Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
BSD Operating Systems

Tucows BSD Section Goes Down in Flames 140

BSD Today ran a comment on Tucows shutting down the Tucows BSD Section after flames from the BSD community about the misinformation they had on the site. Tucows says that they cannot meet the demands of all the "factions" within the BSD camp. It's a cop-out in my opinion; BSD Today and Daemon News seem to do it fine. All any of us asked for was for the inflammatory pro-linux/anti-BSD flavor of it to be toned down, and the misinformation cleared up. DaemonNews also carries some appropriate comments.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tucows BSD section Goes Down in Flames

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    [BSD v GPL issues]

    This is a mistake someone could understand spending a day looking at the various BSD and Linux sites. Interesting Tucows screwed up.

    [OpenBSD has minimal support]

    OBSD support is not minimal. It has a faq that is readable and holds your hand. It has man pages that simply makes HOWTOs unnecessary. It has mailing lists and newsgroups where people are helpful. If you are a building a firewall with OBSD, there is book on it.

    There was also a support, commercial channel announced last year, which I'm not sure is still in play today. But the attempt was there.

    I'm not sure where you state that "compared to Linux" the support is limited. It may be small compared to Linux, but it is certainly there and effective.

    btw, all this information can be found by reading the 3 FAQs of the open source versions of BSDs and searching /. for 10 minutes. Hardly a lot of effort.

    [Support for NetBSD is minimal at best.]

    Hardly. See above. Maybe it's *different* than what Linux provides, but it is by no means minimal unless you work on an odd platform.

    [No official support for NetBSD]

    True, AFAIK and having not even done a web search. Ooo, Tucows got *1* thing right so far. Remember, this is supposed to be a good source of information for the BSDs.

    [Hostile OpenBSD install]

    For whom though? I've heard SunOS users say time and time again that they like the OBSD install. I walked through the OBSD install with a *Mac* friend for the first time, reading the OBSD faq. Hardly difficult.

    The reality is, the reason the word hostile was used was because "it wasn't a easy to do without reading 3 pages of well-written documentation" or lacked a GUI.

    [Your reasonings around the difficulty of OBSD system being difficult to configure]

    Problem is, the BSDs don't cater to the crowd that doesn't read documentation. The BSDs are trying to provide rock solid stability, support for common hardware, and a largely *classic* unix experience. This last point is an obvious point where the BSDs and Linux differs...Linux really is trying to go after the desktop market and the MS crowd. The BSDs are more concerned with keeping down the bugs in the system.

    [Configuring NetBSD is an adventure.]

    Just because it's text based doesn't make it hard. Is it because you are used to MS and many Linux products that the mere fact something is different makes it difficult? You sound like a person whose driven an automatic transmission all their life trying to learn to drive a manual. Jeesh.

    [Compiling network applications on NetBSD.]

    Not sure where you believe you need to *port* ICQ. It's already done. Yeah, you have to compile, but that's also done rather seemlessly for you using the ports collection.

    You are aware you can run Linux apps on the BSDs right? Any complaints you have here is also a strike against Linux...and certainly people have no problem using apt or rpms.

    [BSD systems being minimal.]

    You and Tucows took this blatantly out of context. Yes, it is minimal. But they did not *explain* that it was meant and designed to be minimal and that is the BSD philosophy. Instead, Tucows started with a rather negative leader, "At best..."

    If you want to take things out of context, go ahead. But realize that this is your failing to understand the nature of the issue, not the communities.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    It was just another site carrying old news and speculating. They didn't have anyone knowledgeable on BSD. It will be better for them to keep with other OSs where they (hopefully) know better.
    Also,, along with do a much better job.
  • Shooting yourself in the foot is a habit common to all freenix types, not just BSD. If you step out of the Linux camp and view the perspective from a neutral vantage point, you'll see that penguinistas are every bit as petty and irrational as the daemonics.

    If we Linux Zealots are really so bad then why is it that Tucows is giving up on BSD and not Linux?

    HELL, the Linux extention of Tucows was first. So if we were really that unbearable, that BSD section would have never seen the light of day.
  • I have never had the displeasure of being forced to use consumer grade windows in a professional computing position. If your employer cares about you, he will at least allow you the "luxury" of running NT.

    As far as SCO or Novell goes... who actually runs those dying relics anymore?
  • If no one is visiting that part of the site, then all that is being wasted is a little disk space. As far as maintenance goes, they could probably get some help from the community if that was really the case.

    If what you suppose is true, then that would put BSD usage down below BeOS usage. (Tucows also has a Be section)
  • Tucows was trying to provide a useful service to BSD users.

    Mindcraft was disparaging Linux.

    You can't be blind to the VAST difference between these two situations.
  • Tucows can infact take constructive criticism. Infact, I've given some of my own. They're quite appreciative of it. Some of us (linux) Zealots are capable of putting away the hand grenades when the situation calls for it.
  • The KDE/GNOME war was VERY productive.

    Commercial Unix is starting to adopt "our" desktop standard(s). That very likely would have been a lot less appealing to the likes of Sun if Troll were in the driver's seat.

    What is this Lemming-esque infatuation with having only ONE option. There should be no less than 3 viable ways to do ANYthing. This meagre level of diversity is needed to ensure competition and some variety. Not all of us want to do things exactly the same way that the rest of the herd does.

    This is especially true for any AltOS. Otherwise, we would still just be using the "one true interface".

  • Are you really sure?

    It seems like the only thing he would have to do to turn off the BSD crowd is to just release it under the GPL...
  • Hmmm. Now, incorrect (not necessarily dis) information is obviously not a good thing. I suppose it depends on the severity of the incorrect information.

    Since I'm not a BSD user and had never visited Tucows' BSD site until this morning, I can not comment on the accuracy of their information. I've been able to read some cached pages at Google, that's it.

    Nonetheless, if Tucows says that BSD is released under the GPL as opposed to the BSD licnese... I'd say that's simply incorrect information. It's easy to correct them with a short email containing links to official BSD sites which state otherwise.

    From Tucows' point of view, I think they were just trying to put up some of the BSD's and some generic info about BSD. I get the feeling, though, that the BSD communities came down on them a little too hard. That's my opinion, based on what information I've received.

    It's easy to demonstrate your dissatisfaction with a company: write them and tell them why you're unhappy and don't use their services or products until they've corrected the problem to your satisfaction. If they aren't a monopoly, the market will adjust against their favour and the company will be forced to correct the situation or quit.

  • Actually, *I* am not a BSD user and I've never complained to Tucows about anything. My post above is attempting to advocate rational emails with logical points to them, rather than scathing comments and flamebait.

    I certainly did not tell anyone to "snort condescendingly", far from it. I believe I encouraged people to simply let the company in question know that you're dissatisfied with their product or service in a rational, logical manner.

    However, you do have a point. It never hurts to start something by pointing out the stuff that you really like about their product or service.

    I will add, though, that if all else fails, I will let that [dis]information stand.

    If I wish, I might publish a page or two of my own, telling people what's wrong with the [dis]information in question, but it's not my job to fix all of the ills in the world. I feel that by taking a stand against a situation like this, by not consuming the product or service (and probably encouraging others not to, too) that you put the pressure on the company in question to fix their own problem(s), instead of trying to fix it for them.

  • Yes, I have been following it. The first thing I did was read Tucows' open letter at The impression I got was that there were *many* people complaining to Tucows. That impression is based off've quotes like this:

    "When Tucows periodically gets something "wrong" on the BSD site, we receive a barrage of angry user comments. Paradoxically, when we use this advice to make adjustments we receive an equally prolific battering from other BSD factions indicating that we had it correct to begin with. Any attempt to provide a middle ground only results in hostility from all sides."

    To me, it sounds like people jumped down Tucows' throat for publishing incorrect information, instead of just politely pointing it out, thus the link to the Advocacy how-to, which I consider a guideline for the Advocacy for any OS, not just Linux. The Advocacy How-to's information is fairly generic.

    Claiming BSD is GPL'd is a pretty blatant mistake to you and me. It should have been to Tucows and their writers/etc, but it wasn't. I don't believe they deserved the flames I'm sure they got, though - and I *know* they got more than the flames from BSD Today or Daemon News.

    What I don't know is if people did in fact politely point anything out to Tucows.

    If in fact people were pointing out the incorrect information to Tucows and they chose not to fix it... well, that's their deal. They can choose to shut the site down, which is probably best if they don't have any knowledgable people or at least any people who care.

    In the end, though, I can only make assumptions about BSD user comments to Tucows based on Tucows' response to the situation. Since Tucows shut their BSD section down, one can assume that the flaming was pretty bad OR that they didn't give a damn. It was probably a bit of both.

  • by Exocet ( 3998 ) on Thursday January 25, 2001 @09:12AM (#481512) Homepage Journal

    Basically, it's easy to sum up this situation: you reap what you sow.

    I'm not sure what people expect when they go around being insane zealots, getting in someone's face when they mess up one iota, etc ...But Tucows shows one example: they stop providing a free service.

    I urge people to read or re-read the Linux Advocacy howto here []. Perhaps if everyone's a little more cordial and constructive with their critisism we can keep companies interested in providing free services to the BSD/Linux/etc communities.

  • The sad thing is that this Anonymous (Tu)coward is quite right... I work at an ISP using BSDi and FreeBSD since 1993 and I started with NetBSD in early 1993.

    I cant see much difference in the stability or elegance of BSD vs. Linux (or FreeBSD vs. Debian) but I can see a big difference in the userbase and the applicationbase (and users attitude).

    From my point of view any new system or solution beeing planed on BSD is wasting effort and time. If you just want to learn doing thing "the other way" then BSD is ok.
  • Don't laugh; while the French government isn't stupid enough to try this, the Quebec government is.
  • by Chas ( 5144 )

    Looks like some people forgot to read certain HOWTO's on advocacy.

    Flaming zealots. Linux has had this 'feature' for a long time now. And you BSD guys are JUST getting them?

    How's it feel to be behind the times?

    The above was intended to be a joke.

    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!

  • I design electronics CAD systems. You can be pretty sure that you won't be seeing a port of my product to BSD until there's a concept of manners in the BSD crowd.

    Good idea. Throw away potential business!
  • by benmhall ( 9092 ) on Thursday January 25, 2001 @02:23PM (#481517) Homepage Journal
    Sorry to say it, but their BSD site was utter garbage.

    I'm not kidding.

    I've got a few BSD servers, I'm running Linux on my workstation, I love both. TUCOWS did a great job with Linuxberg, but their feeble attempt at a BSD site did WAY more harm than good.

    Did any of you complaining about the BSD community actually visit the site before they shut it down? It sucked. It really sucked.

    It had potential, if they had had a few people who actually used and believed in BSD products. They didn't. They slapped it together, made gross inaccurate statements about BSD, and never chnged their ways.

    Sorry, it had to be said. If it had been a Linux site, the Linux community would have chewed them out at least as badly.
  • This was moderated up?
    Stuff this. Look for me on half-empty.
  • hmmm? tucows owns Linux Weekly News (, which is a great Linux site to keep up to date with everything that's going on around Linux. And LWN alone has at least 3 or 4 people writing on it, full-time, about Linux news. I have no idea what Tucows' Linux "channel" is like, but I don't see any reason to bash their Linux news -- LWN is doing a truly great job.
  • *grin* Yeah it is. That was the point.

  • It's better than the BSD lisence. It prevents companies from stealing from the public domain and claiming it as their own. That's real freedom. It's the kind of freedom that creates the stability that people are willing to build around.

    Anyway, enough of my arguing. I just enjoy getting you BSD people to show your true faces. Nothing is surer for that purpose than mentioning the GPL.

  • Anytime a BSD bigot puts down the GPL as not being 'free' I'm going to get upset and angry.

    Generally, restricting freedom tends to cause economic problems. If the GPL restricts freedom, why aren't there economic problems in the GPL based Open Source community? Seems to me that the flow of informtion and level of activity is much higher in the GPL based parts of the community. Kinda tells me which license is better at promoting freedom.

    To me, those kind of assinine comments about licenses are a perfect example of the inferiority complex (not claiming BSD is inferior, for those who are victims of this complex) combined with an elitist attitude that the BSD community is noted for.

    The Tucows site had obvious incredibly stupid, misguided and wrong information on it. This much is true. I also have no doubt that some of the behavior that they complain about is also what happened.

    I'm perfectly happy to be a friend of the BSD community, but I get the distinct impression that they'd prefer I not be.

  • Think about this.
    Walnut Creek has been helping the FreeBSD people for *years*.

    Tucows was just jumping on the bandwagon because BSD might be the 'next big thing'.
    When the BSD people asked them to correct mistakes on their site, they dropped BSD.
    Does this sound like the actions of a company that supports the BSD community?

    The *BSD community owes Tucows nothing.

  • Woohoo! Perl bot!

  • When you've got the Ports Collection! :)

    Let 'em take the easy way out - we have plenty of other, better ways of getting software.
    (And none of them have massive amounts of banner ads, either!)

  • Shooting oneself in the foot?

    They listed the FreeBSD download as an X Windows Performance Monitoring application. Pointing out this error is shooting a bullet in a foot? Riiiiight!

    Let's put up a site about motorcycles and when we mention Harley Davidson's, we'll describe them as skateboards with only 3 wheels and a fatal crack straight down the middle due to manufacturing problems. Then when all the Harley riders point out to them that Harley Davidson's are MOTORCYCLES - we can arrogantly and ignorantly rant that they just shot themselves in the foot for speaking up!

  • TuCows is also free. Why the complaints?

    Because TuCows lied. An error is an error is an error, and we all make them. But when we realize we have made an error, but do nothing to correct it, that error becomes a lie.

    Would you complain if the TuCows Linux aread continually stated that Linux was released under the BSD license, or that it had no applications available, or that it was unsuitable for newbies, kept confusing distributions with each other, yada, yada, yada? Of course you would.
  • Tucows were BSD newbies and newbies make poor assumptions.

    BSD newbies shouldn't be running major BSD sites.
  • So, you're saying that your statement "Kinda tells me which license is better at promoting freedom" is not bigoted?
  • Because there is at least *one* Linux guy involved with that site. The Tucows BSD site has been a disaster from the very beginning, and it's pretty clear that there is no one there that knows BSD. They treated it as an extension of the Linux site, and BSD as merely another BSD distribution.

    Go read some of the Tucows articles on BSD. If they had done the same thing with Linux, you guys would be calling for the head as well!

    It's also safer to dump BSD because a) it's a smaller number of people, b) ports makes Tucows pretty much irrelevant to BSD users.
  • It's benefited the BSD community because now there is one less site telling the public that BSD is unfit for human consumption.

    Read BSD Today's [] article to get a glimpse of the kind of FUD that our community can well do without.
  • by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Thursday January 25, 2001 @12:28PM (#481532) Homepage Journal
    For the sweet love of God, you BSD nuts have all sorts of good things going for you but you continue to shoot yourself in the foot.

    Shooting yourself in the foot is a habit common to all freenix types, not just BSD. If you step out of the Linux camp and view the perspective from a neutral vantage point, you'll see that penguinistas are every bit as petty and irrational as the daemonics.

    1)Lets see, you have what, 8 or 9 different version, openBSD, freeBSD, etcBSD... so there is a nice selection available.

    And how many Linux distros are there? (there's only 5 or 6 BSDs) Before you say that Linux is just a kernel that hasn't forked, I'm talking about distributions. Or if you will, the "GN" portion of "LiGNuX".

    2) You have an old slow file system, so newbies don't get intimidated by anything happening too fast.

    A myth. As completely untrue as the myth that Linux uses the BSD TCP/IP stack.

    So... why can't you guys stop acting like a red headed buck toothed stepchild and just friggin calm down a bit.

    Okay, let's turn the tables around and imagine what the typical penguinista would have done if: TuCows had on a prominent review of Debian GNU/Linux on their *Linux* site with a) a download link to pointing to Redhat, b) the assertion that Debian was released under the BSD license, c) there were no applications available for it, and d) the conclusion that the user should stick with Windows because Debian is too hard.
  • better shut down this site then unless you believe slashdot has never ever posted misinformation.

    Sure Slashdot has posted mis-information. But they also had the balls to correct it later, and not go hiding in a corner somewhere.

    This is what the *BSD community is upset about... Everyone makes mistakes, but at least Tucows should have corrected their mistake rather than hide.

  • > They don't know what they're doing.. and i hear they have one guy working on the linux sites now...

    Last time I heard mention of 2cows they were in the dog house among Linuxers for publishing some sort of cluelessness. IMO they should go the Corel route and get out of it altogether if they don't care enough to get a clue.

  • Don't you get it? This isn't about *BSD users being obnoxious, it's about Tucows not knowing what they're doing and getting pissed when people tell them.

    Look, most of the links mentioned in the /. post were of a universal rant. Not FreeBSD users complaining about one thing and OpenBSD users complaining about another, but rather Tucows pissing them *all* off universally.

    There's this holy Linux attitude in most of the /. posts I've read about this and it's disturbing. What would the /. readers do if Tucows starts writing about how .debs suck because 'apt' is too confusing or how Linux is not secure because it's Open Source or any of the other Linux sacred cow issues? Hell, the /. community alone would tear them up... and guess what, they'd drop their Linux section too.

    Now, does it really matter? No, not really. I mean who uses Tucows besides Windows people? But the point is that Tucows screwed up and the /. community seems to be berating the *BSD crowd for it when it could have just as easily been the Linux crowd as well.
  • And conversely, I went there, saw some serious inaccuracies (including the fact that it lists all the BSD's as being released under the GPL) and reviews that appeared to be written by Windows users, and never returned.

    Personally, I found their complete lack of research and understanding of the BSD community as a sign of a site that I would never return to...

    I disagree with sending inflamatory messages, but also do not condone their [dm]isinformation.
  • Why would that happen?

    From the headline:

    All any of us asked for was for the inflammatory pro-linux/anti-BSD flavor of it to be toned down, and the misinformation cleared up.

    The BSD folks are right to ask for that, but I also think there is a little bitterness toward the Linux camp due to its recent (last couple of years) notoriety. Especially since BSD has been around in one form or another longer, and does some things arguably better, yet never achieved the "fame" Linux has.
  • Oh, I get plenty of fresh air....:)

    The decisions are not made around what is said on or any other advocatcy(sp) channel.
    Agreed, but the current KDE/Gnome war isn't too constructive. And the SysV vs. BSD & Sun vs. everybody else fights in the 80's were quite contentious for a while until the Great Unification. My only point is that a lot of times we end up fighting amonst ourselves when we should be presenting a unified front.
  • What is this Lemming-esque infatuation with having only ONE option. There should be no less than 3 viable ways to do ANYthing. This meagre level of diversity is needed to ensure competition and some variety. Not all of us want to do things exactly the same way that the rest of the herd does.

    I couldn't agree more! In fact, this exactly the point I was trying to make in my original post. There is room in the Unix community to accomodate all sorts of different ways to do something. If you prefer a CLI, use it. If you like a pointy-clicky interface instead, use that. There doesn't have to be just one way to do it. So why bash each other for solving a problem a different way?

    Example: last year I set up a gateway on my home net so that all my boxen could share my internet connection. I used Linux because that's what I know. I could have used OpenBSD (or some other variant) and perhaps gotten better performance, security, etc., but does that make my decision wrong? No. Just different. Arguably suboptimal, but not wrong.
  • I really hope that this doesn't deteriorate into more BSD vs. Linux wars. This is the type of thing that has divided the Unix community for so many years and it's time for it to stop. Sys V vs. BSD; emacs vs. vi; Motif vs. OpenLook; Gnome vs. KDE; and on and on and on. Look, everybody, can't you see we're all on the same side here? I know that rivalry and competetion are good, but there's a certain point where it becomes destructive. This balkanization oftentimes hurts the Unix community as a whole. In this day and age of MS dominating nearly every market, if we can't rally together for a common cause, then I think we're just doomed in the long run.

    Linux and BSD each have their strengths and weaknesses. Use them where they are most appropriate. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
  • the tucows people seemed more interested in writing than *reading*. maybe a couple of them have been laid off and now they can spend some time learning. I won't miss them. We're not all trying to advocate our favorite os, you know.
  • by keepper ( 24317 ) on Thursday January 25, 2001 @11:39AM (#481542) Homepage
    Again, the comments of people are just as clueless as tucows....

    did you people read their inflamatory and thoughroughly incorrect articles supposedly "pro-BSD"?

    Please people, inform yourselfs before u comment...

    See here []

    • "Yes, BSD has been around a lot longer, but to be honest, it hasn't really come anywhere in the last few years, whereas Linux distributions have gone from being as frightening to install and maintain as FreeBSD (think Slackware 3.0 here) to something as elegant as Conectiva or Mandrake." (I'm better than you are [])
    • "After reading the FreeBSD Handbook, you attempt the install. Everything seems to go smoothly, but when you boot the system, it hangs. You go in search of help, reading the FAQ How-To sections, but can't figure out where to begin, or what the problem is. So you go on IRC and get flamed for asking for some help. I guess Microsoft just got another Windows 2000 user." (Not everyone is an expert [])
    • "If FreeBSD wants to believe that they are so good, and so elite, then eventually the system will only be used (and usable) by so few people that it won't really matter. Instead of admitting their faults, they could continue to point the finger at everyone else?s, while ignoring the majority of users. So go ahead, pretend that what you've got is perfect and that nothing needs to change. Watch what happens." (New FreeBSD Core Team [])
    • "In this [Jordan K. Hubbard's] article, he openly admits to some of the shortcomings of FreeBSD -- particularly its installation process -- and discusses some possible solutions. In my opinion, the future looks bleak." (The future of FreeBSD? [])
    • "I wouldn't recommend it [OpenBSD] for a desktop machine, though. You have to give up some of the "fluff" to get the security." (The uncrackable OpenBSD [])
    • "New users should steer clear of OpenBSD." (Open BSD 2.6 [])
    • "At best, NetBSD is a minimal operating system. It seems stable, but configuring it is an adventure every time. That, combined with a lack of applications support, make this an easy candidate to pass over in lieu of more user-friendly Operating Systems." (A review of NetBSD 1.4.2 [])

    see their crap??

  • by Johnathon Walls ( 27265 ) on Thursday January 25, 2001 @09:54AM (#481543)
    I had never paid any attention to the BSD section until this came up. Looking at it, I went back and read the previous news & editorials from TuCows.

    It's my belief they should have called the section "BSD sucks, and here's why."

    I read *every* article they posted, and was hard pressed to find *one* good statement about BSD. Not one! The best I could find was along the lines of "Yes, A is good, but it comes with B, and that sucks, so go use Linux instead".

    That's not *BSD infighting. It's *TuCows sucking. If I were a BSD user (which I used to be), I sure wouldn't frequent that site. Even their "here's something cool for BSD" ends up with "but it still sucks".

    TuCows seemed to be doing a better job at trying to scare away new users than anything else. Supporting existing users, they definitely didn't even approach it with their news & editorials section.

    How can you trust a group that insults its audience and its audience's product all the time?
  • Dude, most of these guys don't even know what Free Software is... Blah blah Open Source! Blah blah...
  • "BSD and Linux users were just like their brain-dead Windows users" isn't a jab at their choice to be a Windows site. It was a jab at: 1) Windows users and 2) Tucows for not knowing their audience.

  • by Lazaru5 ( 28995 ) on Thursday January 25, 2001 @10:28AM (#481546)
    Misinformation is abundant.

    BSDi is a company, not an OS. It's also a new company formed from the merger of BSDI and Walnut Creek CDROM. BSDi's product now, as it was when it was BSDI, is BSD/OS. BSD/OS has never been open.

    BSD/OS and the *BSDs do all share a common heritage, specifically 4.4BSDLite2, the last to come out of the CSRG at Berkeley.

    It was a few former members of the CSRG who went on to found BSDI and sell BSD/OS. At the same time, Bill Jolitz's 386BSD became stagnant, so two other projects each independantly of each other took it and became NetBSD and FreeBSD. There was no infighting between these two groups, they just each started their own _on_ their own.

    The only split due to infighting is OpenBSD's creation, which has been well documented.

    TrustedBSD is not a _new_ version, but a name given to a set of extensions that Robert Watson (Remember, that guy with the interview last week?) is working on for INCLUSION into FreeBSD's main tree.

    Note that this is not a flame, but an attempt to correct misinformation. If I do not, it will propogate. Others will read your post and think "yeah! What's with TrustedBSD splitting!? Damn those BSD users!". Don't think it can't happen? It does, every day, and sites like Tucows' BSD section made it possible.

    The tone of the feedback one gets is directly related to the tone of the content being reviewed. Tucows got back what they put into it.

    Which brings us to your "what a surprise comment." It was inflamatory and any negative response you get regarding it is well deserved. And so what if there *are* three (Only the free ones count when talking about segregation and splitting) flavors of BSD? There's several dozen Linux distributions. And yes, I've heard all the reasons why the segregation of Linux was felt to be neccesary.

    Wait, no I haven't.

  • Maybe it will send a message that acting like a crazed zealot doesn't pay.

    But then again maybe I'm hoping for too much. Anyone who needs to be told not to act like a culty religious freak has almost no chance of heeding the message.

    Everyone's heard of the Darwin awards. I think we need another award to acknowledge those whose religous convictions have led them to the edge of the cliff, and then beyond it. It shall be called the Waco award in memorial to those brainwashed idiots who pissed the government off so much that it barbequed them.

    Lee Reynolds
  • This is pretty funny trollig/FUD. Note the lack of actualy facts to back anything up. You need to seriously remove the anti-BSD chip on your shoulder man.
  • A 486/66 running SCO/Unix speaking XNS out the network card. Is there an open source package that speaks XNS?

    IPX is a derivative of XNS, so you probably could get a Linux box to speak XNS. If *BSD supports IPX then the same would probably be true.
  • by wiredog ( 43288 ) on Thursday January 25, 2001 @09:19AM (#481550) Journal
    All any of us asked for was for the inflammatory pro-linux/anti-BSD flavor of it to be toned down

    Toned it all the way down, didn't they?

  • The problem is that nobody agrees on what exactly their "strengths and weaknesses" are - so the communities constantly fight over that list.
  • It's always a good thing to make sure you shut out any possible contamination of your community by screaming at the top of your lungs at the smallest mistake.

    Sure, gets it right because they've been around for a while. I didn't get the impression TUCOWS was trying to sabotage the BSD family. Oh well, I really liked seeing my beloved FreeBSD getting some mainstream attention. Silly me.

    What a surprise this is coming from a community that already segregated the open version of BSDi into FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, TrustedBSD, etc...

    And, yes, I've heard all the reasons why the segregation of BSDs was felt to be neccesary. I'm not knocking one version and praising another. It's just unfortunate we still get to associate contention with BSD.
  • What do you people expect? They run a service at no cost to you, and then they get bitched at when they don't do it perfect.. Hell, if was I was them I wouldn't be running the site anymore. If your wife spends hours making a dinner for you, and you tell her it is shit.... you damn right she isn't going to make dinner for you again.. not for a good while.
  • I don't have the luxury of refusing business from non-Linux customers. If it's on a network or outputs data, I'll work with it.

    I apologize, I really do. I forgot that not everyone on ./ is American, as I am. In America, we are free to work on the OS of our choice. I am sure that in your country, the government can force you to work on old SCO boxes and a hodgepodge of bad-idea stuff. Didn't mean to make those assumptions.
    I doubt that an SA advocating Linux only is going to get many second looks in the job market.

    I know that's what you'd like to think. It validates your current existence, scrubbing old proprietary ISA cards in a basement, doing lonely parsing of odd protocols using old CP/M tools with EULAs that make you an automatic federal felon as soon as you open the box.

    Ain't true, though. Linux careers exist, but they require drive, ambition, and perseverance. Those of us who just want to go to DeVry and then spend the rest of our lives licking the ass of some old Novell box need not apply.

    I was once like you, well, I didn't create typos as often as you do, but I was like you in the sense that I was willing to settle for second best. Then I met Stallman, and that changed my life. Before I knew it, I was selling Samba servers by the half-dozens, building Perl apps, and making the power of Linux work to help animal welfare organizations. And once I had made the commitment to Free Software, I found that it paid pretty well, too - not millions of dollars, but enough to sleep at night without fear.

    Your analogy to a "Porsche-only gas station" is silly. Think, instead, of a high-end auto dealership. My "cars" are GNU/Linux and Open BSD. Sure, I'll dick around with Slowlaris or something similar, but I never lost sight of the goal..


    Think about that, Winboy.

  • It was a joke, designed to point out that he isn't "forced" to work on Windows, etc. Relax, I know there's a world outside America.
  • I feel for these Linux zealots...

    Yes, your sympathy is touching. But the idea that the "real world" will somehow enforce your ideas of what is "normal" is ridiculous.

    Maybe these "Linux zealots" will simply create situations in which Linux (or OpenBSD, or other FREE operating systems) have a chance to demonstrate their excellence. Where I'm currently contracting, I built a Debian box to monitor two Sun Starfires. Why, you ask? Because the Debian box is about five times more stable, and that way we know what's going on.

    Linux paid for my motorcycles, my cars, and my house, often at rates twice what NT lusers get paid, and exceeding what Slowlaris admins get.

    If you somehow think the "real world" will cut young Free Software gladiators down to size, think again.

    Oh yeah, take that Win98 box, and throw it out the window. Your passive acceptance of MS-buttfscking is hurting the rest of us.

  • Perhaps you should realize that the only holy wars that go on between Unix software (all types) are on slashdot or on some usenet channels.

    You need to get some fresh air (away from the internet) and note that most of the real life work around unix is not destructive. Rather people administer and use whatever they like, for whatever task needs to be done, whether it is Irix, solaris, linux, BSD or windows. The decisions are not made around what is said on or any other advocatcy(sp) channel.

    Remember: " is not real life!"
  • It is unfortunate to see the BSD users shoot themselves in the foot. The spread of Free Operating Systems has been successful recently through two avenues: word of mouth, and free exposure. TuCows is a great site that gets a significant number of hits with great regularity. This kind of free exposure doesn't come by everyday, and to have the overly excitable few go out and ruin it for a larger majority is truly sad.

    It is one thing to be critical, it is another to ruin a good cause through over criticism.

    My suggestion is to switch to decaf, it helps cut down on the knee-jerk reactions that seem to be so typical of the Free Software crowd. It also tastes just as good as regular with none of the zealot side effects.
  • by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Thursday January 25, 2001 @01:36PM (#481559) Homepage
    Keep in mind that as a BSD user, I can see thinking alot less hard about firing off an insulting and picky email at tucows (ie, corperation, started off with windows, etc .. ) than any of the BSD sites.

    Ie, the BSD sites probably get the benifit of the doubt when a BSDer considers 'correcting' misinformation found on those sites than that of tucows. I have no doubt people would have relished grilling tucows on relatively small points than the BSD sites. Incidentally, although I dont read them, they are probably at least more biased and non-objective when it comes to summerizing support and ease-of-use issues related to the various flavours of BSD than tucows would have been.

    If anyone really thinks that a collection of individuals at tucows were really out to kill *BSD or to turn the average user away from trying out a *BSD OS (the existance of which, ironically, would have been keeping them employed), I think it's just another case of people being a little to lovey-lovey with their OS of choice. From what I saw of the points under scrutiny, I don't think they were wildly unfair .. just, aimed at the gnubie, which is to be expected from the type of user base tucows attracts.
    If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
  • It was a jab at Tucows for not knowing their audience

    I think Tucows know tyheir audience perfectly - enwtwork administrators from the Windows world who heard about Linux and just want to run a stable OS. They find Linux difficult to use and confusing, with some people saying ti easy and other sinsisteing they need to manually recompile their kernel and all their applications too. The `help' section in their GUI only talks about a fairly small range of apps [at most, less than half of the GUI apps isntalled on their system], the GUI isn't consistent, they feel uncomfortable with this typing interface [which, for these users, is much slower than a GUI] and they can't find out how to make a shared directory for users to store common files in without permissions being a problem. Go on, sit your mother down in from of your Linux machineand let her figure out `chmod g+s ./'. Good luck.

    These people want to use Linux anyway, because they know and acknowledge Windows doesn't work properly. Most Linux distribution vendors still don't take ease of use seriously. Its nice that familiar faces like tucows and can guide them into getting familiar feeling apps to helpm them administer their system.

    Linux isn't more stable than Windows if you can't install it in the first place

  • You sound like a person whose driven an automatic transmission all their life trying to learn to drive a manual. Jeesh.

    This I think crystallizes the fact that you simply don't get what I'm trying to say. I shouldn't have to qualify myself: but I find the installs of OpenBSD and most Linux distributions quite comprehensible.

    Of your analogy: its pathetic that you think just because I advocate giving people choice to drive their car how they want to I am personally incapable of driving manually.

  • Basically, I thjought the ctiticisms in all of these OS were self evident. Man pages are generally notoriously badly written and occasiuonally don't exist. HOWTOs are generally extremnely out of date [even the maintained ones]. The debian install puts widgets off screen which you wont see unless you tab over them, and uses terms like `base system' which are vague.

    It is hard when your app doesn't compile because a header file is missing. Or something doesn't compile with later [or broken] versions of GCC. It is hard when because someone told you *BSD runs Linux apps, and you realize that this blanket statement is a gross generalization.

    It is sometimes perfectly good to assume that soemone knows what they are doing, and reads documentation. Most Linuxes, and many BSDs, do not however aim exclusively at this market - most Linuxes, in fact, don't. There's been so many times I've heard of a network beeing cracked and some BSD advocate says `just install OpenB and have your troubles go away. Firstly, network security isn't that simple. secondly, they probably can't install OpenBSD, because they find it dtoo difficult of because the documentation is porrly written, and their company can't hire external staff to perform this task for them.

    Just be honest: `if you have a few years Unix experience under your belt, or have some cash avaliable for training, OpenBSD would be a good solution. With some tinkering and a bit of knowledge, it can also run many Linux applications'.
  • Have you ever actually installed any Linux distribution in the last year or so?

    Yes, I have installed
    * Red Hat 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 7.0
    * Storm 2000
    * Debian 2.2 [eventually]
    * Caldera 2.4 technology preview
    * Mandrake 7.0, 7.1, 7.2 [7.2 I run os my main machines]
    * esmith 3.0, 4.0 4.1 [which was actually easy]

    I have also installed
    * OpenBSD 2.8
    * Solaris 7.0 and 8.0 i386

    * Windows 95, 98, 98SE, ME
    * Windows NT 4, 2000 Pro, Server

    I word for a professional Linux systems administration company. They all suck. Unfortunately most machines already come with a flavour of Windows installed, so end users don't have to deal with Windows crappy installs. esmith is the only one I would consider remotely useable by non-technical people.
  • by Nailer ( 69468 ) on Thursday January 25, 2001 @12:29PM (#481564)
    I think this presents a good opportunity for many Linux users [myself included] to have a serious rethink about some of or Linux advocacy seeing [from the befit of a third poerson view] how blindly the BSD folk are about attacking those who don't understand their platform.

    Yes, that means its not productive for you to yell at someone who think BSD is GPLed - Tucows were BSD newbies and newbies make poor assumptions. And many other comments [ie, about the installers being difficult] are simply true. They wanted tom provide you with a neat sorted mirror and guide to your apps, and you bit them. Linux users deal with people who don't understand the platform all the time - my employers once thought `hackers' were fourteen year old who broke into computers and defaced websites. When a stranger who doesn't know Linux calls colleagues criminals, I don't get offended. Its an easy mistake to make for someone what gets their news from any mainstream news source. Likewise, when I don't understand why my car doesn't work, and just want my mechanic to fix the damned thing, he's pretty pateint with me.

    Thais is because most people are drivers and not mechanics. Deal with it.
  • by Nailer ( 69468 ) on Thursday January 25, 2001 @12:16PM (#481565)
    Okay, not the insanely obviously wrong ones like `*BSD is GPLed', but there's nothing `wrong' or `pro Linux, anti-BSD' with saying stuff like the following:

    "OpenBSD support is limited"
    Compared to Linux, it is. In turn, Linux support is also limited in size when compared to Windows. That doesn't mean your platform is bad. It just means that there's less support. Its true, deal with it.

    "Support for NetBSD is minimal at best."

    Compared to FreeBSD [biog in ISPs] and OpenBSD [big it security circles], support for NetBSD is tiny.

    "There is no official commercial support for NetBSD at this time. "

    Well, that may be true. I don't know. Keep in mind the word official

    "The OpenBSD installation process is "not very friendly, in fact its downright hostile.""

    Um, this is true. Don't get cut up over it, acknowledge it, fix it, and prove your maturity. This isn't pro Linux anti-BSD ism. Debian's and Red hat's installers suck too.

    OpenBSD is "a very difficult system to configure and use since no configuration front-end exists like FreeBSD's /stand/sysinstall."

    Well, was it obvious to the user? This is a mistake, but it might have been an honest one. No tool exists unless it is obvious to most users it is there. coming from the Linux world, one sees this repeatedly with Linux distributions that hide their confioguration tools from their menus. The newbioe isn't being dumb, they're beiong logical -if they ain't showing it to me, it probably doesn't exist. A fair enough assumption to make. People rarely read documentation.

    Configuring NetBSD is "an adventure every time."
    The NetBSD installer is not for timid -- "it is an old style text based installer."

    Oh, cmon - how are you gonna argue this isn't the case?

    "NetBSD applications support is minimal as well."

    Um, yes. Comapred to Free and Open, yes. Sorry, its a fact of Life. I'm a Linux user. Linux application support is also pretty minimal comapred to Windows or MacOS.

    "NetBSD support for network applications, such as ICQ and messenger clients, is seriously lacking."

    It is. Not everyone wants to port and compile source. Not everyone knows C. Most people don't. Slashdot is the only place where end-users don't exist, and you can tell somebody to `code it themself'.

    "NetBSD is a very minimal operating system."

    It is. It lacks most of the polish that most users expect [even system administrators - remember, more people use NT than Unix precisely for that reason]. Stop bitching that this isn't the case. Either shut up and tell them you like minimalism, or try and make it even less minimal than it is today, just to proove them wrong.

  • Here's an idea, why don't you take all that money you're making and buy a Porsche only gas station, and see how long you stay in business.

    Never know. There's a Porsche-only parts place up the road, and they've been doing business for twenty odd years. Same goes for the GM-only junkyard across the street, the Triumph-only junkyard down in Ohio, the fellow in Nevada that rebuilds Opel transmissions exclusivly, etc.

    Or perhaps a better case, the fellow out by my buddies place that only sells three varieties of gasoline; 96 octane leaded, 102 octane leaded, and 110 octane leaded. Cars that'll take that stuff are fewer and farther apart then Porsche! I saw four Porsche this morning, and (save mine), I saw NO cars capable of being run non-destructivly on 110 leaded.
  • Did you read the articles? It's not Linux zealotry that was giving them trouble; It was the infighting between the zealot factions of *BSD.

    Visit the article; Look at the list of 'opinionated misinformation/slamming' Tucows is accused of. Of the seven examples, only one would actually raise an eyebrow as untrue. The BSD externals ARE virtually the same as they were three years ago, the FreeBSD IRC channels ARE a bit elitist, OpenBSD IS hard to install, even for those familiar with other variants of *nix, etc..

    The BSD zealots didn't like being judged by people from the Linux and Windows camps. That's all there is to it.

    (Please note; I have run everything from Xenix to Tru/64 to Solaris, through half a dozen BSD variants and Linux.)
  • yeah, right! tucows are just one example of the
    carpetbaggers who are trying to make a buck of
    the sweat of the people doing the
    real work bringing us great free OSs like the
    BSDs and linux.
  • by G-Man ( 79561 ) on Thursday January 25, 2001 @09:26AM (#481569)
    ...he of "Dyn-O-Mite!" fame. Talking about Northern Ireland:

    "You've got Protestants killing Catholics, Catholics killing Protestants. I guess it goes to show you -- without Blacks or Jews, people will improvise!"
  • What a laugh! I will soon be quitting my Solaris/NT/Linux/AIX/Irix admin job, and be moving to Colorado where I'll be working in a Linux only environment at my new job. Not only that, but I'm going to double my salary!

    Your "real world" and my "real world" must be on two different planets.

  • "NetBSD applications support is minimal as well."

    Um, yes. Comapred to Free and Open, yes. Sorry, its a fact of Life. I'm a Linux user. Linux application support is also pretty minimal comapred to Windows or MacOS.

    Not true. NetBSD support is behind FreeBSD. OpenBSD support is by far a distant third. Take a look at package growth charts. It is a couple simple line graphs illustrating the growth of the ports trees over the years. FreeBSD leads the rest with around 4,500.

  • by AntiBasic ( 83586 ) on Thursday January 25, 2001 @01:36PM (#481572)
    "There is no official commercial support for NetBSD at this time. "

    Well, that may be true. I don't know. Keep in mind the word official

    Yes there is OFFICIAL for NetBSD. It's a company called Wasabi Systems []. It was formed a few months back by many of the core NetBSD group.

    "NetBSD support for network applications, such as ICQ and messenger clients, is seriously lacking."

    It is. Not everyone wants to port and compile source. Not everyone knows C. Most people don't. Slashdot is the only place where end-users don't exist, and you can tell somebody to `code it themself'.

    I disagree. Most of all your GNU/Linux clients are already found in the ports tree. You should check it out.

  • Too bad. This is just another example of OS advocates using their passion to shoot themselves in the foot. It is amazing to see how passionate people can really scare people away. Many OS/2'rs used to have the same problem. If we all just relax a little, we might find that we have more in common than we think.... Why can't we all get along? (sorry couldn't resist)


  • Maybe they should've just said something like,

    We don't know enough about BSD Unix systems to run {open|Net}BSD. Maybe after we get some more experience we'll be confident enough to use it and build up the application system we require.
  • All you have proved to me is you don't know jack about BSD. If I were a poet I would sing songs for the BSD man pages, the best I have ever seen, and worth the price of the CD.

    I would have to take the 'header' comment as a sign of poor portability on the part of the programmer, making the assumption the the end user is running linux. FreeBSD, at least (perhaps others) runs linux binaries with the addition of a kernel module and the addition of libraries. I will grant that this is not as straight forward as it could be, but the only way to make it simpler would be to install it by default, which most people probably don't need. If you are compiling your own binaries, you already know something, and would probably spend less effort using the ports instead ('make && make install').

    The only assumption I will make is that if someone doesn't understand what they are trying to do (presumably what they want to do), they should read documentation. I consult documentation on all sorts of things that I don't do on a regular basis (car maintenance, electronics setup). Anybody who doesn't make that minimal effort wouldn't have been helped much by a cute teddy bear leading them through a touchy feely menu. Oh, and network security for most people is that simple. install OpenBSD. If they don't know more than just installing it, they are in a much better position than if the same person installed any other system (assume same intelligence level, so no comparisons to say "trusted solaris"). Personally, the openbsd setup is the easiest I have ever used. The worst part is the disk layout, which the CD shows a full example of it in operation. I will grant that a clueless newbie would not know about man pages without being prompted by it. If you can get to that point, documentation is not a problem.

    Lastly, the same could be said of anything: more experience helps.
  • Alright, I stand by most of my points: man pages, poor portability, bloat is not good, documentation is good, openbsd easy to follow instructions (its not like most of us haven't religiously copied install instructions on their first unix installs)..

    I could have done without the first sentence. Sorry..
  • If you read BSD stories at -1, you'll see this troll post this same text over and over. She never backs any of this up with actual credible numbers.

    The majority of linux and BSD users don't post. And a large number don't read /.
  • *smile*
    As opposed to using 'he' as the non-gender specific pronoun. Perhaps s/he?

    Would you perfer it? Or perhaps IT?

  • How do *YOU* know that I'm not a she?

    Hell, I could even be transgendered, on my way from being a he to a she, or a she to a he.

    I could even be a eunich who uses unix.

    (Besides, the wife whould ge upset if the GF dumped me. Now she has to get a new playtoy....for all you know)
  • Cause you don't sound like you have a clue what you're talking about. The advocacy how-to is a great resource, but not relevant here. There was no "insane zealotry" involved, at least not from bsdtoday or daemonnews - one might argue that the tucows/bsd staff was involved in some "insane zealotry" in favor of windows and linux I suppose.

    Tucows hired writers who hadn't the slightest clue about anything BSD to write that section, and those writers couldn't even be bothered to do the slightest research before they blathered off their inane and misinformed views, or even to correct their factual errors when readers tried to politely correct them. After awhile a couple of real BSD writers corrected them publically, and tucows responded by closing the section down, leaving the nonsense letter that's up currently, which has no more connection to reality than their consistent statements previously claiming that BSD was GPLd.

  • Well said. To often I hear this "real world" sentiment on Slashdot. In life, you get what you settle for. When job-shopping, I always make it clear that I won't work with Windows. I also make it clear that I will admin my own workstation. These two filters seem to block all the bad jobs.
    A lot of linux types have a Windows desktop machine at work, not because they're forced to, but because they're too weak-willed to bring the issue to a head. Very few employers will give up a talented sysadmin over the issue of what OS he runs on his desktop.
    With regard to legacy crap, I suppose it can be fun 'detective work' in a way. I'm probably lucky - the company where I'm now contracting has a firm policy of ejecting legacy crap, even before a replacement is found. A while back they chucked all mainframes and VMS in favor of Unix. Occasionally a manager does not want to upgrade equipment in his department that 'works perfectly'. Eventually, we will tell him that during the next outage he will receive no support, and his refusal to upgrade will be shown as the cause of the outage. This seems to dislodge even the most stubborn legacy crap.
  • Posting this article on /. is like standing up in the middle of a Linux users group meeting and yelling "Linux sucks". 8^)

    But seriously, why sit around and debate which operating systems are better? The industry will decide who lives and who dies. Personally, I run OpenBSD, but that didn't stop me from trying out Linux. Now, I'm looking at Freesco [] for that old 486 box in the corner.

  • by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Thursday January 25, 2001 @09:26AM (#481597) Journal
    If you were trying to do something constructive, and put honest effort into it, you'd expect SOME reward for doing so.

    At least, you'd expect nobody to fault you for your creative efforts.

    But what if, while you were going about your stuff, you had a large crowd of people standing around you, shouting insults, throwing beer cans at you, and pointedly making the case that despite the fact that you are TRYING to get something done, you can't possibly do the job as well as THEY, even though THEY aren't doing it?

    Wouldn't that just piss you off? Would you want to keep going?

    So we have a bunch of snooty, nose-in-the-air types who just can't seem to accept being belittled to the level of (gasp!) TUCOWS, who also work with (HEH!) WINDOWS SOFTWARE!, who've spoiled an ally in their cause, and halted a nice effort.

    I wonder how many of these intensely critical remarks came from people who just figured out how to boot BSD?

    Way to go, guys! Hope you're proud!

    Let this be a lesson: You'll catch a HELL of alot more bees with honey than with vinegar...

  • As the previous poster indicated: it's a free service. If you don't like it you don't have to use it.

    As to your bizarre rant about them probably thinking "BSD and Linux users were just like their brain-dead Windows users", well thats about as smart as jamming your head in the car door. It's comments like this which give the whole free software movement a bad name.

    If Tucows is a windows site it is their right, just as slashdot chooses to be a non-windows site, and just as chooses to be a non-windows site, and just like chooses to be a Sun site!

  • After a while, you realize all OS's look basically act the same, but just have different flavors. Foreign languages are the same way. Lets end the OS jihad(sp) soon.

    Right on man ... pass that pipe over here, then pass it round to everyone else! ;-)

  • That is both right and wrong. Many of us are in the "real world" and use many OSes in day to day life. Just because we prefer and ar loud and proud about one or two being IMHO *much* better than the others(I would include both *BSD and Linux in this) does not mean that we can't or won't work with other boxen. The part that you are right about is the "they said something we don't like let's flame them attitude and then let's whine when they go away" attitude. You are right that wins no friends.
  • When a stranger who doesn't know Linux calls colleagues criminals, I don't get offended.

    Wow, you have more self control than I do. If someone accused me of being a criminal for something so innocous, I would be deeply offended. I don't mind harmless ignorance, but when people start to harm your reputation, that's where I draw the line.

    In a valiant attempt to stay on topic, I believe that the BSD community was wrong to flame Tucows for inaccuracies in their articles. They were BSD newbies, and I can't see how saying things like "BSD is under the GPL" is wholly harmful to the BSD community. If they make a mistake, do what you should do with any newbie: point out their mistake, IN A KIND MANNER, and show them how to correct it. ITS THAT SIMPLE.


  • by laserjet ( 170008 ) on Thursday January 25, 2001 @08:52AM (#481604) Homepage
    To quote from Tucows:

    When Tucows periodically gets something "wrong" on the BSD site, we receive a barrage of angry user comments. Paradoxically, when we use this advice to make adjustments we receive an equally prolific battering from other BSD factions indicating that we had it correct to begin with. Any attempt to provide a middle ground only results in hostility from all sides.

    Boy, this doesn't sound like the Slashdot crowd *I* know...
  • This is how I read this whole Tucows incident:

    Tucows attempts to provide a BSD portal.
    BSD users send flames to Tucows regarding misinformation.
    Tucows decided that it couldn't make the BSD crowds all happy, so it ditched it's BSD efforts.

    This has nothing to do with Linux, but everything to people who do not know how to provide constructive criticism.
    Sending flaming emails to a person or company is not going to get you anywhere, and this incident is just proof of that.
  • I really hope that this doesn't deteriorate into more BSD vs. Linux wars.

    Why would that happen? I thought the article was about Tucows dropping their BSD section. BSD != Linux.
  • Never mind that Tucows have hardly substantiated their claims of "terrible flames." For all we know they could have got 1000 legitimate complaints, 80 trolls and not enough hits to justify keeping the site up.

    Sure, they were providing a free service. A free service that shunted out a lot of negative criticism, and a lot of information that was just plain incorrect, to the general public. If you run a site on BSD, shouldn't you get at least one guy that's used BSD for longer than two weeks on board to write, or at least check most of the material?

    I'm not sure what they're getting at with all their noise about "one BSD faction hollering when we fixed things according to another faction's instructions." I can't see BSD factions fighting over the OpenBSD link pointing to another BSD variant, and vica versa. Or a particular BSD variant being described as bare and featureless, no doubt without the reviewer even looking at the ports section. And he found the online crowds unhelpful.. gee, maybe he was asking stupid questions and should have RTFM? If you want support for BSD, you go buy BSDi, just like if you want support for Linux you go buy one of the boxed Redhats that costs 40 times as much as a burnt ISO image.

    In any event, for the BSD community to show this 'lack of appreciation' for a free 'service' demonstrates only one thing.. that the community doesn't feel the need to prostitute itself for publicity. didn't provide decent information and the entire concept of tucows for a platform with a well integrated ports collection (or Debian's apt ... choose your poison) is pointless - it provides no benefit to the community whatsoever. (If you really wanted to find an application outside of the ports/apt/etc collection, go search freshmeat.) Why on earth should the BSD community feel obligated to give them the time of day?

  • by jonfromspace ( 179394 ) <> on Thursday January 25, 2001 @09:38AM (#481609)
    1 - Divide the /. comunity into two sides (WinLeft/WinRight)
    2 - WinRight bombards tucows with insults and "suggestions" for improving their Windows Section.
    3 - WinLeft Creats a petition site claiming "Tucows is going downhill" and "What's with all the changes!"
    4 - WinRight emails tucows declaring that WinLeft are a bunch of wacked out OSS advocates, and should be ignored
    5 - WinLeft rubutts with "WinRight are all Linux Zealots, just trying to screw the system" Followed by a massive flame mail/DDOS attacks.
    6 - WinRight Starts massive mail-bomb campaign against tucows.
    7 - WinLeft Counters with a "Manifesto" delivered to Tucows re: "The Diminishing Quality, and overall suckieness of the Tucows Windows Section" Boycott Proposed, more flames.
    8 - Tucows decides it is all too much for their poor support staff.

    Voilla, no more windows section on Tucows, more room for Atari ROMs and Mac Software.
  • BSD newbies shouldn't be running major BSD sites.
    And now they not. So has this incident benefited the BSD communities in any way?
  • I hear the French gov't is requesting that Yahoo tone down it's pro-English stance. I guess they want Yahoo to pay for a gov't appointed committee to review all French-oriented directories as well as ensure a minimum of French language and anit-Nazi content. If Yahoo doesn't do this, they threaten to sue MacDonald's and block them from ever using the term French Fries on a menu.
  • by BlueJay465 ( 216717 ) on Thursday January 25, 2001 @09:57AM (#481617)
    I guess the webmasters got tired of all the little red devils scaring both cows all the time.
  • "The OpenBSD installation process is "not very friendly, in fact its downright hostile.""
    Um, this is true. Don't get cut up over it, acknowledge it, fix it, and prove your maturity. This isn't pro Linux anti-BSD ism. Debian's and Red hat's installers suck too.
    Having installed OpenBSD on a variety of platforms (PC, with strange hardware, Sun SPARC) I didn't have any problems - it was pretty straightforward. And I have great difficulty with the suggestion that anyone should take criticism by acknowledging it and fixing it if the criticism isn't, at the very least, mature and explanative. What, exactly, is user hostile about the OpenBSD installation process? Saying 'It sucks' doesn't cut it. That isn't criticism, that's a mindless flame. Seriously. If you can't say why something deserves a negative subjective label, you're not passing on any useful information, either to users or to the developers you're supposedly trying to help.

    OpenBSD is "a very difficult system to configure and use since no configuration front-end exists like FreeBSD's /stand/sysinstall."
    Well, was it obvious to the user? This is a mistake, but it might have been an honest one. No tool exists unless it is obvious to most users it is there. coming from the Linux world, one sees this repeatedly with Linux distributions that hide their confioguration tools from their menus. The newbioe isn't being dumb, they're beiong logical -if they ain't showing it to me, it probably doesn't exist. A fair enough assumption to make. People rarely read documentation.
    This argument doesn't make sense. Why would anyone know about "FreeBSD's /stand/sysinstall" if they didn't read the documentation?

    Sometimes it's perfectly legitimate to assume someone's read the documentation, or has a rough idea of what they're doing. In Unix, you already know that the configuration files you need to change are in /etc. You also know that if you don't know where something is configured, you can do a 'man -k' and get the relevent help text. This works fine under OpenBSD. You can do all this without leaving your terminal. And it's legitimate, IMO, for it to be assumed that you're prepared to do this. If OpenBSD didn't come with man-pages, or those man pages were obscure and made it hard to work out what you want to do, then the complaint 'It's not userfriendly!' is completely legitimate. But it does.

    "NetBSD applications support is minimal as well."
    Um, yes. Comapred to Free and Open, yes. Sorry, its a fact of Life. I'm a Linux user. Linux application support is also pretty minimal comapred to Windows or MacOS.
    Compared to Free and Open? Er, you are aware that they pretty much can run each other's software. What exactly is available to run under FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or even Linux, that wont run under NetBSD under the same architecture? You can even, for the most part, run the same fricking binaries!

    "NetBSD support for network applications, such as ICQ and messenger clients, is seriously lacking."
    It is. Not everyone wants to port and compile source. Not everyone knows C. Most people don't. Slashdot is the only place where end-users don't exist, and you can tell somebody to `code it themself'.
    Not everyone wants to compile the source, but there's a world of difference between being having to recompile something (untar to a directory, cd to directory, './configure', 'make', 'make install'), and it "not being available". I don't want to reboot my PC, does that mean that there's no software available for Windows?

    The fact of the matter is that exactly the same ICQ, etc, tools exist for NetBSD as exist for any other Unix. And it's spreading FUD to suggest otherwise.

    It seems that 90% of these criticisms are not "It's user-hostile" but "It doesn't do it my way" without ever explaining what "my way" is. It is not hard to recompile a standard Unix app. It is not hard to read messages on the screen and respond to them. It is not hard to look up things in manpages. The /etc directory exists on every Unix out there and anyone who's used one should be able to use another.

    To put it another way, should I protest that RedHat is more difficult to configure than *BSD, Slackware, etc, for similar reasons? After all, I can. I don't know what files in /etc I'm allowed to modify with a RedHat configuration any more, and which I have to use some GUI-ified tool to do, and I don't, without a lot of playing around, usually know which GUI tool to use. If I were I criticise RedHat to the same level as you have above though, I wouldn't write that. I'd respond to someone quoting someone else saying 'RedHat sucks', reply 'No it doesn't!' with 'Yes it does!'.

    To qualify as legitimate criticism, it has to be more than name calling. Saying 'XXX is user hostile' is name calling. Saying 'XXX is user hostile because...' and explaining why is criticism.

    I guess in conclusion, your post unwittingly explains why it's a good thing that Tucows BSD is dead. Tucows may have intended to create a BSD support site, but in practice they created a website that was the equivalent of a troll. They ultimately had two choices, remove the trolling, or remove the site. It seems appropriate that not only did they go for the latter, but left with a final "up yours" to the BSD community as they did. One final troll. One final wind-up of these awful people who don't go with mainstream OSes who we don't understand. Good riddance.

  • Hey man, like, I just heard a few minutes ago that they will be replacing their BSD section with a new free LSD download section. Just download and lick your CRT, man. Whoa... Expand your mind, man... I can feel my neurons dancing now, man...
  • I used to work for Tucows a while ago.. maintained their,, and the linux ftp site. They don't know what they're doing.. and i hear they have one guy working on the linux sites now...

    Rob Kennedy
  • They should of just taken the site down quietly. I built the site for them when I was the Tucows Linux Manager, and knew quite a bit about BSD then. I actually teach a BSD administration course now. I told them they need to find some BSD workers, but they didn't listen to me. I told them they need to support the ports collection, but they didn't listen. I told them that BSD was not better or worse than Linux, just different and they need to take time to learn it. But they didn't. All they did was install BSD and couldn't get it to run. Then they turn around and claim it sucks because it isn't as brainless to install as Linux. BSD runs fine, and they could have seen the benefits if they took the time to learn it. Instead they decided to slam an OS they know nothing about. Dumb.

Real Programmers don't write in PL/I. PL/I is for programmers who can't decide whether to write in COBOL or FORTRAN.