they always start from scratch because they've gotta make it BSD licensed.. and besides, it gives them a feeling of ownership.

This is a pretty common pattern. Complex == insecure to them. Which, to me, implies that secure == poverty. I like security as much as the next guy, but living in poverty because you're paranoid about security is not healthy.

Re:OpenCVS? (4, Insightful)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993919)

Complex == insecure to them. Which, to me, implies that secure == poverty.

No, you have your negation wrong.... If Complex == Insecure then !Complex = !Insecure, and thus Simple = Secure. The funny thing is: you cannot argue with that: simple is easier to audit and thus easier to audit. It really is that simple (Dah-dum!). Simple doesn't equate poverty, or a Lotus Elise is a poor-mans-car. (Having no radio, AC, etc...) Sorry for the "bad car analogy"(tm).

You also forget the target demographic for OpenBSD: this is not for your Desktop, nor even for your high-load server. You can use it for that, but the niche in which it lives is firewall, NAT, transparent bridging. Places where security matters more than anything else. Sure, a bit more complex to set up, you need to work more, but this is not your moms OS.

Re:OpenCVS? (2, Informative)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993977)

simple is easier to audit and thus easier to audit.

Should be: simple is easier to audit and thus easier to secure.

Re:OpenCVS? (2, Interesting)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994257)

It works either way. And if you're auditing it twice, that might be more secure.

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994135)

the niche in which it lives is firewall, NAT, transparent bridging
So not a revision control server which sits behind a firewall and therefore doesn't need to be as secure?

Yeah, figured.

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994363)

You do realise that their revision control server is accessible from the outside world over the internet, don't you? It probably sits behind a firewall, but the CVS ports must still be open.

Re:OpenCVS? (5, Informative)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994235)

No, you have your negation wrong.... If Complex == Insecure then !Complex = !Insecure, and thus Simple = Secure.
Technically you should say the following, where "->" is the symbol for "implies":

If Complex -> Insecure, then:
!Insecure -> !Complex; and
Secure -> Simple

Otherwise your method of reasoning would go like this:

Square = Four-sided-figure
!Square = !Four-sided-figure

. . . which doesn't make sense because then you could say "and thus, a non-square rectangle isn't a four-sided figure".

Good old Wikipedia has the details [wikipedia.org] .
 

Re:OpenCVS? (4, Funny)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994371)

Logical terminology! So We Meet Again, My old Arch Nemesis. ;-)

That's for clearing that up, you are of course 100% right.

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994391)

Logical terminology is a bit like the Master in Doctor Who. Despite being burned/flamed to death attempting some evil scheme on numerous occasions, he always appears in later episodes unharmed.

Re:OpenCVS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19994735)

Actually, there is one more thing to nitpick about.

Complex == Insecure
!Complex = !Insecure
Simple = Secure

I interpret this as "Complex" equals "Insecure", "!Complex" is assigned the value of "!Insecure", and "Simple" is assigned the value of "Secure". The second clause is wrong, because assignment requires an lvalue. So...

Complex == Insecure
!Complex == !Insecure
Simple = Secure
...which means "Simple is Secure, no proof", which is what you seemed to imply. :)

Re:OpenCVS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19996223)

The second clause is wrong, because assignment requires an lvalue
WTF? You do realise that not everything in the world is written in a (C-like syntax) programming language, right? Or are you going to bitch at me for forgetting the colons that go with my question marks?

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994405)

Ok, maybe OpenBSD isn't aimed at the desktop, but apparently PC-BSD [pcbsd.org] is.

Re:OpenCVS? (2, Informative)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994593)

Yes? Which is based on FreeBSD and not OpenBSD. FreeBSD which is also used by many people on the desktop (I did a while ago, but that laptop died, unrelated to FreeBSD of course ;-) ). They are really only related by their name and their license. OpenBSD is a fork of NetBSD, which came from 386BSD which also forked into FreeBSD. [wikimedia.org] Let's say OpenBSD and PC-BSD are something like cousins.

Re:OpenCVS? (2, Funny)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994829)

Given that OpenBSD is a fork of a fork of the parent of FreeBSD, it's more like OpenBSD is FreeBSD's nit picking, purist pain in the ass nephew while FreeBSD is the sagely, less idealistic uncle. I guess that makes NetBSD is the slut Aunty for running on everyone's hardware.

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994959)

True... However, pointing out that PC-BSD is for the desktop is like pointing out that Ubuntu Linux is for the desktop when the discussion is about Freesco....

Re:OpenCVS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19996253)

Uh, OpenBSD is a fork of NetBSD...
Both NetBSD & FreeBSD forked from 386BSD.

CIS TOOL 1.x MULTIPLATFORM SECURITY TEST BSD FOLKS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19996191)

LOL... more *NIX "big talk" about being "so secure"...

"You also forget the target demographic for OpenBSD: this is not for your Desktop, nor even for your high-load server. You can use it for that, but the niche in which it lives is firewall, NAT, transparent bridging. Places where security matters more than anything else. Sure, a bit more complex to set up, you need to work more, but this is not your moms OS." - by Corporate Troll (537873) on Thursday July 26, @04:51AM (#19993919)

Well, ok then: Take that OpenBSD setup of yours, & run this test on it:

http://www.cisecurity.org/bench.html [cisecurity.org]

And see if you can beat this score on it (which was gained on Windows Server 2003 SP #2):

http://img.techpowerup.org/070618/APK14SecurityPoi ntsCISToolResult84735.jpg [techpowerup.org]

Via this "12 step program" (methods used to obtain that score on a modern Windows NT-based OS (2000/XP/Server 2003 & yes, it works on VISTA too):

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?s=fe3 a450dc9f3055920edd0fcea17b27b&p=375355#post375355 [techpowerup.com]

I have repeatedly challenged *NIX people to this test, 17 times now (this will be the 18th in fact) here @ /. & other sites (Linux oriented ones) & to date:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=254685&cid=199 85487 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240571&cid= 19630923 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240283&cid=196 31141 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240501&c id=19630965 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241957&cid= 19662703 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241913&cid= 19662485 [slashdot.org]
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238993&cid =19578849 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243071&cid= 19690705 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243071&cid= 19691091 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240283&cid=196 22485 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=244821&cid= 19736881 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=245695&cid= 19761821 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=246583&c id=19779437 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=252367&c id=19946243 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.sys-con.com/read/382946_f.htm [sys-con.com]

Not a SINGLE *NIX user has surpassed the score I obtain using a custom-hardened setup of Windows Server 2003 SP #2 fully hotfix patched... not a one, though I constantly see/hear this @ this website:

"Windows IS LESS SECURE THAN (insert *NIX variant here)"

I saw different results though, where my setup of Windows Server 2003 SP #2 was tested on THE CENTER FOR INTERNET SECURITY'S MULTIPLATFORM ONLINE SECURITY TEST... & no *NIX user proving me wrong, to date this year... not even ONCE!

Plenty of "spinmaster" b.s. & evasions though, lol!

Talk's cheap (especially the rant about *NIX being more secure than Windows can be in the bolded quote above) - show me a score that outdoes mine, on a *NIX variant on this multiplatform test! ... & then, MAYBE? I'd believe that "rant" I see @ *NIX sites (yes, including this one) that I stated above in the bolded quote above...

(I would like to see BSD variants especially take this test, OR, SELinux kernel hook bearing addons for filesystems security via MAC (mandatory access control labels) LINUX users give this a go mostly).

APK

P.S.=> One thing I have noted is, it is VERY DIFFICULT to "argue with the numbers/facts", & there is NO disputing those which I have put up... I would like to see BSD & SELinux kernel add-on hooks to various LINUX distros take this test though, & exceed my score, as NONE HAVE TO DATE!

If they could/do? Then, we can discuss HOW you did so, & what techniques were employed - the test is NOT perfect, because I can demonstrate cleanly & have to its coders, where it "messes up" on 4 points I was downscored on (thus, my 84.735 score IS ACTUALLY HIGHER really), & this MIGHT happen on *NIX variants too, but still - PUT YOUR MONIES WHERE YOUR *NIX MOUTHS ARE, & take that CIS Tool 1.x test Penguins & BSD Devils especially... until then? Your 'blusterings' are only that... apk

Re:OpenCVS? (4, Insightful)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993975)

Just read up a little bit about OpenBSD, and you'll notice they are not afraid of complexity. Examples that come to mind are pf, OpenBGPD [openbgpd.org] , W^X, etc.

Besides, choosing a stable and secure algorithm is not a bad idea. See this post for a valid example [undeadly.org] .

Finally, I can't help but notice that Subversion is available as an OpenBSD package [openbsd.org] , so quit your yakking already.

Sheesh, anti-OpenBSD trolls these days.

Re:OpenCVS? (0, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994067)

it's not trolling when your point is valid - there's no need to recreate CVS, the license for CVS is perfectly fine and if you don't like CVS because of it's various problems, there's svn which is great.

the main source of theo thinking SVN isn't secure, is because that control freak didn't write it himself. which is ironic because openssl and openssh are 2 packages responsible for huge security holes over the years, both of which are his babies.

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994365)

To be fair openssl and openssh are far more widely used than CVS. Also although in my opinion it's a waste of effort to rewrite GPL software under the BSD license that's the developer's choice, they can develop whatever they want. If they dislike the GPL code or the GPL license enough to want to rewrite it that's their business.

Re:OpenCVS? (3, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994625)

the license for CVS is perfectly fine

Perhaps for your purposes. However, the CVS license it not consistent with the goals and philosophies of OpenBSD. So they created OpenCVS with a license that is appropriate.

the main source of theo thinking SVN isn't secure, is because that control freak didn't write it himself.

Do you have a link pointing to his quote on that?

openssl and openssh are 2 packages responsible for huge security holes over the years, both of which are his babies.

OpenSSL [openssl.org] is not Theo's "baby".

OpenSSH's security, while not perfect, has been excellent. Your unsubstantiated attribution of "huge security holes" to it seems to be intended as little more than a troll, since you did not provide any citations.

Re:OpenCVS? (5, Insightful)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994683)

the main source of theo thinking SVN isn't secure, is because that control freak didn't write it himself. which is ironic because openssl and openssh are 2 packages responsible for huge security holes over the years, both of which are his babies.

Except, of course, you have no fscking idea what you are talking about, since OpenSSL is not developed, or related to, OpenBSD and Theo de Raadt in any way [openssl.org] .

As far as OpenSSH security holes [secunia.com] are concerned, please excuse me while I laugh. Most of these vulnerabilities are either denial of service, or someone who messed up with their OpenSSH implementation. A lot of people think they can improve on a perfectly good product by adding security holes in it.

As far as OpenCVS is concerned, they explain their rationale quite clearly:

The OpenCVS project was started after discussions regarding the latest GNU CVS vulnerabilities that came out. Although CVS is widely used, its development has been mostly stagnant in the last years and many security issues have popped up, both in the implementation and in the mechanisms.

Now, let me ask you: what part of "development has been mostly stagnant in the last years and many security issues have popped up" don't you understand?

Allow me to finish by adding this: read up a little bit before you start trolling. But that would be a waste of a perfectly good troll, right? Sheesh. Go back under your bridge, little troll.

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994205)

Dude, we're just saying for them to not re-invent CVS. There's better systems available. Move on. All the time they spend rewriting CVS to be secure they could spend auditing SVN and help more users than just themselves.

All we're saying is that we should work together instead of fragmenting all the time.

Why is that a troll?

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994273)

Dude, we're just saying for them to not re-invent CVS. There's better systems available. Move on. All the time they spend rewriting CVS to be secure they could spend auditing SVN and help more users than just themselves.
Or you could stop telling people what they should or shouldn't do in their spare time. If someone has a passion for writing really great CVS software, what's it to you?
 

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994335)

We aren't "telling" them what to do, we are pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that a better CVS already exists.

hell it might save them wasting their spare time, get the point?

Re:OpenCVS? (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994649)

OpenBSD has a long history with CVS. It was the first open source project to run a public CVS server; previously all open source projects had run a private CVS server that only a few people could access, and published snapshots as tarballs.

They have a lot of revision history in their CVS repository, and feel it's important to maintain this due to the way in which their auditing process works. They might switch to something else at some point, but for now CVS is the best way they have of ensuring compatibility with CVS.

Currently, they use GNU CVS, but there have been a number of security problems with it in the recent past. Part of this comes from the fact that, when it was written, GNU projects used the private-CVS-public-snapshots development model, so only trusted people got access to the CVS server anyway. After fixing a few security holes in GNU CVS, the team decided that the code was in such a state that doing a full audit and getting it up to the standard required by OpenBSD would be more effort than writing a replacement, so they decided to replace it instead. So far, they have OpenRCS, which is a drop-in replacement for GNU RCS (on which CVS is built). Now they are working on the CVS component, and seem to be making good progress.

It's really not hard to understand. Considering the code quality of the rest of OpenBSD, I'd be more inclined to use their version than the GNU one if I needed CVS. Take a look at the recent BIND vulnerability that affected every platform except OpenBSD for an example.

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

k8to (9046) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994955)

If I needed to run a world-facing CVS implementation, yes. The original CVS and current gnu CVS do not impress me from design to implementation. When I needed to set up CVS for remote developer access, I required developers to go through a signup process which involved setting up an SSH key for each, by which they accessed CVS. I had every faith that CVS was a leaky, dangerous server, easily exploited, and we were a moderate target.

However, I must echo the sentiments above. CVS is problematic partially because its design is so old it stems from an age when internet security was not on the radar. But its age comes with all kinds of other problems too. That anyone who needs a secure publically-accessible versioning control system would seek to reimplement CVS instead of cooperating with one of the healthy active growing version control systems...

Hmm, I guess I will not take the cheap shot.

Re:OpenCVS? (2, Interesting)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 7 years ago | (#19995215)

I've worked with CVS. It's limitations are why OpenBSD exists: Theo de Raadt was kicked off of the CVS commit list for NetBSD, with excellent cause, andn this left him unable to gracefully publish his own fork for others to review or integrate.

Almost every other major source control system would have allowed him to maintain his own fork and publish it, keeping his software synced with or development integrated with the main source tree: Bitkeeper, git, Subversion, Perforce, etc. CVS fails this task pretty seriously.

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

RazzleDazzle (442937) | more than 7 years ago | (#19996091)

And you forget the most important reason for them to write OpenCVS. Each developer works on whatever project or program that he or she wants to. Theo and others might encourage others onto certain projects but he does not dictate programmer XYZ needs to work on program ABC. They do what interests them and what is useful for them. Now, if it happens that your needs/desires matches up with 1 or more programmers' desires then you are in luck and likely good things will happen on what it is you're interested in. Fortunately for those of us that are interested in having an overall secure OS, we're in luck as all or more of the OpenBSD developers also have security as a key design and implementation goal in all of their programming for the OS.

Re:OpenCVS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19995277)

But SVN sucks. Linus said so.

Re:OpenCVS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19994217)

Huh?

What, please tell, is complex about W^X? (For those who don't know: executable pages are not writeable). I think you have no idea what you're talking about. And the moderators neither.

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994653)

I feel the OpenBSD guys are right. In general, a simpler system is less likely to have bugs (and hence security holes) than a more complex one. Indeed the first rule of programming is 'keep it simple'. CVS is an old program, having started life as a collection of shell scripts around RCS and then been gradually borged into a C program. CVS development hasn't exactly been rapid in the past few years and it is barely being maintained (look at the CVS site on Savannah).

CVS has had plenty of security holes and still does (like this one [nongnu.org] I found recently). In many ways it's a classic example of the kind of crusty traditional Unix program that the OpenBSD people have done such a good job securing, rewriting and replacing over the past decade.

As for moving to Subversion - plenty of people are happy with CVS; it has its limitations, but what it does, it does well. The project has a lot of infrastructure built round CVS and if the development process ain't broke, why fix it?

You are VERY confused. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19994761)

There are no bad guys, and there is no contest to be won or lost. Why do so many slashtards try to push their irrational FUD on to open source projects? If you want to win something then go compete at something. The OpenBSD team is just making an OS they like because they like it. There's no way to lose at that.

Re:OpenCVS? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19995085)

Oh yeah, dump a decade's worth of development process because you're a lazy fat cunt? We use fucking UNIX you pussy, we like UNIX tools which we have used for a long time. So fuck off you whiney shitbag and stick your fucking gentoo cd up your fat ass!

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

Dr. Smoove (1099425) | more than 7 years ago | (#19996421)

Flamebait? This AC speaks truth. Sick of seeing all the Ubuntu fanboys talking shit on here.

Re:OpenCVS? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19993847)

There are already a myriad of CVS clones. Who cares if there's another?

Re:OpenCVS? (5, Informative)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993955)

Actually, I believe there was a good reason to create OpenCVS. Lots of sites still use CVS, but development GNU CVS is a mess and has become effectively unmaintained (leaving several vulnerabilities open). OpenCVS is intended for those sites who, for whatever reason, wish to continue using CVS, but also want some degree of security.

Re:OpenCVS? (5, Informative)

zyche (784345) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994311)

What people seems to forget is that even if CVS usage is replaced with something else (like for example SVN) it doesn't make all the old CVS repositories go away. So, 20 years into the future (when we have flying cars which runs on water) you sit there (on your levitating chair) and wants to extract some files from an old CVS repo you found in the company's archive. No problem, except that GNU CVS isn't available on SuperDuper Windows Extra Deluxe 2027, due to the fact that code base and build system is such a mess that no one manages to make packages for Cygwin anymore (that and the fact that Microsoft (Operating Systems Division) does not any longer permit that GPLed software is used on its products.

Ok, I'm exaggerating, but the point is that there is no fault in having a clean and maintainable code base for the future - even if it's only used for handling legacy projects.

Besides, who are we to tell these people how to use their spare time? If anyone want to re-implement Unix in Brainf*ck, then let them.

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

Dramacrat (1052126) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994463)

That's my main concern, here. What kind of Stalinesque wet dream do they harbour, trying to tell people what to work on in their free time or what to develop?

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994467)

Then you use the CVS-to-SVN migration tool.

I tell ya one thing though.. all those pig-headed people who are reluctant to upgrade their CVS servers already are even less likely to do it if OpenCVS is a success.

Re:OpenCVS? (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994667)

The reason OpenBSD didn't do this is that the CVS-to-SVN migration tool does (did?) not properly migrate all of the history information. I suspect this is a very hard problem, given the semantic differences between CVS and SVN. If it's solved, then there becomes much less of a need for OpenCVS, but until then some people would rather use a maintained and audited version of CVS than an unmaintained insecure one.

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

umonkey (843174) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994555)

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994687)

APR is a fairly complicated project, but a lot of that comes from the 'portable' part. It would probably be relatively simple to write a non-portable version for OpenBSD. This would allow SVN to be used on OpenBSD without the dependency on Apache 2.0 code.

Re:OpenCVS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19994621)

The strange (and perhaps depressing to you) thing is, Theo not only started his own flavour of BSD, but it is a great OS. Respected by people who know what they're talking about. When someone achieves something worthwhile, is there any point to whining how said person might not 'get along well with others'? It seems very small and pathetic. In a perfect world, this deserves a (+5 Insightful)

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19995123)

Dude, RMS made a whole movement of zealots and encouraged the creation of billions of lines of code.. doesn't change the fact that he's a smelly hippie.

You seem to think that me saying Theo doesn't get along with others is somehow belittling his work.. it isn't.

It's belittling his ability to get along with others.

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

ir (104) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994827)

I don't know about the OpenBSD guys, but in my experience, Subversion is a total piece of crap. Even worse than CVS.

So does this mean we'll finally (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19993789)

...be able to download sum fukkin ISOs??????

Re:So does this mean we'll finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19993889)

Regardless of the fact that they now have an organisation to handle large-scale donations, the OpenBSD project is still dependent on sale of cds to fund its' development (IE to pay its' programmers).

You might want to persue other alternatives which are not only more featureful, but are financially stable enough that not only are they solvent enough to provide you with downloadable iso images [opensolaris.org] , but they can even mail you dvds free of charge! [opensolaris.org]

Mind you, if you still insist on using code written by people incapable of holding a real job, there's always yubuntu linux; I understand they also provide free ISO images as well...

Re:So does this mean we'll finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19994077)

Or just download the cdboot ISO and install from ftp. christ.

Re:So does this mean we'll finally (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19994831)

Fuck off jew.

Accounced? (-1, Redundant)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993793)

No definitions were found for accounce.

Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.

Re:Accounced? (1, Redundant)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993907)

Thankfully, nautral lagnuage has evolved enough redudnancy to provide for fairly reliable error corectiuon.

Re:Accounced? (0, Redundant)

sgbett (739519) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994177)

I was at the back of the queue when mod points were given out, but +1 Insightful. Certainly a more interesting comment then the usual "editors can't spell" crowd.

Has anyone ever considered that they are doing it on purpose, just for the laff like. Fished in etc

Re:Accounced? (0, Redundant)

fbjon (692006) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994635)

I didn't even notice until the last word...

Re:Accounced? (1)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 7 years ago | (#19996519)

The brain has some kick-ass error correction built-in. That's why your statement can stay readable when condensed to this:

Thkfly, ntrl lngag hs evlvd engh rdndncy to prvd fr frly rlibl err crrctn.

Even better, it's compressed, and can be decompressed by using the error correction already present and running. Score!

Was this typed (-1, Offtopic)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993805)

on one of those five finger keyboards? I believe you need all five fingers to make the work, right? Maybe he lost a couple to an angry sea bass.

Word. Go back to your old keyboard. You only need one finger to work it.

Re:Was this typed (0, Offtopic)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993821)

Don't mind me. I leave out whole words.

Should read: I believe you need all five fingers to make the thing work, right?

Accounced? Netcraft sonfirmes... (0, Offtopic)

laejoh (648921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993809)

spelling at slashdot is dying.

Interesting (3, Insightful)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993819)

I wonder what Theo will say about all this? 9 times out of 10 he tends to scorn things, so I wonder if he'll embrace this with open arms, or just shun it [forbes.com] like he does most things.

Either way i'm happy. At least there's even more support for open source software and anything non-windows related.

Re:Interesting (2, Insightful)

NicM (188290) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993899)

> I wonder what Theo will say about all this? 9 times out of 10 he tends to scorn things,
> so I wonder if he'll embrace this with open arms, or just shun it like he does most things.

This is an official OpenBSD effort, all of the directors are OpenBSD developers. I'm sure
Theo was pretty central to setting it up, he is unlikely to shun it.

Re:Interesting (4, Interesting)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993929)

Given the fact that it was stated by Bob Beck, a member of the OpenBSD programming teams, I think he will be OK with it.

Besides, the OpenBSD Foundation stated very clearly [openbsdfoundation.org] that it will focus on large donations (of funds, hardware, etc) and that small donations should be sent directly to OpenBSD through the usual channels. RTFA and all that.

I do think Theo will be A-OK with that.

Theo vs !Theo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19994807)

I dunno, though. Given the facts that it was started by someone other than Theo, will be run by someone other than Theo and will accept donations from people who aren't Theo I think we can safely expect fireworks somewhere down the line ;)

Did anyone notice the spelling error? (1)

Cyberllama (113628) | more than 7 years ago | (#19993927)

OpenNTPD
I'm pretty sure they meant "OpecCTPD".

OpenCVS? (0, Troll)

egrinake (308662) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994005)

The OpenCVS project seems kind of pointless to me. I can't imagine any new projects would use CVS, with so many better options out there (Subversion, Bazaar, etc), and if existing projects are worried about the security of CVS they would probably be better off converting to one of these other systems as well.

The OpenCVS developers are of course free to do whatever they want, but I'd think their talents would be better spent on something more useful than a CVS rewrite (or fork, or whatever).

Re:OpenCVS? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19994065)

CVS has the advantage that it is a fairly simple system compared to for example subversion, and it has also been stable for a long time. This means that it is much easier to audit and secure the code, compared to more complex tools. I have yet to see anyone claim the subversion is inherently more secure than CVS, or the securing subversion is somehow easier than securing CVS.

Re:OpenCVS? (1)

MaoTse (624765) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994221)

CVS stays very much relevant to whole BSD community (not only OpenBSD).
It's because of the tradition, sure - and rather faint convicting force of some other version control system ...

Just look at the way CVSup http://www.cvsup.org/ [cvsup.org] is used.

These people just need a CVS software they would like to maintain for some time in the future.

Accounced (4, Funny)

LittleImp (1020687) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994031)

Slashdot is according to Google already the Nr. 2 Source for accouncing!

Re:Accounced (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19994389)

But only for the past participle "accounced". The verb "accounce" clearly is in very common usage [scroogle.org] .

I have too much time and not enough sense :-|

WHY ARE YOU USING BEASTIE LOGO? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19994047)

WHY THE FUCK are you using beastie logo with this story!? Good ole' Beastie belongs to FreeBSD and Jordan Hubbard in the first place! Get your hands off! Jordan is cool where as Theo sucks and is generally a pain in everybody's ass.

Netcraft confirms it! (1, Funny)

Glowing Fish (155236) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994165)

BSD is ACCOUNCED!

The communism is not dead (0, Troll)

k-lisper (1112631) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994239)

It is a socialistic idea that the wealth should be distributed by the state. Replace state with community as we live in a global world and take into account the fact that FOSS is not about freedom, but about the denial of the private property and you will realize that the communistic ideology is where the world is heading which scares the guts out of me as my country used to be in its shadow and now it is ruined.

Re:The communism is not dead (1, Offtopic)

JamesRose (1062530) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994291)

Most governments are actually pretty good systems, and in theory they work, the reason countries got ruined by communism was corruption, a less corrupt system would have succeeded, and I think we'll soon find countries like Afganistan abusing democracy to become a theocracy and it'll be just as bad.

Re:The communism is not dead (0, Offtopic)

coder111 (912060) | more than 7 years ago | (#19995013)

The reason Soviet-Socialist-Planned-Economy (they were NOT communist) countries got ruined by corruption was because that system had no resistance to corruption whatsoever. It was too easy to steal from companies, collective farms, factories, etc because they all belonged to the government, so nobody really cared. Stealing from government was not considered a bad thing by the people.

And the leading caste- Communist Party only wanted good living for themselves, didn't care about much else.

Democracy is also flawed system, but it kind of worked until corporations and corporation controlled media weren't that much powerful. I'm not sure we can say it still works as it supposed to now. It works in some countries, but these are few.

The real challenge is designing a system that works with ignorant people, greedy/powerful corporations and stupid/corrupt politicians. I spent quite enough time thinking about it, and came up with nothing. If you have any ideas on the subject, I'd be very interested to hear them. The closest I came up with was educating people, restricting corporations, restricting mass media/marketing, very strict laws on monopolies to preserve free market and special controls on government officials. But this approach would require some very heavy handed government to be implemented.

--Coder

Re:The communism is not dead (1, Offtopic)

nagora (177841) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994641)

my country used to be in its shadow and now it is ruined.

I very much doubt that. I suspect that what your country was in the shadow of was Stalinism. Just because the nice American man said you were living under communism doesn't mean anything as Americans generally can not tell the difference between Communism, Stalinism, and Socialism (and assume they're all Stalinism).

Communism, like capitalism, is based on a model of the world which only works if everyone acts in exactly the way the inventor of the model thought they should. Neither work in reality; both need socialist elements to prevent them turning into a nightmare for all but the top 500 or so people in a country.

TWW

Re:The communism is not dead (0, Offtopic)

k-lisper (1112631) | more than 7 years ago | (#19994987)

How am I Troll, you slaves!

I very much doubt that. I suspect that what your country was in the shadow of was Stalinism. Just because the nice American man said you were living under communism doesn't mean anything as Americans generally can not tell the difference between Communism, Stalinism, and Socialism (and assume they're all Stalinism).
Whatever it was, it was bad. It was based on the communistic ideas and they got twisted, because that's their nature. Read Animal Farm.

Communism, like capitalism, is based on a model of the world which only works if everyone acts in exactly the way the inventor of the model thought they should. Neither work in reality; both need socialist elements to prevent them turning into a nightmare for all but the top 500 or so people in a country.
Why people think that the same can happen to foundations like this one? What would stop the chosen (by the foundation's board) community members to subside their own projects and to become "more equal" then the others?

Re:The communism is not dead (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19995337)

It was based on the communistic ideas and they got twisted, because that's their nature. Read Animal Farm

I'm not aware of any country where communistic ideas "got twisted" in the sense of turning a communist state into a totalitarian one. What seems always to have happened is that - like in Animal Farm - the country was simply physically taken over by thugs who used communist words and phrases to to make the masses think - or rationalise - that they were living in a communists state. I'm not saying communism would work if people would only give it a chance - it wouldn't - but I'm not sure that anyone [i]has[/i] ever given it a chance.

In fact, such a state was never set up beyond a few streets around the original revolutionaries' headquarters, if even that. In a similar way, for example, the American Dream is used to lull Americans into thinking they live in a free, fair, and generally equal society when in fact they live in a class-riddled nation ruled by an aristocracy. The Dream exists simply to prevent people asking questions, just as quotes from Das Capital served to keep victims of Stalin quiet.

As for why you've been moderated a Troll: you made a generalisation without basis and which showed a gross lack of understanding of the legal framework involved or the history of the subject. Additionally, you did it on a forum where any normal person would know that such remarks would provoke people. That's trolling.

TWW

Re:The communism is not dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19996185)

I'm not aware of any country where communistic ideas "got twisted" in the sense of turning a communist state into a totalitarian one.
In fact they were twisted from the very beginning in my country. It reflected the level of understanding of the ideology.

... you made a generalization without basis and which showed a gross lack of understanding of the legal framework involved or the history of the subject. Additionally, you did it on a forum where any normal person would know that such remarks would provoke people.
If you didn't moderated it you can only guess why. Anyway, how is it provoking the right people into thinking in the right direction trolling? Isn't it trolling only from the POV of those who have a different opinion? If that was a real situation years ago I would have been killed or jailed for my words. The moderators here are lowering my score and of course I don't care now, but what if I got my salary from a foundation ruled by the board the moderator is a member of? Will I ever speak against the system again?

Now ppl should get a better sense where we are heading.

k-lisper

Re:The communism is not dead (0, Offtopic)

siddesu (698447) | more than 7 years ago | (#19995055)

Yawn ... FoSS isn't about denial of private property, nor is it about distribution of wealth. It is about distributing certain source code under a certain license.

Good news! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19994633)

I believe it was at a conference in Australia that I ran into a rather despondent Theo de Raadt, who told me that for lack of 300 dollars, his ISP was going to turn off the project's servers. I took out my checkbook and immediately wrote him a personal check, to keep the OpenBSD servers alive. My comment to Theo was that "your project is too valuable to let die over a measly 300 dollars."
Hopefully with the foundation, they'll be able to manage their money a bit better than Theo was able to.

Re:Good news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19994919)

I also had a similar experience with Mr. de Raadt in Australia, not at a conference, but deep in a deserted diamond mine. I gave him the blossom of the Rhizanthella slateri for something.. he mentioned a cure for cancer or his wife's dying wish or something, I'm not sure, I wasn't really listening.

The Race for funds begins (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19994863)

I think this is great. Now it should be easier to see just how well the three *bsd camps are doing. FreeBSD has a list of donors on it's foundation web site. Heck, you can get listed for a $1-$19 donation. Sounds like they took a page from the OpenBSD folks, who would list donors on their web site and printed your name in the instructions with the CD for each release until there got to be too many. Now it is just on the web.

But look at the overhead! NetBSD listed $10k in donations for 2006 and $2k in legal fees, while FreeBSD listed $87k in donations and $54k in payroll expenses. What! Does it take a full time person to collect $150k in donations in 6 months?

On the other hand, OpenBSD prides itself in being run by volunteers, so I think it should have lower overhead. We will see, how the three compare in getting the dollars. My money is going to OpenBSD.

That's the way to go (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19995103)

Congratulations! That's the way to go. This should have done long time ago. Nobody wants to donate/contribute to individuals. Good luck and best wishes. - Sagara
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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