No, the web site is not updated yet as I write this, but the announce has been sent out to the subscribers of the freebsd-announce mailing list and all the files and ISOs are into place for immediate download. You can read it at BSDForums.org. One of the most significant changes in FreeBSD 4.6 is the adoption of XFree86 4.2.0 as the default version of the X11 System. Some contributed programs have been updated, such as sendmail and the ISC DHCP client. For more information about the most significant changes with this release of FreeBSD, please see the release notes.
FreeBSD 4.6 (Officially) Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
i’am just finished now downloading it. and i’am happy that 4.6-disc2.iso and 4.6-mini.iso did not change since you posted your inital post about the 4.6 release.
mmm..in my opinion freeBSD is better then GNU/Linux.
mmm..in my opinion freeBSD is better then GNU/Linux.
yes, yes… please let us start a “my OS is better then yours” war!
in my opinion: every OS good and bad at the same time. freeBSD has his good points and GNU/Linux has its good points and freeBSD has bad points aswell and GNU/Linux does have it aswell… it just depends from wich viewpoint you are looking.
cheers
steve
FreeBSD 4.6 comes with KDE 3.01 “ready” ?
It comes with both KDE 2.2.2 and KDE 3.0.1.
ftp://ftp2.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/i386/4.6-RELEASE/packa…
I think it is coming with KDE 2.2.2 installed by default, but then you will need to upgrade to 3.0.1 by using one of the additional FreeBSD CDs.
“It comes with both KDE 2.2.2 and KDE 3.0.1.
ftp://ftp2.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/i386/4.6-RELEASE/packa…
Yeah, so I just go and download the files and run setup, right? *L*
Ok, this might seem like a stupid question, but what is up with all of those damn files? Do they have anything like a ‘smart installer’ (similar to IE and Netscape) where you just run one small executable and then pick and choose the components you want?
I mean, how user unfriendly is it to say to someone “Ok, go here to get the latest version of KDE” and then send them to a directory with like 50 compressed files, no descriptions of what any of the files are, and not even a damn readme file to tell people where to go to get more information. And even if you decide to download every one of these files until your Linux box, what the hell are you supposed to do with them then? In which order do you run the files? Which ones do you actually need and which ones are optional?
I apologize if I seem misinformed, but this is one aspect of the *Nix community that I have never understood.
> I apologize if I seem misinformed
Read all about the FreeBSD package system here:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=818
in my opinion: every OS good and bad at the same time.
Sorry but some OS’s doesn’t qualify as minimum quality software. FreeBSD is a high quality Unix Open Source, I can’t say the same about average Linux distributions (except Debian, wich is very outdated now, I mean potato here).
It comes with both KDE 2.2.2 and KDE 3.0.1.
Good.
I have RedHat 7.3 on PinkTie Linux CD’s and kde3 is quite good (better) for (hard) printing with kword and some minor improvements, too bad it has some (uggly C++) QT bugs.
Guess we only need a better SMPng;
but that will remain for 5.0 final/stable. (I can’t wait for it to run my dual PIII 700Mhz on FreeBSD).
We all knew it was a matter of week(s).
mmm..in my opinion freeBSD is better then GNU/Linux.
LOL, it’s sort of funny that someone saying something like this would obey RMS dogma and refer to Linux as GNU/Linux.
I always thought RMS was sort of ironic in that respect, as if I wrote the Linux userspace, I’d be trying to hide the fact rather than beat it into everyone’s heads…
But then again, he’s obviously insane, what with his declaration that the Hurd is going to be released within months…
(boy, did I leave myself open for flames. oh well)
FreeBSD 4.6 doesn’t come with KDE 3.0.1 but with KDE 3.0_1
which is only an internal update of KDE 3.0.
KDE 3.0.1 has been just committed but the packages have not
yet been compiled by the “Bento” cluster(http://bento.freebsd.org).
For those who can’t afford to compile the ports by
themselves, I suggest to wait for the next run by Bento,
which should compile also the final version of Mozilla,
png 1.2.3, freetype 2.1 and the release candidate of GNOME 2, which are already in the ports but which are missing
from 4.6-RELEASE.
LOL, it’s sort of funny that someone saying something like this would obey RMS dogma and refer to Linux as GNU/Linux.
I always thought RMS was sort of ironic in that respect, as if I wrote the Linux userspace, I’d be trying to hide the fact rather than beat it into everyone’s heads…
FreeBSD should be called GU/FreeBSD because it uses some GNU software. Even me, not close to a marketing guy, knows that “Linux” sounds and sells better than “GNU” of “GNU/Linux”, firstly, the “GNU” is not pronounce properly by GNU guys (as in a silent g), and secondly, GNU was a joke name (as in GNU’s Not UNIX) which quickly got lame, and doesn’t do well with any marketing department. Maybe if RMS realizes that…
As for the release, I think somebody owes Eugenia a apology.
Can anybody tell me whether the KDE included in FreeBSD was/is object pre-linked?
TIA,
Andrea.
Can anybody tell me whether the KDE included in FreeBSD was/is object pre-linked?
I’m not familar with FreeBSD, but the object-prelink hack was to fix GNU’s C++ object linking problems. That GNU library is used in Linux, but is it used in FreeBSD? So I doubt there’s any difference. But if you want extra performance, and have Pentium 4 or Athlon XP, use GCC 3.1 and optimize it for it, and performance would be faster (I heard).
No, I don’t think so. The argument for “GNU/Linux” is that virtually all of the userland utilities in a Linux distribution are the GNU utilities–Linus was just (much, much) faster about finishing his GPL kernel than the FSF was about finishing theirs. People sometimes think the argument’s being made because Linux was compiled with GCC, but that’s not so; it’s being made because a Linux system only becomes a system when all the GNU utilities are put into place.
You can argue about the conclusion, but the premise is fairly sound. This condition–reliance on GNU software being integral to user operation–isn’t true for any other Unix variant, free or otherwise, that I know of. The GNU utilities are <em>available</em> for other systems, but they’re not <em>required</em> by the other systems. In theory it’s quite possible for someone to put together a Linux distribution that uses ports of all the BSD userland utilities and thus duck the whole argument, but as far as I know nobody’s ever even attempted to do that.
Personally I don’t have a real problem with GNU/Linux, and I don’t have a problem with just Linux, either–while “Linux” may indeed just refer to the kernel, everyone knows what you’re talking about when you say you “run Linux.”
doesn’t it require that the software has been written to take advantage of these extensions? you can’t just recompile your kernel with SSE and expect the kernel to be optimised for SSE.. if there’s not a single line of SSE code in the kernel there will be no performance improvement.. right?
Well, Sorry, but why do u guys think *bsd is better?
Debian could be cool of course, but try slackware which is mostly *bsd based.
in fact i think *by default* every BSD is faster, more secure and more stable than linux, BUT this happens when u install by default, and thats not good…
OpenBSSD: “4 years without an exploit in default installation”
I doubt!
Linux could be much better if the sysadmin know very well what have to be done, and slackware is for those fans.
default is very deiferent compared when u do some optimizations…
bsd inetd could be faster because BY default “comes naked” but linux inetd could be as faster as bsd (or even more faster if u know what are u doing).
Depends.
If you use a lot of math stuff in C (e.g. lots of calcs with doubles) the compiler could generate SSE code by itself. If current compilers do, and to what extend, I don’t know. But theoretically it’s valid.
First a question, I always had the impression that the BeOS community is quite hostile against the GPL and it continues at this place, why is that? Was there some Anti-GPL campaign or something? Whenever there is a discussion like this at this place I see _several_ people making GNU and the GPL look worse than they are.
Some answers:
“LOL, it’s sort of funny that someone saying something like this would obey RMS dogma and refer to Linux as GNU/Linux.”
It’s not a dogma, it’s an opinion. You can agree with that without hating BSD with a passion, bummer! Even RMS is not against BSD so why do you make it look like that? It call this FUD (and I’m slowly getting the impression that there is more FUD originating from Linux,BSD,BeOS Zealots than from Microsoft itself).
“But then again, he’s obviously insane, what with his declaration that the Hurd is going to be released within months…”
I installed it two days ago, it works, many software runs on it. How can’t it be ready for a release in a few months? That doesn’t mean that it’s perfect in a few months.
“Even me, not close to a marketing guy, knows that “Linux” sounds and sells better than “GNU” of “GNU/Linux””
Yes that’s true, but some people think that there are more important things than marketing and world domination. You don’t have to agree with that but there opinion is perfectly valid. And don’t forget that simple calling everything that was based on Linux “Linux”, caused a lot of irritation and confusion to customers. That’s not exactly good marketing. It’s good in the short, not in the long run. IMHO there isn’t much substance left to GNU/Linux, once the hype fades away… There are better systems on the server, there are better systems on the desktop and everywhere else. Linux will need more than hype and marketing to survive in the long run. Personally, the only thing that I still like about Linux is, that it allows me to run a GNU system while the Hurd isn’t ready yet.
Of course Linux is a cool kernel but there are also many other cool kernels, I don’t see a need for a “Linux owns everything” mentality. It will just lead to narrowminded people who don’t really know anything else.
That’s my opinion, feel free to have a different one.
bsd inetd could be faster because BY default “comes naked” but linux inetd could be as faster as bsd (or even more faster if u know what are u doing).
I dont mean to add fuel to the war on either side, but statements such as the above need to have proof of some sort, otherwise this just decends into polemics (as it always seems to do).
Hey Fabio,
>OpenBSSD: “4 years without an exploit in default >installation”
>I doubt!
>Linux could be much better if the sysadmin know very well >what have to be done, and slackware is for those fans.
So you’re saying Linux is secure once a SysAdmin patches it and configures it? Do you even understand the term “default installation?” I believe – though every sysadmin has a responsibility- that their should be some consideration to “out of the box” security. Remember, you hack the person, not the OS. Even Windows Admins can be secure if they know what’re doing. OpenBSD just gives you the edge by implementing some pre-security, you must turn things “on” rather than “off.”
mmm..in my opinion freeBSD is better then GNU/Linux.
FreeBSD is an excellent operating system, which has many outstanding qualities. It lacks some solid features as well, however, like SMP for my dual Athlon machine.
Linux is also an excellent operating system. For me, BSD is the best choice for servers and Linux is the best choice for workstations. But, to each his/her own.
mmm..in my opinion freeBSD is better then GNU/Linux.
mmm..in my opinion you’re just trolling.
Debian is pretty good, it’s what I use (in addition to freebsd that is).
It’s just an opinion but I think the debian package system blows ports out of the water. For those of you who don’t know, apt-get does allow you to build from source which seems to be contrary to the popular opinion. I think ports needs some serious improvement, particularly in regards to upgrading your software, portupgrade is certainly better than nothing but it does need work (though it’s a work in progress so it should get better right?).
More stablizing goes into a release of debian than freebsd, in fact, more stablizing goes into Open and Net BSD releases than into FreeBSD releases, which is why their release cycles take longer. I’ve found in my own experience that Open and Net are a lot more stable and reliable than FreeBSD, but this is just my experience. Potato is out of date, that’s why I use unstable (and why some people will use testing), though I find that the binary packages and the ports collection that ships with a release of FreeBSD get out of date quickly (obviously not as out of date as potato), this is why I cvsup the latest ports. When you have a release of FreeBSD, they test the ports it ships with, to make sure it’s relatively safe and bug free, much like the package tree a release of debian ships with, and when you cvsup the latest ports you aren’t getting that guarantee anymore, again, much like using testing or unstable with Debian.
I try to stay bleeding edge with both and rarely do I encounter problems with either. Though the gnome-session port (yes, gnome2 rc1) just segfaults on me right now, but I wouldn’t expect perfection from gnome2 rc1 anyway.
Anyway, 4.6 is out, good stuff. Time for another excruciatingly long make world. Maybe I’ll download the ISO’s and push them on my friends.
I installed it two days ago, it works, many software runs on it. How can’t it be ready for a release in a few months? That doesn’t mean that it’s perfect in a few months.
Want a quick list of what’s wrong with the Hurd?
It can’t utilize filesystems larger than 1GB. I routinely deal with files greater than 1GB. It’s ludicrous that this limitation has plagued the Hurd for so many years.
On the majority of systems I’ve tried to use it on, the Hurd won’t even boot. This isn’t even due to hardware incompatibilities… it just gibs without giving a reason.
On many systems where it will actually boot properly, it can’t warm boot, only cold boot. If I attempt to warm boot, it will hang while trying to initialize hardware.
When you think of the amount of development that has gone into the Hurd, you’d think they would be leaps and bounds ahead of many younger operating systems. For these reasons and more, I think the Hurd deserves the title of the world’s most developed useless operating system.
Congrats.
Hey is anyone out there having Xfree problems after a kernel recompile? I just tried to add sound (device pcm) and now x wont even start right. Not to mention that noone but Root can access X after installation either. 4.5 didnt do this, so, WTF?
Re-installing /usr/ports/x11/wrapper might help.
Well, are you using drm? Once I upgrade to like 4.6-RC or so from about 4.5-STABLE, My system would just crash once X would start up, I even updated my drm kernel module to make sure it was being built against the latest stuff but still no good.. So for now, no 3d acceleration.
Maybe this is your problem?
Current versions of FreeBSD DO HAVE SMP. I’m running 4.2 on a dual CPU box. The new version of SMP is fixing the kernel semaphor bottle-neck. Think SunOS v.s. Solaris.
L8R
I don’t understand your points… It booted for me so I expected it also to boot for other people. I can’t imagine that it doesn’t work at all for the majority of systems, maybe it’s a little tricky though. I also did something wrong the first time and needed the list to find my typo.
What I see is very nice, there is not much left. The 1 GB limit of course can’t stay but they claim it wouldn’t be very difficult to solve and I would think that’s true. It isn’t really important atm though because it’s a development system. You are not supposed to do productive work with this _yet_.
The stuff that is already done is very interesting.
“When you think of the amount of development that has gone into the Hurd”
That is kinda unfair… There was no hype or anything for Hurd and it’s development was practically halted for a while because Linux was a at least working.
You really can’t call this useless, because I don’t know any other kernel project that is as innovative like this and close to a first release. I’m really looking forward to many of its features, especially translators. There is a lot of cool stuff going on. And if more people would join the boat, the development might go on faster.
Personally I don’t have a real problem with GNU/Linux, and I don’t have a problem with just Linux, either–while “Linux” may indeed just refer to the kernel, everyone knows what you’re talking about when you say you “run Linux.”
Apparently, who have never thought of selling Linux. In the beginning, even before Slackware, commercial distribtuions use “Linux” because it shows some kind of relation with “Unix”. Also, GNU, accroading to gnu.org, was picked up as a funny name. It is pronounce wrongly (guh-nuh, instead of a silent g; nuh), and well, it’s a joke. Plus, it stands for something negative (GNU’s Not UNIX), which tried to put down another product; UNIX.
Debian could be cool of course, but try slackware which is mostly *bsd based.
Slackware isn’t BSD based. It follows *BSD style, but isn’t BSD based. (It, for one, uses GNU tools, instead of FreeBSD’s, it uses Linux instead of BSD, etc.)
First a question, I always had the impression that the BeOS community is quite hostile against the GPL and it continues at this place, why is that? Was there some Anti-GPL campaign or something? Whenever there is a discussion like this at this place I see _several_ people making GNU and the GPL look worse than they are.
OpenBeOS isn’t in an anti-GPL campaign. It uses MIT X license, because some of its major contributors have commercial plans for it. GPL, accroading to them, is too restrictive for this. And they are right. Tell me one 100% GPL company that makes money? Even Red Hat makes money from bundling some third party closed source stuff in their distribution, and selling it.
And in case you haven’t read gnu.org, it supports a socialist way of development of software. Not that it is anything bad, but most people are hostile towards these kind of utopian ideologies.
I installed it two days ago, it works, many software runs on it. How can’t it be ready for a release in a few months? That doesn’t mean that it’s perfect in a few months.
Hurd has a lot of stablity and speed issues. I admit I haven’t use it in a loooong time, but from what I read on the mailing lists, not much have changed. There are new features, bugs fixed and so on, but nothing major. But what could I expect? Hurd’s team is puny compared to the team behind the Linux kernel.
Yes that’s true, but some people think that there are more important things than marketing and world domination. You don’t have to agree with that but there opinion is perfectly valid. And don’t forget that simple calling everything that was based on Linux “Linux”, caused a lot of irritation and confusion to customers.
Firstly, most software on Linux…. errr, GNU/linux, is made by your “marketing and world domination” entities.
Secondly, calling an OS “Linux” doesn’t cause much confusion. People would just assume that the OS/distribution is just named after the core/kernel. And “GNU” would cause much more problems; like “What does “GNU” stand for? No, seriously, what does it mean? Stop kidding me, it can’t possible be named GNU’s Not UNIX!” and “Why do you pronounce Gnu as guh-new? Isn’t the g suppose to be a sillent g? Oh, so GNU is pronounced differently than gnu, but why does the GNU project associates itself with a gnu?”, and stuff like that.
There are better systems on the server, there are better systems on the desktop and everywhere else. Linux will need more than hype and marketing to survive in the long run.
Good, we agree with something.
Personally, the only thing that I still like about Linux is, that it allows me to run a GNU system while the Hurd isn’t ready yet.
Of course Linux is a cool kernel but there are also many other cool kernels, I don’t see a need for a “Linux owns everything” mentality. It will just lead to narrowminded people who don’t really know anything else.
Great, you want to run GNU because it is Free Software. Spells narrowminded to me.
Anyway, if you are using GNU software for it’s superiority, I dunno, but I’m getting more and more frustrated with GNU software (except for GCC and the some apps, like GNOME, which is quite the opposite). I’m finding BSD and OBOS more and more appealling.
But what I find in GNU project as a whole is that people start new projects and works because “there isn’t a free software altenative”, not “they all suck currently, I want to make something better”, which is why GNU software tend to be lacking in comparison with other software.
But well, that’s my own reductions and opinion.
Linux is also an excellent operating system. For me, BSD is the best choice for servers and Linux is the best choice for workstations. But, to each his/her own.
Market shares show otherwise. Linux is the fastest growing server OS in terms of market share, and is the second most used server OS. BSD (in the form of OS X) is the fastesst growing altenative desktop OS. Give OS X a few more years, and Linux wouldn’t hold any more market share than BSD, perhaps even less.
When you think of the amount of development that has gone into the Hurd, you’d think they would be leaps and bounds ahead of many younger operating systems. For these reasons and more, I think the Hurd deserves the title of the world’s most developed useless operating system.
I second that! But..
Though Linux can be considered slow moving, considering the amount of developers behind it. But actually, after investigating, the only young kernel that can be classified as very fast moving is NewOS/OBOS fork of NewOS; which anyway implements an design already there, instead of creating one from strach. And also, Hurd, being technically older than Linux kernel itself, isn’t that “young” an OS, right? Other kernels that are fast moving is either based on another software of have commercial investment.
You really can’t call this useless, because I don’t know any other kernel project that is as innovative like this and close to a first release. I’m really looking forward to many of its features, especially translators. There is a lot of cool stuff going on. And if more people would join the boat, the development might go on faster.
Actually, NewOS seems as innovative as Hurd (yes that’s a insult), and seem closer to a stable release than Hurd, and considering it is much more younger than Hurd, and much less man hours that have went behind it.
As for translators, I find the only reason why it is there was in order to get some things Linux have…
Market shares show otherwise. Linux is the fastest growing server OS in terms of market share, and is the second most used server OS. BSD (in the form of OS X) is the fastesst growing altenative desktop OS. Give OS X a few more years, and Linux wouldn’t hold any more market share than BSD, perhaps even less.
—
You forgot to mention that OS X (based on BSD/Darwin, not Free/Open/Net-BSD) is a Macintosh-ONLY operating system. I cant run it on my AMD or Intel CPU can i? And also, i agree on the earlier said “Linux for the desktops and Free(BSD) for the servers”. An example, i’m on a LAN, or i’m bored one night, and hey, i think that “i wanna play a game”. i have quake3arena/teamarena, sim city 3000 unlimited, unreal tournament, rtcw, uplink, and many many more quality games (also soon Neverwinter’s Night!) i can play on my linux desktop (Gentoo based), with a set of nvidia drivers for my GF3 Ti200 that matches the Windows drivers in OpenGL power/graphical power. (Nvidia makes their own Linux drivers which take full utilization of their graphics cards, something standard Xfree86 drivers _do not do_).
The filesystem limit of the hurd is now around 10 GB.
Not sure on the rest of the info… but try to keep up to date.
As for MacOS X, a lot of people praise it but I have also met a lot of people who don’t like it, I’m not talking about OS Classic die hards but people who aren’t too familiar with Macs or windows as well as people who have had some experience with both. Generally these people are non zealous as I don’t think it’s fair to consider a zealout’s opinion due to the extreme bias that acompanies the zealousy. I personally don’t have an opinion as I have used it hardly at all but keep in mind there’s still many people who don’t like Mac OS X.
Most of the OS X users were already mac users, it’s becoming a big alternative desktop OS probably because it’s replacing OS Classic, the other alternative desktop OS. Win98 is more common than win95 now after all. Mac OS X is much more different from 9 than win98 is from win95, but it’s just about being the next version, and as being such, it’s the version being shipped with that hardware.
doesn’t it require that the software has been written to take advantage of these extensions? you can’t just recompile your kernel with SSE and expect the kernel to be optimised for SSE.. if there’s not a single line of SSE code in the kernel there will be no performance improvement.. right?
In kernel — yes, no improvement, but for application, which use SSE, it’s support is needed in kernel.
“And in case you haven’t read gnu.org [..]”
Are you kidding?
” Hurd has a lot of stablity and speed issues. I admit I haven’t use it in a loooong time, but from what I read on the mailing lists, not much have changed.”
So you are the expert? ;P
It might have some stability issues I don’t know. Didn’t crash for me yet but that’s no wonder after two days of usage. I don’t see speed problems. It’s just a kernel. Maybe it wouldn’t win a benchmark but that is nothing that I would even notice in daily usage.
“Firstly, most software on Linux…. errr, GNU/linux, is made by your “marketing and world domination” entities.”
No.
” Secondly, calling an OS “Linux” doesn’t cause much confusion. People would just assume that the OS/distribution is just named after the core/kernel.”
Most assume that the whole system, including windowmanager and everything is “Linux”. When something goes wrong with their distribution or certain software, they think “Linux sucks”. Don’t tell me this would be wrong, I have to read the complaints of those … whatever … regulary. Often people think that RedHat or SuSE would be “Linux” and it’s just a terrible mess sometimes. But that’s not really the main point.
“And “GNU” would cause much more problems; like “What does “GNU” stand for? No, seriously, what does it mean? Stop kidding me, it can’t possible be named GNU’s Not UNIX!” and “Why do you pronounce Gnu as guh-new? Isn’t the g suppose to be a sillent g? Oh, so GNU is pronounced differently than gnu, but why does the GNU project associates itself with a gnu?”, and stuff like that.”
Those are extremely childish problems. People would probably wonder a few minutes what the name means… Big deal… I also was confused when I heard that BeOS is pronounced “Be O.S.” and when someone told me that “id software” is spelled as in “vid”, not as in “I.D.”, I just couldn’t believe it. Does this cause any problems, confusion or will this make me buy less games from id software? Certainly not. To argue about stuff like this is really pointless.
“Great, you want to run GNU because it is Free Software. Spells narrowminded to me.”
What is wrong with you? Because I enjoy free software, this makes me narrowminded? You are probably a little bit confused right now.
“Anyway, if you are using GNU software for it’s superiority, I dunno, but I’m getting more and more frustrated with GNU software (except for GCC and the some apps, like GNOME, which is quite the opposite). I’m finding BSD and OBOS more and more appealling.”
That’s fine for you, but I just enjoy GNU software and don’t care if you “know” or not.
I just discovered that greatness of Grub. Without gcc I could barely do anything. The Emacs is a great editor although I don’t use it. I know almost no GNU software that is lacking in quality. And if it is, I don’t care because it’s free, I’m not forced to use anything. I’m not a big fan of Gnome btw, I’m more thrilled by new Desktop ideas like AtheOS (and the Cosmoe fork). Actually one of the reason why I’m looking at the Hurd is, that I like the idea of a Cosmoe port to Hurd or at least something of a similar concept. I think that the Hurd is currently the most promising looking free kernel for a next generation desktop OS like this. The new features will add a lot to usability.
“But what I find in GNU project as a whole is that people start new projects and works because “there isn’t a free software altenative”
Which is a good thing, because this attidude makes sure that we will always have the choice. Even if the free alternative sucks, it’s better to have a bad choice than no choice, isn’t it? Personally, I like to work on something and not just use it, so I can completely understand why people start new projects when there is no other free one. I don’t like to depend on a company, just look at what happened to BeOS to know why.
“which is why GNU software tend to be lacking in comparison with other software”
You are probably talking about GPL projects now, not GNU software, right? I don’t see how GNU software is lacking. Gnome maybe. But there is so many software, it can’t all be topnotch, especially when it’s free. The point is that _you_ could help to make it better if you would want to. It’s your choice.
“Market shares show otherwise.”
You don’t actually believe that market shares are reliable sources to get the quality of a product, do you? Market share is usually highly influenced by hype, FUD and similar bullshit.
“As for translators, I find the only reason why it is there was in order to get some things Linux have…”
Yeah right. Get a clue next time before writing large pieces of flames like this, ok? This is a good start:
http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/hurd-doc-translator
Damn, I really forgot not to get involved in such stupid flamewars anymore. >:( This is really annoying, I don’t understand what it’s good for. Maybe you think it’s fun. It may be fun as long as you don’t understand that nobody can “win” this discussion… What we do is completely pointless. Will you even _try_ to understand me? I doubt that.
BTW, is there a working release of OpenBeOS? I might take a look at it when I have some time again.
Current versions of FreeBSD DO HAVE SMP. I’m running 4.2 on a dual CPU box. The new version of SMP is fixing the kernel semaphor bottle-neck. Think SunOS v.s. Solaris.
Sorry, I’ve been using OpenBSD since version 2.8 and they don’t support SMP, although I’m of course able to run it on my dual system (which I don’t do).
However, I read up on FreeBSD’s SMP support and it appears that it is dismal compared to Linux’s SMP support.
I said:
Linux is also an excellent operating system. For me, BSD is the best choice for servers and Linux is the best choice for workstations. But, to each his/her own.
Rajan replied:
Market shares show otherwise.
I was unaware that “market shares” dictated my preference for certain operating systems in relation to certain uses.
GNU was a joke name (as in GNU’s Not UNIX) which quickly got lame
Unix and Unix-like operating systems are full of recursive acronyms like this. While GNU may have been a joke or considered clever at first, it has become a widely known moniker. It makes no sense to change it.
Think what you like of RMS, but his ideals have been a part of making the computing experience what it is today. You can’t fault him for wanting some recognition for his contributions even if his methods are sometimes strange.
and I’ll keep on saying it: Linux, *BSD and any other open source OS are friends or family or related rather then opposites or enemies.
Get that through your skull and we’ll all benefit.
and I’ll keep on saying it: Linux, *BSD and any other open source OS are friends or family or related rather then opposites or enemies.
Get that through your skull and we’ll all benefit.
Well said!
It’s really just OS Envy.