OSNews

Nothing? Debian debian stable certainly does...

Yes, have a look at this:
http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/

I *think*, and you can browse this via ftp servers, that Fbsd has a port for gnu core utils.

I agree with this. The BSD license gives more freedom in the sense that you can do basically anything you want with the code.

>"means that many operating systems, such as Apple OS X are based on FreeBSD code. "

"Many for me and the english dictionnary means more then one ... "

Yes, there is many. Since you pointed a link to wikipedia, I'm surprised you didn't see the FreeBSD article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD#Derivatives which clearly lists 14 seperate projects that are based on FreeBSD. So yes, many does mean more than one. Apple OS X was just an example.

"Yes, there is many." should be "Yes, there are many." Sorry.

"Communists like Moulinneuf help the BSDs tremendously. So many people see what the GPL fascist richard stalin people are like and run from GNU."

So because a troll decides to pick the GPL side you think all people who like the GPL are communists? You're nuts.

I've seen lots of trolls both for and against the GPL on this site, and since you obviously know how to find the comments, you have as well; You aught to know better than to think Moulinneuf represents everyone who benefits from the GPL.

By the way, that entire comparison of the GPL to communism was started by Microsoft as a FUD strategy against Linux. Comparing the GPL to communism simply shows how ignorant you are towards it; for people such as myself who write software, the GPL a small guarantee that what we write can be improved upon by others without any hijacking taking place legally. I'm not partial for the GPL, I preffer to release my work as freeware, but if I'm going to abandon a software project that people can still make use of I'd most likely release it under the GPL so someone else can't take the source code, take out any credits refering to me, and start selling it for cash as their own work.

I did not say that toaster would not run Linux, I said NetBSD ran on it. NetBSD and FreeBSD share similar histories, being derived from the same source: 386BSD, and they both run KDE, Gnome, OpenOffice, The Gimp, Gaim, just like linux

You obviously dont know the BSD license , as an example I can take Mandriva , Red Hat , Suse , Ubuntu , Knoppix , etc code and use it for my own distribution , now since BSD is more freedom one can take Apple code and do as he wish with it and improve it right ? ( The answer is aboslutely not ... )

First of all, I'm no expert, but I believe OS X's kernel is open source. Second, if they choose not to release their source, that's completely fine by me. In fact, OS X demonstrates a good point: non-GPL software can increase the quality of both commercial and open source applications. If apple was not able to use that software as a base, it's not doubt OS X would have taken longer to develop and probably wouldn't be as high quality; tell me, how is this a good thing? Besides, you can always base your OS off the original BSD and Darwin--it's not like Apple's use BSD software killed it off or anything.

Actually, after doing some research, you can, in fact, base an OS off of OS X's kernel: http://developer.apple.com/darwin/ . Your whole argument just went out the window.

-bytecoder

The intended goal of the BSD license was to allow UCB students to create companies based upon the (good) work they started at university, while allowing other universities to freely use the software.

IMHO it is the best of both world, as collaboration between closed and open source developers increase standardization. If SSH is, today, the de-facto standard for remote logins, it is because we have a good, BSD-licensed implementation. It was the same for TCP/IP too, etc.

In the end it won't matter which is better, GPL or BSD. The natural evolution of the market will ensure that that which should be open source is open source.

That's the most ignorant view I've ever seen. It wouldn't even be so bad if you actually had some common courtesy and didn't call the BSD-alike licenses "traitors."

Honestly, I don't get this point of view at all. Think about it, if you're releasing your program as open source, the point is usually to give back to the community. With that in mind, consider the BSD license. When you license code under it, you're effectively saying everyone can benefit from this code. This leads to more code reuse, and effectively elevates the quality of the entire market, including closed source. GPL, on the other hand, makes it impractical for code to be reused in closed-source programs. This leads to less code reuse, and less quality in the market overall. Now tell me again, how is GPL better, besides the fact that you get to stick it to the man with your personal agendas?

-bytecoder

And they give -1 for that. Okey BSD is "the real" freedom code since it doesn't dictate anything important. While GPL dictates that all must be GPL, so not "the real" freedom. I hate using word freedom because it's rubbish and zealots only use it. Both have good things. While BSD can make more jobs by providing good start for project and then sell refined code as product, GPL business is service based. GPL's best part is it's viral effect that forces developers to bring changes back to community, something that BSD doesn't have. What i think is that both have problems and solution is somewhere middle. It would be great to see license that would make possible to add some value to programs and get little profit from that and still allow community to get some code back.

"It would be great to see license that would make possible to add some value to programs and get little profit from that and still allow community to get some code back."

In case u didn't notice that's exactly what GPL does.

> Its a mtter of marketing really BSD has been well advanced from Linux for quite some time.

1999 called. They want their misconceptions back.

No doubt there are areas where the BSD's have advantages over Linux. But please let me know when, for example, the BSD's do SMP as well as Linux. The comments I see in the forums regarding the exciting things that are going on with SMP in the BSD's remind me so much of what I saw in Linux forums back when 2.2.0 came out.

Don't get me wrong, the BSD's are solid technology. But BSD's glory days of smug arrogance are over. It's just that some users don't seem to have figured it out yet. Ever seen "Sunset Boulevard"?

Yep. It's true. Some Linux users are smug and arrogant. I do prefer Linux, in general. But I don't discount the BSD's. I do think that the post I was responding to was a good example of classic BSD arrogance in the grand tradition. And I recognize the fact that it is not representative of the attitude of the larger community today.

I'm sure that Nora could have benefited from a bit more humility back in her glory days, too. :-)

Your point is well taken, however. We're all POSIX, and we are stronger united than fragmented.

Like I said in my previous post, the various BSD's have their strengths and weaknesses, as do Linux distros. My objection was to the tone of the post I was responding to and nothing more.

For reference, here was the post I was responding to, quoted in its entirety:

> Its a mtter of marketing really BSD has been well advanced from Linux for quite some time

"Yep. It's true. Some Linux users are smug and arrogant."
and..
"The poster was quite correct to point out the reality that we who prefer Linux can sometimes act in an arrogant fashion."

Please allow me to humbly point out that, despite the complaint you received, the majority of us FreeBSD users could hardly care less.

So, yes, I see it pretty much as a non-issue.

It's always amusing seeing the old Solaris comments against Linux used by Linux advocates against BSD. 1999 called; it wants its argument back.

> Even if linux is horribly written, it has a larger user base, and thus more developers, which means it will improve faster over time.

I wouldn't be so sure, a small group of developers can outshine a large group as long as they keep their heads on straight (ie. history tells us that a small army can defeat a larger one simply by outsmarting their opponent). FreeBSD has outdone Linux in the past so I wouldn't be so overconfident about the mere "power in numbers" Linux may have.

How do you submit a patch for the FreeBSD kernel if you are not a committer? How long does it take for a good patch to get approved and committed? How long from commit to release? Is this really better than the Linux kernel development model?

Anybody can submit a patch. All you do is create the patch, then use the included send-pr tool to submit it to the GNATS database. If nobody looks at it right away, then you post to the -current or -stable mailing list describing the patch, and ask for someone to look at it. Depending on the part of the kernel you are patching, it can take anywhere from a few hours to a few months for it to be added to the kernel. Depending on when in the release cycle you submit the patch, it can take anywhere from a few hours to 6 months for it to be integrated and released.

This isn't all that different from the Linux kernel development process, other than there's a lot more peer review, and there are over 300 people with commit bits to the kernel. How many are there in Linux-land with actual commit bits to the kernel repo?

While Linux distributions do differ enough so that skills acquired for one distribution don't necessarily apply to another, will as much of my existing skills on... Red Hat, for example, be applicable to FreeBSD as they would be if I switched to... Novell?

If you know what a man page is and how to use it, and you know what a handbook is and how to use it (in other words, if you know how to learn), then you will have no problem going from a Linux distro to FreeBSD. Most of the command names are the same. Most of the command syntax is the same (although, thankfully, there aren't as --many-super-long-annoying --command-line-options --in-the-standard --bsd-tools). One thing a lot of Linux->FreeBSD converts don't realise is that the documentation that comes with the OS is actually useful, and you don't have to scour the Internet looking for relevant docs.

Going from FreeBSD->Linux on a few projects, I've run into the "lack of good, useful documentation" wall several times. It's very annoying to open a man page only to read "Someone please write a man page for this app".

What's a slice?
Check the description in this posting at bsdforums for a very good description of Unix slices: http://www.bsdforums.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1740&highlight=par...

Why is Microsoft used by 95% of the market? Not because it's better.

I think Linux got more media/marketing attention and that helped it become popular. The people that know just enough to be dangerous have heard of Linux , but have not heard of BSD. So they jump on Linux.

I'm one to think that sometimes the better athlete is not the one who brags out loud to his/hers friends and opponents all the time, but the one who sits off to the side and shows his or hers abilities during game time.

I do like Linux by the way, but I love FreeBSD.

I'm not trying to answer your question, just my 2 cents in.

it's about the target market.
Linux attempts to target average joe desktop users aswell as everything else.
FreeBSD(having just installed it this morning) doesn't target your average user, it's still more of a tech-head OS(on the desktop) therefore it gets less hype.
- Jessta

The answer is simple and well-documented.

In the past, there was a lawsuit (in some ways similar to the current SCO vs IBM issue) that made the future uncertain. It was during this time that people switched from BSD to Linux.

Once the dust settled with the outcome in favor of BSD, the people that went over to Linux already had gained expertise in Linux and probably didn't want to switch yet again.

I think the 2.4 kernel was the one where Linux finally caught up with FreeBSD's kernel. And I think 2.6 is better in some regards but the trend of adding significant new features for each point release is making 2.6 less reliable/stable than previous branches of linux kernels.

Also, there is a signal to noise ratio that might cloud reality regarding popularity. Remember that FreeBSD is one of the most widely used OS for servers and even hotmail.com used it until Microsoft purchased them and switch most over to Windows. Yahoo and other high-traffic sites have also used FreeBSD.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I use both Debian Sarge and FreeBSD 4. I plan on switching over to FreeBSD 6.2 when it comes out (I avoid point releases on servers).

I always buildworld on live server - there isn't any problem unless You never read a handbook.

"it not a quick task" ?

> cvsup /my/cvsup/config
> cd /usr/src
> make buildworld && make buildkernel KERNCONF=MY_KERNEL
> margemaster -p
> make installkernel KERNCONF=MY_KERNEL && make installworld
> mergemaster

"you may as well install a fresh OS and services"

i don't think it is a better way :S

something that people dont pick up on is package management or software manageability. people seem to favour FreeBSD for servers - but have you every tried upgrading software or even the kernel on live servers? it not a quick task - you may as well install a fresh OS and services. its a dream to be able to upgrade with known-stable softwarre using apt fon debian-stable for example - outage times of minutes, not days.

I manage 15 FreeBSD 5-based firewalls, 10 FreeBSD 5-based proxy/web/mail servers, 2 FreeBSD 5-based SMTP/IMAP servers, and a handful of FreeBSD desktops and laptops (5.4, 6.0, and 7).

Package management isn't that big of a chore: I have a reference firewall, proxy, and desktop here that I do all my updates on and create packages (make package, or pkg_create -b) on. Then I just scp those packages out the systems, and install them using pkg_add. This gives me the control to only include the options I need in the packages I create, and the convenience of using packages for all the upgrades.

System upgrades requires at most 10 minutes of downtime. Updating the source tree and compiling the system can be done in the background throughout the day, or just overnight. The install and mergemaster takes maybe 10 minutes, again this can be done in the background. All it takes is two reboots to make sure everything is working correctly (only 1 is needed, I like the second to be sure I'm only using the new software).

If you are doing things decentralised (using the ports tree on each system) then you need to re-think your methods. Don't blame the tools if you're disorganised.

I'm running Debian on my laptop, and it's not as easy to use / maintain as my FreeBSD laptop. The biggest issue is having three different repositories for apps to choose from, and not having a standard OS base and a clear separation between OS and apps (why does installing 1 package from unstable change my OS version?) I can't stand the SysV init system, and using the file-rc init setup isn't much better.

Apt is nice, but there really needs to be a clear separation between OS and apps, otherwise you end up installing 1 app that upgrades 100 packages, including 90% of the OS, and you end up fubar'ing the entire system (done that twice already on this laptop).

Then there are those who simply wish to put stubborn politics aside and focus on technical merits rather than clinging to a psuedo-religion and using an inferior system.

There are several things wrong with your arguement.

# 1: You complain about lack of binaries for Java, but then you go off and recommend Gentoo, wtf? If you're going to do that then you can just use ports to install a JRE/JDK instead of portage.

# 2: If the *BSD users / developers thought they were being shafted they'd switch licences. Luickly then don't care. The licence is free in the sense that -everyone- can use it. If you want to cry yourself to sleep at night re-licence the code under the GPL. You have the real "freedom" to.

# 3: Have you ever heard of a wonder and magical thing called Linux Binary Compatibility?

# 1: I recommend gentoo because it builds a complete system without gaping dependency holes. Newsflash: Sun's JDK/JRE is a complete environment for running java code. You can install their binary build on a "from source" distro and not suffer ill effects (ill effects constrained only to the binary). At least not any more ill than running something written in java...
I also use binary ATI drivers within gentoo. I wonder why that is. Maybe its because the SOURCE CODE ISN'T PROVIDED. Try getting ATI+opengl accel in BSD.

# 2: You said it yourself, the developers don't care. I consider the developers as noble as saints. They are giving their sweat and blood away for nothing. Too bad big developer companies like Apple and Sun aren't giving what they get else FreeBSD would be superior.
*Imagine... Sun and Apple submitting their code back to BSD...*
Why re-license something free? The GPL isn't free... it is limited and that's why I stated that in a perfect world we wouldn't need a GPL. The GPL protects developers from greedy corporations, like M$. Without the GPL, what exactly would GNU/Linux be? Deader than BeOS.

# 3: Yes I have, and it sucks. The ports are less broken than that.

# 3: Have you ever heard of a wonder and magical thing called Linux Binary Compatibility?

Well, I have nothing against FreeBSD.

But, I will not run production server on binary compatibility. For entertainment or just want to try something it's okay, but for serious purposes, I won't, no matter how everybody told me that it is faster.

In this area Linux has better and larger support from companies (oracle, java).

Most things are ported to FreeBSD long after ported to Linux, if at all.

14000 softwares in ports. That equal Debain. That's much than RedHat, and much, much more than Slackware. Unlike Debian, they're updated.

It's not the fault of the BSD distros that the Java runtime is proprietary software.
You wanna emulate Microsoft Word in FreeBSD? Use the Serentiy Virtual Machine

http://www.serenityvirtual.com/



By running BSD you will be running several versions behind in software that ships in most modern distros

STOP LYING, fanboy! BSD are updated frequently, all have a 6 month cycle! Take Debian as an example of frequent updates? What about RedHat, and all the stuff they screwed up? What about Slackware, a one-man distro.

The thing is, Linux is full of young, ignorant, vocal, fanboys like yourself.

I'd tend to agree that the software (aka "ports") you'll find in FreeBSD are as up to date as those you'll find in any "mainstream" linux distro, save maybe for Gentoo, which uses the "bleeding edge" most of the time (by the way, I am using gentoo on one of my dev servers, just so you know). I'll agree with the previous comments that we should all just get along. While the BSD and GPL differ quite a bit (in philosopy that is), they both have a similar end result. We're not enemies, despite what some may want others to think.

it's called the FreeBSD Handbook & man pages

The problem I see in FreeBSD (and other nixes) is it is difficult for new comers. There are NOT a lot of documents such as guides, tutorials and 'in 10 minutes'. A search on google produces few useful results, most of them refer back to the official document project.

One of the biggest advantages of BSD from Linux is the documentation. Just read the handbook and the corresponding man pages and your set. Linux OTOH has TLDP which has mostly generic docs and tons of how-to's which leaves you in the middle co'z some solutions DON'T actually work.

I am really suprised again about the statement of GPL lovers. I wonder..

I'm rather surprised that people manage to debate on something that is evident, and backed by facts.
It's rather enlightening to see comments of pro-BSD licence people (I have NOTHING against them or their licence), which sometimes rely on lies, like no one of pro-BSD licence people will actually state why Linux is more successful, to the point you would think they don't know.

- Did YOU ever donate something to the OSS community at all?

I have

- I you do/did so, and the code you're using is BSD licenced, wouldn't you donate your code back because it's not GPL'ed?

Exactly. I would never release one bit of code under BSD licence anyway. But if I had to improve BSD licence code, I would be obligated to give it back under BSD. A good example is OpenSSH.

- Do you believe that if you give something and nobody forced you in any way, that you have the right to expect something back?

This question do anything. You ALWAYS have the "right to expect". Nobody can force you not to "expect".
However, when you give something, you have the right to put conditions on the gift (that's what BSD and GPL licenses, heck, that's what any licenses do).

- In other words: do you only want to give if someone gives you something?

That's what every license do, so yes. I don't even understand what is the point of those questions, they are useless.
At least as long as we are talking about licenses.

Ookaze

1. I have donated code, time and money.

2. Yes, and I can say this from experience; a I have modified BSD licensed library for my day job and NOT passed the changes/fixes/enhancements back. Why should I? That's the point of that license, there is NO obligation to do so (not even moral imperative).

3. No, but I only want to give something if others must reciprocate. The core of the GPL dude.

1) I do not donate code as I am not a coder. I donate time, money, commentry and advice.

2) If I was starting with BSD-licenced code and made a derivative work, I would probably release my code under an Open licence (i.e. 'give back'). But I am more likely to start with GPL code.

3)a) I have the right to expect whatever I want. I may often be disapointed.
b) If I choose to give something of my own, I can stipulate under what terms I give it.

4) I beleive in teaching by example. To give without expecting anything back can encourage others to do the same, and in the end I get somethign back!

Thanks a lot, this is a "old question"

Why was this modded down?

I'm now agressively and actively modding this thread. It had gone out of hand, and I won't tolerate that. Some posts may have gotten accidentily modded, please accept my apologies for that. Thanks for bringing that question back into nomral discussion.

To everyone else: keep this thread decent, or else this thread will be a thing of the past.

The other reasoning for the hype differential is that BSD developers only care about developing good code whereas Linux developers aggressively promote their work.

Which is obviously a lie, with the only purpose of calling Linux developers bad names. I don't understand this attitude.
Linux developers do NOT promote their work. When they talk about it, that's because they are asked to. I think there is a lot of jealousy going on, bringing bad feelings against Linux from BSD camp.
I never saw a Linux dev trash talk BSD like that.
The fact of the matter is that yes, BSD was far more advanced than Linux 11 years ago, but Linux frog leaped steps, until some benchmark made by a BSD guy some years ago showed Linux (2.6.0-rc I think) was beating all the BSD in the network realm (throughput, latency). The cause for this BSD camp seems to fail to understand. that's entirely because of the GPL. Without it, you think the embedded devices company would have put the code back in the kernel ? Same for NUMA, same for Infiniband, ...
Fact of the matter, is that while MS or Apple used BSD code, they rarely give back anything. Well, that's fine you say, no problem with that. But then don't complain that Linux is more used/talked about/hyped about, because the reason it is like that is that most developers HATE being treated like free labor, when companies make money with their code.
FreeBSD developers are saints really. Fine. Users say it's fine. OK, but then why complain ? Because in this world, saints are not rewarded ? Complain then, but don't blame Linux devs, who chose a license trying to protect the saints in this world.
A recent example (these are just facts, I find it amazing people deny reality) : MacOS X giving back to Konqi, because they were forced too. They did it reluctantly, they would never have if not for the (L)GPL. That's THE SAME for GCC ObjC implementation. So then, Konqi and GCC are much more powerful. This would have not been the case without the GPL, as like BSD license people say : "Apple is there to make money, we don't care if they don't give code back".
Contrary to what I see written here, it is a win ONLY FOR APPLE. The Konqi and GCC cases (GPL softwares) are the win/win situation, as everybody benefit.

If this is true, then we can agree with 20/20 hindsight that the BSD community's insular nature was extraordinarily detrimental to the development of the OS in the long run.

The insular nature is reinforced by the license. Linux was developed in the same insular nature (still is), but everyone wants to add its code in it, while it is not true of BSD. The fact of the matter is that Linux is forced to reject some code, and that a big well known stealer like MS recommend the BSD license against the GPL for others, notice they don't release their code under it.

The best argument I can make for the success of Linux is that the initial drive in the community to produce a free software system capable of surplanting Windows on the desktop had the side effect of making Linux incredibly popular as a server OS

Which is pure BS. The server OS side was already well entrenched in 1998, when the desktop was just starting on Linux. More BS, because the task of giving a good desktop to Linux (and not surplanting Windows like you say) is taken by Gnome and KDE, which are also available on FreeBSD, though being far harder to install than on Linux (look at migration to Gnome 2.10 to be convinced). Linux devs never had anything to do with the desktop (even hindering it) until recently in the 2.6 kernel (with inotify, hal, preemption, ...).
The success of Linux is mainly due to the GPL, but like I said, it seems hard to admit it.
The mess in Linux the BSD camp describes could not succeed against BSD if not for the GPL license.

which might in turn eventually ease Linux further onto the desktop over time. None of the BSDs ever had any ambitions to compete with Windows in any application, so no one cared.

Same for Linux actually. The commercial distros did want to compete though (Red Hat).

Ookaze

The cause for this BSD camp seems to fail to understand. that's entirely because of the GPL. Without it, you think the embedded devices company would have put the code back in the kernel ?

Yes, the beloved GPL...Let me ask you something, what does an embedded Linux company do for my x86s ?

The beloved GPL is used by the hardware industry, so that they can get developers for free. They "commoditize their complements". They really sell you hardware. Read Joel Spolsky's Strategy Letter V.

If you're a developer and you work on a library under the GPL, you can't take to your next job, unless they let you. Your work is thrown away, and you must reinvent the wheel. The GPL is a product of the devotion of many a young developer who still has to face a real market. The BSD guys are older, wiser...One day, you'll see the value of what they do...Free code is free code, regardless if someone "steals" it, as GPL fans often put it. I think the internet is a better place since OpenSSH spread all over, including proprietary OSs. Don't you?

The reason the companies you love so much don't like to put much money on the BSDs is because they really don't care about Free Software. They care about Free Slave Labor.

PS: Oh, by the way, you might want to check for companies selling routers, etc, with embedded BSD. You'll be surprised that there are some.

Ah, the old ATT&T/BSDI reasoning. (...) The best argument I can make for the success of Linux is that the initial drive in the community to produce a free software system capable of surplanting Windows on the desktop

Fact is, a lot of people learned about Linux before UNIX history. I know I did. I read a Wired story, than got RedHat 5.2. Then I read up on the history. I understand things in a different light. After years of using Debian, my enthusiasm for Debian waned. After learning UNIX and C, my enthusiasm for BSD developed.

Here are some excerpts from Linux Magazine ("The Joy of Unix" - an interview with Bill Joy, one of BSD's drving force at the time). I think it sheds some light on this issue:


http://www.linux-mag.com/content/view/336/2260/

LM: Do you see similarities between the development community and the cultural community that's surrounding Linux right now and the community that surrounded BSD when you were developing it?

BJ: No. Our community was so small. It was Robert Elz and the people at Berkeley and the people at Bell Labs. There was one guy in Austria and one in Australia. No one else contributed much of substance that I recall.

(snip)

LM: So if it weren't for the lawyers, we'd be called FreeBSD Magazine?

BJ: If BSD had been free, there would have been no reason to rewrite it. The new thing that happened with Linux was cultural. The Internet is now coupling people together in ways that probably couldn't have happened before. How else would the developers have found each other?

I did my work in the era of the magnetic tape. We sent Unix in source form to thousands of people; they sent us a few hundred dollars, because I had to pay for the postage and for the printing of the manuals, and that was our network. It was a postal-age speed thing. It was not very convenient.

(snip)
LM: Is there something to the notion that the people working on BSD are more exclusive than the Linux community?

BJ: That's an us-versus-them thing.These things just get amplified. I don't think these people vary from each other by much. They just identify with some group, and that's a human-nature thing.

BSD is older. It doesn't need as much hacking. So if you're a new person learning how to hack, BSD was not as good a place to go. It didn't need as much work. Linux grew up with the Internet. By the time the Net came along, BSD didn't need the same level of work and wasn't as amenable to getting people interested in it.

When you already have several million lines of code, it's not as much fun to work on. Linux was a great thing because it allowed a lot of people to get involved in learning about operating systems by helping to finish this system. That process of creating something is the process of creating a community.

So Linux came along at the great, perfect time in a perfect, incomplete state for lots of people to participate in. It was still small enough that people could read the code. On the other hand, BSD was already mature, and the things that needed to be done to it were hard enough that it made it difficult for any person to come and participate.

(my highlights)

I'd dump one of the linux distros I have installed and replace it with BSD, except, oops. None of them are on primary partitions.* Seems a strange limitation for an OS to have nowadays.

Something I've never understood about DOS/Linux partitioning: why is more than one BIOS partition needed per OS? Or, for that matter, why is there a limit of only 4 BIOS partitions?

Which is a cleaner config:
{primary 1} linux /boot
{primary 2} windows system
{primary 3} freebsd slice
{extended}
{logical 1} linux /
{logical 2} linux /usr
{logical 3} linux /var
{logical 4} linux /home
{logical 5} linux swap
{logical 6} shared fat

{primary 1} windows
{primary 2} dragonfly slice
{subdivided into partitions}
{primary 3} freebsd slice
{subdivided into partitions}
{primary 4} shared fat

Granted, you could only have 3 OSes installed that way. But, with GPT partition tables catching on, it's much nicer, and cleaner, to have 1 GPT partition per OS, and let the OS sub-divide that however they want. That way, if a particular OS (like Windows) doesn't know how to handle the filesystem of another OS, they only have to deal with 1 entry in the partition table.


I hated the 4 primary partition limit and the whole "extended partition" crap since I first encountered it back in the days of triple-booting OS/2, Windows 3.x, and DOS 5/6. The Unix "1 slice per OS" method just makes sense.

"I'd dump one of the linux distros I have installed and replace it with BSD, except, oops. None of them are on primary partitions.* Seems a strange limitation for an OS to have nowadays."

I guess noone has felt a strong enough need to work around the retardedness of the x86 partitioning scheme.
Also, the BSD's arent aiming to dominate the desktop market and on a server or other dedicated device this is a total non-issue.

"Oh tell me, where can I find the available source of ftp.exe w2k is using?"
Since it's a derivative the source for ftp.exe, and whatever modifications MS made to the original BSD ftp source, arent available. You can however find the original source of BSD's ftp in any number of ways, starting with the source arhives of the current BSD's.
Thanks for proving my point though.

http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/consult_bycat.html

Have a look there, there are 68 entities alone in North America that offer commercial solutions. Many offer support that you speak of lacking in FreeBSD. Believe it or not, there are more people/companies out there using FreeBSD than you'd like to believe.

So tell me again why I should use a hodge-podgey patchwork-quilt operating system built around a kernel and a random selection of system software that is equivalent in stability to a Jenga tower, as opposed to a fully-supported system that is distributed and developed as an entirety? Linux does not provide better stability than FreeBSD. It does not provide better security than FreeBSD. The only real thing it has going for it is that the 2.6 kernel performs better than FreeBSD 5.2.1 (I haven't seen 5.3 or 5.4 benchmarks) in some cases. Even then, any production server should avoid 2.6 completely, as it's still a developer's playground.

If that is all that you have against FreeBSD, then I'm not convinced. It's still a pleasure to work with, as opposed to the headachey Googling-for-hours-because-it-doesn't-have-real-documentation nightmare that is Linux.

So tell me again why I should use a hodge-podgey patchwork-quilt operating system built around a kernel and a random selection of system software

Because it is better.

All of the major GNU/Linux commercial venders support the LSB.

Linux does not provide better stability than FreeBSD. It does not provide better security than FreeBSD.

It is hard to gauge stability, and because of this it is a favorite stand-by for FreeBSD zealots.

According to the Coverity automated source-code analsys reports. Linux has less bugs detected than FreeBSD, because source-code errors commonly manifest themselves in stability and security issues; it can be infered that Linux is more stable and has less security issues. A tricky reasoning at best though; atleast it can't be infered, by a reasonable person, that because FreeBSD has more errors detected by Coverity it is more stable and more secure.

"Because it is better."

Great job at being convincing with your impeccable arguments. Sorry, but personal opinion won't cut it for me. In my opinion, FreeBSD is better. Who are you to tell me it isn't?

I'm done with you. I'm still waiting for Moul's answer though.

GNU/Linux is better.

The Kernel , the softwares and the licenses , everything is better then FreeBSD and all the BSD's and there traitor license and there pale copy and use of GNU/Linux made and paid by softwares ( xfree , X.org , KDE , Gnome , gimp , etc ... ) thats why more then 1000 distribution are based of it ( Distrowatch is an incomplete list made as a personnal website following what is being submited , there list are not definitive , they dont follow half the distribution made and dont follow all the GNU/Linux distributions availaible they concentrate on the general distributions ... example : http://kaella.linux-azur.org/ )

You seem to think your deserving of something and are commanding others to follow what you ask of them , you havent earned the trust , respect and loyalty of any here ( certainly not mine ) or my services may they be for free or for a fee.

I said the truth , the fact that you dont accept it and are mocking it , is irrelevant , no one , who is logical and of a sane mind , will take someone words even more from who is ashame of is own name.

You already had my answers , I stand by all of them , they are all the truth and easily verifiable on your own. The fact that you dont like them or reject them is irrelevant , nobody asked for anything from you neither your support , your aproval nor your comments and false opinions. 5 seconds is all it takes to prove you and your lying friends as false.

I am sure you will call me name so I will put the final nail in your cofins of lies , Go read this :

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/Porting...

- Moulinneuf

Again, cite your evidence of your previous claims. Quit posting useless stuff and ignoring requests for evidence.

You are full of shit.

Again :

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/Porting...

Youve been proven wrong , by me , as always , I told you , and will tell you again :

The size of XNU and of Darwin kernel differ.

There is proprietary Driver and module in XNU that are not in Darwin kernel by Apple choice.

You already had you answer.

I specifically asked you to tell us which proprietary drivers/modules are missing from XNU. You have not answered yet. You've just re-hashed old statements.

Cite your sources, and provide substantial information -- now.

"GNU/Linux is better."
An opinion is not a fact.

"The Kernel , the softwares and the licenses , everything is better then FreeBSD and all the BSD's and there traitor license and there pale copy and use of GNU/Linux made and paid by softwares ( xfree , X.org , KDE , Gnome , gimp , etc ... )"
An opinion is not a fact.

"thats why more then 1000 distribution are based of it"
Unless you can provide a complete list of those 1000 distros they dont exist.

"I said the truth"
Opinions are not facts.

"You already had my answers , I stand by all of them , they are all the truth and easily verifiable on your own."
Your answers are opinions.

"The fact that you dont like them or reject them is irrelevant"
The fact that you dont like the BSD license is irrelevant and it doesnt make your opinions on it into facts.

> According to the Coverity automated source-code analsys reports. Linux has less bugs detected than FreeBSD, because source-code errors commonly manifest themselves in stability and security issues; it can be infered that Linux is more stable and has less security issues. A tricky reasoning at best though; atleast it can't be infered, by a reasonable person, that because FreeBSD has more errors detected by Coverity it is more stable and more secure.

Adam A, where do you get your information? I point you to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/29/coverity_analyses_freebsd_f... and ask that after reading this article, you still stand by what you said above.

From the source of course.

Coverity also released software defect and security vulnerability results for FreeBSD 6.0, a popular operating system (OS) that secures over 2.5 million* Internet sites. Coverity found 306 software defects in FreeBSD's 1.2 million lines of code, or an average of 0.25 defects per 1,000 lines of code. In a December 2004 study of the Linux kernel, Coverity found 985 software defects in 5.7 million lines of code, or an average of 0.17 defects per 1,000 lines of code. Digeo and Coverity as now working together to eliminate these defects from the Linux code base.


http://www.coverity.com/news/nf_news_06_27_05_story_9.html

And Linux is almost 5 times larger, and still has less bugs. That tells you something about quality.

In perspective of course.

> And Linux is almost 5 times larger, and still has less bugs. That tells you something about quality.

Adam. They are not bugs. They are perceived defects detected by an automated tool. The Stanford Checker is a useful tool. And the Linux Kernel developers have rightly paid attention to its results.

But a code base with developers who pay attention to the results of a particular automated defect detection tool are going to end up with code that does well when tested with that tool.

As I have said many times in this thread, I happen to prefer Linux. But why, why, why can't we just get along? BSD is not the enemy. Linux is not the enemy.

Open Source is not a zero sum game.

The comments from Solaris advocates toward Linux advocates were always about every little aspect of Linux that differed from Solaris over the course of many, many years. They're now applied by Linux advocates against others, in much the same silly way. Solaris has finer locking than Linux which has finer locking than FreeBSD. So you call me when Linux is up to Solaris's level of locking, and we'll do lunch, ok? Or perhaps that's just a silly dig at Linux? Yeah, that's probably it.

The degree to which the granularity of locking in the kernel matters for the performance of any given application is relative. It can damage performance just as easily as help, and everything becomes a matter of tradeoffs. The performance tradeoffs of granular locking with respect to overall SMP performance isn't any more relevant today that Intel and AMD are offering dual-core processors than it has been for the massively parallel systems that have been used for the last decade. The effects are much more important there than on dual-processor machines, just as they always have been. XNU has fairly coarse locking, and it has mattered little to Mac users despite years of Apple selling dual-processor Powermacs. Despite the years I've used Linux on dual-processor workstations, including many changes in the granularity of the locking. This doesn't mean that it doesn't matter, but that glossing over the intricacies of implementation details to leverage an old Solaris insult against Linux against FreeBSD just seems a bit amusing.

"The BSD is a Traitor license as it allow the taking and restriction of the use of the code by one individual for is own purpose only , from then on your not allowed to use , modify or even look at the code."

It's entirely up to the developer(s) to chose whatever license they see fit, including closed ones. Who died and made you the guy in charge of making decisions for every developer on the planet?
I guess OSI and most people disagree with you simply because they have a clue.


"3. No , BSD is not under the BSD license :"

Yes it is.


"FreeBSD also uses a 2-clause license with an additional statement at the end that the views of contributors are not the official views of the FreeBSD Project.""

Hot damn that's an important change. Of course, it's a change that doesnt in any way affect the redistribution and further advancement of the source.
FreeBSD isn't the only BSD so you can't generalize their license addition to other BSD's.


"There is no restriction on the distribution , there is enforcement from switching to another traitor license and from closing it for all others who might whant to use it after you added something to it , its called defendse of rights and freedom."

No, it's called "defense". Enforcing the disability to switch license is a restriction. Wether it's a good restriction or not is a different matter alltogether.
Lets repeat all together, the BSD license does not enable derivative work to close the original source or place any restriciton on the original whatsoever.


"Not even SCO is dumb enough to attack the GPL in court , had it been BSD ..."

Say what?


"Funny fact is Linus Thorvalds would have considered BSD back in 1991 if it where not for the huge amount of people getting sued for using it ... "

"Huge amount" for me and the english dictionary mean more than one.


"(what does all this mean in means the bsd sucks a ringworm infected ass)"

Damn that's witty and mature. I cant fathom why OSI and other people just aren't taking you seriously.

"...there are over one thousand ( 1000 ) GNU/Linux distributions with over 1 million company working on GNU/Linux."
According to distrowatch there are currently 386 Linux distributions. An impressive number, no doubt, but far from 1000.

"Are all BSD users just envious, stupid bigots with nothing better to do than spread FUD and illwill around?"
You cant really make any assumptions about BSD (or Linux or Windows or Mac) users from the people who post on osnews. It's like judging all americans based on watching WWF or all japanese men based on watching hentai.

Good point, too bad normal BSD users *seem* so rare.

As opposed to the insane ramblings by quite a few of the Linux users and/or pro-GPL people in this thread?
I'm not saying the pro-BSD license people are better, just that I cant notice any big difference in terms of vitriolic statements, here or in other threads.

Funny how you just repasted what you originally wrote a while back. I've already asked you to go away.

You haven't provided one piece of substantial evidence that backs up any of your claims, after being asked numerous times. Die.