Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems

A Devil Of A BSDCon 67

Posted by CmdrTaco from the angels-and-daemons-inside-of-me dept.
OSDNs favorite BSD zealot BSD-Pat Lynch was on the scene at the latest BSDCon, and took the time to send us in a report. Lots of links to stuff for you BSD folks to share and enjoy.

Well I just got back from BSDCon, and spent some time catching up with old friends, new core team members, and cool new products. The highlight of the event was the reception and dinner at the Monterey Bay State Aquarium, which in my opinion is a must-see. All five BSDs were represented this year: MacOS X, BSD/OS, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.

There were some really neat talks at BSDCon, three tracks in all: general, security, and development. The highlights of the security talks were Bill Fumerola's talk on DoS attacks and the new ipfw which uses compiled rulesets for better performance, Robert Watson's TrustedBSD presentation, and Mark Murray's explanation of the /dev/urandom work he has done with FreeBSD using Yarrow. In the development track, Greg Lehey and Jason Evans presented a paper on FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT's new SMP model.

The exhibit hall itself was small, lending to a larger focus on technical issues, but there were several exhibitors that caught my eye. One was RelexUS, a company with its roots in Russia. They make a relational database called Linter which I found extremely easy to use (though commercial, it was very robust) It also bills Linux and FreeBSD among its native support list, as well as almost every other OS under the sun. It supports ODBC, stored procedures, transactions, asynchronous replication, and a host of other features. Also, the EFF were there, and I finally got around to joining.

Thursday night we piled into a bus to head on over to the Monterey Bay State Aquarium for dinner, drinks, and dessert. We had to wear Daemon horns to get in and fun was had by all. The new core team wrapped up the conference on Friday afternoon, and everyone left and went into town, tired, hungry, but satisfied with this year's turnout.

More pictures can be found at Greg Sutter and Jim Mock's pages. More coverage can be found on BSD Today.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Devil of a BSDCon More

A Devil of a BSDCon

Comments Filter:
  • Oh look, there are a couple - here [userfriendly.org] and here [userfriendly.org].

  • SMPng Link (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    My impression is that FreeBSD is going to greatly improve their SMP support with finer grained locking and supporting reentrancy in the kernel. I would very much like to read about it and see if they did any cool stuff like processor affinity scheduling, etc... However the link provided [lemis.com], appears to point to a directory containing files with interesting names, but the files are not downloadable (perhaps a file permissions problem).
  • As her mother, I can tell you this. You obviously don't know her very well.

    ~hepkitten
    mom of the BSDemonette.
  • How do you manage to mention the linux compatiblity layer, which provides support for 97% of the closed source Linux OSes, but then turn around and say there aren't any applications?

    Have you looked through the FreeBSD Ports Tree [freebsd.org] lately?

  • The Monterey Bay Aquarium isn't a state institution. Just to correct an error in the article. It's a fabulous place, however, and worth a visit, then a walk along the tidal pools to see in nature what you saw in the aquarium.
  • They left the BSD community a long time ago and haven't given us enough credit or spotlight since then.

    Now, why does this make me think of Richard Stallman kvetching because "Linux" is preferred over "GNU/Linux"? Nothing against you; it just triggered a connection in my badly-wired brain.

    If some of the rumblings I've read in the linux-kernel mailing list mean anything, FreeBSD may be about to get a lot of credit should the kernel hackers try to create a similar VM to the one in FreeBSD's kernel for 2.5/2.6. Dig through the past two months or so of archives; at least one maintainer (Rik van Riel?) mentioned the excellence of FreeBSD's VM...and anyone who reads test kernel changelogs knows all about the headaches Linus and crew have had with the Linux VM lately:)
    -------------
  • Uhh... not yet.

    Not that MacOS X isn't excruciatingly cool, but it won't be number one until it ships...

    /Brian
  • Exactly. Linux never had anything to do with BSD -- any convergence as such was inevitable (not that there is much, but it's there), but only because they're open-source Unices (trademark be damned).

    /Brian
  • Ballmer

  • In a very real sense, arent we all in the same war? promotion of our platforms as a viable alternative to Windows.

    If that's anyone's war, then I find it a bit pathetic.
    Linux is probably chasing that goal more than any of the BSDs, but I don't think any of the core teams are or should be focusing on it.

    The aim of FreeBSD is (more or less) to build a free, solid, stable, high performance server OS for commodity hardware.
    The aim of NetBSD is to provide a free, stable, portable OS for all possible hardware.
    The aim of OpenBSD is to provide a free, stable, secure OS for as much hardware as can be reasonably supported
    The war is to keep providing features people need and support for the hardware they run, while still meeting and iimproving in the particular OS's stated aim. To that end, Windows is irrelvant.

    When you decided that windows was the enemy, you sold out on the idea of producing quality software, and opted for a pissing competition with Microsoft.

    --

  • They have been supported on FreeBSD for a LOOOOONG time. The 3.x's wcd driver had an icky way of supporting it. 4.x's acd driver handles it better.
  • Not all code in BSD was AT&T's code. After all, it was usually SysV which imported BSD code, not the other way around.

    Though it would be tough finding 8 years code. Only in the most obscure utilities. "yes", maybe. :-)
  • Brett Glass has a beef with you? Man, my sentiments...
  • ...M$ one, right?
  • yup, your right, my mistake though ipf is far nicer
  • so what is the main purpose of the BSDcon? To get people that mostly communicate via the 'net to meet face-face & _bond_ (read : drink). forgive my ignorance, but I've only recently started delving into *BSD from my current *linux* distros..
  • correct me if I am wrong .. but isnt NAT a feature included with 2.4
  • This should not have been moderated down. McKusick, the creator of the logo, has asked that he be referred to as the daemon, and if anything else, "Chuck."

    dk? You wouldn't happen to be in NJ, eh?

  • Offtopic my ass!

    This is a joke. Get it? Devil? BSD?

  • Who's inclusive, and who's exclusive? We go to your shows, but I didn't see RMS, or Linus, or ESR, or anybody else from the FSF or OSI camps showing up at BSDCon.

    Besides, none of us really care about windows. Really. Honestly. We're just cranking out good code for our own platform that works nicely and does what we need it to do, and we don't care what your grandmother runs on her PC.

    Which isn't to say we're anti-grandmother, we're just not trying to convince everybody else in the world that we have the best operating system ever. We're just happy to let them find it out for themselves, in their own good time.

  • How do you manage to mention the linux compatiblity layer, which provides support for 97% of the closed source Linux OSes,

    Presumably you meant "...97% of the closed source Linux applications."

  • One of the goals of the TrustedBSD project is to add POSIX capabilities to FreeBSD. A useful capability is CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE, which allows daemons to be bound to low (1024) ports.

    So don't worry, FreeBSD will soon give everyone in the world (not just Christians) the power to bind the daemons on their system.
  • In a very real sense, arent we all in the same war? promotion of our platforms as a viable alternative to Windows.

    Aren't we all primarily trying to make an excellent and free OS? Competition among free OSs can only help in becoming better. This goal is worth pursuing independent of what products a certain company in Redmond sells. Actually, both BSD and GNU have started long before the times of Microsoft dominance, and it will be important to continue efforts after the (hopefully soon) date when M$ loses its monopoly.
  • Well, for applications, I meant NATIVE applications, not those that can run under the compatibilty layer. sorry if I wasnt clear about that
  • what is the name of that bsd devil ?
    didn't anyone of you find irritating that we have to refer to it as "it" always...
  • Native or not is hardly significant. Many Linux apps run even faster on BSD+Linux "emulation" (technically it isn't really emulation, apps run at near native speed or faster).

    Even things like vmware have been ported (luckily the kernel modules of vmware are opensource), proving how very capable BSD's Linuxulator is.

    Thus, it is nonsense to say that Linux is a better desktop OS. BSD can do what Linux can (i.e. run all it's applications) and more...

  • Its a Daemon, dammit (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's a Daemon, not a devil, dammit.

    -dk-

  • What bothers me... (Score:4)

    by xtermz ( 234073 ) on Monday October 23, 2000 @08:18AM (#682775) Homepage Journal
    is the seperation of the Linux and BSD communities. In a very real sense, arent we all in the same war? promotion of our platforms as a viable alternative to Windows. I think there needs to be a movement out there to promote the *nix environment in general, particulary in reference to OSS based os'es. Perhaps some more OSS expo's...... im sure theres Unix expo's of some sort, but how about one tailored to the open source revolution...not just linux or bsd specificially...

    "sex on tv is bad, you might fall off..."

  • Got the Order Right! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    MacOS X is the #1 distro of BSD and the only one with a real graphic user interface.
  • Where do you think NAT came out of .. oh, and have you ever used ipf in OpenBSD. I have yet to see a linux equivilant. I personally think that there is enough sharing between the two to be productive. OpenBSD is a very secure server platform yet for a workstation I would never run it.
  • >Linux is better than BSD on almost all fronts.

    Here [softpanorama.org] Mr. Cox calls FreeBSD
    "really technically excellent Operating System. "

    Looks like Alan is not dismissive like you.
  • BSD was originally MADE for the big iron. Think before you type!
  • Heh, but my calculator is more powerful than some of that big iron. Bleh. =P

  • Re:What bothers me... (Score:3)

    by Jordan Block ( 192769 ) on Monday October 23, 2000 @09:35AM (#682781) Homepage
    In one sense, we are all in this together, I've used both Linux and BSD, and both have strngths and weaknesses. Now, before I continue, let me say that my opinions are based on first hand experience.

    BSD is stronger as a server Operating system than linux, it has a more mature TCP/IP stack, and is simply faster.

    Linux is a FAR better desktop operating system. It's got more software for it, and there is a seeminly larger group of people developing for it, as well as a lot of commercial support.

    As a friend put it: "Linux is the windows of alterative OSs"

    Linux does get more attention, has a larger user base, and has some really cool shit that it can do. However, its not always stable (though a hell of a lot more stable that anything M$ has ever come up with.) and not always secure (again, a lot more secure than anythingfrom M$).

    Then there's BSD, its not as well known (thanks in no small part to the legal troubles it had some years back). Its secure, stable, and can emulate linux faster than native linux can run! Unfortunately, there isn't as much developer backing for it, so there arent as many desktop apps for it.

    Anybody out there who's judging BSD without knowing the facts, is doing exactly what the windows/mac world does to Linux. They don't understand it, of Bill and Steve don't like it, so I must be evil!

    This really isn't something to start a holy war over!

  • Re:Daemon v. Penguin Wars... (Score:3)

    by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Monday October 23, 2000 @09:42AM (#682782) Homepage Journal
    First off, the license is different.

    The BSD kernel and Linux have different licenses, true. But the Perl on BSD and the Perl on Linux are the same. Ditto for Xfree86, gcc, less, OpenSSH, TCP/IP, lpr, emacs, ad infinitum.

    For someone not working on the kernel or OS environment, the licensing is identical. From a user's perspective, one is 100% free and the other is 100% free.

    The BSD license leaves version contrrol with UC-Berkley. Period.

    Wrong. Go read the license. Go fork the project and create a new CVS tree on your own server if you wish. No one will sue. Version control remains with the FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD core teams for exactly the same reason that version control for Linux remains with Linus: it makes sense to have one official source.

    Secondly, BSD is a more mature project than Linux, and that drives people apart. In the earlier days of Linux, and to a certain point even now, you can end up with copyright on a small chunk of the Linux kernel.

    Yep. But its more than getting your name in the list of contributors. A new OS has opportunity for everyone to contribute. But with an old OS the opportunity is harder. You either need some grand vision of a radical change, or be content with the unglamorous tuning and tweaking.

    But BSD is more than the kernel. There is also the userland OS environment. There's a lot of current work going on there, so you have the opportunity to get involved.
  • Oh, come on; Linus started a kernel project because he wanted something similar to Minix with a freer license. Linux has morphed into something different, true, but don't belittle a community for creating rather than porting.

    Having said that, if anyone wants a great Linux project that has BSD ties (one that anyone would like to take over HINT HINT) look at this site. [sourceforge.net] I'm looking for someone to take over since I suck at coding ;)

  • What the *(#$&(# ? Are you on crack or what? I believe Steve hates Unix so much he based Mac OS X on it. Personally I think it is great that someone is using Unix for a mainstream consumer OS rather than reinventing the wheel. Unix is proven, stable, extensible, and has almost everything going for it. Add an easy to use window manager and I'll be getting a box to run it...
  • McKusick, the creator of the logo, has asked that he be referred to as the daemon, and if anything else, "Chuck."

    Ahem. He has asked that it be called "Beastie" [mckusick.com]. Where do you people get "Chuck" from? It's an awful name for him.
  • I think there's a huge psychological difference between *bsd and linux. look at the differences in the licenses and core teams, for two good examples of the differences in mindset.

    i find (even though i use linux way more now than *bsd in my day2day) i still trivialize linux (it's not bsd, i'll say, or the performance is pretty good, but not as good as bsd). i dunno... i find myself thinking of linux as the windows of the unix-like operating systems. i find myself wishing that the linux package managers were more like the ports tree under *bsd.

    if i want wierd hardware support, i turn to linux. if i want a no-holds-barred performer, i'll go the extra mile and set up bsd. i'm not saying that i'm right, just giving you my prejudices...

    i still love both; free unices have (literally) changed my life, and i wouldn't want either one to go away...

  • Actually you are wrong.

    In the AT&T-troubles in 1992/3 one of the keypoints was "to remove all AT&T-Code" - therefore if there is still code inside BSD older than eight years, you are into big trouble.

    On that point of view linux has a slightly older and more consistent codebase.

    Well, to be precise, this was one of the reasons why I changed from NetBSD to Linux in 1993.

    The other was... while the BSD-licence might be more mature than the GPL (this is so ridiciolos I will not comment further .-), the BSD-zealots are not more mature. I fact they start hacking at each other as soon as there is no Tux around, for heavens sake I saw the most evil flaming in 12 years of usenet at the NetBSD-Mailinglists. Go and call Linux obscene names in the kernel-mailinglist and post p0rn, you wouldnt never even get 10% of hate back...

  • BSD is now a server OS and Linux a workstation one. Alltrough both stride to become both.

    I'd wish a linux with all the bsd's features or the other way around. And i'd wish a BSD kernel/distro with all the features from all the BSD's. example: I had to install linux instead of freebsd on a machine because fbsd doesn't support (in a stable release) IDE cdwritters. I had to install netbsd instead of freebsd on a small home server because freebsd does no support sowtware IDE hdd spindown (a netbsd atactl port someone ?). I used OpenBSD instead of linux on another machine for security reasons.

    I just want a Debian packaged distro of an os that supports everything linux does - has the openbsd's security - frebsd's speed - netbsd's small size - macosx's cool interface and runs on cheap intel hardware. Or "the right tool for the right job" approach is better ?

    --
  • After an extensive hymen inspection, I can guarantee you that yes, she is a virgin.
  • You could argue that's a fairly unreasonable demand given the quality of the compatibilty layer brings about no easily measured expense- syscall translation between Linux and BSD is not difficult.

  • "Big Iron" is typically understood to refer to a mainframe. And no, a big ol' Sun box is not a mainframe, it's what used to be refered to as a "mini". Nowadays I guess it's just called a "big ol' Sun box".

    Cray's UNICOS OS was adapted from SysV Unix... about 15 years after Unix was "born". So, no, Unix was not "born on big iron".

    I guess you could say that a Cray was "big iron" even though it's not really a mainframe... but I did say "hardly ever".

    "Free your mind and your ass will follow"

  • If you simply mean the BSD networking stack, it was not GPL compatible, hence couldn't have been part of the kernel.

    If you mean actual code base - I got into Linux rather than BSD because it actually worked on the first computer I tried - a 386SX
  • The implication seems to be that VA Linux, of which OSDN (nee Andover.Net, long may it wave) is a part, would discourage discussion of the various BSDs, in order to push instead its own Linux-based systems. (Am I wrong with that summary?)

    However, the reality is a little different. I've met a few folks from VA Linux proper -- hard to avoid meeting some people from VA even if you don't work there, just by going to any Linux event;)-- but I doubt that anybody who doesn't work for Slashdot even has my phone number.

    I have never (*ever*) been asked not to run a particular story by VA, and if I were, I would laugh at the suggestion. I also would never not run a story simply because it was possibly embarrassing to VA - why the heck should I? A tainted news source just doesn't make sense. I may have poor judgement at times, but I try not to compound it with other people's poor judgement! :)

    Additionally, on the topic of BSD ... well, VA Linux sells some nice Linux boxes, even though a little pricey. I bet that none of them would have any trouble running any of the BSDs, since the hardware is pretty standard stuff (feel free to correct if that's wrong, I have never owned a VA machine to confirm). I bet they'd be happy to sell you a machine on which you can yourself install whatever OS you want. They don't sell BSD boxes now (or possibly ever, given the name), but I get the strong impression that Free software is great by them in general, not just some particular version of their modified RedHat distro.

    Additionally, Open Magazine (on what, the 3rd issue now?) has a BSD section, and columns from BSD and networking maven Pat Lynch. Now Open only started after the purchase of Andover by VA -- does it sound like VA is really trying to stifle VA? Not to me :) but then, you can consider the source as much as you want.

    Truth is, we'd like to get a lot more submissions dealing with BSD -- right now (and for the past few years) Linux has generated a larger buzz because of its more (anarchic / robust, however you want to see it) dev. process. The BSDs are great and have their well-known emphases and strengths, but there isn't as much in the way of interesting wackiness. Maybe because they're already so mature, eh?

    ok, so remember, I work for VA (indirectly), and you may choose the lump of salt you want to take with my words, but they are sincere.

    timothy

    Hmmm.

  • ahaha, you mean BSD forever ;)
  • There are several fundamental differences between BSD's and Linux.

    First off, the license is different. The BSD license leaves version contrrol with UC-Berkley. Period. You can also incorporate BSD code with closed-sourced projects. Linux is under the GPL, which leaves revision control to the programmers (though, with the kernel, the Final Word is given to Linus) and it mandates that if GPL code is put into a project, it must also be made GPL.

    Secondly, BSD is a more mature project than Linux, and that drives people apart. In the earlier days of Linux, and to a certain point even now, you can end up with copyright on a small chunk of the Linux kernel. BSD is a lot harder to get in on, and even harder to inject fresh code in.

    Third, while both projects have reputations for security, BSD takes the cake. People haven't hacked good BSD implementations, be it Free, Net, or BSDi. It takes less to lock down a BSD box than a Linux box, but I've been able to hold down a Linux box at a hacker con. (I also publicized the machine's IP in all the conference computer areas.)

    Fourth, BSD has a reputation with big iron, whereas Linux is building it in right now. BSD is more stable in most instances than Linux.

    Fifth, Linux has a cooler sounding name than BSD :)

    I use both FreeBSD and Linux. So please, no flaimbait, huh?

  • Re:What bothers me... (Score:5)

    by imp ( 7585 ) on Monday October 23, 2000 @08:34AM (#682796) Homepage
    is the seperation of the Linux and BSD communities

    Let us keep some historical perspective here. The Linux crowd decided to not use BSD net2 when it was freely available, but instead went off and invented their own stuff. They left the BSD community a long time ago and haven't given us enough credit or spotlight since then.

    Having said that, it is good to have a convention focused on the BSD community. There are already several for the Linux community. This isn't a war or anything like that, just a chance for like horned people to get together and exchange ideas. While some members of the BSD community may indulge in excesses wrt Linux and/or its mascots from time to time, most people realize that both groups benefit by the competition and the cross fertilization that happens between the groups.

    It is also a wonderful opportunity for us to meet the people that we develop the software with, or sometimes compete against, have some personal bonding and see the latest FreeBSD bondage t-shirts ;-)

  • A PDP-11 isn't exactly Big Iron. Unix has always been a mini-computer or micro-computer OS, it has hardly ever appeared on mainframes and was certainly not "born on big iron". Sun and SGI have turned it into a powerful beast with their 64-128 processor systems, but those still aren't mainframes (the commonly understood meaning of the words "Big Iron").

    The *BSDs have less SMP (multiprocessor) support than almost any other form of *nix, including Linux. This is not a criticism, hardly anyone has a multiprocessor box at home and I feel that leaving out full SMP support to spend more time on more useful code is a valid design decision.

    I think you should do some more research into the history of Unix, but I certainly don't think you're a moron like the flamer you responded to.

    "Free your mind and your ass will follow"

  • You should only be a bit bothered. (Score:3)

    by mr ( 88570 ) on Monday October 23, 2000 @09:44AM (#682798)
    The 'linux community' has a sub-set of voices who have money in Linux-centric stocks and have a vested interest in seeing 'linux succeed'. VA Research^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HLinux is an example of a voice that won't promote BSD unless they have to. Given money == volume, it is no wonder the BSD message is shouted over.

    The voices are fine, it is what the voices *SAY*....$0 OSes/Open Source OSes == Linux (and only linux) that cause the problem.

    Taking snippits from here [technocrat.net] these quotes are WHY there seems to be a division, because there *IS* a division.
    The Institute has not yet seen fit to include the only companies which market products and services many in the Third World can actually afford, the Linux companies.
    Now, anyone with 1/2 a clue or better knows that the ONLY companies that market products that are at a $0 cost option are NOT just Linux companies. There is BSD in the form of Darwin (the $0 option from Apple), FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.

    So here is a 'linux voice' ignoring BSD, even thought the 'goal' of the voice is to help the 3rd world become aware of $0 options. Saying 'only linux' is being un-truthful.

    Bruce P has a take on this, and I can understand his modivation:
    Re: And BSD isn't affordable, nor corporate?
    by Bruce Perens on Monday October 09, @03:31 AM BSD folks should be represented too. Hopefully, they can ask for representation in the same way the Linux folks are. Should the Linux folks fight their battles? I'd have no problem speaking out for them as a free software spokesperson. But I doubt that every Linux proponent should have to fight on the behalf of BSD.

    Here is the source of a division.

    If you are talking about 'open source alternatives to Micro$oft', then you should not be starting and ending with Linux. BSD is there, and you could always use HURD or even Minix. (if others have $0 options for personal/business use, please list em.) WRT HURD and Minix, there isn't alot of usefulness, so you are left with BSD.

    When you talk about 'shrink-wrapped Linux binaries', do they even consider Solaris/SCO/BSD's Linux compatibility layer? If you don't think of BSD/SCO/Solaris, then you are adding to the division.

    And, when someone approaches you and says: "Tell me about Linux", are they wanting to know about Linux, or are they "interested in knowing what they could run instead of Microsoft software" with Linux being the name on the tip of the tounge of the press.
    (And Linus is in agreement with the POV that Choices to Microsoft should be varied [softpanorama.org].
    That same attitude helps explain why Torvalds is so eager to counterbalance Microsoft's dominance. He wants computer users to have a choice among several operating systems, not just one from Microsoft. "I'm not rabid anti-Microsoft," he says. "But they make it so hard to compete.")

    If *YOU* don't like the rift, what are you doing to bridge the gap? Do you say 'linux' as a shorthand for Open Source OS? When you ask vendors to create a 'linux binary', do you ask them to support BSD/SCO/Solaris with that linux binary?

    And think about this:
    Is it OK to go to a Windows technology roll-out to hand out Linux CD's, in the interest of letting ppl know about 'an option'?
    Is it OK to go to a Linux Meeting and hand out BSD CD's, in the interest in expanding knowledge?

  • Did you read his post? That's what he said.

    BSD Takes much less to lock down.

    In case you are clueless, that means it's more secure out of the box than Linux. Linux can be made secure, but only with much more effort.


    -- Keith Moore
  • ---BSD Girls in Latex (the fabric, not the text processor... although that might be... mmmm text processor)!

  • And the article is lacking, as it does not have a single pro BSD license person in the article.
  • Things change....VA *USED* to be called VA Research and not VA Linux.

    Pat Lynch mentioned the lack of support for BSD in the VA world, and got a reply from Chris DiBona responded this wasn't true, etc la. The complaint was WRT StarMedia and how Pat had to re-format each VA box and load BSD because there were no BSD pre-load options.

    Having spoken with Pat tho, I have to agree, VA doesn't support BSD. (this was end 1999 timeframe)

    When I visited the web-page yesterday and looked at the server line, it was all about Linux. (not supprised)

    >Free software is great by them in general
    There ya go! FSF and the efforts of RMS have managed to get 'Free software == GPL'. I don't agree, but what the hell, let them have the def. Given I'm letting them have the word 'Free', by your own admission (and using the most excellent thinking of one winner, everyone else looser :-) the GPL is great, and all other forms are some kind of sell-out. Sell out - evil. BSD is sell out, therefore evil.

    This 'protect you from yourself/evil' is best shown by Bruce Perens statement: "The great thing about BSD licensed code is I can take the code, wrape it in a GPL license and keep the software free"

    > trouble running any of the BSDs, since the hardware is pretty standard stuff

    And I would not expect it either. Talking with a BSDi person about the eXtreme server line, BSD/Linux/Windows NT, its all good...so long as you sell a box.

    Go look at the 'newsforge' site "News about open source" and then read the article about the BSD vs GPL licnese. Do you think the BSD licnese was given proper representation, or was the BSD license represented by a group of Pro-GPL people?

    The VA orginization may SAY they 'like BSD, and we give it a fair airing' but the actions are lacking. (not totally absent, but a whole lot less than what it should be) And, considering that to get X done, you have to go thru Y people. If one of the Y is anti BSD, the process to get X done stops.

    >The BSDs are great and have their well-known emphases and strengths, but there isn't as much in the way of interesting wackiness.

    What do you want? A match with Hubbard/Hannum/Theo followed by Glass/RMS?

    >are sincere.

    And I don't doubt you ARE sincere. However, not everyone within VA are, and alas, these people are higher up in the chain than you. Some of them talk about 'open source' and then sneer at BSD.

  • thanks for the reply, mr.

    I like the idea of a 3-way deathmatch between the BSD vigilantes;) -- when I said that there wasn't as much in the way of interesting wackiness, I just was fielding an explanation of why there aren't more Slashdot submissions about the various BSDs ... because IBM isn't porting BSD to a wristwatch, say! [Note that this is a point of some confusion to me; I'm surprised that the companies which have suddenly gone "Open Source" (as opposed to, as in "not necessarily," Free) have largely and famously done so with Linux rather than BSD, which would seem to me the more tempting from their perspective ...]

    People with different bents will of course find different things exciting -- I think OpenBSD is one of the coolest projects around. Theo I've heard various impressions of, but since I don't know him, they're all hearsay to me. His project and its results, though are pretty obvious -- Bastille Linux I think is influenced hugely by it, even if not directly.

    Re: Pat, Chris DiBona, VA and BSD on their machines -- you obviously know more about that than I do. :) I think VA would be smart to get more OS agnostic; on the other hand, they have limited resources and are (as I understand it) selling all the servers they can eat at the moment, so they're probably just trying to handle that for now. If the company is still around (I'm optimistic, but anything can happen) in 3 years, say, I bet they'll be a lot broader in their pre-loaded OS choices. (If they aren't, others will be -- there are other hardware vendors who've decided that they'd rather not be at MS's mercy!)

    I've not heard any VA people scoff at BSD, but then in any large group of people there are bound to be various opinions. I've eaten and chatted with Pat, who is obviously a big fan of BSD, and with the other folks from Slashdot I certainly haven't heard complaints about BSD ... (other than the one I told you about -- the BSD section isn't active enough;) ).

    Contrast this with say, Dell, the only other computer company I've have some experience with a few mgrs and engineers -- people there as of 2 yrs ago on the business side had for the most part not really heard of Linux. Some, yes, but even then they were pretty vague about it. At VA, given its background, I know that people there have at least a good background knowledge to draw on when they build their OS preferences. It might not be yours / mine / anyone else's in particular, but I've been impressed with the reasoning of the relatively few folks I'm familiar with.

    As far as the license wars go, well ... just know that not everyone is a license zealot. I like Free software but I don't particularly want to quibble over which software deserves a capital "F" and which software should be called "Open Source" -- bleaach. I tend to prefer the BSD license overall, but the GPL is perfect as the GPL! I don't find a huge conflict, moral or otherwise. Both are cool, neither is perfect, and there are all kinds of others which fall somewhere between them or extend to strange new corners. What I don't like is software licensed such that to morally use it I must pay more than I want to, even if it's otherwise a great thing. (For instance, I'd like to play with PhotoShop, but I can't justify the pricetag, or using a copy which violates -- as I see it -- the producer's right to determine the disposition of his own work.) If I one day see all black and white, no grey, I'll have to go in and have the contrast adjusted, though;)

    anyhow,

    timothy

  • >Pat and Chris
    I only know what I've heard Pat say, and what was here on /.

    If VA only attracts Linux Zelots as sales/staff, what kind of solutions are they going to push? The pro-linux thing thusly becomes a big circle-jerk, all the time repeating a mantra of 'linux is the only open source os' rather than, say, 'BSD, HURD, Linux are Open Source OSes, and we have the best skill set with Linux, so that's what you'll get'

    From a marketing POV, the 2nd POV requires the customer to think, and the 1st POV can become a droning chant. Repetitive chant - simple triple plus goodthink. Independent thought - evil sextuple badthink. (Oh, and a thinking customer might go elsewhere.)

    Now, if something where to happen to Linux (GPL lawsuits, Linux/Cox/Hall all joined hands and declared Microsoft products better) to make the product un-appealing, VA Linux would 'return to its roots' and become VA Research and start supporing BSD in a heartbeat. Why? VA is just sniffing after the money.

    And thusly we return to the main theme of the thread...if it is Open Source, its more than just Linux. Once this is the message in the minds eye of the public (as opposed to the present argument Open Source is linux, and nothing but linux) the 'community' will be left with the normal arguments of 'my algorithm is better than yours' and 'my license is more free than yours'...just like the old Unix areguments of 'my Unix is better, just because' and 'my price is better than yours'
    Adopting a Open Source OS message that includes BSD/HURD and Linux (rahter than a present mindset of "linux is the only choice") will be far simpler and better on the palet than settling "GPL-BSD Who's more free" or "A micro Kernel sucks less than a Macro Kernel" or "vi is better than Emacs".

  • "The screenshot of Excel looks pretty much, well, like a screenshot of Excel. With this, two of the most persistent reasons not to run Linux appear to be fading; of course, what's to stop Microsoft from releasing versions that won't work under Wine, ever? That could be a good reason to stick with GNUmeric and pico."

    If you are an un-educated person to the ways of Open Source....this makes it look like WINE is a linux only thing.

    Using Linux as a shorthand for Open Source OSes is quicker, but this supstution for the word Linux would be equally effective

    WINE on BSD/Linux
    Unix and WINE (ok this upsets the camp that thinks Linux isn't unix:-)
    WINE
    BSD/Linux/OS of choice
    OS of choice running WINE (this allows everyone to read in thier favorite OS)

    (An observation: the sloppy substution of Hacker for cracker has gotten the term hacker re-defined Using Linux as shorthand for Open Source OS)

    Doth tho now grok-ith my POV?
  • And the userland? Hmm?

    I think the bigger gripe is with Linux's bedpartner, the GNU project....

  • You're a lousy mascot for idiots, yet they use you anyway. So just deal.

    Regards
  • I bet this "mr" is Brett Glass. He's misquoting me, but he's never been able to get that particular comment out of his head. Yes, the BSD license would allow you to convert BSD work to GPL. I've always considered it odd how any proprietary license would be OK, but oh no! not the GPL.

    Bruce

  • Then what *IS* the correct quote?

    If I am mis-quoting you, I'd like the CORRECT quote.

  • True, but it's just a lousy mascot anyway. They should change their mascot to some sort of bird, such as an eagle. Their motto could be "this bird can fly". Take that, Penguin.

  • NAT was originally coded by Allen Thompson, for Linux.

    Hardly. It was written as RFC 1631 in 1994 by some wackos from Cray.

    The goatsex [isi.edu] technical archive has more information.
  • "Linux is better than BSD on almost all fronts"

    are you serious??

  • naa the lil' devil thing is cute... better than that gay penguin anyway

Slashdot Top Deals

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.

Close