Announcing GNOME 2.4.0 for FreeBSD

Dan writes "FreeBSD's Joe Marcus Clarke says that GNOME 2.4.0 is now available for FreeBSD. Unfortunately, due to timing issues with FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE, it will not make it into the official ports tree until after 4.9 is released (looks like early October right now). In the meantime, you can get to it from his CVS tree. For those without CVS access, he has periodic tarballs made, and are downloadable from the same URL. You should also download the marcusmerge script to aid in merging his ports tree with the official tree. If you already have a copy of the script, download it again because things have changed." Update: 09/18 15:25 GMT by M : FreeBSD's Joe Marcus Clarke says due to popular demand, but more importantly to the fact that 4.9-RELEASE has been pushed back at least two weeks, GNOME 2.40 has been merged into the ports tree.

Re:FreeBSD?

[Creepy Crawler]

Yeah, the ones still stuck on FreeBsd.

Still there's neat things about BSD kernel.

1: Security levels
2: Jail
3: PF - OS detection leading to modification of data stream (MS system lead to Linux ISO site)
4: Stable, high performance FS
5: Runs most linux junk (look at sourceforge, most are abandonware). Just doesnt run stuff that depends on proc unless you enable /proc (idiot)
6: Lot more quotas over users than you have in Linux

Those few features keep certain users on BSD. I figure Linux might get all those features. Still, if you want a really good system, get AIX. Linux and BSD is a good standby for cutting cost as long as you can deal with the limited feature set.

pf is (d), All of the above.

[TitaniumFox]

PF is [Open|Net|Free]BSD. FreeBSD PF news. [deadly.org]

FreeBSD homepage. [love2party.net]

NetBSD PF news. [deadly.org]

NetBSD PF homepage. [foo.unix.se]

Re:pf is (d), All of the above.

[psxndc]

PF is purely an OpenBSD project that has been ported to the others. It was written because Darren Reed changed the license of ipf to something Theo (of OpenBSD) didn't agree with. FreeBSD and NetBSD kept using ipf while the OpenBSD crew wrote their own packet filter. Then the other two ported it.

The Darren/Theo head butting resulted in this classic posting [openbsd.org]

psxndc

Re:pf is (d), All of the above.

[psxndc]

grandparent post said: pf is OPENBSD

parent post said: PF is [Open|Net|Free]BSD

And I responded saying, no, pf is OpenBSD, it's just been ported to the others. To be honest, I didn't check the links since I took exception to him "correcting" the grandparent, even if him correcting was saying that pf had been ported. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I felt that he was incorrectly correcting someone.

psxndc

Rev: pf is available for (d), All of the above.

[TitaniumFox]

Er. I think you're being trolled. I hadn't intended to come across as correcting whether pf is part of OpenBSD or not.

pf is a project of OpenBSD: True.
pf is now available to the other BSDs: True.
This is good for *BSD: True.

Cheers!

Re:pf is (d), All of the above.

[Strog]

Lots of things have been ported back and forth. I don't say USB is NetBSD just because the other two got it from there originally. They all share things and that is a good thing. Yes, pf is the result of the hard work of the OpenBSD developers. I used OpenBSD and pf to guard my own network but I think it's cool that Net and Free have it now too.

Now if someone could port it to OS X and Irix. heheh

Re:pf is (d), All of the above.

[twistedcubic]

It was written because Darren Reed changed the license of ipf to something Theo (of OpenBSD) didn't agree with.

Actually it wasn't just Theo, it was OpenBSD that didn't agree with the license, which, in its clarification, did not allow modified versions to be distributed. I use "clarification" because Reed claimed the license didn't change, but that he only allowed peple to use the software, not revise and distribute it.

Re:pf is (d), All of the above.

[Ricin]

Yes and that was about BETA software which Mr Reed didnt want to be going into OpenBSD -HEAD. I still find his stance very legit. It wasn't finished, it wasn't all working, yet there it was to be imported into OpenBSD. Mr Reed had a lawyer look at his license and they figured it translated to "may not be distributed" and kept/imposed that. Once again, this was BETA software. The version considered stable had /has full BSD license.

Re:FreeBSD?

[Baki]

No no, the main argument for FreeBSD is its ease of system administration. Just cvsup once in a while, do a make world and mergemaster to merge new /etc & other config files and you're done. This way you can stay current for many years without ever reinstalling, even move your installation from machine to machine.

For me it is lazyness that keeps me stick with FreeBSD.

FreeBSD!

[TitaniumFox]

BSD trolls are rendered obsolete.

Take this! [offmyserver.com] *KAPOW*

And that! [techtv.com] *BOFF*

Holy schnikes, Batman! The Penguin is getting away!

Oh, no he's not, Robin! *BLAM* [netcraft.com]

[FreeBSD runs quite nicely on my laptop, thanks. ;)]

Re:FreeBSD!

[bruthasj]

Then it wouldn't be anonymous, you bonehead.

Re:FreeBSD!

[bsd_usr]

I wouldn't mind testing to see if what you say is true. Send me stuff to copy and paste and I will. ;) It would be really lame to do so though. I, unlike them, have better things to do with my life.

Although, I do question. Do they troll because they fear that people become the wiser and will finally see the merits BSD software? Do they troll because they can't accept the fact that BSD software is quite good and most likely better than theirs? Or do they troll because they just can't get laid? Probably all

Re:FreeBSD!

[satanami69]

FreeBSD runs quite nicely on my laptop
Why do you leave your laptop in your closet?

Oh, wait, you don't use FreeBSD as a server. I was wondering why the hell Gnome is there.

Re:FreeBSD!

[TitaniumFox]

Funny! I use both FreeBSD and Debian Linux for servers, actually. I cheer for the success of both the *BSD and Linux camps.

Re:FreeBSD? (Yep, still here)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. Allow me to introduce myself. I'm FreeBSD. A lot of you are saying I'm dead. I assure you that is not the case.

Dying? Definition 6. from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dying reads:

6. To become indifferent: had died to all worldly concerns.

Apply this definition to your constant bickering over whether or not I'm dead and I'll agree. :-)

Over the last twenty something years I've been through a lot. But through it all I've been reliable and dependable.

Over the next few years I'm going to show you what the terms "scalability," "efficiency," and "security" really mean.

So shut your pie holes and keep coding. Maybe you'll have a hope in hell of keeping up with me.

Yours truly,
FreeBSD

Re:FreeBSD? (Yep, still here)

[Ricin]

only FreeBSD is 20 years old but well nice writeup anyhow :)

Re:FreeBSD? (Yep, still here)

[Ricin]

I meant "smaller then sign" 20 years old (stupid slashcode), its actually 10-and-a-bit years old.

FreeBSD won't die

[Rhinobird]

FreeBSD won't die if people keep porting software to it. So, cut it out people

Re:FreeBSD won't die

[zangdesign]

I bet at least one of your 8th-generation descendants will say that, too.

Porting software

[cesarcardoso]

I remember once people on deadly.org praising the fact that GNOME 2.0 (or 2.2? I can't rememeber now) was easily ported to OpenBSD.

It's great that GNOME is easily and quickly portable beyond Linux and Solaris (where people is pouring money on it) - GNOME hackers are on the way to make a truly industry-standard desktop environment. Go GNOME!

It wasn't always that way.

[Anonymous Coward]

When GNOME was Miguel Icaza's baby the code was written in a non-standard and non portable way.

Amazingly Miguel Icaza is considered a 'great coder', yet couldn't be bothered to write portable code.

Once Miguel Icaza left the project, the GNOME code started to become portable and the project adopted a motto of 'it don't ship unless it runs on Solaris/FreeBSD and other UNIXes beyond GNU/Linux.'

The real programmers took over and got the code portable.

Re:I'll never get non-BSD people

[Ricin]

Err, so you propose free beer for dumbasses? You should go into politics.

FreeBSD 5?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does freebsd 5 use the same ports tree as the 4.x series?
Does it support as many ports as 4.x?
Will GNOME 2.4 be available in the next release of freebsd 5.x?

Re:FreeBSD 5?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Re:FreeBSD 5?

[phoenix_rizzen]

Yes.
No. There are the odd port that hasn't been updated to work with 5.x.
Yes.

Re:What I know about BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

1. You can not play games on it.
There are games for BSD. But if you're serious about games, UNIX is not exactly the best platform choice for games, unless you are using Mac OS X.

2. It cannot be used by my grandma.
Why not? If your grandma can not use a mouse, a keyboard, or see, then that would be true.

3. It lacks a GUI of any note.
KDE and Gnome are available.

4. There is no support available for it.
There is support for it, countless websites, mailing lists, documentation, and there are commercial companie

Re:A troll replies to the critics...

[literalguy]

Here is an idea. Why not post your trolls under your own name. Then, those of us who want to read the BSD forums in peace can add you to our enemies list, and those of us who want to read your rantings can. That way, everyone wins.

To the BSD Troller

[literalguy]

Here is an idea. Why not post your trolls under your own name. Then, those of us who want to read the BSD forums in peace can add you to our enemies list, and those of us who want to read your rantings can. That way, everyone wins.

Does this mean

[Cro Magnon]

that Gnome is dying?