OpenBSD Gains Commercial Support 89
Dave Brooks writes "It looks like a company called Network Security Technologies, Inc. will be providing commercial support for OpenBSD Integration. This is a huge step for the OpenBSD community." Good to see. Theo, in an impromptu interview, said that he is happy others believe in OpenBSD, and that the project has a much better financial situation these days, though it is still supported entirely by CD and shirt sales.
BSD is higher up the learning curve (Score:2)
Ok, I give up... (Score:1)
Re:Will it make it? (Score:3)
To say that BSD is waning is just not true. As Linux's popularity increases, so does the popularity of the BSD's. Many BSD users are FORMER Linux users. A question to you... have you even used BSD? Have you checked out with what versatility you can compile to kernel and so forth? Have you checked out the nicely formatted and standardized configuration scripts for BSD? Have you tried to do a cvsup or make world with it? I would guess that most people who have used BSD will see it as "cool." I began a popular linux channel on Efnet (and still frequent it) and even in there many of the ops use *BSD. (no not just FreeBSD I mean NetBSD and OpenBSD) I personally see this commercial support as a giant step forward for BSD. Look at what happened to Linux when it got those big name sponsors... BSD is up and coming. Whatever you base your argument on that BSD is "waning"... you've got to show me more evidence than it's not "cool" enough.
James Crawford
drachen@thepcmaster.com
Niche market (Score:2)
It isn't meant to replace Linux or FreeBSD, it can't even run on multiprocessors yet (AFAIK)! But it does its stated job very well.
Contrast this with NT or Linux and you'll better understand this. You don't tell the CIO or CTO "I'm setting up a Linux firewall", you say "I'm setting up the most secure firewall on the market" and they gratefully fuck off.
Good for them (Score:1)
Re:Will it make it? (Score:1)
Re:BSD is higher up the learning curve (Score:1)
I do agree the once people learn Linux well, using BSD becomes a simple and enjoyable task. Linux has much more documentation than BSD but many of the basic principals are the same. As a person who started off as a Linux user once I came into contact with BSD it totally consumed me (a good thing.) The more Linux users there are... the more potential BSD users there are.
James Crawford
drachen@thepcmaster.com
One Geek's experience with BSD (Score:4)
I have alot of trouble understanding where the angst between Linux and BSD derives, particularly among the hacker cores. My guess is that the semi-infamous bad attitude of BSD developers was directed against Linux in its growth years, and after years of having their work called immature and unstable(even when it began being much less so), Linux developers and users completed the "circle" of mutual distrust.
I wasn't around back then, so I'd like some better perspective.
Regardless, BSD has been quite the experience. OpenBSD, with its security-centric design, is something I plan to play around with for the specific reason that existing Linux Distributions run wayyyyyy too many network services by default, and the idea of an OS I can slap on a box and trust to be secure is very appealing.
Hearing that Theo's baby, OpenBSD, now has commercial support behind it is something that I am proud to hear. Theo's focus on security is making Linux better, and many of the apps that run on BSD were originally developed on Linux.
Congratulations to everyone involved.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Re:BSD is higher up the learning curve (Score:2)
I mean, with Redhat, I pop the CD in the drive, change my BIOS to book from the CD, format the disk, choose my packages, configure X windows and the network, and (poof!)
Is there more to it with OpenBSD?
Is it LILO or BootCommander friendly?
What about hardware support?
Or should I just go over to their website and see if they can answer those questions?
Re:BSD is higher up the learning curve (Score:1)
If the BSD's succeed (Score:2)
But the BSD's are not nearly so open, as I understand it. Yes, much of their codebase is contributed, but the maintainers carefully vet submissions and frequently reject code they feel will contrast with their envisioned implementation. If I'm correct in that interpretation (and I might not be - please correct me) the BSD's are much more like Netscape's model than Linux's model.
So if the BSD's succeed in gaining considerable market share, doesn't that mean most of the rhetoric we've been reading about open source is mostly hot air? Wouldn't it imply that, really, strict central control is a good idea for a software project?
Just a thought.
-konstant
Re:Will it make it? (Score:1)
BSD is waning as most geeks don't see it as 'cool' enough
strikes me as strange, as there was recently a feauture story (I don't recall if it was ZD, CNet, or whomever) discussing that BSD in general, and FreeBSD specifically was going to potentially gain developers as linux became more mainstream and status-quo. In addition, there are currently a number of areas where BSD is outperforming Linux, most notably the TCP/IP stack. OpenBSD has been involved in a very intensive security audit for quite some time, which makes it uniquely well suited to DMZ or gateway type systems.
This is not to say that BSD is better than Linux. They currently just have some significant differences. I run them both in the settings I find most appropriate. Linux on my desktop,laptop and database, OpenBSD for the gateway & mailserver, and Solaris for the web/application server.
Hopefully all the unique benefits of these flavors will migrate across... That's one of the key benefits of open source, and whether any particular variety of OS is the flavor du jour doesn't really seem to have any bearing on the real world viability of the OS as a solution.
My two cents.
Re:BSD is higher up the learning curve (Score:2)
Re:BSD is higher up the learning curve (Score:1)
Re:If the BSD's succeed (Score:2)
Excellent. (Score:2)
Hopefully, with OpenBSD starting to pick up steam, a beneficial competition will develop between the two systems that envolves more coding than arguing.
Anyways, score one for the home team. Begin the happy dance of your choice.
Re:If the BSD's succeed (Score:2)
Netscape probably needs tight control at least until version 1 of mozilla is released. It was suffering from bloat, and flakiness, and too many features. With no tight control everyone and their brother would have started adding little bits to it and only made things worse. Once the netscape code is better planned out and stable the development model may become more open.
I don't think that there's a magic formula for software development. What model works best depends very much on the project. Some software will probably never be developed in an open source environment (who's going to volunteer to help write statistical software for insurance companies for instance?)
Re:If the BSD's succeed (Score:1)
Re:BSD is higher up the learning curve (Score:2)
In fact, the FreeBSD ports collection [freebsd.org] has both ports and binary packages for KDE 1.1.2, and binary GNOME packages as well.
The KDE news page [kde.org] also announced the availability of KDE 1.1.2 packages for NetBSD (as well as for Solaris - interestingly enough, the announcement said that Solaris x86 was available, and that SPARC would be available shortly; x86 first?).
The OpenBSD ports status [openbsd.org] page mentions KDE; I don't see any mention of GNOME other than the libghttp GNOME HTTP client library
Re:One Geek's experience with BSD (Score:1)
bash# echo 'ALL : ALL' >
YMMV.
Re:Excellent. (Score:1)
I am using Linux as my desktop, FreeBSD as my ftp server and OpenBSD as the shell server (mainly because i like the security in it
I'd love to see it more in the commersial world... Sysadmins lives get a lot easyer without M$.
This is a good thing because: (Score:1)
2. Theo's code devtree is not THAT different from Linus' and Alan's. It concentrates (differently) on issues having to do with security and the stability/performance of the network. We all learn much from the *BSD hackers (and they from us). Also, the exercise of "ports" to the various platforms (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, etc.), besides being intellectually challenging, gives us practice in what WILL lead to eventual World Domination (and the hoped-for demise of the Evil Empire) in the shorter term: ports of OSS apps (under whatever license-flavor) to more commercial Unices, such as HP, Sun, and IBM. Effective (and clueful) commercial support can only improve this process, and continue the merging of the devtrees for app developers. It also affords more jobs for us (hey, we all gotta eat).
3. Finally, anything that encourages knowledge sharing; helps to educate developers and users alike; AND encourages the corporate types to "experiment" is a VERY good thing. Commercial support hastens this result, since no CIO in his or her right mind wants to "own" the source code (for personal, as well as business reasons); ESPECIALLY without commercial support. We are still a long way away from a time when source is the rule, rather than the exception (if ever)in the corps...but we can hope those days come soon. Credible commercial support helps move us in this direction.
Re:If the BSD's succeed (Score:1)
The cathedral vs bazaar thing was never about having strict control over additions to the code base. Rather it was about getting the code out there in order to generate the changes that you then have the option of using. In fact one of ESR's essays "Homesteading the Noosphere" pretty much says that only OSS projects with firm central control over the codebase and good motivation every really work.
This is a good thing because: (Score:3)
2. Theo's code devtree is not THAT different from Linus' and Alan's. It concentrates (differently) on issues having to do with security and the stability/performance of the network. We all learn much from the *BSD hackers (and they from us). Also, the exercise of "ports" to the various platforms (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, etc.), besides being intellectually challenging, gives us practice in what WILL lead to eventual World Domination (and the hoped-for demise of the Evil Empire) in the shorter term: ports of OSS apps (under whatever license-flavor) to more commercial Unices, such as HP, Sun, and IBM. Effective (and clueful) commercial support can only improve this process, and continue the merging of the devtrees for app developers. It also affords more jobs for us (hey, we all gotta eat).
3. Finally, anything that encourages knowledge sharing; helps to educate developers and users alike; AND encourages the corporate types to "experiment" is a VERY good thing. Commercial support hastens this result, since no CIO in his or her right mind wants to "own" the source code (for personal, as well as business reasons); ESPECIALLY without commercial support. We are still a long way away from a time when source is the rule, rather than the exception (if ever)in the corps...but we can hope those days come soon. Credible commercial support helps move us in this direction.
Re:One Geek's experience with BSD (Score:2)
Of course, these suggestions apply equally to Linux or OpenBSD; The reasons for OpenBSD's security have little to do with its default install, and a lot more to do with careful code auditing.
Theo (Score:1)
As we all know, a strong leader with unflagging devotion to the project and a good sense of perspective (eg, don't take themselves too seriously) is perhaps the most important thing for its long-term success.
Three cheers for OpenBSD!
Re:If the BSD's succeed (Score:3)
The big difference is really that the *BSDs give you a whole unified distro, while Linux has no established official distro.
But an entire distribution is outside of the scope of the catherdral/bazaar paradigm anyway, especially since outside the a central core the BSDs and Linux use the same software anyway.
grats! (Score:1)
I know this post will be reduntant, but congrats Theo. It's about time you got support!
A great move for this company too. I know I respect them now..
Re:Do you suggest CRASS COMMERCIALIZATION (RedHat) (Score:1)
That is funny, why can't I seem to find a slackware shirt? Red Hat is pretty much alone in the crass commercialization respect.
And actually, they don't sell any good shirts either, you have to go to copyleft for that.
I would very much enjoy a tux smoking a pipe slackware shirt....
Re:BSD is higher up the learning curve (Score:1)
I tried installing slackware, Suse & RH (5.1) (in that order), w/ little success.
I still had the desire to move to a *nix; my main focus at home is graphics, & photoshop kept dying on me at inopportune times. So I started working w/ the win32 port of the GIMP, w/ the aim of eventually migrating to *nix native GIMP. After a few months (& a quick tutorial from JFK / Bowie Poag (thanks!)), I decided I was ready.. Since I hadn't had any success previously installing linux distros (& was feeling rather intimidated by the variances between the distros (will -this- one come w/ gnome? Is enlightenment on the disc? etc (I'm on dialup)), I decided to try freeBSD..
1 hour later, I was running the GIMP in 32-bit 1600x1200, & had already decided that blackbox was freindlier than enlightenment (until I make my own theme, that is). Easiest install I've ever done.
Now it's 3 weeks later... I have 21 days of uptime, & I'm making 1600x1200 images w/ 20+ layers which woulda thrashed my swap in windows... fBSD & X doesn't even blink =). Gnome works fine, though I don't see much point to it (& KDE was a nightmarish return to the win GUI, no thanks). I guess they're nice for the bundled apps (kppp helped a lot in handshaking to my ISP).
I guess the point is, -to me- it doesn't seem harder than linux.. It seems easier =). That, & I curse my computer a lot less these days...
Re:If the BSD's succeed (Score:1)
The ability to spin off is nice, though usually is only done or comercial products that add features (the point of BSD is to support the entire community), or if some nitch is unfilled. I can't imagine a reason a new spinoff is required. The spin off, incase someone tries claiming this, isn't doable on Linux because its only kernel and would be to hard to spin off. Or, you could say every Linux distribution is a spin off, though they merely add functionality to make an OS.
This coming from a first post kiddie.. (Score:1)
The same person [slashdot.org] who got the "F1RST P0ST!" on this thread. Now do trust him?
No offence to OpenBSD.
Re:heeheee (Score:1)
Re:Will it make it? (Score:2)
Waning? Hardly. FreeBSD anyway is nearing critical mass.
Any "geek" worth anything would choose their OS based on more than it's "coolness." Anyone else is a poser.
Are you a poser?
OpenBSD (Score:4)
No, OpenBSD's install is not as friendly as the new Linux installs. The disk partitioning is really exciting. Hint: Start with a totally empty disk. When you manage to get partitions where you want them, put a small DOS partition on and work around it. Another hint: If you don't grab a calculator or at least a piece of paper, you are either very good at memorizing numbers and doing math in your head or you just nuked that partition you were trying to work around. The first time I installed it on a Compaq (with the configuration partition), I wiped the disk completely clean. Not even the OpenBSD partition survived the install! I think it took me two or three additional attempts (i.e., reloads) before I got it right. Suddenly, it becomes easy, even logical 8). I'm *very* serious about practicing on a "spare" hard disk first.
I found the FTP install actually worked very nicely with OpenBSD, something I could NOT get to work with the otherwise more friendly FreeBSD.
I will dispute any claims that documentation is better on Linux than *BSD. The Linux documentation is certainly BIGGER, at least on mall store shelves, but hardly better. You see, Linux is a rapidly moving target. The details of every distribution change every release, and in fact, some of the products might even be perceived as completely different OSs by a non-X familiar person. While I have been playing with Linux for YEARS (key word: Playing. I'm not yet a Linux master), I've been pleased that OpenBSD seems to be more "familiar" quickly based on my Unix experience. *BSD is much more standard Unix than Linux is. A book on RedHat v5.2 will not do much to help you get RedHat 6.0 up and running.
This is good from a learning perspective. Unix books cover both OpenBSD and FreeBSD much better than they do Linux. On the other hand, I really miss 'bash'. HOWEVER, *I* will impliment bash, I will know how it got there, I will know how to remove it or change it or whatever. You loose this in the modern Linux distributions. It is all done for you.
Another problem with Linux documentation is the quality. Everyone sees it as a cash cow, everyone is writing a book. Most of them stink. Several years ago, I bought a book on Linux. Durring my first five minutes with the book, I spotted THREE blatent FACTUAL errors (Linus wrote Minix then improved it to Linux was one of them). A few are good. Most are obsolete.
As far as I can tell for multiple booting, to boot OpenBSD, set the partition active. Therefore, it will probably work with most boot management software.
Hardware support: Well, OpenBSD seems to support "standard" stuff. IDE, main-stream SCSI. Haven't played with the sound. It recognized every network card I threw at it (at least four totally different cards). Forget USB for the time being, and I wouldn't wait up.
A *BIG* comment: I know a lot of people (I do it myself once in a while) seem to think the magic of a new system is installing it. This is not true. Not at all. As long as you think installing it is the major hurdle, you haven't really learned the product. The magic is what you do ONCE it is installed. How you set it up for efficient use. How you back it up. How you recover it when you woof a hard disk (or a few strategic files). How you recover it when you woof or upgrade a main board. I clean up a lot of networks set up by people who didn't understand that installing the software is just the very, very tip of the iceberg.
Try it. On an empty hard disk at first. 8)
Nick.
Re:BSD is higher up the learning curve (Score:2)
Someone recently said in #FreeBSD/Undernet, "I thought they only made X Windows for Linux."
Linux isn't the end all and be all of Unix. I like Linux as much as the next guy, but your
If there's source, there's a way.
So, not only can you compile GNOME and KDE yourself, you can also use the Ports System:
$ make search key=kde | grep Port | wc -l
43
$ make search key=gnome | grep Port | wc -l
42
I know you meant nothing by it, but some potential BSD user out there will read your post and take your comment for truth. Please post responsibly.
Re:BSD is higher up the learning curve (Score:1)
That's not to say that OpenBSD is difficult to install. It's not like you have to newfs and unpack stuff by hand. A shell script takes you through the install. If you can configure a Linux kernel with it's Q&A interface, you can install OpenBSD.
I've not gone through a NetBSD install, so I can't comment on that.
The other FAQ's of yours will have to be answered by the corresponding FAQ pages which I'm sure you can find without my assistance.
Re:If the BSD's succeed (Score:1)
It split from NetBSD.
Re:BSD is higher up the learning curve (Score:1)
James Crawford
drachen@thepcmaster.com
Re:OpenBSD (Score:1)
(on a humorous note, I accidentaly blew away that first install at 3:00 am later that night, when I was trying to figure out if I had assigned space correctly, and decided to run mkfs on the c slice, which appeared to have a lot of room on it...
I learned a lot about FFS exploring the resulting damaged filesystems )
On a final aside, if anyone out there runs Roxen [roxen.com] on OpenBSD, and they've been able to get multithreading working, or have an easier way to get user authentication working than patching the pike crypt functions to use blowfish, please let me know...
Keep it going !!! (Score:1)
Been using unices for a few years now...just
glad to see *BSD getting its coverage now, too.
Gotta thank the Linux community for getting me
into unix, and I've also gotta thank some of them
(you AC's know who you are !) for giving me
enough reasons to want to give *BSD a try also.
Just don't want to admit that the Linux crowd has become populated with so many of them...sorry for those skilled Linux users out there who still put up with it....darn squeaky wheels sure need to be greased...anyway....
screw install routines...nothing wrong with having a great install, but that should never be the priority it seems to be with some distros now.
It's a shame that when a developer writes some good code, people (who wouldn't appreciate it anyway) just want to see how easily it goes into and out of their systems.
oh yeah (gratuitous PORTS plug ahead !!!! )
everyone NEEDS to use a system
like ports
viva *BSD !
Re:One Geek's experience with BSD (Score:2)
the hacker cores of Linux and *BSD. Don't confuse
the narrow-minded "advocates" who regularly post
to slashdot as being representative of either the
Linux or the *BSD community.
The core members of each of the projects have
acknowledged that the other projects are very
useful resources, and they use ideas from each
other regularly.
> many of the apps that run on BSD were
> originally developed on Linux.
And vice-versa.
Re:Will it make it? (Score:1)
That's assuming that they try it. However, linux has taken the limelight. I hope that the booming interest in linux will also help the BSDs though.
As Linux's popularity increases, so does the popularity of the BSD's. Many BSD users are FORMER Linux users. A question to you... have you even used BSD?
Yep, Linux makes a nice midpoint in the Windows->BSD migration. Personally, I'm going to give OpenBSD a shot, it looks really cool. I'm hoping that it'll get more of the limelight in future. I've heard it's a dog to install, and there are no OpenBSD books ... wish me luck (-;
Re:If the BSD's succeed (Score:2)
I don't know about Jon Katz, but in ESR's case, he was frankly amazed at the "Linux phenomenon." ESR could simply not understand how Linux could be stable and usable without a lot of central control, design, testing, etc. etc. He wrote The Cathedral and The Bazaar in an effort to come to grips with the phenomenon.
More than one reputation is now founded on the premise that open source is "unique" and provides marvellous, unheard of benefits that tightly controlled products never could enjoy.
This is a strawman. Who says that tightly conrolled products never could enjoy the benefits of what Open Source projects have? Well, except the obvious benefit that all changes are accretive and are guaranteed to benefit all of society. Open Source projects benefit projects like *BSD, while *BSD projects may be a duplication of effort of another *BSD project.
So if the BSD's succeed in gaining considerable market share, doesn't that mean most of the rhetoric we've been reading about open source is mostly hot air?
Of course, the BSD's already have held considerable market share. Before Linux, BSD/OS and FreeBSD probably powered more ISPs than any other system. I know of a number of companies that use *BSD "under the hood" to power appliances. Anything like this that's done in Open Source goes to make the rolling Open Source snowball bigger and bigger, while these efforts in BSD tend to fork off into closed backwaters. It seems that Open Source advocates only need to observe a few historical facts to point out the clear dangers of free-but-not-Open Source. Has (Open/Free/Net)BSD benefitted from the fork that occurred when BSD/OS was created? Open Source advocates believe it's the accretive nature of Open Source that has fueled Linux's unparalleled growth and popularity. To what do you attribute Linux's recent successes? Hype and personality culture? Yes, Linus is a powerful, magnetic personality.
The various BSD flavors languished in near obscurity since 1993. So, come 1999, suddenly there's all this excitement around Linux, the hot new thing that might unseat Microsoft and take over the computing world. Big vendors like Oracle, IBM (including Lotus), SGI, Compaq, Dell, Sybase, Informix, and Corel all get behind it. Wall Street approves, makes Linux startup guys paper billionaires.
Some guys in the *BSD community have built a Linux emulator. Some segment of this new marketplace that Linux is rapidly building sees that there might be advantages to a similar, but different Free Code operating system called *BSD. This difference might be an especially agressive, ground up security model (OpenBSD) or something else. And, after all, they all run all the Linux code, so there's little risk. The *BSD flavors prosper like never before, and why not? Now, finally, there's the promise of a BSD that has Office Apps, and advanced Window Managers like Gnome and KDE and a whole wealth of other goodies that have suddenly become available.
So, you would draw from this that the "rhetoric we've been reading about open source is mostly hot air?"
I would draw that it's good to ride the coattails of a winner.
If I'm correct in that interpretation (and I might not be - please correct me) the BSD's are much more like Netscape's model than Linux's model.
Ironic that you would invoke Netscape's model as being equivalent to BSD's model. Supposedly, Netscape was inspired to open up Mozilla based on the writings of one ESR. Seems that some people have drawn different conclusions from The Cathedral and The Bazaar than have you.
In any case, any success that *BSD has is, in not small part, due to the availability, reliability and quality of gcc. Last I checked, gcc is Open Source. Thus, the lesson to be drawn from BSD's success is that Open Source is a powerful force.
Wouldn't it imply that, really, strict central control is a good idea for a software project?
Another strawman. Others have pointed out that Linus maintains strict control over Kernel mods as do the *BSD leaders. Almost every successful GPL'd software has a set of core developers (sometimes serially) behind it that drives and guides it.
Besides, I don't recall anyone in the Open Source community suggesting that the only good software comes from Open Source projects. Cathedrals are beautiful, after all.
Re:Excellent. (Score:1)
One of the "problems" with Linux is that there are forces trying to make it all things to all people. Having *BSD flavors around, each specializing in something they do really well, provide important compliments.
In theory, they can all share apps, they can each benefit from the success (and learn from the failures) of the others, and they'll provide a rich competitive environment. The future won't be (MS or Linux or Commercial Unix or ...), but (MS or Linux or FreeBSD or OpenBSD or NetBSD or Commercial Unix or ...).
One of the biggest, and by no means the only, problems with MS was that they held a desktop monopoly. Choice is good.
Re:Will it make it? (Score:1)
We often see statements about how *BSD-positive comments are routinely moderated down, but it's funny, they usually are moderated UP, especially if they aren't just taunts.
It's clear to me that Slashdot covers BSD a great deal and for the most part this coverage is warmly greeted by the community here. The Open Source community continues to prove that it's very Open.
Linux vs. BSD: One User's Experiences (Score:3)
I have worked at a commercial ISP that used BSDI's BSD/OS, and at home I have run Free, Net, and OpenBSD. I liked all of them. The differences between them are fairly minor, IMHO, and which one to run generally depends on which hardware platform you're using. Sometimes you have some obscure card that FreeBSD supports but NetBSD doesn't, or vice-versa, and you install whatever supports it. From an operational perspective, they are nearly indistinguishable.
I've just recently switched back to Linux because I'm developing for that platform now. I like the hardware support. I like the packaging job RedHat has done. I kinda like RPM's (although I think FreeBSD's ports/package system is a little better).
There is one thing about Linux I don't like: the lack of usable system documentation. I have a very simple definiton of "usable documentation". When I see a file in /etc -- let's say its called "veryimportantfile" -- I should be able to type "man veryimportantfile" and get an explanation of the file format, and pointers to related documents.
I can do that on *BSD. I can't do that on Linux. I can't begin to describe how much this irritates me. Searching the net, while fun, may not always be a solution -- what if I'm installing a new server on a site without a net connection? Should I really need a telephone line to read crucial documentation? Sure, I can read the source, but it would be nice to not have to.
I appreciate the HOWTOs and FAQs on the net, but I'd personally love to see the LDP concentrate on simply documenting, via man pages, the system configuration files.
But my summary of this is that I use both Linux and BSD whenever possible, and hope that I never have to stop using either! -Peter
Predictions of comments being moderated down (OT) (Score:2)
I'm curious how many comments that start with "I'll bet this gets moderated down" or whatever get moderated down, how many don't get moderated at all, and how many get moderated up.
Perhaps "I'll bet this gets moderated down" is usually just a (sometimes a bit whiny) rhetorical comment, rather than a genuine prediction that the comment will be moderated down to Flamebait Hell.
Re:Misinformation (Score:3)
I don't know who's been feeding you these lies, but stop listening to them. BSD code is "freer" than Linux code, and more "open". BSD is community code.
Where you may be confused is in the development structure. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Open Source, but who is in charge of the project. Linus and Alan let most of the submitted "good" code into the kernel. The BSD's on the other hand only let in good code that conforms to the current vision. BSD, Linux, Apache, Sendmail, KDE, Gnome, etc., all have their unique development styles, but they are all equally open source.
But a lot of this is largely perception, however. BSD is very mature and needs few additions or fixes outside of drivers for new devices. Linux, although now grown up, is still an adolescent with plenty of additions and fixes needed. Which would you rather work on, something that doesn't need work, or something that does?
Re:Excellent. (Score:2)
Does "Linux" here refer to the kernel, or to the various distributions? If it's the latter, there is no "it" - there's a pile of different distributions, some of which, arguably, specialize in something they're intended to do really well.
(And even if it does refer just to the kernel, not all useful kernel stuff is in the Official Kernel Source - that's another place where different distributions could do different things.)
Re:If the BSD's succeed (Score:2)
As others have noted, "closed source" vs. "open source" is orthogonal to "tightly controlled" vs. "loosely controlled" - unfortunately, "www.opensource.org" appears to be unreachable from here right now, but I have the impression that the BSDs (other than BSD/OS) would qualify, given that you can get full source to them and you can freely distribute changes to that source. The non-commercial BSDs (i.e., all but BSD/OS) make their source available by anonymous CVS, and probably won't reject all changes sent to them.
Re:Will it make it? (Score:1)
I know that this is horribly off topic, but I was curious what luck other people had had with RT/Linux.
Re:BSD is higher up the learning curve (Score:1)
Even today when I have an obscure question I can often find the answer on the mailing list archives.
They can be found here [freebsd.org]. Also, If you want to browse the archives, you can go here [freebsd.org].
----------
Re:In Summary: BSD is Better (Score:1)
I use windows nt for workstation use at home and at work. I use windows 98 at home primarily for game usage. I also happen to have an alpha FreeBSD workstation as well as a p200 FreeBSD server -- which i use windows to telnet to as well as an X server to the X client (FreeBSD). I have an x86 linux box just because and I run a mix of FreeBSD, BSDi, Solaris, and NT servers at work. Some functionality may overlap making a number of Operating systems right for $insert_problem_here. In that case, just go with personal preference.
----------
Re:BSD License (Score:1)
Of course, I also like the BSD license because I can at any time take any BSD licensed code and include it in my proprietary software or solutions. If I was writing software myself, I might choose the BSD license to give to the community -- as well as developing a codebase that I (and others) could turn into commercial products (whether competitively or in completely different products).
Now, If I was developing anything particularly big (time and complexity) from which I want to directly profit from; I may choose something completely or even partially closed. If money didn't matter I might just develop it and put it under the GPL or BSD. If I think I can make money writing something for a company not directly in the software business -- then I do any of the 4.
That's how I see current licensing schemes..
----------
Re:Slashdot support of BSD - Questionable (Score:2)
It's clear to me that Slashdot covers BSD a great deal and for the most part this coverage is warmly greeted by the community here. The Open Source community continues to prove that it's very Open.
1999-10-01 18:28:20 FreeBSDCon '99 Program verview (articles,bsd) (rejected)
1999-10-04 15:45:09 FreeBSDCon '99 Schedule of events (articles,bsd) (rejected)
1999-10-06 21:20:58 FreeBSDCon '99 Schedule of Events (articles,bsd) (rejected)
And these are just mine. At least 5 other people have submitted this at least twice. (The FreeBSD-Advocacy mailing list archive is updated weekly.)
It's clear to me at least that some of the
Here it is though, since it'll apparantly never make it on the main page:
The FreeBSDCon '99 (Oct 17th - 23rd) website [freebsdcon.com] now has a complete Schedule of Events [freebsdcon.com]. The two "FreeBSD Internals" tutorials by Kirk McKusick are sold out, but it looks like it's not too late to register for the conference itself.
Re:Slashdot support of BSD - Questionable (Score:2)
----------
Re:Theo (Score:1)
*cough* false. It is estimated that for every 6 new linux users there is one FreeBSD user. As well, I don't see many people leaving the FreeBSD scene once they get a taste of the OS. They may use other operating systems as well, but FreeBSD is gaining users. Remember also, that the open source buzz has definitely generated an interest in all OSS operating systems. There isn't just one small static market flying over to linux (or any other OS for that matter. Not that you needed a rational explanation, since the comment is obviously stupid and false.
As for the second statement, I have no idea if that is true (will ask Jordan). However, if it's a trademark problem, then the guy can definitely just rename the product to whatever he wants. If this is true (and I'd like proof), then it is extremely easy to get around this.
----------
The theories still stand... (Score:1)
KDE, Gnome, Linux kernel - with all due respect to Theo and OpenBSD, I think they are larger in scope than fine-tuning and improving the security of an existing operating system. I don't think projects of this magnitude could have been done without massive open-source community involvement.
Re:If the BSD's succeed (Score:1)
It sounds like you're accusing the BSD systems of trying to soak up the credit for other people's work. There are a couple of flaws here. One of them seems to be a fundamental problem with how some folks in the Linux camp think - the notion that software developed on Linux should automatically be developed for Linux. We shouldn't forget that most of the really useful stuff that Linux systems use (the X-Window system, TCP/IP, BIND, Sendmail, various WWW servers and so on) were developed for UNIX systems generally (often under Open Source though non-GPL licences). It is good and proper that Linux systems should take advantage of this code that big-hearted people contributed to the community. But similarly, it is reasonable that people writing Linux-focussed software should (and generally do) write their software so that it will compile and run on just about any other UNIX system, including BSD. So Linux used existing UNIX services and GNU tools to build an OS and that BSD (or AIX or Solaris or whatever) users benefit from projects that gain their Oomph from Linux fever. That isn't riding on coat-tails, that's making the best use of the available technology, consistent with what the software authors wanted. And of course, it's what Open Source is all about...
In any case, any success that *BSD has is, in not small part, due to the availability, reliability and quality of gcc. Last I checked, gcc is Open Source. Thus, the lesson to be drawn from BSD's success is that Open Source is a powerful force.
Well, the first point to note is that BSD predates gcc (GNU anything, actually) by a number of years. The various Free BSD's today, of course, benefit greatly from gcc, and it's hard to see how they would get by without it. Nonetheless, I can't come to terms with your conclusion. The success of the current BSD generation is of course an indication of the strength of Open Source software. Because BSD _is_ open source software. Open Source != GPL.
Furthermore, I can honestly say that I'd be just as lost on AIX, Solaris and just about any other commercial UNIX without the option of installing gcc for free instead of an expensive vendor-supported compiler.
Re:If the BSD's succeed (Score:1)
No, I was trying to address the issue "how would you interpret the fact of market success for BSD". I would attribute it, to some degree, to the success of Linux and I would point out that the market success (not it's existence, you are correct that BSD predated GNU/FSF) of BSD was only made possible by GPL'd software.
Because BSD _is_ open source software. Open Source != GPL.
You're right, I did conflate Open Source and GPL, as others have pointed out. My mistake.
Re:If the BSD's succeed (Score:1)
Sure, it seems clear that Linux has produced UNIX users that might not otherwise have become UNIX users, and that some of them have discovered (and liked) Free BSD systems. There is, of course, a compelling theory that the BSD's would have gone places faster than they did if Linux hadn't captured user attention like it did (back around Linux 0.99, I mean, not recently). As we keep hearing on Slashdot, Linus would have simply used BSD instead of writing a whole new kernel had the BSD lawsuits not muddied the waters. None of this is important any more, though. I just think it's good that the BSD's, and not just Linux, should be publicly visible as credible UNIX platforms.
and I would point out that the market success (not it's existence, you are correct that BSD predated GNU/FSF) of BSD was only made possible by GPL'd software.
Well, you can't make that claim about SunOS, Ultrix or NextStep, which are the best examples of BSD commercial succuss I can think of at the moment. Though I don't think you meant to. FWIW, I think that the current BSD's would be much less useful without the various GPLed software they use.
Re:Excellent. (Score:2)
(And even if it does refer just to the kernel, not all useful kernel stuff is in the Official Kernel Source - that's another place where different distributions could do different things.)
I'd say it's both the kernel and the distributions.
While the kernels may have flexible options, there may just flat be things that a BSD kernel does better than any Linux kernel. Of course, this may be seen as a sore point to Linux kernel developers who will attempt to address it in various ways, just as BSD developers may attempt to address things that Linux kernels do better than BSD kernels.
At the end of the day, there will still be differences. Even the perception of difference will lead to specialization in the marketplace.
Any specialization that occurs will lead to a certain market using it heavily which will lead to more experience with the product being used in that way which will lead to further specialization.
The existence of so many "easy to install" distributions implies specialization in the marketplace for Linux vs. BSD. I'm not sure the distributions help that much in ease of installation, but I'd be surprised if there weren't some Linux distributions that were easier to install than most BSD systems. Again, BSD folks might put together "distributions" and this would lead to competition and again, there would be a reputation for one being more for the Geek and the other being for the newbie based on their relative successes.
I'd be very surprised if there is a Linux system that is an exact superset of all of the attributes of a BSD system or vice versa. The only way I could see this happening is if one completely marginalizes the other, which I don't see happening.
Just the fact of GPL leads to some specialization. Linux will be used by GPL advocates, for their purposes and BSD will be used in commercial products for their purposes. This will tend to move the products in different directions.
It is odd to talk about something that's Open Source as a "product". What Linux or BSD are is really mostly perception. Either can be many things to many different people, based on what you have on your system.
Re:Will it make it? (Score:1)
Re:Is he cussing them out yet. (Score:1)
Re:heeheee (Score:1)
Re:heeheee (Score:1)
Both of you err.
It is a joke. He made fun of the first name mentioned ("Johann") instead of the commonly used "John" because he seems to think it is wrong.
In fact both names are appropriate as this link [maxmon.com] might show.
Re:One Geek's experience with BSD (Score:1)
keeping an eye on the security page is a very good idea too, but less important on development/production boxes with few uesrs, where you can take the attitude that account separation is not there to absoultely protect one account from another, but just to make you be conscious about what you're doing, by having to su over to another account for sensitive operations.
Re:Much more convoluted in linux (Score:1)
Re:If the BSD's succeed (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot is NOT a BSD advocacy site, Understand (Score:2)
That HAPPENS to be Roblimo's suggestion. But you left that little tidbit out didn't you?
Before I go further let me assure you that my post was not meant to be hostile. I was bringing to attention the fact that the FreeBSDCon story was apparantly being rejected simply because it was BSD, and it seemed odd considering what's to come.
Slashdot was founded as a site for Geek news. Linux is predominant because that's what Rob uses, and it's his site. Still, BSD has it's place here. Slashdot apparantly thinks so too, or the soon to be announced new section wouldn't be forthcoming. Surely you saw reference to that while you were in the -Advocacy archive eh?
I wouldn't expect to see Linux stories on BSD sites(Daemonnews [daemonnews.org], FreeBSDRocks [freebsdrocks.com], FreeBSDZine [freebsdzine.org], FreeBSD Advocacy [tesserae.com], etc) any more than I would see BSD stories on sites such as Linux.com.
There was a FreeBSDCon story on Slashdot when it was first announced. It's NOT too much to ask to follow up on that when a full schedule of events is released.
When participants tried to register for the FreeBSD event, the hotel manager didn't know what the heck they were referring to.
Funny, I had no trouble whatsoever.
The behavior of WC CDROM is exemplary. They are the primary financial backer of the FreeBSD Project, and there's nothing shady about them booking the room. All such Conferences have Sponsers, and you see their names all over them. Why would this be any different, and why should they try to conceal their identity?
And no one who reads your comments will go read the archives for themselves. A Shame.
Have you ever worked for Microsoft? Maybe in Marketing?
- Avid Linux User and BSD Advocate.