This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
FreeBSD used to generate Matrix effects
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!
For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!
Linux software on freebsd (Score:1)
According to Charles Henrich who works for Manex he chose FreeBSD over Linux because he prefers it and found it more stable. I was trying to find his post describing this but the mailing list archive on www.freebsd.org hasn't been updated recently enough. Ooops - I found it, at least one of them. Here's a quote:
It is a Press Release. It is not a News Report. (Score:1)
it's cause they make money. (Score:1)
It's the license. Depending on what you want to do with the product down the line, your choice of operating systems just might come down to "can i sell a product i produced based on this?" With GPL, an entrepeneur's options are limited... especially if the BSD can run the same (non-gpl'd) linux software under emulation... renderman's not gpl'ed...
The Matrix is Awesome! (Score:1)
Let's not forget the human factor!
It's the Hong Kong and Kung Fu movie style with the sci-fi and human elements that made this film a successful film.
Maybe this is why.. (Score:1)
In fact, quite a few people who post on here seem to feel Linux is THE one perfect OS and everything else is worthless and/or flawed.
The media happened to choose Linux as the OS to focus on and consequently it's gotten much more popular. They may have choosen Linux over *BSD at random, there are multiple flavors of *BSD which could make it difficult to focus on one, or because Linux is an entire new thing developed more recently... while *BSD has older roots (although they are all based off of UNIX to some extent). Basically, what I am saying is that this site, and a lot of people on here may be using and advocated *BSD over Linux if it wasn't for all of the media exposure it got. As far as I can tell from using Linux and several BSDs, there really is no large difference between the two that would justify one being much more superior to the other (I am in no way an expert though). Meaning all of the recent things going on could have just as well happened on FreeBSD.
And anyone who judges the quality of an OS by it's more outspoken and biased advocates is a fool. There are plenty of Linux bigots, Mac, bigots, Windows bigots, *BSD bigots, Solaris bigots, etc. The wise thing to do is evaluate the OS for your own personal needs. Does it do what you want it to do? Does it do it better than the other choices available? Does it have the software available for you to do that? (This last one is an unfortunate one for BeOS which may never be able to get off the ground now that Mac OS X, Windows 2000, Win NT5, more user friendly Linux, revival of Amiga (?) are all around the corner).
Linux vs FreeBSD (Score:2)
===First post========================================
:In article ,
:Navindra Umanee wrote:
:>
:>I never realised that it was possible to sysadmin Linux fully from a
:>GUI these days, what do they use? Linuxconf or something? Most (if
:>not all) sysadmins I know who do Linux don't use a GUI. Besides,
:>aren't these GUIs supposed to be a frontend that simply modifies the
:>underlying text files?
:>
:>-N.
You can't, really. You can configure the major pieces
for a typical user to configure his linux box. But for any serious
work you have to get under the hood just like with other UNIXs.
The configuration files needed by Linux are very similar to the
configuration files needed by FreeBSD and other UNIXes. Surprise
Surprise! Maybe it's because both platforms use virtually the same
servers. inetd, popper, imap, sendmail, fingerd, bind, talk.
Ifconfig, route, pppd, samba, XFree86. Etc etc etc.
Most of the differences at this level are superficial. Linux puts
config files in different places. The startup script works
somewhat differently ( though not as different as some people seem
to believe ).
The biggest differences are under the hood -- the kernel core itself.
While the syscall set is similar between the two OSs, the kernel cores
are very different from each other. I think this is one of the greatest
strengths of the open-source movement. Protocol interoperability gets
very well-tested in mixed environments, and this has resulted in many
bugs being found and fixed on both platforms ( and vs Solaris, too, when
it comes to NFS V3 interoperability ).
Linux is, in many ways, a cleaner design. But FreeBSD pays more
attention to detail. KISS is the mantra, but that doesn't mean that
simpler is *always* better. Linux often goes for algorithmic simplicity
to the detriment of performance. FreeBSD uses multi-stage queues for
buffer cache ageing for a damn good reason, and multiply-linked structures
as well - getting an O(1) result to any operation is as important as
choosing the right page to push out. Because every wrong decision made
has a terrible price to pay in performance. Making the right decision
(e.g. what to page, how to order I/O, when to start async I/O, how much
to do, how to balance memory between RSS, discrete I/O, and VM, when to
eat a page fault in order to get better useage stats on the page, etc)
is worth a modicum of extra complexity.
-Matt
--
Matthew Dillon Engineering, HiWay Technologies, Inc. & BEST Internet
Communications
(Please include original email in any response)
=======Second Post==================================
:In article ,
:Navindra Umanee wrote:
:>Matt Dillon wrote:
:>> Linux is, in many ways, a cleaner design. But FreeBSD pays more
:>> attention to detail. KISS is the mantra, but that doesn't mean that
:>> simpler is *always* better. Linux often goes for algorithmic simplicity
:>> to the detriment of performance. FreeBSD uses multi-stage queues for
:>
:>Ahh, but has anyone proved this detriment of performance by actual
:>testing and comparisons? Nice article, btw.
:>
:>-N.
Yes. There are a number of well known facts about both FreeBSD and Linux.
It's not a matter of 'proving' anything -- these are things that the
developers tend to agree on ( verse the 'rabble' who like to argue over
everything ).
Lets see if I can drag up a few.
* Linux syscall overhead is lower then FreeBSD's. e.g. 1uS vs 2uS,
roughly.
* FreeBSD VM management tends to perform considerably better when
memory is stressed. Mainly oweing to better selection of pages
to page-in and page-out. ( FreeBSD's reputation for running
well under load is not exaggerated ).
Under 0-stress situations, Linux's simpler algorithms provide a
small benefit.
(i.e. FreeBSD does more work figuring out what to page out or clean,
but it gets it all back by choosing the 'right' pages whereas Linux
does less work figuring out what to page out or clean, but loses
the advantage by choosing the 'wrong' pages).
* FreeBSD scales I/O load better, mainly oweing to clustering and
dynamic readahead. Linux does a little read-ahead, but it isn't
smart about it. For example, it does not attempt to avoid extra
seeks on read-ahead blocks. FreeBSD goes overboard trying to avoid
extra seeks ( a little too overboard in some cases
* Linux VM management currently depends on mapping physical memory
into KVM, which limits the amount of physical memory that can be
accomodated on 32 bit machines to approximately 2G. FreeBSD will
operate on 32 bit (Intel) boxes containing up to 4G of memory.
* A number of core Linux VM routines depend on scanning page tables,
which is very inefficient due to two things: First, shared pages
are scanned more then once and, second, scanning for page
classifications ( such as 'clean' or 'dirty' ) across the entire
set rather then keeping track of page classifications via separate
lists or queues. This is probably the single-biggest problem the
Linux VM system has.
This rears its ugly head when running programs that fork a lot,
such as web and news servers, sendmail, popper, and so on.
FreeBSD uses VM algorithms that are, roughly, independant of
its page tables and which tend to be O(1).
* Linux has been ported to a number of platforms. FreeBSD currently
only runs on Intel and Alpha, and the Alpha port still needs a lot
of work.
-Matt
--
Matthew Dillon Engineering, HiWay Technologies, Inc. & BEST Internet
Communications
(Please include original email in any response)
*BSD in trouble? (Score:3)
Occasionally I see someone post that *BSD is "in trouble" and will disappear sometime in the near future as other OSes take "market share."
Why do people make such claims? Is there any really strong evidence to support this? Please explain why *BSD is "in trouble."
Keep in mind that having little market share doesn't mean it will die. Imagine linux in
Aside from the often quoted examples of Yahoo! and Walnut Creek, there is a list of some others at the FreeBSD Gallery [freebsd.org]. And of course, this is not a complete list.
Please, just use the OS you like for the job you want to do, and don't pray for the death of excellent operating systems (OSes from unscrupulous companies like M$, bash all you want).
Good for FreeBSD! (Score:1)
I don't care too much for the differences between Linux and *BSD. They're both Unix-like systems (*BSD more so), they're both completely Free Software, and they're not Microsoft!
The only thing I noticed about the press release was the fact that they said it wouldn't be possible with another OS. It would probably be possible with Linux, but not practical if the people they hired are more familiar with FreeBSD.
Something must've changed between 2.2.x and 3.x... (Score:1)
(Before people tear my head off for dissing their OS, yes, I did do everything right with regards to setting up binary compatibility, no, the slowness wasn't my fault, and, no, I haven't used 3.x much.)
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
Well... (Score:1)
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
Other operating systems (Score:1)
I wish they would have elabortaed on this a bit so that I could understand where Linux would have not worked or explained why FreeBSD shined.
Maybe this is just PR and I should remember that.
Only 32? (Score:2)
POV? I heard it was Renderman. (Score:1)
Yay. (Score:1)
I don't know if getting credit for such movies as Titanic and The Matrix is really all that great. What's next? Teletubbies?
oi (Score:1)
Actually thats a very small amount of power considering the effects in "The Matrix."
Very interesting...
Linux not stable enough (Score:1)
I'd like to see.. (Score:1)
Other operating systems (Score:1)
FreeBSD Ad? (Score:1)
Dust in a dirt pile.. (Score:1)
Why FreeBSD? Maybe Ports? (Score:1)
POV? I heard it was Renderman. (Score:1)
Why FreeBSD? Maybe Ports? (Score:1)
That's my guess why. Even if it was just source in ports, something as complex as 3-D graphics rendering software can be a bytch to compile... But, port's always seem to compile.
Linux on the other hand... :-) Well, I must say it's getting a little better lately, and I'll just shut up now...
PovRay Did all of it? (Score:1)
Suddenly I Understand.... (Score:3)
*SMACK*, suddenly, I understand EXACTLY what FreeBSD users feel like when they read about Linux in the news....
This is impressive, and, they deserve the credit, both the Manex Visual Effects and FreeBSD. If I might add, SGI deserves historic credit for pioneering this stuff (hope they can make a comeback to the way I remember them with thier new Linux/Intel project, and porting OpenGL, etc...)
Dell, well, uh... Dell did deliver the boxes speedy, I guess :-)
Figures... (Score:1)
Cripes.
When are idiots like these going to learn that just because the OS name isn't Linux that it doesn't suck. I myself am happy just using Unix, whether it is *BSD, Linux, Solaris, etc... some of you idiots are beginning to sound like Microsoft advocates ("Everything but our OS SUCKS!!!").
Screw world domination for any platform, I'm glad I have a choice.
OpenSource Renderings... (Score:1)
Yeah, because we all know that solaris is EVIL, and that the PC architecture is SO MUCH BETTER than that of a Sun machine.
(end sarcasm)
cripes...
OpenSource Renderings... (Score:1)
Actually, he's got a point... (Score:1)
Other operating systems (Score:1)
Hardware kiddie, thanks, but not impressed. (Score:1)
even though ecgs isn't as optimised as DU cc, Alpha binaries it creates will still be 1.5x+ faster than a same generation P11.
"The Matrix" is already a reality, in business you just can't wait.
and when was the alpha cluster used for titanic a reality? when was the avalon cluster a reality?
Perhaps the performance gain isn't "measly" but it just can NOT compete price/preformance ratio
rubbish. you can buy 533MHz Alpha's for the price of a P11 300MHz. You can buy 600MHz alpha's
for less than the price of a P111-500. Both of them kick Pentium11's into park when it comes to floating point. a 533MHz alpha has nearly double the floating point power of a p11-450.
Sure alpha is faster and really cool, but when people are concerned about price and performance.
An Alpha 533MHz and motherboard with onboard network and scsi costs approx £600. (~$900) which is comparable to the cost of a p111 500 and motherboard. plus most 533mhz alphas will clock to at least 600mhz reliably (i'm told).
the only excuse for going with a high-end p11 setup instead of alpha is ignorance.
you can't beat cheap intel hardware for clustering, get over it.
you clearly havn't checked out prices. go to the alphalinux [alphalinux.org] site and follow the links to the vendors, and ask them for quotes. I think you'll be surprised.
Why and where I use FreeBSD (Score:1)
market share to survive. As long as there is
a critical mass of users that are willing to
maintain and contribute to the project,
it will survive. Most open source projects
can survive without market share (thats how they
all started, isnt it?). And I dont see BSD
interest falling below that critical mass.
Synopsis (Score:1)
---
Time! (Score:1)
What the heck are you fighting about??? FreeBSD and Linux should have good natured competition that goads their developers into further improvements, as should KDE and GNOME. Let's save the nasty messages for non-free software.
Bruce
Hardware kiddie, thanks, but not impressed. (Score:1)
>> 1) gcc/egcs has terrible optimization for it
> Right now Alpha doesn't have the compilers to do the job well but in the very near future compaq
> will be releasing their ported DU compilers for Alphalinux and their cost will range from very little to nothing.
> So that's on the way.
That's nice, and the makers of "The Matrix" should have waited for the new compilers or written them themselves?
>> 2) price/performance trade off
> How does complete Alpha systems running at 500 -
> 800 Mhz starting at under $1000 sound? It'll be a reality very soon.
"The Matrix" is already a reality, in business you just can't wait.
>> If you are going to build a cluster system, why
>> grab the most the overpriced system for a measly
>> gain in performance.
> Measly? Yeah, tell the guys at Digital Domain that.
Perhaps the performance gain isn't "measly" but it just can NOT compete price/preformance ratio
>> Like I said, other archs may have more
>> performance, but at what cost?
> The cost is comming down drasticly. You're gonna
> see Alpha's for around the same price a PII 450 system real soon.
Interesting, "The Matrix" came out 2 weeks ago right? So instead of promising all these features... how about using a platform that offers it all right now? Sure alpha is faster and really cool, but when people are concerned about price and performance.....
>> oh, and if you do have alpha...
>>
>> http://www.freebsd.org/
> I like *BSD and I've used Alphas for years. I like to have a X server too
diffs to get XFree to compile on alpha:
http://www.freebsd.org/~dfr/
Stop with the hype, you can't beat cheap intel hardware for clustering, get over it.
Please research or think twice about responding to my posts. It'll make for more interesting conversation.
-Alfred
Other operating systems (Score:1)
Here, have a cookie, can I have some real statistics now?
Good to see some a BSD "success" (Score:1)
It's hard for the Daemon
and would this actually be my first chance to have an actual first post !?
Linux and FreeBSD are among the best OS!! (Score:1)
By the way,
No one and nothing is perfect.
Linux software on freebsd (Score:1)
No, it seems like a natural one. While contibuting code to a project doesn't mean you're "hardcore" (neither does commit access), it does indicate that's a definite possibilty.
http://advocacy.freebsd.org.... (Score:1)
--
Linux software on freebsd (Score:1)
--
Linux software on freebsd (Score:2)
Now, the fact that freebsd was used was just cause the guy in charge has a hardon for it, nothing more nothing less. It would have been different if Rob was in charge of that project. (I believe he'd use Mac OS
--
Other operating systems (Score:1)
I run a FreeBSD system and I have been very satisfied with the performance, btw.
FreeBSD Ad? (Score:2)
Is it my imagination, or does this 'article' seem to be more akin to advertising?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
You have no clue. It's not emulation (Score:1)
It is a Press Release. It is not a News Report. (Score:1)
Figures... (Score:1)
45% of it is ignorance.
5% is sheer and utter stupidity.
5% is unexplainable/unknown.
That's roughly correct regarding the posts that are against this press release.
I'd like to see more FreeBSD stories on slashdot. Hopefully one of these days those who knock FreeBSD without a very good reason will realize how wrong they were.
Yeah, screw being fair (Score:1)
I hope to see more FreeBSD-related articles on slashdot.
OpenSource Renderings... (Score:1)
Teletubbies (Score:1)
Or are they the same things?
64 procs (Score:1)
For modelling, yes, but IIRC there were articles at the time stating that LinuxAlpha was used for the (CPU-intensive) rendeing.
(And Sun/Solaris for Toy Story... notice a decisive lack of NT here? :-) )
Other operating systems (Score:1)
Very true. freefall.freebsd.org holds the master copy of the CVS repository, and runs the web server. We used to have a machine called thud as well. This is because Rod Grimes is/was a skydiver (I think it was Rod that was responsible for the names, but I could be wrong).
Now they have names like beast, kickme, and bento.
N
Linux software on freebsd (Score:5)
Correct. Renderman.
Charles Henrich uses FreeBSD in preference to Linux. He's contributed code/docs to the project, but he doesn't have commit access. This is a somewhat strange definition of "hardcore freebsd guy" you seem to be using.
False. A cite/URL for this /. article would be appreciated so I can respond to its FUD. If you don't have one, please don't bother repeating these allegations, because they're false.
And to others who've pointed it out; the description on this /. post is deceptive -- it's not a story about the Matrix, it's a Press Release (the words "Press Release" in the title of the web page and in the heading should have been a tip off to the more alert amongst you). This is why it's light on technical details. A more detailed story will hopefully be forthcoming for DaemonNews.
N
nik@freebsd.org
hooray for linux users (Score:1)
It's reactions like this that ruin the Linux community's credibilty, and why I find Linux so distasteful. Maybe if the community can grow up a little and start LEARNING from other open-source projects, and sharing with them, you'd be able to make a killer OS. Right now, your close-mindedness does you a disservice.
-lx
Linux: the Windows of the UNIX world.
FreeBSD vs. Linux (Score:1)
ABI? (Score:1)
--
OpenSource Renderings... (Score:1)
-AP
x86 is taking the lead over other archs (Score:1)
Any other OS (Score:1)
Misinformation is not good advocacy. All it accomplishes is the destruction of credibility. I suggest it would be best for the entire Open Source community if we were to leave such tactics to the commercial world.
FreeBSD not that stable (Score:1)
FreeBSD's raid is quite mature, just does not support every damn card. As a radi example, look at the 12terrabyte raid setup over at ftp.cdrom.com
FreeBSD Ok... I'll give it a try... (Score:1)
FreeBSD not that stable (Score:1)
Ok this is pathetic... (Score:3)
DISCLAMER
( sorry if this offends the people that do not fit in the description above, i know there's a great deal of very smart and knowledgeable people still left here in slashdot and i hope that number grows
because we need you)
On the comparison of "LINUX" Vs " FreeBSD" you are all pretty wrong, FreeBSD is both a Distribution AND a kernel, not one like linux. if you want to compare distributions then go ahead, compare Redhat 5.2 versus fBSD 3.1-RELEASE.
The fact of the matter is that Linux distributions are for the most part ( with the exception of Debian all the way ) still bleeding edge and not the most stable systems without a GREAT deal of tweaking. As you can see from FBSD, this is way different as there are three current distributions
aimed at different purposes. ( -RELEASE , -CURRENT, and --STABLE )
Say all you may, but my experience with both a customized redhat with the 2.2.x kernell versus a 3.1 -RELEASE has shown me that FreeBSD still handles networking load quite better than a normall linux distribution. How can i tell this...
well, from about 25 hsoting servers that i administer. a great deal of them started as Linux boxes but, we only needed to test one freeBSD machine with the load of TWO linux boxes and we were converts.
as for the linux emulation in freeBSD....
first, is not "emulation " persay, is much more closer to what wine does, which is binary compability. To this day linux threads still perform better in FreeBSD. Of course some things are a bit slower, but , hey, this are things that were not originally aimed at freeBSD, is a god damn good show at the prowness of FreeBSD programmers.
I love linux, i use it a smy personal workstation at both home and work, but there's no question in my mind that in terms of squeezing that last drop of performance out of a x86 machine, fBSD does it much better than linux. Not only is the kernel more mature, but, even linux zealou shave to agree with this, linux distributions to date just plain suck ( for lack of a better word).
I mean, when was the last time you used a system as clean as the ports collection
Linux has a lot of promise, but , FreeBSD still handles load better, because it is a kernel totally tuned for the x86 arch.
RTFC (Score:1)
Maybe this is why.. (Score:1)
I for one beleve it definitley could be done with any UNIX system, especielly linux but any would do just as well, hell maybe even NT or Win95 or MacOS could have done it, the BSD attitude is the thing that is damaging BSDs reputation most I would say...
Well, i guess I should know betten than get offended by this but...............
Maybe you (Score:1)
if you only beleve *BSD can do anything you should open your eyes and trie to look beyond the propaganda. To say it should not have been possible to do the rendering with any other os is just stupid, imature and at least pisses my off.
Good to see some a BSD "success" (Score:1)
*BSD is an extremely valuable resource.
One size does NOT fit all.
Expect to see a transition: NT to Linux to *BSD.
API (Score:1)
This is how the application program interfaces to the operating system.
AFAIK, *BSD can be compiled to accept system calls from native SystemV and Linux binaries.
API - not the same thing. (Score:1)
Software? (Score:1)
What type of software was used for these profesional projects? I heard they had renderman running on the freeBSD boxes. What did they use for the modeling? SGI stuff?
Linux software on freebsd (Score:1)
or someting OSS-like?
Very nice..... (Score:1)
_______________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
Other operating systems (Score:1)
____________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
PC vs. Sun (Score:1)
____________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
FreeBSD is Dying (Score:1)
Sorry, but it sure seems to me that there are calm and rational responses to this thread from both the Linux and *BSD people, and then there's people like *you*... from both sides, I admit... that lash out with "venomous" "name calling and childish attacks on the message bearers" as you so aptly put it.
Its time for *you* to face reality and grow up. You may drive a Ford, I drive a 4WD Chevy... if you think your Ford is God's gift to the earth, so be it.. but I like my car, and don't try to shove yours down my throat. There's room in this world for both. I'm not going to use my old '82 280ZX to haul a trailer, and my 4WD truck isn't exactly a nice "night on the town" car. Each has their uses, and there is room for both in my life.
I use Linux, NetBSD, and OpenBSD for UN*X boxes at home, plus a Mac/OS system and a Win/95 system. Each has there purpose, and each does some things better than others.
NetBSD is by far the most portable, and widely ported, although Linux is getting better. Before someone jumps down my throat over this, I should add that I have two VaxStation 3100's, two MicroVAX's, several DecStations, two 68K Mac's, a Sun Sparc 1+, and several old Sun/3's, and NetBSD supports them all, today. Yeah, I can wait for a working Linux/Vax to show up someday... I can wait for a Linux that runs on my DecStation 5000... or Linux support for my Sun 3/260... or I can run NetBSD now, full multi-user support.
Linux is more mainstream, and has more available apps for it (although a good # of them run under the BSD's compatibility mode). Like M$ Windows, more available apps does *not* necessarily mean a better OS, although I hate to make that comparison since Linux is a far better OS than M$'s. My biggest beef against Linux to date is not the speed, the underlying code, or anything to do with the software, its the "Linux zealots" that think that their "Ford" is the best there is.
I just installed OpenBSD a few weeks ago, and haven't had time to play with it much, but the codebase forked from NetBSD, so I presume its fairly close (w/ better crypto, being out of the US). My NetBSD systems have been rock-solid.
I haven't tried FreeBSD, but from the "non-zealot" comments I read on these threads, I may give it a try. The comments about better VM usage seemed knowledgeable.
To those of you who want to blow off "zealot" steam at me about how Linux is the "best" kernel, I have only one question:
How many of you have a programming background and have looked at the actual kernel code for Linux and the BSD's? (I have).
One of these days I'll try out FreeBSD...
Figures... (Score:1)
FreeBSD Ad? (Score:1)
Answering: 'could Linux do it?' (Score:1)
A friend of mine saved the thread on the FreeBSD lists on the Matrix (unfortunatly, I was not on that one at the time), and I have uploaded them, and for anyone still squabbling, I encourage you to read them. There are 55 in total. Unfortunatly, they are in Netscape's format (yeah, I use pine so its pretty sad..). If even one person asks, I'll convert to text.
So, for all of those bsd-bashers (as I saw no linux bashers), please read. Some of you knew what you were talking about, some had no clue. I personally am a member to both a LUG and FreeBSD listings, and run fbsd, linux, and Solaris (personal copy) on my desktop. So, I understand every view, but open-source "advocates" bashing open-source is just plain sickening.
In any event, please go to http://www.crl.com/~anarchy/download/ for the 55kb zip file (for win users, put it in x:\Program Files\Netscape\Users\anarchy\Mail, and rename it from matrix to inbox/drafts/etc).
And remember, people, if you want to truely support the cause (GNU/BSD/OSS), just fight the uninformed media and make the software second to none - just don't get in petty ego wars. It will be worse enough when we get in fights about who has the best 'sex robot'. =)
FreeBSD growth (Score:1)
Sad really but what do you expect from a Linux advocacy site like Slashdot.
FreeBSD is in fact growing and using the download stats and CDROM sales, the userbase is
growing tremendously.
I also think that it isn't just about apples and oranges
Re: FreeBSD Sucks cuz im 12 years old (Score:1)
dump real bad.
Have to go feed the dogs now.
later,
ordway
Re:*BSD in trouble? (Score:1)
I (heart) FreeBSD.