The NetBSD Organization 163
A reader writes: "Stumbled across a nice article about how the NetBSD Project is organized and some interesting ways users can help out." Good stuff, for those who want to get involved.
Byte your tongue.
The great divide: (Score:4, Funny)
Those who love Unix use BSD.
Re:The great divide: (Score:2, Interesting)
I use Linux, not because I hate Windows (couldn't really care less about it), but for these reasons:
1. Linux supports USB joypads. No BSD flavour does, it seems. May seem trivial, but I like to run console emulators.
2. VMware. Kludgy support under FreeBSD at best.
3. Can't seem to get multiple sound devices (/dev/dsp,
4. Easy updates. When there's a security issue on my RH box, I can just rpm -U the new package. Similar with Debian. With FreeBSD, I need all the source and compilers available, then do CVSup, rebuild etc. BSD really needs binary updates.
That's just a few things which are easier under Linux, and that's why I use it -- not because I "hate Windows" or any such crap. Hey, I really like FreeBSD -- I love the solid and fast kernel, the well-structured userland and central organisation, but there are problems.
Grow up and accept things.
Re:rofl weak troll (Score:1)
True enough, unfortunately USB support on FreeBSD is still pretty flaky (not sure about NetBSD). I know, I use FreeBSD (for other reasons).
Re:The great divide: (Score:5, Funny)
It DOES mildly annoy me to see the original parent post. BSD folks seem usually mild-mannered towards others. But every now and then some jackass...
Re:The great divide: (Score:3, Informative)
What Java problem? (Score:1)
Re:The great divide: (Score:1)
I think this thread needs more:
Re:The great divide: (Score:3, Interesting)
Two words: package system
Re:The great divide: (Score:1)
Re:The great divide: (Score:2)
Re:The great divide: (Score:2)
Re:The great divide: (Score:2)
Actually, OpenBSD is the only one which doesn't have it. As a matter of fact, NetBSD was the first to have SMP on the Alpha.
I used Slackware until I found OpenBSD. Every last one of the BSDs are far easier than ANY Linux distro (I've used all the mainstream ones, and about a dozen of the obsecure ones).
"Better" is a pretty obsecure term. FreeBSD has very good java support... but I'm not into Java so I can't say it can take everything you can throw at it, but I haven't had any problems with it.
That's the understatement of the year.
It does mildly annoy me to see your post. Slashdot folks seem to usually have a sense of humor. but every now and then...
Re:The great divide: (Score:2)
Funny that. I use FreeBSD over RH for exactly the same reason.
BSD really needs binary updates.
No, it doesn't. The installation program has an update option if you really insist. But you can't beat a CVSup and make world. And portupgrade is funky too.
When there's a security issue on my RH box, I can just rpm -U the new package
I do a portupgrade every week, and make world every month. So, when there is a security issue on my FreeBSD box, the chances are I've already fixed it without realising it.
Re:The great divide: (Score:1)
Re:The great divide: (Score:5, Funny)
when looking into using Linux on his desktop:
"GNU's not Unix....it's Linux"
(I can hear RMS getting his panties in a twist already)
Re:The great divide: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:The great divide: (Score:2)
oldest shit on the book...
it's just variety.. and people who are well into linux generally know a bit of *bsd's..
the 'problem' is people who aren't into neither linux nor bsd.. and overzealous idiots being the problem nr 2.
ksuicide2k, problem nr3 is that slashdots karma system is just plain weak if you're frequent user.. personal karma has little meaning nowadays.
Re:The great divide: (Score:2)
and people who are well into linux generally know a bit of *bsd's..
Actually, they don't. I've run into many Linux people who have never tried *BSD.
Also, most people who make the jump from Linux to *BSD, even after using Linux for years and years, rarely switch back.
Re:The great divide: (Score:2)
Those who love Unix use BSD.
Sorry, no.
BSD !=UNIX. As an oldschool Next and SGI guy (yes those are my roots, long before I had a PC of my own, I had a NEXT account to a shell on a CRAY).
The truth is, those who belive in "the Desktop" belive in Microsoft, or OSX, and those with HOPE for the Desktop being for the PEOPLE belive in Linux.
But, those of us who live and breath "server has power, give the server more pwoer" and at the same time belive "I want to be a CLIENT to that POWER" believe in BSD. BSD can be ported to anything (NetBSD) and given the client to the server consept, will survive.
I support the server, I have 1 server in my house and 4 x-terminals. The SERVER having all the power, and the low cost clients is the future. The future is UNIX.... Linux is sidtracked trying to make the Desktop the future. But in the Future, people what THIER INFO SECURE, HONEST, and EVERYWHERE, ON DEMAND, now, clear and clean... Who is leading the way to that? OpenBSD (secure server) and NetBSD (access to it from ANY DEVICE).
Have faith, the Force is with the BSD's.....
Linus has opened the door. But, the security and reality has always been in the BSD's.
Re:The great divide: (Score:2)
You're kidding right? BSD IS Unix, with the exception that they can't use the brand name.
Hey, if it wasn't, why would they have been sued in the first place? To be specific, BSD took Unix, and made it better.
Re:The great divide: (Score:4, Insightful)
Your kidding right? BSD has done more for me (and every IRIX user) as well as ever OsX user, Motorla user, etc.. than anyone else. I love OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD..
Look at the OpenBSD user base vs. the security contributions they put into Apache vs. the Linux user base vs. what help they gave Apache. Open BSD has done MORE per user that almost ANY OS on ANY project when it comes to security, espically Apache. The web wouldn't have a clue what security was if it were not for the likes of the OpenBSD guys. Don't even try to give me that shit....
BSD guys may not be the popular UNIX, or the gimme commy open source gods of the "Linus Linux" community. But take a history lesson.... GNU has made leaps and bounds into opening software to the general public. But what Open Source (GPL) has don, BSD has managed to keep the people with the money in the ball game. Where would GPL or GNU be without the BSD's of the world? How can you SERIOUSLY find fault with people who want to help and retain SOME profit? Are you such the communist you thing BSD is evil too now?
Re:The great divide: (Score:1)
If I am interested in optimizing the speed of an application, just because I work on project X doesn't mean I won't also be interested in project Y and project Z. And the neat thing about open source is if I don't do it someone will eventually anyway.
Re:The great divide: (Score:1)
Nope. Uh-uh. With ever 'advance' in Linux, with nearly every 'distro' it becomes a fatter and heavier 'desktop' while adding just about nothing in the way of being a better client. Face it, the 'fat desktop' model of computer has a lot of appeal, and it's where Linux is heading.
Re:The great divide: (Score:1)
Re:The great divide: (Score:2)
Sometimes I think it's better written as:
Those who love Unix use Linux.
Those who hate Linux use BSD.
Dinivin
Re:The great divide: (Score:2)
I use FreeBSD, so I read BSD on slashdot - I don't bother reading very much Linux. It doesn't interest me.
Yet for some reason Linux users are drawn to BSD stories like moths to a flame. Perhaps they are so insecure that they can only feel good when are knocking some other OS.
Not that I mind. The BSD Trolls are some of the best in the world. Always worth browsing BSD posts at -1.
Excellent! (Score:1)
Re:Excellent! (Score:1)
I'm all hot about it too. Guess what? The best Linux, Debian, is being ported to other kernels as we speak! [debian.org]
Did anyone else notice... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Did anyone else notice... (Score:1)
bottom banner "Get BSD Stuff" box
LinuxWorld NYC NetBSD 1.5.3
NetBSD 1.6 OpenBSD
DOSSIER Iron Systems
Iron Systems FreeBSD book
LinuxWorld Expo FreeBSD 4.7
FreeBSD 4.6.2 update NetBSD 1.6
As another reply pointed out, Daemon News supports all BSD derived operating systems, commercial or free. You might even come up with a Darwin or Mac OS X ad in the mix.
Re:"A reader writes..." ??? (Score:1)
He also summed up the target link well in his article submission, so he's definitely a "reader".
Article for the blind (Score:2)
Knoppix-like distro for *BSD? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup (Score:2)
Re:Knoppix-like distro for *BSD? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Knoppix-like distro for *BSD? (Score:1)
ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/iso/1.6/
Here is the CD-cover too:
ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/iso/1.6/i386liv
Re:Knoppix-like distro for *BSD? (Score:1)
Re:Knoppix-like distro for *BSD? (Score:1)
netbsd ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Needless to say if anyone ever asks you a question of what runs NetBSD ... you can safely say more things than any other operating system. NetBSD runs on everything from a supercomputer to a dreamcast and everything in between. The most impressive things I've seen from NetBSD is the ability to get the OS running on anything that can process information and NFS ... second to none.
There are ninches for everything ... portability ... netbsd wins hands down.
Re:netbsd ... (Score:1)
Re:netbsd ... (Score:2)
Depends... As one person I know said: "Linux is easier to port to [our custom platform] than netBSD, but netBSD is much easier to maintain once to port is done". Linux has no interest in systems he doesn't own, thus even though support from non x86 platforms exists, they are always behind. NetBSD makes an effort to keep things in sync.
There are platforms that linux supports that netBSD doesn't (netBSD requires 32 bits or more, linux has a 8086 16 bit port). If you did a strict count on that basis you would likely find that some form of linux runs on more platforms. However netBSD has official support for more platforms. That means the support is not out of date, and you are running with the latest modern netBSD features.
Re:netbsd ... (Score:2)
My understanding (mainly from reading debian mailing lists, so there's an obvious bias
BTW, there's one fairly unique class of systems that linux now supports and no other `mainstream' kernel does, to my knowledge: those without an MMU, since uClinux was merged into the mainline kernel. Granted, life is a bit (OK, a lot
That means the support is not out of date, and you are running with the latest modern netBSD features.
This probably is very true; linux is a bit anarchic in comparison to the BSDs...
Re:netbsd ... (Score:2, Informative)
Mac68k! My Quadra 650's been running as NAT for a couple of years. Took over from my old IIci.
The closest thing to Linux on old Mac 68k hardware is MKLinux and that's really not being developed any more. NetBSD is current!
Re:netbsd ... (Score:1)
Status page for the Quadra 650 support [sourceforge.net].
Re:netbsd ... (Score:1)
Re:netbsd ... (Score:1)
Debian has a m68k port, I was using it for a while on a Quadra 950. Not that Debian is all that much more current than MkLinux, but you might find it useful.
--saint
Re:netbsd ... (Score:2, Informative)
Hope this makes sense. What it means in the final analysis is that I can (almost) tar up the
Re:netbsd ... (Score:2)
Re:netbsd ... (Score:1)
**New** BSD slogans (Score:1, Funny)
NetBSD: "More Core than lines of commiters"
OpenBSD: "Dictatorships kill"
Darwin: "It takes a mighty corporation to turn out a tender BSD!"
Re:**New** BSD slogans (Score:1, Funny)
Re:**New** BSD slogans (Score:1)
BSD/OS: "Still here somewhere"
From the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From the article (Score:1)
Re:From the article (Score:2)
Re:From the article (Score:1)
This only applies to kernel hackers. To everyone else this just flies in the face of reality.
Re:From the article (Score:2)
Re:From the article (Score:1)
There's your problem right there; now, if you'd chosen slackware, you wouldn't have to fight that graphical installer...
Why so many negative comments? (Score:5, Insightful)
*BSD clusters? (Score:1)
Re:*BSD clusters? (Score:5, Informative)
It's probably not as elegant or as well known as Beowulf clustering, but it has been done :)
NetBSD! (Score:4, Informative)
Some random thoughts:
I've run Linux for about a year and a few months, I've run Debian *only* for about a year, and recently I started running NetBSD on my desktop machine (yes, my desktop machine, not my server, router, or toaster). I don't see why people denounce the BSD's for desktop use. Mozilla runs, Xterm's run, irc clients run, Gaim runs, XMMS runs, MPlayer runs, damn, everything on my desktop runs
I moved from Linux to BSD for many reasons, BSD is much more tightly integrated. You don't get the "oh, that's Jim Bob Developer's fault, email him", etc. You don't get manual pages that state "This manual page is old and incomplete - please read the GNU info manual". Of course opinions differ, but I _like_ man pages. I don't like info manuals.
Another factor is the license and attitude of the community as far as licensing. I don't really like the GPL. Sure, in a perfect world, all software would be free, there would be no evil corporations, and everyone could sit around reading fine literature and hiking out in the mountains - BUT that's not going to happen. If people want to make a product and sell it, let them do it (as long as they're not breaking the law
BSD init is alot cleaner than Sys V init - no piles of symlinks with funny names - and NetBSD's rc.d system takes care of Sys V init-style init scripts (/etc/rc.d/named restart). In fact, NetBSD's rc.d system is being ported to FreeBSD.
ipf is, IMO, a hell of a lot nicer than IPTables.
The whole base system is consistant, well documented, well thought out, and easy to use as long as you know how to read. The userbase is *much* more intelligent and experienced, on average, however it is quite a bit smaller, than Linux's.
For software - there is pkgsrc, which is like Free/OpenBSD's ports system, or Gentoo's portage. pkgsrc is kept very up to date, I'm running Mozilla 1.2.1 from it right now.
As far as being a server or firewall/router, NetBSD runs any OSS Server stuff great, and I'm sure most Linux-only stuff would run fine under emulation.
Any other NetBSD users out there in the wasteland that is Slashdot? Speak up!
Re:NetBSD! (Score:3, Informative)
I did read it (-: and I have a similar story. I've been running Debian exclusively for two years and switched my home machine to NetBSD. I still use Debian in the university (it's not my decision anyway) and I like both [debian.org], but I prefer NetBSD.
I agree with most of your points. I'd add these two:
But we disagree in the opinion about licensing. I really prefer copyleft. But I understand and respect the BSD point of view, and I agree that BSD licenses are better in certain cases - games, for example.
Re:NetBSD! (Score:2)
Anyways it'll be a while until I'm confident in doing all that with NetBSD, so Debian stays for a while - not that I all of a sudden don't like it, but I definitely prefer NetBSD now.
And of course I agree with your two added points
Re:NetBSD! (Score:1)
Hear, hear! My SE/30 runs NetBSD. I love the "unclutteredness" of the system and the package system.
Regarding licenses, I haven't done much comparison of the two. But my gut feeling is that while GPL gives freedom to code, BSD gives freedom to people. Personally I think freeing people is a worthier goal.
Organization chart (Score:4, Funny)
Re:If it's dead, how can there be an organization? (Score:2)
Well, I learnt latin at school (only language I was any good at).
And many languages have Latin roots.
And Latin is used in the taxonomy of may things.
And I believe Latin is still used in the legal profession.
So if, in death, *BSD is destined to end up just like Latin all I can say is....
Great!
Re:Maths teasers (Score:1, Funny)
The answer is 42.
Re:Has the installer changed yet (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Has the installer changed yet (Score:1, Insightful)
cd
make install
gee.. thats tough.
Sendmail.. well, ok... that damn sendmail.cf file is the ugliest config file I've ever seen, but its the same on solaris, so I'm not so sure why you'd find it so hard if you are "used to solaris and linux".
Ahh.. but wait... now I see your ending of "overhauled the installation menues [menu's?]".. other than atrocious spelling and horrible punctuation througout your post, my general consensus for you would be to stick with Windows and GUI configuration. I can tell you that if you have that much problem with BSD, I wouldn't want to let you *near* any serious production systems, Solaris, Linux, BSD, or otherwise.
It hasn't really changed (Score:2)
Once the system is installed the package/ports system works beautifully and the system is very fast and stable. It runs well on a P-200 with 96 megs of memory. The last version of Redhat that would do that was probably 6.2 or 7.0 at the latest. The 2.4 kernel increased the minimum system requirements a great deal.
Overall I think that Linux's evolutionary and laise faire(sp?) development model will lead to the best solutions. The speed of its development is a testament to that. The problem is that the road to get there is a rocky one. There is something to be said for a mature code base that is maintained and carefully pushed forward by a small group that is dedicated to making sure it gets the job done and works right, right now. Linux, on the other hand, can be thought of as being in continuous beta. The degree to which it is solid and secure depends upon the bugs and quirks getting shake-and-baked out by dozens of independent companies and hundreds of individuals. This is why the dot-zero versions of Redhat are always quirky and poorly optimized while the dot-two versions generally work well.
If I was going to set up a web server I'd probably use FreeBSD. If I was going to set up a desktop system I'd use Mandrake or Redhat. If I was going to set up a system where security was the most important thing I'd use OpenBSD. The only reason I can think of to run NetBSD is if you've got some oddball hardware that you can't afford to replace with an x86 system.
Lee
Re:It hasn't really changed (Score:2)
Why? What don't you like about NetBSD?
Re:Has the installer changed yet (Score:1)
Re:Has the installer changed yet (Score:2)
the installer is simple and no-frills, and gets the job done well, without confusing the hell out of you in the process.
Re:Has the installer changed yet (Score:1)
After just going throught an OpenBSD install I found the installer pretty good. It didn't do nearly as much as the Debian installer, but it did leave the ystem in a usable state and was much easier to use with a serial console and a lousy terminal emulator (I didn't feel like getting out the monitor with the old style Sun 13W3 connector).
The only part I didn't like was the disklabel editor. Yech! If it would have let me work in MB instead of sectors I would have prefered it. It rounds off what you enter anyways.
Re:Has the installer changed yet (Score:1)
Anyway, I'm puzzled that you didn't like the NetBSD install - and as a couple of others said regarding their experiences with the NetBSD install, I found it the cleanest and simplest OS install process I've ever used. Just beautiful. Now if you were talking about OpenBSD, I could maybe understand you - I don't particularly like their install process, especially the disk partitioning part (though once you have it installed it's great).
And as regards your comment... "it took me three weeks to figure out how to get apache, perl, sendmail and gcc working. and that was just figuring out how to install them." - well, erm, two of those four (gcc and sendmail) should be included in the default install! The others - well, you could certainly install them from source (which works fine), or you could read the documentation and find out how the NetBSD packaging system works. It's not really that hard - or at least it shouldn't be.
Which version of NetBSD (for which architecture) did you try using? Note that for the question you asked (ie. "has it improved since I used it before?") this sort of information is kind of critical, so it's a little suspicious that you didn't include it originally. And I now realise that you didn't specifically say you were using NetBSD - just "a bsd", so you should probably clarify that point as well.
If you don't respond, it's probably fairly safe to consider you a fairly lame troll. Though perhaps slightly more subtle than the good 'ol "BSD is dying" guy. *grin*
Pete.
Re:Has the installer changed yet (Score:1)