Linked by Julian Djamil Fagir on Thu 14th Feb 2013 22:23 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives BSD (Berkely System Distribution) was a research operating system based on the original AT&T Unix, developed by the University of Berkeley, California. It has been Open Source right from the beginning, and after the university lost interest in developing it further, several community projects started up (the very first ones were NetBSD and FreeBSD in the early nineties) to continue developing BSD. Anyway, Linux was born roughly at the same time, but a pending lawsuit about copyright infringements prevented the BSD projects to become as successful as Linux (though you could argue about the exact reasons).
Order by: Score:
BSD
by twitterfire on Thu 14th Feb 2013 22:31 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

I wish Linus never wrote that kernel and BSD would have been more popular. Today we would have better OSes since BSDs are much better integrated than Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: BSD
by tylerdurden on Thu 14th Feb 2013 22:56 UTC in reply to "BSD"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

We all wish things, I wish you hadn't written that stale flame bait. Alas...

Reply Score: 14

RE: BSD
by Risthel on Fri 15th Feb 2013 10:17 UTC in reply to "BSD"
Risthel Member since:
2010-12-22

I wish Linus never wrote that kernel and BSD would have been more popular. Today we would have better OSes since BSDs are much better integrated than Linux.


Better integrated? They already have their incompatibilies between them and have to "cross-polenize" each other on the points where they lack of innovation/functionality. I love BSD but i disgree when people say that BSDs just create a fork when is needed. They created some forks when could be avoided:

- Matt creater DragonFly because he was tired of people putting "band-aids" on FreeBSD, that should fix at one side and break other. This and the desire of have a better "cluster native OS" created this wonderfull piece of software.
- Bitrig is a OpenBSD less conservative. I still se no other than "lego play" utility to this. I know that OpenBSD guys works hard, but their decisions tend to make all thing difficult, and create this fork.
- PC-BSD = Lack of a stronger desktop initiative by the FreeBSD guys. You know, if they have a installer for "desktop fluffy things" this could be avoided.

Some "BSD decisions" would not change, if Linux didn't existed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: BSD
by BluenoseJake on Fri 15th Feb 2013 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE: BSD"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

The previous poster meant integration at the system level, not between projects. FreeBSD for example is responsible for the kernel, kernel modules, userland, toolchain, and installer, they are all managed, developed and tested together. Compare to linux where the kernel comes from one place, the userland from another, and they are integrated downstream from the initial developer.

They are as about badly integrated project wise as the 100s of Linux distros, but there are only 4 or 5, so that is an easier problem to deal with.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: BSD
by Laurence on Fri 15th Feb 2013 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE: BSD"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

They created some forks when could be avoided:

While I agree with you point in theory, your examples are pretty terrible:


- Matt creater DragonFly because he was tired of people putting "band-aids" on FreeBSD, that should fix at one side and break other. This and the desire of have a better "cluster native OS" created this wonderfull piece of software.

Dragonfly is one of the more distinctive variants of BSD. It has a whole boat load of features not seen in FreeBSD.


- PC-BSD = Lack of a stronger desktop initiative by the FreeBSD guys. You know, if they have a installer for "desktop fluffy things" this could be avoided.

Unless things have changed significantly recently, PC-BSD isn't really a fork of FreeBSD, it's more a "distribution". It's point was to give users a no-fuss desktop ready version of FreeBSD. And as PC-BSD is 100% FreeBSD compatible (after all, it /IS/ FreeBSD), I think it deserves it's place as it takes any pressure off the FreeBSD devs from having to cater their limited resources to a multitude of different users expectations (or in layman's terms, FreeBSD can focus on building a solid base and PC-BSD and focus on shipping FreeBSD with the desktop preinstalled and configured to run perfected out-of-the-box).

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: BSD
by Risthel on Sat 16th Feb 2013 00:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: BSD"
Risthel Member since:
2010-12-22


Dragonfly is one of the more distinctive variants of BSD. It has a whole boat load of features not seen in FreeBSD.


Yeah. It started with just the desire of make the Operation System more scalable and "cluster oriented from roots", and today we have wonderfull features in it.


Unless things have changed significantly recently, PC-BSD isn't really a fork of FreeBSD, it's more a "distribution". It's point was to give users a no-fuss desktop ready version of FreeBSD. And as PC-BSD is 100% FreeBSD compatible (after all, it /IS/ FreeBSD), I think it deserves it's place as it takes any pressure off the FreeBSD devs from having to cater their limited resources to a multitude of different users expectations (or in layman's terms, FreeBSD can focus on building a solid base and PC-BSD and focus on shipping FreeBSD with the desktop preinstalled and
configured to run perfected out-of-the-box).


Yeah. I´ve used bad example here, sorry. PC-BSD helped a lot with docs. I could use bitrig and mirOS here. Both of them want a more "permissive" or less "Theo centric" version of the ol´good OpenBSD

Reply Score: 2

RE: BSD
by Phucked on Sat 16th Feb 2013 04:06 UTC in reply to "BSD"
Phucked Member since:
2008-09-24

I wish Linus never wrote that kernel and BSD would have been more popular. Today we would have better OSes since BSDs are much better integrated than Linux.


You assume too much in your statement.

1. One cannot assume that if Linux was never made that the BSD's would take its please in terms of popularly.

One could as easily argue that the BSD's popularly owes its success to Linux, and without Linux the BSD's today would be even less popular.

2. Why would we have better Operating Systems? Having a integrated and userland and kernel/system does not a good operating system make.

Reply Score: 7

RE: BSD
by Al Dente on Wed 20th Feb 2013 00:09 UTC in reply to "BSD"
Al Dente Member since:
2006-09-12

It's hard to say. I once read Linus Torvalds saying that if he was aware of the 386BSD project that he wouldn't have started writing the Linux kernel. So all that would be needed to have a BSD parallel universe would be for someone to go back in time and give Mr Torvalds a subscription for Dr. Dobbs Journal. Frankly there is no way to know how things would have turned out. Linux not existing does not mean that BSD would have automatically filled the void. It is very possible that free operating systems would have never been as successful had Linux not been on the scene. Also, without the existence of Linux the outcome of the USL lawsuit may have been different.

Reply Score: 1

EC2?
by Berend de Boer on Fri 15th Feb 2013 00:45 UTC
Berend de Boer
Member since:
2005-10-19

Isn't this also the year FreeBSD became publicly available on Amazon AWS?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Fri 15th Feb 2013 01:27 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

Eventually, the security team announced they didn't find anything security-relevant, but still recommend not to trust binary package installations made in that time frame. In December, everything was completely back online.


The package build system isn't yet up. Certain FreeBSD 9.0 binary packages are older than what's available in ports, and 9.1 doesn't have any binary packages available yet.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by marcp on Mon 18th Feb 2013 09:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

And that's a real PITA. It's like releasing a car without wheels. But who cares? the car is there ...

Do your sh#t thoroughly, then release. Never the other way around. Otherwise you're heading to disaster [or Linux].

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Mon 18th Feb 2013 19:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

And that's a real PITA. It's like releasing a car without wheels. But who cares? the car is there ...


Except the packages produced by the build system aren't part of the release, while the wheels are part of the car. This isn't semantics; even when extra packages were included on the install disks, they were referred to as "third-party" packages.

I hate car analogies for computers, but a better analogy would be "The car is ready, but it'll be a while before after-market add-ons are available."

Even when packages are available, I find myself building from ports frequently, just for the greater control, and I'm willing to bet that anybody that administers FreeBSD systems professionally will rely on ports much, much more.

Packages build for 9.0 should also work perfectly on 9.1, but the packages build for 9.0 aren't being updated at the moment, either (Though, the ports tree is).

Reply Score: 2

Nice Run Down
by jptros on Fri 15th Feb 2013 01:33 UTC
jptros
Member since:
2005-08-26

I enjoyed the summary of what all has been happening in the BSD world. Here's to hoping for many more years of progress.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Nice Run Down
by DOSguy on Mon 18th Feb 2013 16:33 UTC in reply to "Nice Run Down"
DOSguy Member since:
2009-07-27

Yes great article indeed! I would like to see more OSnews Originals like this.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by gan17
by gan17 on Fri 15th Feb 2013 02:24 UTC
gan17
Member since:
2008-06-03

OpenBSD summary seems like an afterthought, but not much of a surprise since the author states his bias/preferences at the end.

Nothing new, but a good primer for people unfamiliar with the BSDs, I suppose. Thanks for sharing.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by gan17
by lucas_maximus on Fri 15th Feb 2013 13:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by gan17"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Yeah, OpenBSD doesn't get a lot of love.

Good solid OS, lacks features for sure.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by gan17
by KrustyVader on Sat 16th Feb 2013 02:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by gan17"
KrustyVader Member since:
2006-10-28

Hey!... i give him all my love and two machines (my homeserver and my netbook).

Reply Score: 2

Comment by drcouzelis
by drcouzelis on Fri 15th Feb 2013 03:30 UTC
drcouzelis
Member since:
2010-01-11

Maybe you can help me with a question.

I recently installed FreeBSD on a free partition in order to learn more about it. I'm using 9.1. I'm confused about packages.

I can install software using the ports tree, but I'd like to install binary packages to save time. As far as understand it, pkgng is still non-existant because of the security breach and pkgadd is deprecated in 9.1. Is that correct?

What is the "best" or "most correct" way to install software in FreeBSD?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by drcouzelis
by Drumhellar on Fri 15th Feb 2013 05:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by drcouzelis"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

The way I understand it, the package build infrastructure isn't back online yet (at least not as-of the end of January), so there are no packages for 9.1 yet, since it was released after the breach.

Additionally, packages for 9.0 may be outdated compared to their ports version for the same reason.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by drcouzelis
by drcouzelis on Fri 15th Feb 2013 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by drcouzelis"
drcouzelis Member since:
2010-01-11

Thank you, that makes sense. I'll go ahead and continue using the ports tree and compiling. I kind of like it since it feels like the most "FreeBSD" method. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by drcouzelis
by Soulbender on Fri 15th Feb 2013 06:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by drcouzelis"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

What is the "best" or "most correct" way to install software in FreeBSD?


By using NetBSD or OpenBSD instead ;)

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Comment by drcouzelis
by Yoko_T on Fri 15th Feb 2013 10:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by drcouzelis"
RE: Comment by drcouzelis
by tylerdurden on Fri 15th Feb 2013 18:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by drcouzelis"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

RTFM, FreeBSD has a fantastic documentation, follow it.

You just need to install the initial ports tree, and then it is just a simple matter of "make install clean" from the directory of the port you want to install.

Keeping the system up to date is a bit trickier than the software installation process, though. In FreeBSD there are usually n-ways of doing the same (installing ports, upgrading the system, etc) action. Which I think it's what may be confusing you initially.

Edited 2013-02-15 18:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by drcouzelis
by drcouzelis on Fri 15th Feb 2013 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by drcouzelis"
drcouzelis Member since:
2010-01-11

Did you just tell me to read the manual to learn how to install software using the ports tree after I said I know how to install software using the ports tree?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by drcouzelis
by tylerdurden on Sat 16th Feb 2013 03:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by drcouzelis"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

You also were asking "what is the best way to install software in FreeBSD," so it seemed obvious to me that your proficiency with the ports system was not that good. Which is why I directed you to RTFM: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/ports.html

Edited 2013-02-16 03:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by drcouzelis
by drcouzelis on Sat 16th Feb 2013 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by drcouzelis"
drcouzelis Member since:
2010-01-11

...which brings me to another question. I'd heard for many years about how strong the documentation is for FreeBSD, and assumed that extended to the handbook as well. But while reading through the handbook, I kind of got the impression that something was just a little... off. I couldn't tell what was current and what was out of date because of my lack of experience wih the OS. But then I got to this part:

"By far, the most popular X11 MP3 player is XMMS." (freebsd.org/doc/handbook/sound-mp3.html)

And literally laughed out loud. Even so, I'm about to install XMMS (first time in about a eight years) just so I can be like "the FreeBSD guys". ;)

Is it appropriate to follow the handbook as the best documentation for installing and configuring FreeBSD 9.1?

Thank you for your guidance!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by drcouzelis
by Drumhellar on Sun 17th Feb 2013 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by drcouzelis"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Lol. Some parts are kinda old, but any technical details should be valid. They do a good job of updating the handbook when things change.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by drcouzelis
by lucas_maximus on Mon 18th Feb 2013 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by drcouzelis"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Pity XMMS is down, because they had a little rant about how XMMS is still being used.

Great little amp like the Winamp 2 series before > version 2.81 (they started adding all the useless library features).

Winamp.com still makes 8 million a year last time anybody highlighted it.

Edited 2013-02-18 16:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Keep getting better
by bolomkxxviii on Fri 15th Feb 2013 14:46 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

I have been using Linux since 2001. Every year or so I give BSD a test run. There is a lot to like but for me it just isn't there yet. Too many issues to resolve when trying to get everything working as a daily use machine. When it "just works" after installation like Linux Mint I will give it serious consideration. Here is hoping...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Keep getting better
by Laurence on Fri 15th Feb 2013 15:21 UTC in reply to "Keep getting better"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I have been using Linux since 2001. Every year or so I give BSD a test run. There is a lot to like but for me it just isn't there yet. Too many issues to resolve when trying to get everything working as a daily use machine. When it "just works" after installation like Linux Mint I will give it serious consideration. Here is hoping...

Which BSDs did you try?
Have you tried PC-BSD?

Ultimately though, there's more to an OS than whether your desktop does compositing out of the box.

Edited 2013-02-15 15:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Keep getting better
by twitterfire on Fri 15th Feb 2013 15:52 UTC in reply to "Keep getting better"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

When it "just works" after installation like Linux Mint I will give it serious consideration. Here is hoping...


If you want something where you just click next, next, next to install and will auto detect hardware and install necessary drivers and media codecs, you can give Pc-BSD a try. It is as user friendly as Linux Mint.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Keep getting better
by ewayte on Fri 15th Feb 2013 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Keep getting better"
ewayte Member since:
2010-07-15

PC-BSD has the same hardware issues as FreeBSD. For example, in order to enable Atheros 9285 wireless support, you have to edit /boot/loader.conf as root and add if_ath_load="YES". This is not something most folks would not feel comfortable doing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Keep getting better
by phoenix on Fri 15th Feb 2013 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Keep getting better"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

PC-BSD has the same hardware issues as FreeBSD.


Well, duh! ;) PC-BSD is FreeBSD. Thus, all hardware support for PC-BSD comes from FreeBSD.

For example, in order to enable Atheros 9285 wireless support, you have to edit /boot/loader.conf as root and add if_ath_load="YES". This is not something most folks would not feel comfortable doing.


ath(4) is part of the GENERIC kernel in FreeBSD 9.1. No loader.conf editing required.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Keep getting better
by dindin on Fri 15th Feb 2013 15:55 UTC in reply to "Keep getting better"
dindin Member since:
2006-03-29

Unless the BSDs get a proper top-to-bottom binary package management working, they will be a OS just for techies and servers. They tried that with pkgng and ... well .... lets see if that works ... has not yet.

I run FreeBSD on several servers for lots of network packet analysis but run Linux and OS X on the laptop/desktop. Severs is great since I do not have to compile and install from ports a lot of packages so no broken ports on the core stuff. But won't trust that on the desktop.

Heres hoping to see FreeBSD on the desktop soon.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Keep getting better
by phoenix on Fri 15th Feb 2013 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Keep getting better"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

2013 should be "the year of binary packages" for FreeBSD.

You can already upgrade the base OS via freebsd-update(8).

And the PKGng project will allow you to do binary upgrades of your 3rd-party software (aka ports) with the ease of Debian's apt-get. All the pieces are in place for 9.0 and 9.1, and PKGng is now the default on 10-CURRENT. All that's missing is for the package-building cluster to be brought back online to build binary packages on a regular basis. The cluster is being rebuilt due to the security incident last fall.

However, one can use ports-mgmt/poudriere to create their own package-building system, and use PKGng to manage everything on their own systems.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Keep getting better
by laffer1 on Fri 15th Feb 2013 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Keep getting better"
laffer1 Member since:
2007-11-09

That's what we've been working on for some time in MidnightBSD. Our mport package management tools were covered in a BSD Magazine article if you're interested.

I'm planning on doing the 0.4 release with the package tools this year. You can actually use an early version in 0.3 as an option, but it doesn't have all the polish one would expect.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Keep getting better
by trooper9 on Mon 18th Feb 2013 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Keep getting better"
trooper9 Member since:
2007-04-27

How current is your project in relation to FreeBSD (using them as a touchstone)? I noticed you started the project from FreeBSD 6.x. Are your packages now current with FBSD 9.0, or what? The project looks interesting and I'd like to try it. Will it run in VBox? I've tried past versions of FBSD and I could not get them to boot in VBox...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Keep getting better
by J-freebsd_98 on Mon 18th Feb 2013 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Keep getting better"
J-freebsd_98 Member since:
2006-01-01

How current is your project in relation to FreeBSD (using them as a touchstone)? I noticed you started the project from FreeBSD 6.x. Are your packages now current with FBSD 9.0, or what? The project looks interesting and I'd like to try it. Will it run in VBox? I've tried past versions of FBSD and I could not get them to boot in VBox...

There is also ghostbsd.org. I installed it once, but the next time, it failed to install. (xfce beta 3 version.) Not a problem here, it was for disk formatting anyway, as I run Freebsd natively.
To more respond to this post, you may wish to try any of the several ways of dual-booting [carefully, following a guide, etc...] That was how I first ran FreeBSD for a year or so. If it had any major problem at any time, I'd just boot into Windows98 and check on how to fix it, configure it, etc.
If you really want to use virtualbox, there is a freebsd.org forum which has probably many posts on the subject. I've read many posts, announcements, but only
speedily as I never expect to have time for virtualization as far as I can ascertain. [I run more than one FreeBSD machine, and it takes all my computing time per se to keep current of the OS developments, aside from normal email, browsing, etc. ]

Reply Score: 1

User Friendly Desktop
by twitterfire on Fri 15th Feb 2013 15:59 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

Another BSD variant trying to provide an user friendly desktop, beside PC-BSD, is GhostBSD.

GhostBSD is based on FreeBSD and comes as an installable live CD. It has two desktop flavors, LXDE and Gnome 2.

http://ghostbsd.org/

Reply Score: 4

thanks for excellent article
by benali72 on Fri 15th Feb 2013 17:29 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

Thanks for a great article. Useful summary, I learned a lot.

Reply Score: 2

Experiences with the BSDs
by Drunkula on Fri 15th Feb 2013 19:17 UTC
Drunkula
Member since:
2009-09-03

My first experience with any of the BSDs was I downloaded FreeBSD (don't recall version) via dialup (yes dialup) modem. I retrieved all the diskettes (yes diskettes) and installed it. I was intrigued but not sold on it. My last experience with it was OpenBSD on my Sun Ultra 2 Enterprise. Not long ago (last year) but now that box has Gentoo Linux on it.

Edit:
Forgot to mention that I prefer the *BSD approach to being a complete OS, not just a distro like all the flavors of Linux.

Edited 2013-02-15 19:20 UTC

Reply Score: 2

FreeBSD
by MrAnonymous on Fri 15th Feb 2013 20:55 UTC
MrAnonymous
Member since:
2013-02-15

I use FreeBSD for my servers and my desktop, and it does everything I need it to do.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by J-freebsd_98
by J-freebsd_98 on Fri 15th Feb 2013 21:08 UTC
J-freebsd_98
Member since:
2006-01-01

Persons posting that FreeBSD will someday be ready for the desktop may be advised that it is fully capable now. I can use browsers, email, webmail, view .PPS and .flv and .webm; run pipe commands; upgrade the system fully; backup often; etc etc etc... the only caveat I know of is a... one may want multiple CPU (a main desktop; a build machine and/or server) and one should keep current with pending changes (pkgng default for V10; SUJ new in V9 etc etc). The forum is really helpful in that regard if one reads it daily.
.............
In regards to 'how to install software', I can recommend
"portmaster -d -B -P -i -g www/seamonkey audio/mp3blaster audio/lame " for example. (Batch mode, more or less). Ninety percent of the time, I can run that in one xterm while browsing and email etc normally in another xterm... efficienc(ies) I've not seen in other operating systems.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by J-freebsd_98
by tony on Sat 16th Feb 2013 03:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by J-freebsd_98"
tony Member since:
2005-07-06

Ninety percent of the time, I can run that in one xterm while browsing and email etc normally in another xterm... efficienc(ies) I've not seen in other operating systems.


Sorry, gotta call you on this. Every modern operating system can handle this kind of multitasking with no trouble on decent hardware. Especially with an SSD.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by J-freebsd_98
by Soulbender on Sat 16th Feb 2013 07:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by J-freebsd_98"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Ninety percent of the time, I can run that in one xterm while browsing and email etc normally in another xterm... efficienc(ies) I've not seen in other operating system


I take it the only OS you've used are FreeBSD and DOS.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by J-freebsd_98
by J-freebsd_98 on Sat 16th Feb 2013 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by J-freebsd_98"
J-freebsd_98 Member since:
2006-01-01

I used windows98, and the shareware/freeware plethora not only resulted in BSOD's daily, but the start menu gave scant hint of where many programs could be found, having grown in size.
I've used and could use Linux, howsoever, browsing the forum for one distro daily, I wonder if each poster could not do 20 to 80 percent more fixing/installing/upgrading/developing daily if the poster were running FreeBSD instead. Breakages are posted... for which dual machines... then, often "dd'd sdb rather than sda..." countless times...
My post on FreeBSD's positives were not to put down the ones I consider less efficient, but to point out the advantages of the former, and how it can *indeed* be used as a desktop capable machine, which if I did not make it clear, was the reason for the original post, as
a counterpoint to those who said or implied that FreeBSD would *someday* be ready for the desktop.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by J-freebsd_98
by broken_symlink on Sun 17th Feb 2013 11:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by J-freebsd_98"
broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

The thing that sold me was being able to run pipe commands.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by J-freebsd_98
by lucas_maximus on Mon 18th Feb 2013 18:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by J-freebsd_98"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Are you by any chance friends with this guy

https://twitter.com/1990sLinuxUser

Reply Score: 2

Not always Open Source
by softdrat on Fri 15th Feb 2013 21:52 UTC
softdrat
Member since:
2008-09-17

"It has been Open Source right from the beginning ..."

On a historical note, early on it was not Open Source, at least as we use the term now. BSD was based on and included portions of AT&T UNIX source code, and one needed an AT&T source code license in order to get a copy. Aside from that restriction, it was, indeed, freely available to anyone (and in fact, that was a condition of the AT&T license in the first place - six years before the GPL!)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not always Open Source
by phoenix on Fri 15th Feb 2013 22:50 UTC in reply to "Not always Open Source"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

And AT&T gave you the source on tape, as they were not allowed to sell binaries.

IOW, it was OSS from the beginning, but not "Free Software".

Reply Score: 2

Truecrypt is open source, not closed at all.
by DaveK on Sat 16th Feb 2013 08:44 UTC
DaveK
Member since:
2013-02-16

TrueCrypt, a disk encryption tool, though being Closed Source, gained a wide distribution among computers due to its ease of use and cross-platform compatibility. DragonFlyBSD developers decided to write a compatible Open Source implementation.

That was a waste of their time. TrueCrypt is and always has been open source. They should have just downloaded the source from http://www.truecrypt.org/downloads2 same as everyone else. Either the article has mis-described the situation or the devs are idiots.

Reply Score: 0

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

TrueCrypt is and always has been open source.


Just because the source is downloadable doesn't make it open source. It's quite possible that the truecrypt license is not compatible with Dragonfly BSD's goal and policies.
A cursory glance indicates that the license is such that it could not be included as part of any BSD.

Reply Score: 4

DaveK Member since:
2013-02-16

"TrueCrypt is and always has been open source.


Just because the source is downloadable doesn't make it open source. It's quite possible that the truecrypt license is not compatible with Dragonfly BSD's goal and policies.
A cursory glance indicates that the license is such that it could not be included as part of any BSD.
"

That's not what "closed source" means. If the article wanted to distinguish between free software and open source, it should have done so, but closed source is unquestionably the wrong one of the three terms to use.

Reply Score: 0

metalf8801 Member since:
2010-03-22

While the license may have change since it was originally rejected it is still not recognized as ether an open source license by the OSI (Open Source Initiative) or as a free software license by the FSF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truecrypt

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items?rd=ForbiddenItems#Tru...

Reply Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

That's not what "closed source" means. If the article wanted to distinguish between free software and open source, it should have done so, but closed source is unquestionably the wrong one of the three terms to use.

Neither of the three terms is particularly good. "Shared source" would be probably the best description of Truecrypt.

Reply Score: 2

Do'h!!!
by krreagan on Sat 16th Feb 2013 16:47 UTC
krreagan
Member since:
2008-04-08

BSD is is Berkeley _Software_ Distribution, not Berkeley System Distribution...

Really???

Reply Score: 2

Linux Systemd?
by Kebabbert on Sun 17th Feb 2013 20:33 UTC
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

Systemd is a clone of Solaris SMF. The creator of Systemd heavily references to SMF all the time. Just as BTRFS is a clone of Solaris ZFS. And Systemtap is a clone of Solaris DTrace. And OpenVswitch is a clone of Solaris Crossbow. And Linux containers is a clone of Solaris Containers. It would be nice to see Linux devs create something new, and not just cloning other OSes?

Reply Score: 1

Comment by marcp
by marcp on Mon 18th Feb 2013 09:38 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

Actually, there are many reasons to reject most linuxish stuff in a BSD world. The code is poor, inconsistent, revolutionary [it tends to break other things] and - many times - not needed. Systemd is a perfect example - it is a one madman's dream in a land of sane. This man's name is Lennart and he's five ... he likes to break things from time to time.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by marcp
by lucas_maximus on Mon 18th Feb 2013 19:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I dunno systemd makes my Fedora install boot up nice and fast.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by marcp
by marcp on Mon 18th Feb 2013 09:43 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

Oh, and Bitrig project is there to spoil all OBSD hard work and great achievements and turn it all to dust, on their own land.

But ... I shall be citing the "bible":
"5.2 - Why do I need to compile the system from source?
Actually, you very possibly do not. "

"5.6 - Why do I need a custom kernel?
Actually, you probably don't. "

and in a case you think you should fork the OS:

"It is assumed you have read the above, and really enjoy pain."

Reply Score: 2

...
by unheeding on Tue 19th Feb 2013 03:38 UTC
unheeding
Member since:
2013-02-08

Netcraft confirms it... BSD is living.

Reply Score: 1