Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Oct 2006 16:19 UTC, submitted by Charles A Landemaine
PC-BSD "With all of the BSD variants available for download, it's easy to incorrectly assume all of them are pure, incompatible forks from each other. Actually, there are more shades of BSD out in the world than just separate forks. One in particular made the news a couple of weeks ago when it was commercially acquired. The BSD in question is PC-BSD. The company that bought it is iXsystems, a systems deployment and integrator firm out of San Jose that has pretty strong experience implementing *BSD, Unix and Linux systems for its customer base. So, why did the company up and buy PC-BSD?"
Order by: Score:
Thats funny
by tmack on Thu 26th Oct 2006 16:34 UTC
tmack
Member since:
2006-04-11

I always thought Linux was the next Linux.

Reply Score: 5

Worried
by miro on Thu 26th Oct 2006 16:36 UTC
miro
Member since:
2005-07-13

I hope they don't play the BSD card and close things up
(they could at least partially).

Somehow I doubt that a "ecosystem" of distributions is possible without a strong license like GPL.

Peace.

Edited 2006-10-26 16:37

Reply Score: 2

RE: Worried
by Joe User on Thu 26th Oct 2006 16:43 UTC in reply to "Worried"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

They won't do that. Why? Because they know that if they did, the same day, a fork would rise, based on their source code and released open-source.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Worried
by cptnapalm on Thu 26th Oct 2006 17:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Worried"
cptnapalm Member since:
2006-08-09

Actually no. The fork could be of the last version of the code which was made available, but every modification thereafter could be closed off. There are quite a few examples of this.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Worried
by Joe User on Thu 26th Oct 2006 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Worried"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

Exactly, but the fork can follow its own way, benefiting from the source code before it gets closed.

Actually PC-BSD has so many GPL components that it can't go closed source. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited 2006-10-26 17:25

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Worried
by cptnapalm on Fri 27th Oct 2006 02:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Worried"
cptnapalm Member since:
2006-08-09

I wouldn't hazard to state definitely, but even if there were GPL components, the source to those can be made available but with the rest of the system being closed.

If memory serves, even when a BSD is done by a company which initially intends to keep it open, historically they do eventually close it off, making it entirely proprietary. I think that is the case, but don't rely on my faulty memory for this to be completely accurate.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Worried
by Joe User on Fri 27th Oct 2006 03:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Worried"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

If memory serves, even when a BSD is done by a company which initially intends to keep it open, historically they do eventually close it off, making it entirely proprietary. I think that is the case, but don't rely on my faulty memory for this to be completely accurate.

The opposite is true too. Think about it: How many companies ended up opening their source code and releasing their product open-source?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Worried
by hamster on Thu 26th Oct 2006 17:54 UTC in reply to "Worried"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

let's try not to make this to yet another bsd vs. gpl flamewar

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Worried
by hobgoblin on Thu 26th Oct 2006 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Worried"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

another? nah. its one long ongoing one...

its like a bonfire and fuel. just toss some more on it and watch it come back to life...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Worried
by bubbayank on Fri 27th Oct 2006 03:09 UTC in reply to "Worried"
bubbayank Member since:
2005-07-15

I hope they don't play the BSD card and close things up (they could at least partially).

I hope the GNU sycophants don't pull the FUD card and start talking out their asses about what might, maybe, possibly happen.

Oh, wait.

Reply Score: 1

Lets hope so
by TaterSalad on Thu 26th Oct 2006 16:46 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

Lets hope PC-BSD is the next Linux. I would love to see the BSD's get more recognition than they do now, but without all the zealotry that surrounds Linux.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Lets hope so
by KenJackson on Thu 26th Oct 2006 17:06 UTC in reply to "Lets hope so"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

...but without all the zealotry that surrounds Linux.

Dream on. What you call zealotry is just passion for a product we like. What technical, complex product (as opposed to products like salt and sugar which are very popular with zero passion) has ever become popular without a passionate appeal?

PC-BSD will become popular if and only if it has a good number of passionate advocates.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Lets hope so
by ferrels on Thu 26th Oct 2006 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Lets hope so"
ferrels Member since:
2006-08-15

One man's passion is another man's zealotry!

Personally I hope that the better operating systems rise to the top based on technical merit and their respective price to performance ratios. Let's leave passion where it belongs, i.e. the bedroom :-)

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Lets hope so
by anda_skoa on Thu 26th Oct 2006 12:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lets hope so"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Let's leave passion where it belongs, i.e. the bedroom :-)

No, please, no computers in my bedroom.

Oh, wait ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Lets hope so
by Oliver on Thu 26th Oct 2006 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Lets hope so"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

It's a thin line between passion and fanaticism.

>PC-BSD will become popular if and only if it has a good number of passionate advocates.

It will be popular if it stays "true". Any kind of hype would be the death of this flavour in the long run and a great damage to FreeBSD too.
BSD is BSD! It's no Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Lets hope so
by TaterSalad on Thu 26th Oct 2006 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Lets hope so"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

What you call passion for a product I call obsessive. I believe in free choice and all that, its when the really hard core advocates come out for linux that really turns me off on it. We know linux is out there and what our choices are. Its good at some tasks but sucks at others. But having a linux advocate scream "use linux!" to solve all the world's computing problems is just ridiculous. This is the road I'd rather not see any of the BSD's take.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Lets hope so
by twenex on Thu 26th Oct 2006 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lets hope so"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

What you call passion for a product I call obsessive. I believe in free choice and all that, its when the really hard core advocates come out for linux that really turns me off on it. We know linux is out there and what our choices are. Its good at some tasks but sucks at others. But having a linux advocate scream "use linux!" to solve all the world's computing problems is just ridiculous. This is the road I'd rather not see any of the BSD's take.

If the BSD's want to become more popular then they need to get better hardware support. Seriously. They also need to convince people that the capacity for forking is not as extreme as it may seem, OR not as much of a problem as it seems, OR both.

They also need to promote themselves more - but if you think that BSD users don't go around saying "Linux (or Insert Your Favourite OS Here) is crap, people should use BSD", you're dead wrong. There's also plenty "the GPL is thievery" crap.

As for linux users "screaming 'use linux' to solve all the world's computing problems'; dream on. Linux is an operating system, and therefore it can be adapted to any application anyone chooses to put on it. It's also a much more credible choice than others for a variety of purposes.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Lets hope so
by Soulbender on Fri 27th Oct 2006 02:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Lets hope so"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"If the BSD's want to become more popular then they need to get better hardware support."

I just love these standard, inaccurate cookiecutter arguments. You need to get a clue. Seriously.

"They also need to convince people that the capacity for forking is not as extreme as it may seem, OR not as much of a problem as it seems, OR both."

There are less than 10 BSD's. How many Linux distros are there?

"There's also plenty "the GPL is thievery" crap."
Just like there's a lot of "BSD is dead" and "BSD licensed code can be closed" crap going around.

Edited 2006-10-27 02:49

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Lets hope so
by garymax on Fri 27th Oct 2006 03:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Lets hope so"
garymax Member since:
2006-01-23

Original statement: "If the BSD's want to become more popular then they need to get better hardware support."

A reply: "I just love these standard, inaccurate cookiecutter arguments. You need to get a clue. Seriously."

I worked with FreeBSD trying to get it to install on a computer that is known to work great with Linux and does. When I tried FreeBSD, the install, while easy, was the only good part of my experience.

FreeBSD is not as smooth as Linux on hardware. It lacks drivers and critical commercial support that Linux gets on an everyday basis. So this observation is correct and is even admitted to by FreeBSD developers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Lets hope so
by Soulbender on Fri 27th Oct 2006 03:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Lets hope so"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"FreeBSD is not as smooth as Linux on hardware."

That's a pretty widereaching conclusion to come to from trying to get it installed on one computer. I could say the same about Linux using my own experience (Ubuntu did not support my ralink wifi, openbsd did). Also, FreeBSD != BSD.

Edited 2006-10-27 03:37

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Lets hope so
by garymax on Fri 27th Oct 2006 03:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Lets hope so"
garymax Member since:
2006-01-23

But that's my point.

Any computer upon which Linux runs nicely and FreeBSD has problems is one more strike against the system.

Regardless of the reason for the difficulty, when Linux installs and works out of the box (several distros mind you) and FreeBSD chokes and is a pain to get working--if working at all, it is one more testimonial to the fact that FreeBSD has a way to go to reach parity with Linux in terms of ease of installation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Lets hope so
by twenex on Fri 27th Oct 2006 08:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Lets hope so"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I tried it on every system I could get my hands on. One major version even tanked before loading the install program (NetBSD 3.0). So don't give me the cookie-cutter argument, because it won't wash.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Lets hope so
by jonto on Fri 27th Oct 2006 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Lets hope so"
jonto Member since:
2006-06-28

I am passionate about kosher salt. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Lets hope so
by hobgoblin on Thu 26th Oct 2006 19:09 UTC in reply to "Lets hope so"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

when one works around a machine buildt on pure logic (no matter how illogical it can appear to behave some times, it still is logical. its just that the observer do not have the full data set.) the part of the brain that deals with emotions gets little stimuli.

i theorize that zealotry is either a way to exercise, or a over-reaction based on lack of practice.

still, given that different people is zealots about different subjects (sports anyone?), the theory is at best incomplete.

if it isnt religion, politics or sports, what else do one have that one can be passionate about?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Lets hope so
by Nedi on Thu 26th Oct 2006 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Lets hope so"
Nedi Member since:
2006-02-09

if it isnt religion, politics or sports, what else do one have that one can be passionate about?

... how about being passionate about your life?
it's there all the time anyway, 24/365, so why spend this time mostly in a lukewarm way?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Lets hope so
by hobgoblin on Thu 26th Oct 2006 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lets hope so"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

but then again, those topics are whats most often used to define what kind of life one lives.

ie, you vote for a specific party or person based on your life (or what you want/hope your life to be). same with sports and religion.

life alone becomes very darwinian...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Lets hope so
by Clinton on Fri 27th Oct 2006 18:01 UTC in reply to "Lets hope so"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

I don't know how you expect BSD to get more recognition without the "zealotry". Perhaps it is its lack of "zealotry" that keeps BSD forever in the back seat.

Reply Score: 2

Linux done right?
by chrishaney on Thu 26th Oct 2006 16:50 UTC
chrishaney
Member since:
2005-11-15

I've always heard that BSD is what Linux wanted to be...

Reply Score: 4

RE: PC-BSD May Be the Next Linux
by protagonist on Thu 26th Oct 2006 17:02 UTC
protagonist
Member since:
2005-07-06

I downloaded and installed the Beta PCBSD 1.3 version. All in all it is a very nicely done OS. The biggest problem at the moment is the lack of ready to install programs under their package installer. If they can get enough programs ported then it just might become popular. I do like it and have it running on my desktop PC.

One positive, I don't know what they are doing but they managed to set my display to the correct 1280x1024 resolution. This is something the Linux distro's I am trying have failed to do. They always dump me to 1024x768 and Then I have to manually tweak the xorg.conf file to make it work right.

Reply Score: 4

LOL
by diegocg on Thu 26th Oct 2006 17:30 UTC
diegocg
Member since:
2005-07-08

Yet another guy trying to make BSD noise.

I find funny that some people does want to become the "next Linux". Have you guys realized that the VAST MAJORITY of what you call "linux" is actually not Linux neither GNU or BSD, but just "FOSS"?

In other words, the parts of "linux" that really matter (gnome, kde, X.org, openoffice, apache, mysql, GCC) are ALREADY available for BSDs. The one difference is the kernel, the libc and a few key libraries.

So BSD won't be the "next Linux". If BSD gets more used, it'll continue to be gnome, kde, X.org, apache, gcc, mysql. I don't think it matters at all wheter the kernel is Linux or BSD or Solaris, or even Haiku. It'll continue being FOSS with just another name.

Edited 2006-10-26 17:33

Reply Score: 4

RE: LOL
by Joe User on Thu 26th Oct 2006 17:37 UTC in reply to "LOL"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

Diego, I doubt these guys want to be the next Linux. If they wanted, they would have used a Linux kernel. They based their OS on FreeBSD because of FreeBSD's maturity, strengh and robustness.

Reply Score: 4

RE: LOL
by Morin on Thu 26th Oct 2006 21:17 UTC in reply to "LOL"
Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

> So BSD won't be the "next Linux". If BSD gets more
> used, it'll continue to be gnome, kde, X.org, apache,
> gcc, mysql. I don't think it matters at all wheter the
> kernel is Linux or BSD or Solaris, or even Haiku. It'll
> continue being FOSS with just another name.

Correction: It'll continue being FOSS *UNIX* with just another name (and kernel). Many FOSS OSes aren't UNIX-centered and don't use gnome, kde, X.org, apache, gcc, and mysql.

Reply Score: 1

yes, indeed. love it.
by ParaMouthBalls on Thu 26th Oct 2006 17:46 UTC
ParaMouthBalls
Member since:
2006-10-25

yes, indeed. love it.

Reply Score: 1

BSD's
by Lengsel on Thu 26th Oct 2006 17:57 UTC
Lengsel
Member since:
2006-04-19

I am happy with that, maybe this will help get at least one BSD into more of the spotlight as I know there are avid Linux users who have never even heard of BSD. With a bigger PC-BSD name, I think it will give a bigger FreeBSD name. Just need something to also get OpenBSD a lot more exposure and I think it will help with all this Linux craze. As it's been said several times over, Linux is for people who hate Microsoft, BSD is for people that love Unix. I am not sure PC-BSD will be the next Linux, but I've tried every release since it was based on Free 6, and just never liked the default install, had to go through the system and change a lot of the setup. But with this acquisition now, since iXsystems can sell stuff with PC-BSD installed, maybe they can help fund full time development and kick PC into more high gear, so that Kris can take on Windows and Mac the way he would like to, but built on the security and stabilization of BSD. So I really can't say it will be the next Linux, but I would say it could help turn people on to a true Unix-type system, and not a Unix-like system.

Reply Score: 1

RE: BSD's
by cptnapalm on Fri 27th Oct 2006 02:32 UTC in reply to "BSD's"
cptnapalm Member since:
2006-08-09

Well if you want to get technical, BSD is not a Unix either, but a Unix-like system. The Open Group has the trademark and get to determine what is and is not officially a Unix. None of the BSDs are, according to them.

Reply Score: 1

DragonFlyBSD
by ebasconp on Thu 26th Oct 2006 18:20 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

FreeBSD is currently the most popular *BSD OS, but DragonFlyBSD (a fork of FreeBSD) is going to be the most "modern" and "efficient" BSD, so, having a "desktop layer" on top of DragonFlyBSD (like PCBSD on top of FreeBSD) would be great!!!

Reply Score: 1

RE: DragonFlyBSD
by Joe User on Thu 26th Oct 2006 18:27 UTC in reply to "DragonFlyBSD"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

Why is DragonFlyBSD better than FreeBSD? Backing your statement would help us understand.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: DragonFlyBSD
by Don T. Bothers on Thu 26th Oct 2006 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE: DragonFlyBSD"
Don T. Bothers Member since:
2006-03-15

"Why is DragonFlyBSD better than FreeBSD? Backing your statement would help us understand."

He does not need to do so. He said so, so it must be true. No need to back it up with any facts of any sorts.

Reply Score: 3

RE: DragonFlyBSD
by jondoor on Thu 26th Oct 2006 19:23 UTC in reply to "DragonFlyBSD"
jondoor Member since:
2005-06-30

"Is going to be" rather sums up the merits of the statement. Lots of things are going to be, or would have been only if...

Reply Score: 2

Termini technici etc.
by Doc Pain on Thu 26th Oct 2006 19:01 UTC
Doc Pain
Member since:
2006-10-08

First, I'd like to state thatt the heading of the article is not well formed. BSD cannot get a Linux by principle. Please consider the proper use of the correct termini technici over journalistic buzz words. :-)

Furthermore, let's not get info flame wars BSD ./. Linux, GPL ./. BSDL etc. - it won't be any productive.

I like the PC-BSD approach of a pre-tuned FreeBSD for the average user. This'll make BSD more interesting for the "desktop used at home" as well as in professional contexts. Their PBI package system is quite cool. Admittedly, there are some things I don't like in PC-BSD, but no one forces me to use it. I'll continue using a "real" FreeBSD which I can configure by myself. Newbies who are not firm with CLI and system architecture will find PC-BSD most interesting; I gave it around some people here, most of them had never used a computer before, and they are now very comfortable with PC-BSD.

PC-BSD folks, go on! More than 15,000 ported applications and a solid base system should lead BSD to more success.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Termini technici etc.
by Charles A Landemaine on Thu 26th Oct 2006 19:17 UTC in reply to "Termini technici etc."
Charles A Landemaine Member since:
2005-11-11

I'll continue using a "real" FreeBSD which I can configure by myself.

Remember PIF ;)
http://faqs.pcbsd.org/14_304_en.html

Reply Score: 1

RE: DragonFlyBSD
by anevilyak on Thu 26th Oct 2006 19:01 UTC
anevilyak
Member since:
2005-09-14

Dragonfly certainly has some interesting (and quite radical) ideas, but whether they're more efficient remains to be proven.

Reply Score: 1

Linux should be based in China....
by Caesius on Thu 26th Oct 2006 19:18 UTC
Caesius
Member since:
2005-08-18

"PC-BSD will become popular if and only if it has a good number of passionate advocates."

Windows became popular. Where were its passionate advocates?

Personally (don't be offended), the Linux community (or commune for a better word) will never get anywhere in my op.

Reply Score: 1

KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

Once upon a time I was a passionate advocate of Windows, or at least the Win32 kernel, and I wasn't alone. But Windows almost falls into the salt and sugar category because you have to have some OS, and there didn't used to be a lot of choice.

Don't worry, I'm not offended. The Linux community is already in a terrific position and getting better all the time. And PC-BSD may also vault ahead to a terrific position as well.

Reply Score: 4

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Windows became popular. Where were its passionate advocates?

I believe they live in a place called Redmond.

Or Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Look, MS make good products, OK? Windows is not one of them, and never has been. At 15GB and already critically compromised, the next version isn't going to be, either.

Edited 2006-10-26 21:32

Reply Score: 1

iangibson Member since:
2005-09-25

Windows became popular. Where were its passionate advocates?

Sorry, can't resist!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1274983729713522403&q=ballm...


.

Reply Score: 2

Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

LOL that was very good. Here's another one:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1769003739231727974&q=ball...

What a mad guy!

Reply Score: 1

Zealotry
by pcbsdusr on Thu 26th Oct 2006 20:30 UTC
pcbsdusr
Member since:
2006-01-23

This is what i think has made a difference between PC-BSD and other projects. Our forum has been very, very friendly so far. People help each other despite of differences in knowlege.

In other projects i have seen elitist behavior that is not on PC-BSD. Not to say some of us dont have their bad days.

I am one of the people translating pc-bsd (as well as DesktopBSD) and i truely belive we can do very well if current philosophy remains unchanged.

Cheers,

RF

Reply Score: 3

this is good.
by Zedicus on Thu 26th Oct 2006 20:32 UTC
Zedicus
Member since:
2005-12-05

VERY good. when i first caught wind of PC-BSD i thought 'hey, thats cool' it is, very easy to use, simple installer and pre-set up gui, while not for the hard core these are very nice features for a lot of peeple. also its 'package management' reminds me of somewhat of OS X (HEY, ALOS BSD BASED, W00T!)

while i myself am a linux user, i do try to keep a foot in the door of all the OS's i can find. any support of a company for any FOSS software be it BSD root open solaris root or linux root can only help the FOSS groups as a whole.

now, if i could just get the mamnagemnt here to relize win2ksp4 is NOT the last OS they will ever need.

Reply Score: 4

Other distros
by Haicube on Thu 26th Oct 2006 20:44 UTC
Haicube
Member since:
2005-08-06

Hey, this is a thought (that hopefully someone would like).

why not try to sell or at least offer preconfigured installs of PCBSD / Any BSD.

What I'm thinking here is SMB fileserver with 3-4 easy backup methods preconfigured and network shares configured etc.

There's so many companies out there who are like 2-10 people who can't afford any IT guy that needs a fileserver that just works out of the box or is very easy to understand. Since all workstations by definition is Windows for these companies, any Windows server is natural.

Seriously, why not just make a preconfigured station where you have some additional dirs where obvious which is already setup in Samba and in the Unix users part where it's simply stated that copy your current data in there and it'll be shared. Then a simple "group install" adding user names/passwords and simply one group.

Finally on top of that would be a preconfigured backup script that automatically would store all data in the shared dirs and the only choices would be a) Complete/incremental on what basis (daily/weekly etc). And the second option would be method as in. DVD backup, CD backup, Online backup (FTP) and Tape.

I can PROMISE that the above solution based on PCBSD for 50$ would sell HUGE time to SMB companies. Especially with some good documentation about restoring etc.

PCBSD is a natural choice for this and will be competitive.

Reply Score: 1

I hope
by Ronald Vos on Thu 26th Oct 2006 21:04 UTC
Ronald Vos
Member since:
2005-07-06

PC-BSD is the next BeOS..only without the going under thing. ;)

Reply Score: 2

OpenBSD
by brewmastre on Thu 26th Oct 2006 22:04 UTC
brewmastre
Member since:
2006-08-01

I want to know why more people arent building OpenBSD distros. Everyone in the BSD world is jumping on the FreeBSD bandwagon, but anybody that knows about the different forks, knows that OpenBSd is significantly more secure and stable

Reply Score: 1

RE: OpenBSD
by KenJackson on Thu 26th Oct 2006 22:11 UTC in reply to "OpenBSD"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

That's an interesting question. I've used FreeBSD and currently use NetBSD on one desktop, but I've never even considered using OpenBSD. I think the reason is that the other BSDs are so secure that OpenBSD just doesn't address a perceived need.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: OpenBSD
by brewmastre on Thu 26th Oct 2006 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE: OpenBSD"
brewmastre Member since:
2006-08-01

I agree that all of the BSD's are very secure, but most of the security that they have is because of OpenBSD's innovations. Nothing against the others, but why not go right to the source of the all these security technologies and just use OpenBSD?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: OpenBSD
by twenex on Thu 26th Oct 2006 22:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OpenBSD"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Dude, OpenBSD's hard disk partitioner is horrendous.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: OpenBSD
by brewmastre on Thu 26th Oct 2006 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OpenBSD"
brewmastre Member since:
2006-08-01

True, it's in no way intuitive, but functional. But if someone were to build a nice LiveCD/Install CD for OBSD that utilized something like gparted, it would make a kickass system

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: OpenBSD
by re_re on Fri 27th Oct 2006 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OpenBSD"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

>I agree that all of the BSD's are very secure, but most of the security that they have is because of OpenBSD's innovations. Nothing against the others, but why not go right to the source of the all these security technologies and just use OpenBSD?<

I don't think you really understand the underpinnings of the OpenBSD project. By it's very nature it could not be used in the same manner as freebsd or netbsd. The reason OpenBSD is so secure is because virtually every package that goes into OpenBSD is heavily scrutinized, broken down and put back together (sometimes several times) prior to the package being allowed into ObenBSD proper.

In a fork of OpenBSD you would essentially lose the large majority of that security and stability by installing packages that were not tested, retested and configured by OpenBSD... eg... xorg, kde, gnome, and almost anything that would make for a good desktop distro.

OpenBSD is designed to be a solid stable and socure server os and nothing more. Turning it into a desktop os would simply make it like every other BSD out there.

Edited 2006-10-27 00:13

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: OpenBSD
by brewmastre on Fri 27th Oct 2006 00:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OpenBSD"
brewmastre Member since:
2006-08-01

I understand what you are saying, but its not entirely true. Yes, the OpenBSD team does control what goes into the source tree, and that's why its so stable and secure; however, all of the programs that would make OpenBSD a useful desktop OS are compiled and tested by the OpenBSD team, they're what makes up the OpenBSD Ports Tree. And Xorg is already included with OBSD anyway. I dont think it would be all that bad to take obsd and add a nice WM that has been fully tested by the obsd and distribute it. At least at that point the core OS would be fully tested and known to be secure and stable. If users can find a way to install enough crap on obsd to make it less stable then no OS is safe.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: OpenBSD
by Soulbender on Fri 27th Oct 2006 03:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OpenBSD"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"The reason OpenBSD is so secure is because virtually every package that goes into OpenBSD is heavily scrutinized,"

This is not entirely true. All code that goes into the base system is scrutinized, yes, but this is not true for the packages/ports. There's simply not enough manpower to audit gigantic packages like GNOME, OpenOffice and KDE completely. This means that ports are generally not as well audited as the base system.

"OpenBSD is designed to be a solid stable and socure server os and nothing more."
While OpenBSD is a very solid and secure server OS it's not the primary goal of the project:
http://openbsd.org/goals.html
For example, with PF, OpenOSPFD and OpenBGPD it makes for an awesome router.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: OpenBSD
by Soulbender on Fri 27th Oct 2006 02:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OpenBSD"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Nothing against the others, but why not go right to the source of the all these security technologies and just use OpenBSD?"

It's not intended to be an everyman's desktop OS and thus it's not suitable. It could be but it would take some serious work. Another factor is that there are far more freebsd users and thus perhaps a bigger interest in putting together a desktop "variant".

Btw, I use OpenBSD on my desktop every day and has done so for more than 6 years.

Reply Score: 1

OpenBSD
by brewmastre on Fri 27th Oct 2006 01:04 UTC
brewmastre
Member since:
2006-08-01

I guess rather than dragging this *BSD debate out too long, let me just clarify what I am trying to say:
Any OS can become less stable/secure with more junk loaded on it. It just seem like starting out with the most stable/secure fork will ultimately lead to a better distro in the end.

Edited 2006-10-27 01:05

Reply Score: 2

OSX
by netpython on Fri 27th Oct 2006 09:42 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

PC-BSD May Be the Next Linux

Perhaps the next OSX :-) or the one you can install also on non-apple hardware.

Reply Score: 1

PBI
by Isolationist on Sat 28th Oct 2006 17:03 UTC
Isolationist
Member since:
2006-05-28

I was going to give PC-BSD a try, but then looking at the PBI's on the website they seem a few versions behind which put me off. For example, konversation is at version 0.19, but on my linux box i am using version 1.01. I am not saying that the linux distribution i use is better than PC-BSD, just saying that on initial impressions with PC-BSD it seems the PBI's are a few versions behind which puts me off

Reply Score: 1