Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems

BSD BOF at LinuxWorld 171

Posted by Nik from the flock-you dept.
Going to LinuxWorld this year? Robert Bruce, head honcho at Walnut Creek CDROM, writes "There is going to be a BSD BOF at the New York Linuxworld on Thursday, Feb. 3, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. We are in room 1D05, Jacob Javits Convention Center, near the conference area in the lower (2nd level down) of Javits. You do not need to be a Linuxworld attendee to come to the BOF. Everyone is welcome. There will be representatives from BSDi, FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD."
If you're after installation CD-ROMs, or a bite to eat, this is the place to be. You might even be able to get one of the free Daemon Horns that will be given away. The BOF is being sponsored by BSDI, Walnut Creek CDROM, and BUNY (BSD Users of New York).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BSD BOF at LinuxWorld More

BSD BOF at LinuxWorld

Comments Filter:
  • Brett, where do you get this stuff from? Contrary to popular
    belief, it probably makes little difference which one of the
    licenses you choose--there are many cases of license
    violations with all licenses--funny how many major
    firewalls remarkably resemble the strictly-licensed FWTK,
    and how BSD code ended up in USL's UNIX distribution
    with the copyrights removed. The real truth is that anyone
    can violate a license, but having the code out there for
    those that won't violate it is a sufficiently useful gain.

    Submitting flame-bait in response to flame-bait isn't
    going to improve anything. Contributing code,
    documentation, support resources, etc, will make a
    real difference. It's not clear that your post does any
    of this. If you have a real objection to BSDL, GPL,
    and other licenses, there are more appropriate forums
    than slashdot. And the biggest statement can be made
    by releasing a significant volume of useful code under
    the license of your choice.

    Chances are, most pieces
    of software under GPL or BSDL aren't there because
    of a rational choice-making process, but rather
    because another piece of software used by the
    author is under that license. Take many of the Linux
    extensions--if they were extensions to BSD, they'd
    be under BSDL. They're instead under LINUX-L,
    currently GPL. Perl extensions turn up under
    Artistic-L. If you want people to use BSD, then
    release code under BSDL that people will want to
    use and extend.

  • I don't hate the BSD license, I just think that the GPL is better for everyone as a whole, rather then the individual. I really don't understand why your so upset about this, it's not taking food out of your mouth? Can you explain why GPL code can hurt you?

    Taking the long view: The GPL creates a total fork between proprietary software and free software. By blocking proprietary derivates, you create a baseline where a certain level of functionality (the level of the GPLed program) is required to be free. Let's call this level N.

    A user wanting to get functionality level N+1 and not caring about whether they use proprietary software or not will have to pay for N+1. If only a minority segment are willing to pay the accumulated cost of N+1, they may not be able to get N+1 because there isn't enough of them to pay for the relevant risk for developing N+1. If there were no forced free alternative, all users would pay for N+1, and this might push the cost down far enough that it overall low enough to not matter (development cost divided by a large number of users is low; development cost divided by a small number of users is high.)

    This blocks the developer that could be involved in developing N+1 part if there were no free (as in free beer) "competition". It also blocks the developer that could be involved in developing the +1 part if there was a free (as in freedom to keep his changes) source base to base off.

    And all of this for no gain for open source, because the developer of +1 will have two parts of the +1: Strategic and tactical changes. The strategic changes are the changes the developer actually gets revenue from; the changes that add value to the user. The tactical changes are changes that are just needed to get the strategic changes in place and out to the users. These, the smart developer would give back to the comunity, as this gives him the following benefits:

    • Decreased merge costs.
      Have you ever tried to merge between divergent sourcebases? Merging is expensive. And if the developer do not merge, the open source product will (assuming it is being actively developed) move past the proprietary derivate - and the users will go open source.
    • Goodwill in the open source community.
      I have given code back before (now defunct properitary derivate of FreeBSD, used in an embedded system); this do give benefits - other developers are willing to help you solve your problems. I've had the best engineers of one of our competitors trying to help out in getting things to work, and have helped them in return - because all of us were interested in getting the main sourcebase to work as well as it could.
    • Goodwill among the employees.
      Who do a company that want to do proprietary derivates of a free software system employ? Us. Yeah, that's right, the open source developers. Guess how happy we would be if changes that could be given back with no ill effects were kept proprietary, and we had to spend our days merging these back in.
    • Increased popularity for the open source codebase.
      From a company perspective, you can read this as "Increased amount of development we do not have to pay for, but which do give us an edge compared to companies working from other codebases."

    So, a smart developer will give back, and thus both the developer and the open source community will be enriched. And really: Are we scared of stupid proprietary developers?

    Eivind.

    P.S. We have ended up giving back >90% of the changes we did - the remaining being tweaks that have no value to the overall community, but would allow a direct competitor doing a clone (and nothing but a clone) of our product to get a faster or better result. We did not know beforehand how much of our changes would end up in which category - so without the ability to keep changes proprietary those 90% would never have happened.

  • The number of errors of logic (among other errors) in your post leads me to believe that you aren't knowledgable enough to make the judgement that "BSD doesn't matter". What is POSTIX? Perhaps you mean POSIX, and no, the Linux kernel cannot be called "POSIX" complient because that in itself has no real meaning. As for the move to ELF, it was motivated by necessity, not by "gee whiz, let's incorporate this new thing".

    Oh.. one other thing. I can run 99.99% of the binary-only applications on FreeBSD that were compiled for Linux x86, ELF or otherwise. So perhaps that means BSD (FreeBSD, in this case) can actually do more than Linux because I can run all your binaries *plus* binaries for BSD.
  • Let's turn your "articulate" argument around. How about you provide some hard facts and figures pointing out how the Linux TCP/IP stack is better? I constantly see whiners say that there is no evidence that the BSD stack is better (which is a lie, go search Google for statistics if you like) yet they are unwilling to back up their own statements.

  • Re:hrm... (Score:1)

    by jtn ( 6204 )
    khttpd is tied specifically to a kernel. Big deal. I could run khttpd with small modifications to the FreeBSD kernel. Why would I want to burden a kernel with such a specific userland task anyhow? I'm baffled.

    Oh yes, one last thing, I'm terribly impressed by your argument. *eye roll*
  • Interesting.. So are you advocating all the rabid Linux advocates who ignore everything not Linux should do the same, and perhaps be a little more open minded about operating systems? Or is this merely a one-way street where BSD users must bow down and acknowledge Linux and Linux may completely ignore BSD? For every Linux driven site you name, I *know* I can name a BSD driven site. Arguing over that is pointless.

  • AC wrote:

    Obviously this story is of very limited general interest.

    ...

    This is great. I laugh every time I see it. But do you think you could get it down to 4 lines so I can use it as a sig file?

    Thanks

    N
    nik@[freebsd,slashdot].org

  • One must remember not to take "LINUX IS BETTER" stuff seriously, even though it is. :)

    Would the OS race be as much fun without fierce competition? Also, in the case the Linus decides to go "user-friendly" (WHAT?!?), it's also a backup OS.

    If the fight is taken seriously, however, it is only by the more inexperienced ones among us, who have not yet learned of the dao of programming.

    Enough already, you say? well BAH to you, too.


  • yeah, you do that, and report back to me.

  • Wow. Can you say FUD? I knew you could.
  • ... but not because it's about BSD.

    Really, does the announcement of a single BOF session at any conference belong on slashdot? There are maybe a few dozen people who will attend this event, and most of them probably already saw it posted on the boards that are undoubtedly hanging around the event location.

    I think an overzealous BSD advocate is abusing their Slashdot posting privileges.
  • Yes, changes you make to a GPLed program are yours. To have and to hold, in sickness and health, yada-yada-yada. The point of the matter, as I see it is 'What can you do with your changes?' You can keep them secret. Go ahead. Make your changes, but keep them to yourself. The GPL does not require publishing your source code, until you distribute binaries. If you want to build on GPL code for your own use, fine. Go ahead, RMS doesn't mind. Ask him. You can share them. If you want to contribute your work (or even just some of it) to the community, fine. That's how the code you used got there in the first place. What can you not do with your changes? Distribute binaries without the source code. If you want to receive money for hidden-source software, earn it. Write your own code - all of it. If you are concerned about protecting your IP, you may be confusing the GPL and BSD licenses with the Microsoft EULA. Or did I not understand your position? Just my day's wages.
  • You [villopilil.org] remind me [mailto] of JWZ [jwz.org] in some strange way....
  • There's nothing stopping you from creating programs for linux and releasing them under the BSD license. XFree uses the BSD license and just about everyone with a linux desktop uses that.

    The license is really a moot point except when it comes to things like device drivers. You can port apps written for either to the other and you don't have to change the license to do so.

    There are some people out there for whom the license is a religious issue. But to most level headed people the differences between the BSD and GPL licenses just aren't important, let alone significant enough to actually get upset and start complaining to anyone who will listen.

  • Acronym Finder [acronymfinder.com] suggests the following:
    BOF Back Order File BOF Basic Oxygen Furnace
    BOF Beginning Of File
    BOF Billing and Ordering Forum (ATIS)
    BOF Birds Of a Feather
    BOF Board Of Fisheries
    BOF Bottom Of Form
    BOF British Orienteering Federation
    BOF Business Object Framework

    So what's the *real* answer? Egh, search me. I kind of like "Board of Fisheries", though.

  • From ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/

    This machine is a Xeon/500 with 4GB of memory & 1/2 terabyte of RAID 5. The operating system is FreeBSD. Should you wish to get your own copy of FreeBSD, see the pub/FreeBSD directory or visit http://www.freebsd.org for more information. FreeBSD on CDROM can be ordered using the WEB at http://www.cdrom.com/titles/freebsd/freebsd.phtml or by sending email to orders@cdrom.com.

    If you're interested you can view some more detailed information as well as a nifty picture at this URL: ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/archive-info/



  • What bugs me is that every other word posted on slashdot is some obscure acronym you have to be a fifth year Computer science(ha, you thought I was gonna say CompSci didncha?) to know offhand.
    With the rate that this is going, we're going to see the trollers saying FP! IJPHGDMP(I just poured hot grits down my pants) and IADM, and NP(good 'ol Natalie)
  • personally, i prefer to put my code in the public domain, so that anybody can use it for any thing they like. i don't care if they sell it, i don't even care if they take my name off it. i am always happy when people use my code, and i am not interested in putting handcuffs on them that say how, when, where, or why they use it. i'm a programmer, not a politician.
  • sic is latin for 'thus'

    It is used usually when you are quoting someone, and they've made a mistake, and you are saying "and thus the way it was"

  • you're a communist. the GPL is anti-capitalist. The BSD lisence is better. so, i suppose that you wouldn't use Apache then because of the lisence and that the Apache developers tried like, 10 other systems before setling on FreeBSD?
  • In a rightous universe, there would be a BSD World, lacking the huge over-promotion that Linux gets, for now BSDers have an alternative-

    FreeBSDCon [freebsdcon.org]

    Just because it isn't linux, doesn't mean it isn't as good.

  • By making code available to anyone except the commercial developer to use as he or she wants, it excludes and damages this group. Which is the express intent. RMS had, and has, a grudge against commercial developers and wanted to undermine their work and destroy their markets and livelihoods. That's why the GPL came to be in the first place.

    The GPL is, actually, worse than a baseball bat. A baseball bat has a positive use. The GPL is solely a way of transforming open source into a weapon of spite.

    --Brett Glass

  • I see: in other words, developers who do not wish to be coerced by the government to give away their work are "free" to twist in the wind.

    This, in a nutshell, is a problem with the GPL. Its purpose is solely to hurt commercial programmers, and its agenda is one of spite and malice. Again, it is not ethical to attack people in this manner.

    --Brett Glass

  • The GPL, by far. Because its purpose is to destroy livelihoods. Allowing people to ask for payment for their work, by contrast, creates livelihoods.

    --Brett Glass

  • In that case, it would follow that information about a Linux-oriented event, such as the Beanie awards, would not be "news" either.

    Your attempt to exclude BSD is mean and spiteful. These are two traits commonly seen in the Linux community, I'm afraid -- though thankfully not in everyone.

    --Brett

  • To parallel what you're saying:

    "If I have a baseball bat, it is mine, not yours. Therefore, I can swing it wherever I want. If it happens to hit your head, too bad. It is still my bat, not yours. Don't complain about what I do with it.

    --Brett Glass

  • means the original author was a sicko

  • Glad to see this. Perhaps, instead of running just a LinuxExpo, a better idea would be an "Alternative OS Expo" or "Open Source OS Expo." I know they don't have quite the same ring, but they'd be more accurate. After all, from what I've seen/heard of it, the OSS movement is about choice. Don't like this bit of software? Use another! Don't like how this feature works? Re-write it! So why limit ourselves to just Linux? I'm sure *BSD is just as "good," and probably provides things Linux doesn't.


    -RickHunter
    --"We are gray. We stand between the candle and the star."
    --Gray council, Babylon 5.

  • Personally, I've always held that computers are tools, and you use what works for you for a particular job. I've used enough computer alphabet soup to learn that.

    I'm going to be visiting the exhibit portion of the Linux World Expo (hey, free tickets are free tickets), mainly to see what all the fuss is about, and I hope to check out the BSD-BoF as well. I like learning new things, even if I qualify as an old fart at times. I'm not looking to be converted to any particular system, I'm going to learn as much as I can about all of them.

    I wonder if Linux users/fanatics are starting to develop something I saw in graduate students at my previous job. I refer to it as being a pinwit. They deal very well, and are very sharp, but only in one specific direction, and they don't bend too well outside that chosen direction, and forget about dealing with fuzzy logic.

    hswoolve

    (personally, for tools, I prefer Dremel, but not to hammer nails)

  • Thank you for the time you put into the above comment :) Some very good points. Normally I only hear comments like: GPL is for freedom right, so why can't I do what I want? (Make closed source) It's not fair (whinge, moan etc.) It's hurting my rights etc.

    I can understand some of the reasons why RMS made the GPL and why he doesn't like the non-free (as in speech) / closed source people. Often though I don't agree with something he has said (eg. I am pro-gun control (I'm Australian) and it appears to me that he is anti-gun control) or is that ESR?

    I guess what your saying is "you scratch our back, and we'll scratch yours". i.e. Open source people make good code, the paid developers make it better, put most of the improvements "back out there" and then the open source guys have another play with it. I can understand why they would give back to the open source projects, everyone gets good code

    err.... I like the GPL, but I like that idea too... Dammit! Why didn't you just flame me and make me hate "all those BSD bastard" (joking) At least I could have ignored you :)

    (sigh) lots more reading about BSD and GPL again...

  • Let's see, I write code, it's mine, not yours.



    I can do what I want with it. If I want to GPL/BSD/Commercial it I can. It's my code, my choice



    If I GPL it, why should you get pissed off about not being able to get a make money with my code? I'm not making any money.



    I was nice enough to give it away to you. Id like to think you were gratefull. I'm not only helping you, but everyone else in the community.



    If I GPL my code, it is still my code, NOT yours. It's my choice. Don't complain about what I do with it.



    Don't like it? Don't use it the code... easy.

  • I guess that the GPL does have a cost. The cost of using the code is that if you improve it _and_ release it, is you help the community by GPLing your improvements too.



    btw, I don't agree with your baseball bat theory. (suprise there :) I'm not making your do anything. If you ignore me you don't get hurt. Pretend I don't exist (don't use any GPL code) and your fine. Try that with a baseball bat :)



    I don't hate the BSD license, I just think that the GPL is better for everyone as a whole, rather then the individual. I really don't understand why your so upset about this, it's not taking food out of your mouth? Can you explain why GPL code can hurt you?



    You can still use BSD if you need to make money.

  • Something that helps me out is everything.slashdot.org [slashdot.org].
  • Could you provide some proof of Richard Stallman's attempt to take over the world. While I favor having the right to keep my code hidden if I choose, slamming some guy because he wants all code to be available is lame. It's a noble idea(having all code freely available) but we don't live in a perfect world. Still, it's his opinion and he's welcome to it. Personally, I say we're stronger together than we are apart.
  • http://freshmeat.net/appindex/1999/12/19/945613594 .html
    ------------------------------------------------ --
    Fork Bomb Defuser
    Rohit Singh - December 19th 1999, 09:26 EST

    Fork Bomb Defuser is an easily loadable kernel module for Linux which detects, logs, and disables "fork bombs". It allows you to configure max_forks_per_second and max_tasks_per_user parameters at module load time. Any possible fork bomb that attempts to spawn a huge number of processes simultaneously is detected in real time,
    and the fork bomb is disabled.

    http://www.geocitie s.com/SiliconValley/Software/9197/rexfbd.htm [geocities.com]
  • Bsd at this point is presently still much more stable at very high volumes of network traffic and or users on the system. As they noted ftp.cdrom.com was just in the last year or so switched from I believe a single PPro 200 w/ a lot of ram to an smp xeon or something equivalent. Correct me if I am wrong? Bsd tends to be a bit simpler in the way it works on a particular system that is just my opinion. My only problem with it is that a lot of the developers porting "x" app or util to linux are not including bsd. Just My 2 cents.
  • I admit it. I'm a BSD lover. There are two main reasons. 1) Out of the box BSD is more secure. If some one has proof of a Linux that is more secure out of the box than OpenBSD please let me know. 2) I'm a shareware author. GPL does not seem to believe that programmers should be paid for their work or any monies made from it. This is fine if it's not how you put bread on the table. Yes, the BSD license sets the source code free. But it is by the programmers' choice whether or not to make money with it.

    Yes, Microsoft could use the code to write a better OS. (I'm groaning at that too!) But would that really be so bad. Yes, they would mangle it but they would at least be starting from a nice, stable base.
  • I love both BSD and Linux. I use Open BSD on my firewall and Mandrake 7.0 on my desktop(not too bad so far).

    My biggest concern is the BSD license because you can hide it away for commercial use. Microsoft could take BSD and write a Windows/BSD with DirectX, OpenGL, Office, Visual Whatever, etc. That is sort of what Apple is doing with OS X. Of course the OpenGL support would be "terrible" and eventually brought up to "not bad" a couple versions later(3 or 4 years). They could make Linux compatiblity with Windows ease of use then start breaking the compatability a piece at a time.

    I'm generally not looking for trolls under every corner but Microsoft has me wondering about their plans are. They released IE for *nix and now Windows Media Player. Is this the beginning?

  • That isn't quite what I meant. I was saying that Microsoft could take Win9x/2000 and replace the core with BSD under the hood. If they could make it run most *nix and all Win32 programs AND be as stable then it could be a threat. I'm not saying that BSD would disappear. OpenBSD will continue to run on my NAT/firewall box at home. What I'm trying to say is that they would grab the existing code and use it.
  • That isn't even the same thing. What kind of logic is this? "If I had a gun and want to close my eyes and shoot it randomly........"

    Closer would be "If I have bat and loan it to you then you can use it as much as you want. If you loan it out while you are borrowing it you can't charge anyone for it but feel free to let anyone use it who wants to." If you want to sell/rent a bat then go get your own bat!!
  • Hello. (now that the niceties are out of the way...) I would like to respond to your comment with as much polite indignation as I can muster. I am new to this whole world of "other os's". I cut my teeth on a TI and then the public school system took me as far as dos and windows. It wasn't until I married my adorable techie that I was exposed to other os's. I am a "pre-newbie" if you will. Now to my point. I have frequented slashdot lately to see if I might glean anymore knowledge about this "new world". Sadly, 9 times out of 10 I've found that I've "stepped in something" and have to go wash my hands. I'm not one to jump into a public brawl, but you Sir have found my soft spot. Censorship. Who are you to say what is news and what isn't. Nik's postings are usually the ones that I bother to stop and read. I know that they're worth my time and usually have something interesting to say. I think he is doing an admirable job of trudging through this kind of sludge on a daily basis and maintaining a quality and respectability to his postings. As far as your comments about FreeBSD go, well, let's just say that they reminded me an awful lot like a group of Philistines that raved about how great Goliath was. If my opinion is heard at all, I'd like to stress that the one thing that most definitely isn't news-worthy is your personal attack on Nik. If it's professionalism is what you're seeking, then keep personal attacks and names out of it. They are a sign of insecurity. I for one admire Nik more now, because he participates in advocating what he believes in, in spite of comments like yours. Hat's off to you Nik!!! And to the person that smeared your name, may you find 10 people to say nice things to. Good-day.
  • There is nothing preventing Microsoft from taking Linux, slapping a binary copy of some of their shared libraries plus the Windows Explorer on top of it, "improving" the API's of Linux to support it, provided that they will provide the source for the bits they took from Linux for free.

    There is no requirement for MS to wait for their patches to be accepted back into mainstream Linux, so hey presto: a split in Linux. It would not give anyone access to the source of the MS crown jewels, which are not integrated but are just distributed with it in binary.

    The BSD/MIT and GPL license communities are hurting each other by disallowing developers to lift the good parts of competing implementations only for legalistic reasons. Fortunately, the sheer numbers of open source developers gives us the edge here, but it sure wastes my time. I contribute to both GPL, MPL/NPL and BSD licensed projects, and the time wasted on license issues could otherwise have gone to improving the state of the project. Sigh.

    I'm not worried about Microsoft stealing BSD code because the license alows them. I'm worried about them writing shoddy re-implementations (MS TCP/IP stack, anyone?) rather than stealing good code. GPL is no deterrent against any big player messing up open source in a world where buying decisions are taken by cluely challenged executives, and nothing is going to change that reality.

  • Hey, come off it: NT *is* POSIX compliant. Needless to say, POSIX doesn't mandate the POSIX layer to be useful and therefore NT's implementation isn't, but it is *compliant*.

    Seeing how easy uncertified platforms like Linux and BSD compile each others code with less system specific patches than certified platforms like NT, Solaris or HP-UX, one has to wonder what the role for certification is.

  • Free and Open under any definition beats Close and Proprietary any day! I could not agree with you more. Linuxexpo should be open to any and all.
  • Someone want to help all of us "fools" out who don't know what BOF means?

    maybe if someone moderated this up again (SO PEOPLE WOULD SEE IT), it would get answered.
  • Seriously though, were we supposed to know this?

    GIVE THIS MAN A CIGAR (or at least a shitload of moderator points)
  • Off Topic yes, but important nonetheless.

    There was more than just the "first post" spam, there was a few other "time travelling messages"
  • ROCK ON BRETT GLASS

    I thought I was the only person that regulary read slashdot that didn't robotically fall into Stallman Worship just because of Linux.


    Glad to see i'm not alone.

  • "BSD has forked. There is no single, one true BSD."

    Wrong. *BSD is based on BSD4.4, with 4 distributions, each one targeting a particular niche market.

    NetBSD is designed to run on everything and anything. BSDi is a commercial variant designed more for Corporations looking for 'accountability', OpenBSD focuses on Security, and FreeBSD focuses on Commercial Intel/Sparc servers. Using the description 'forked' is a little too severe a word to use. Their direction is 'closed' and focused (hence the cathedral description)

    Linux, on the other hand, may only have one kernel, but the number of distributions is increasing exponentially, with each on potentially competing with one another. It is the distributions (and supporting drivers/software) which gives Linux the description 'bazaar'

    Just my 1 cents worth (2 cents canadian).

    JB
  • actually FreeBSD doesn't run of sparc servers. It runs on Alphas, and Intel, although I believe a sparc port is coming.
  • Can somebody swing by there and pick me up an OpenBSD 2.6 CD set? Austin Hook and the rest of the goons at canuck.com don't seem to want to give me the CDs for the $30 I gave them two months ago. :-\ sedawkgrep
  • Actually, the birds of a feather session will be in the room with the title:

    "BSDers Anonymous"

    (J/K!)
  • developers who do not wish to be coerced by the government to give away their work are "free" to twist in the wind.

    Developers who do not wish to be coerced to give away their work are free to use code whose creators have not imposed, as a condition of use of that code, that source be made available to any changes that they make, and that the users of said code are not allowed to arrange that the government be able to coerce people not to freely redistribute their changed code.

    Not all code on the planet is GPLed; there's plenty of non-GPLed code that said developers can use, and they can also write their own replacements - they have alternatives to "twisting in the wind".

    This, in a nutshell, is a problem with the GPL. Its purpose is solely to hurt commercial programmers,

    Its purpose, at least in part, is to arrange that code based on GPLed code be made available, in source form, to all who use that code, and that recipients of that code not be enjoined from further redistributing the code.

    This may, as a side effect - perhaps intentional - hurt commercial programmers, by "forcing" them to use code other than GPLed code; however, not providing source to software packages could also hurt commercial programmers trying to build something atop that package, by preventing them from seeing how the code works and thus figuring out how to make it do what they want, and preventing them from fixing said code if bugs in it get in their way.

    I could believe that Stallman also wants to eliminate commercial software as well; however, I have seen no evidence that the sole purpose of the GPL is to prevent programmers from making money for their software, period - for one thing, given that not all software is GPLed, it cannot completely prevent programmers from making money from their software.

  • Maybe they don't understand that free as in beer doesn't measure up to free as in speech...

    {Free,Net,Open}BSD are free-as-in-speech, as well as free-as-in-beer; the BSD license just happens to allow one to make derivatives of that code that are not free-as-in-speech (or not free-as-in-beer).

  • Solaris being freely available and open source is almost definitely an advantage to the community

    Yes, if Solaris ever became "freely available and open source", that might be cool.

    However, I've yet to see any signs of that happening; the term under which Sun have said they'll make source license available [sun.com] don't seem particularly like "open source" to me:

    What can I do with the code?

    Under the terms of the license, you are free to modify, compile and use any changes you make. Although there is no limit to what you may change, there are limitations on what you may do with those changes.

    You may not redistribute any portion of the Solaris 8 source code internally or externally, which means you may not make copies or pass your CDs on to someone else. Similarly, although you will retain any intellectual property and other rights provided to you by law, you do not have the right to redistribute any portion of the Solaris 8 source code that you received from Sun. If you want to make your source code modifications available to other Solaris source code licensees, you can do so by passing the changes back to Sun, and Sun will then post them to a secure website that you and other registered users may access.

    (emphasis mine).

  • If someone makes improvements, they belong to that person; he or she should have a choice of sharing them or not. To try to force him or her to give up that work with no compensation is confiscation, pure and simple. This is what the GPL tries to do: confiscate programmers' work using the government's guns and courts.

    No, it doesn't. It tries to say "if you use this code, and if you make available binary code based on it, you must make available the source as well, and must not restrict anybody from giving away what source and binary code, based on that code, you've provided them."

    If you don't want to have to give your code away, don't use GPLed code. "The government's guns and courts" are not being used to force people to use GPLed code; they could be used to force people who choose to use GPLed code to make available the source to their changes to that code, and to prevent the people who made those changes from "using the government's guns and courts" to prevent others provided with that changed code from giving it away.

    They're not taking away your freedom to write non-free code. They're just taking away your freedom to use their code to write a non-free derivative of that code, and thus to take away the freedom of the recipients of code based on GPLed code to get the source and to give away that code and any additional changes.

    Yes, the GPL restricts your freedom to use GPLed code to write non-free code - just as most traffic laws restrict your freedom to drive at 300 km/h on a public highway. If you want to drive that fast, find a private race track (or head over to Germany and drive on an Autobahn, although I suspect they might get peeved if they've imposed a speed limit due to, say, road conditions, and you ignore that restriction); if you want to write non-free software, write it entirely by yourself, or base it on code with a license that allows that.

    If you don't like the restrictions imposed by the GPL, don't use GPLed code - write your own replacement code.

  • Some proprietary libraries are available for a fee. But in many cases, the code isn't available at all - for example, if you wanted to use the display code from MS Word as your own rendering library. Of course it is Microsoft's choice whether they wish to make the code available as a library, just as it is the copyright owner's choice whether to license a program under GPL, LGPL, BSD or whatever.

    You might complain that if something is a library, it is spiteful to deny it being used in proprietary software. But remember that the library didn't have to be released at all - the copyright owner might have kept it for his own use, or never bothered to write it. That would be just as bad.

    Perhaps it will help to look at it like this. If you want to use a proprietary library such as Motif, you have to pay for it. Some libraries are more expensive than others; some are very expensive indeed. If you don't want to pay, you have to find some other code instead. But it is the copyright owner's choice how much to charge, and if they wish to charge a ridiculously high amount, that's their right. Obviously somebody is prepared to pay that, and of course you're not forced to use their library if you don't want to.

    Now consider a GPLed library. In this case there is also a price - but it's not money. The payment asked for using the library is that you make your program GPLed. If you think that price is unreasonable, you are free to not use the library. But there will probably be others who think it's a fair price and are happy to pay.
  • GPL libraries tell me what restrictions I have to put on my own users. They are dictating terms to a third party. No other license that I am aware of does this.

    Every proprietary library does this. For example, suppose you are not allowed to modify the library's source code. This restriction applies to you, and you are also forced to restrict your customers in the same way.

    And if the library has a ten-user limit, then any software you distribute using the library will have a ten-user limit. So the library is affecting the terms that your users get for your software.

    If you consider the program+library as a whole, taking the terms for the whole work to be the conjunction of the terms for both parts, then the library's licence is restricting the licence of the whole work. If the library doesn't come with permission to distribute it, then your program as a whole would be illegal to distribute. Of course you might have wanted such a restriction anyway, but the library has forced it on you.

    But by demanding, even indirectly, the terms that *my* users get for *my* software, the GPL is stepping beyond the bounds of copyright. They are attempting to place their own copyright ownership over software that is not theirs.

    Not really - the final program's copyright will be shared between you and the FSF (or whoever). To distribute it, you must find terms on which you both agree. That's how copyright law works (IANAL). If rms wanted to use some of your code in Emacs, he would require your agreement to distribute the resulting work, and you could insist on any copying terms you wanted. Of course, he might not agree and would probably decide to do without your code :-)

  • The ten-user limit comes from the proprietary license. I could legally put a 100-user or unlimited user limit on my own.

    But that would be effectively useless if the library your program includes (whether by static linking or dynamic linking) has a stricter restriction. The program is useless without the library, therefore any restrictions on the library restrict the program as a whole.

    If I program using the MFC, my application doesn't suddenly become part of Windows, or owned by Microsoft or anything. It is completely separate entity. It is I that chooses whether to distribute it or not, I who decides whether my users can distribute it or not, and Microsoft has nothing to say in the matter.

    Oh really? Try writing an MFC application and distributing it with full source code under a BSD licence. You can't because Microsoft won't allow their MFC code to be distributed in that way. Yet MFC is an essential part of your program, just as essential as any part you wrote yourself.

    In some cases library copyright owners restrict you from distributing your program at all, for example if you bought a 'student' licence for the library.

    My program is solely mine, and the library belongs solely to the author.

    So logically, something which is the joining-together of program + library will have shared ownership. I don't think it's been proven in court (IANAL) whether linking your code with a library makes your code a derived work of that library. It seems this should certainly be true for static linking, dynamic linking is a bit murkier.

    If I build an automobile using Craftsman tools, Sears has no legal claim over my car.

    That's because your car does not contain the tools as a part of it (and you probably owned the tools to start with). If you photocopied sections of a book and stuck them into your car's manual, the book's copyright owner would be able to stop you distributing the manual unless you removed those sections. This is a silly analogy though.

  • Just a quick reminder:

    GPL: you can use this code in your own programs, but they have to be GPLed.

    Proprietary: you can't use this code in your own programs at all.

    Which one is more 'spiteful', as you put it?
  • Bastard Operator From...

  • A slightly clearer comparison:

    GPL:
    • to use this program - pay nothing.
    • you can reuse code, but the result must be GPLed.

    Proprietary:
    • to use this program - pay money.
    • you cannot reuse code at all.

    It seems to me that if you can accuse a GPLed program of 'destroying livelihoods' by not allowing proprietary derived works, you can level exactly the same accusation at MS Office. In fact Office is slightly worse - you can't use their code at all.

    (And please let's argue about what the GPL and other licences actually allow, rather than what you think their 'purpose' might be.)

  • like this [iinet.net.au] having a meeting.

    Zen Master Jack

  • BOF's go back to the earliest days of USENIX (the original Unix gathering, started in the early '80's long before commercial Unix even existed), though the term was probably "borrowed" from some still older source. So in a sense, both definitions are the correct ones! The BOF's are the ones most likely to know what BOF's are...

    -Ed

  • TMA's (Score:2)

    by Cycon ( 11899 )
    Too many acronyms.

    Ok, I admit it, I must be stupid or something because I don't know what "BOF" stands for. Can someone please briefly illuminate me?
  • I'm a BSDI support rep, so in a way, I oughta be able to go, but I guess I can just hear about anything exciting from here. Sure wouldn't wanna miss this one, though.
  • Uhm. Pending bankruptcy?

    BOY are you gonna look stupid in about two or three days. ;-)

    As I said, I *really* wish I could be at this one.

    (I can't discuss internals in any real detail, but I can say that "pending bankruptcy" has not been an issue in living memory.)

    As to the "support rep" thing: At the end of the day, I can say that I know of a concrete way in which my job has made the world a better place for my customers. I don't have to be up until 10AM, I don't commute, I get 3 weeks paid vacation, I get paid trips to standards committee meetings, I get however many sick leave days I end up needing, I get all the "normal" bennies you expect from a modern job... And did I mention that I don't have to commute, at all, ever? It takes me 25-30 *SECONDS* to get to work in the morning if I oversleep. ;-)

    I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I think it's important that people know that support is *not* as sucky as some people think it is.
  • Simply checking the jargon file we see:

    BOF /B-O-F/ or /bof/ n.

    1. [common] Abbreviation for the phrase "Birds Of a Feather" (flocking together), an informal discussion group and/or bull session scheduled on a
    conference program. It is not clear where or when this term originated, but it is now associated with the USENIX conferences for Unix techies and
    was already established there by 1984. It was used earlier than that at DECUS conferences and is reported to have been common at SHARE
    meetings as far back as the early 1960s. 2. Acronym, `Beginning of File'.

    Now, if the acronym was not contained in the jargon file, I would have gotten quite angry. Nice to have it, but it would have been nice if they said what the hell a BOF was somewhere in the "article"

    _joshua_
  • Never heard of ROFL. In my haunts it was always ROTFL - "Rolling On The Floor Laughing."
  • "It tries to say if you use this code, and if you make available binary code based on it, you must make available the source as well..."

    But it says a lot more than that. It also says if you use this code, which is a library and intended to be used as such, with code I don't agree with, you may be sued. It says if you port my code to a completely free desktop like KDE, you may be sued. It says if you conduct a private beta test of Corel Linux, you may be sued.

    "Yes, the GPL restricts your freedom to use GPLed code to write non-free code - just as most traffic laws restrict your freedom to drive at 300 km/h on a public highway."

    That highway is not mine, despite the misnomer of "public" in its name. I have to follow the rules the highway's owner. This is not an abridgement of freedom. However, the GPL attempts to impose restrictions on stuff outside of itself. It says in effect, you have to drive 300kph on this highway, as well as all other highways attached to it.

    "If you don't like the restrictions imposed by the GPL, don't use GPLed code - write your own replacement code."

    Believe me, I don't. I have much more respect for my users than that.
  • GPL Library: any code that links to this must be GPL
    Proprietary Library: any code can link to this
  • I'm willing to follow the rules of the library. If those rules happen to be paying a lot of money, or not selling my software to certain countries, or even dressing up like a chicken, that fine. If that price is too high, I won't use the library. With this, I am in full agreement with you.

    However, there is one crucial difference. GPL libraries tell me what restrictions I have to put on my own users. They are dictating terms to a third party. No other license that I am aware of does this. Even if I have to dress up like a chicken and pay $10000 and promise not to sell to their competitors, the ProprietaryIncLib++ does not tell me that I have to ensure *my* customers also dress up like chickens.

    Now, I'm perfectly willing to pass along the GPLd libraries license to any of my customers, and would likely accept terms that require me to. And it could require that my own source code be available and all that. But by demanding, even indirectly, the terms that *my* users get for *my* software, the GPL is stepping beyond the bounds of copyright. They are attempting to place their own copyright ownership over software that is not theirs.

    So, of course, I am not developing with any GPL libraries.
  • "And if the library has a ten-user limit, then any software you distribute using the library will have a ten-user limit."

    The ten-user limit comes from the proprietary license. I could legally put a 100-user or unlimited user limit on my own. It is the proprietary license that is limiting, not my application. They are getting the program from me, and the library from its owner, since such restrictive terms would not let me distribute runtime libraries with the application. So that can express their displeasure with the library manufacturer.

    "If you consider the program+library as a whole..."

    But it is not a whole. If I program using the MFC, my application doesn't suddenly become part of Windows, or owned by Microsoft or anything. It is a completely separate entity. It is I that chooses whether to distribute it or not, I who decides whether my users can distribute it or not, and Microsoft has nothing to say in the matter. To put it another way, my application may be "derived" from the library, just as my child is "derived" from me. However, my child IS NOT me.

    "Not really - the final program's copyright will be shared between you and the FSF (or whoever)"

    No it is not. Not even the FSF claims this. And it is certainly contrary to classic copyright law (as opposed to the shoddy digital millenium copyright thingy). My program is solely mine, and the library belongs solely to the author.

    It is impossible to live or labor in isolation. This was the principle reason the concept of property arose, so that one could know what was whose when people worked together. If I build an automobile using Craftsman tools, Sears has no legal claim over my car. And if I use a GPL library, the FSF has no legal claim over my work. They can certainly dictate how I use their library, but they demand nothing of my users. That the GPL seems to be claiming this is probably its weakest point. The FSF lawyers say there is nothing wrong, but until it has been tested in court, the concept of passing terms onto third parties is legally uncertain. Until such a time that a court finds in favor of this concept, I will rightfully consider my own software to be mine.
  • "Oh really? Try writing an MFC application and distributing it with full source code under a BSD licence. You can't because Microsof won't allow their MFC code to be distributed in that way."

    First of all, my users don't need the MFC source code. Why even bring this up? Nowhere was I claiming the proprietary libraries were free software. Duh!

    However, I have rights from Microsoft that lets me redistribute the runtime libraries to MFC. I CANNOT do that with a GPL library and a BSD application. The most I could do is distribute the GPL source separately from my apps source, and let the user compile them themselves, with a warning that if they give the resulting binary to a friend (it would wrong if they didn't) they could find themselves in court.
  • "I don't understand why it always has to be BSD vs. Linux."

    Actually, there have been two "battles", BSD versus Linux and GNU versus Linux. The BSD v Linux battle is over which has a better TCP/IP stack, can handle terabytes of data better, can process more http requests, etc. In short, the technical drivel that all OS advocates relish. I mean, you should have seen some of the NT threads versus OS/2 threads flamewars!

    But the other battle, GNU versus BSD, is much bloodier. And the only reason the battle is against *BSD is because it isn't GNU, period. Every time a BSD related article gets posted to the main page of Slashdot, there will be a dozen posts talking about the shoddy licensing practice of BSD. Or the myth of how BSDI stole FreeBSD. Or any of several other silly things.

    The trouble is, this battle is just as stupid as the other. I would ignore it myself, but I keep getting arrows lobbed at me. Every time I have announced a BSD licensed application on Freshmeat, I receive hatemail. Sometimes they take the form of pleading (please make it GPL so that I can use it too) or warning (don't you know that someone will steal your app?). But there's a significant contingent out there that just can't tolerate non-GNU or non-GPL stuff.
  • Hmmm, this sort of verifies my statement that GNUzis are and always have been antagonistic towards the free speech of others.
  • No, RMS doesn't want to take over the world. But he does want to eradicate all closed source software, even if it means that programmers can't get paid for programming. And he's not talking about just Windows. He's talking about Navigator, SAP, Oracle, Photoshop, every piece of hobbyist shareware, and yes, even the BIOS in your computer. He was publicly stated that it is more moral to wait on tables than to write a closed source program.

  • and we CERTAINLY didn't use long acronyms

    Well, IANAHY and IWNHITDOTBBS but ITAWY that the TLA's are going DTD. I mean, WTF do we need TLA's, FLA's, FiLA's and other NLA's? NOIENMFLBIMCWTSTLA's, we could do as well with OLA's only. AAE we could say "W T F" instead of "WTF".

    ITAWY: I Totally Agree With You
    IANAHY: I Am Not A Hacker Yet
    IWNHITDOTBBS: I Was Not Here In The Days Of The Bulletin Board Systems
    TLA: Three Letter Acronym
    DTD: Down The Drain
    WTF: Why The Fuck
    FLA: Four Letters Acronym
    FiLA: Five Letters Acronum
    NLA: N Letters Acronym
    NOIENMFLBIMCWTSTLA: Not Only Is English Not My First Language But I Must Cope With These Stupid Three Letters Acronyms
    OLA: One Letter Acronym
    AAE: As An Example
    W: Why
    T: The
    F: Fuck

    OITIWSH: Ok I Think I Will Stop Here

    BTW (By The Way), what does mean the CERTAINLY acronym??? ;)
  • Go to the official web page [linuxworldexpo.com] of the Linux World Expo, and you'll learn in this case BOF stands for "birds of a feather".
  • BOF stands for "Birds Of a Feather" - small, common-interest groups that meet at conferences.
  • man login.conf

    You can limit the maxproc for every user, and prevent the fork bomb from taking you down. As for that Linux Fork Disarmer thing that the AC mentioned, I don't get it. Makes as much sense as gtk frontends to kill(1)

  • This posting is devoid of fact. The FreeBSD (and *BSD) community has multiplied many times in the past year. I hate to tell you, but there are thousands of BSD users that read this site.

    I can back my statement up with statistics such as:

    -) peak 250 people in the efnet #FreeBSD channel which is comparable to the number in linux related channels;

    -) exponential increase in unique users on the freebsd mailing lists;

    -) increased commercial use of FreeBSD. This includes Intel, Pair.com, UUnet (Canada, U.S., South America), Savvis, Whistle Communications, US West, and older adopters such as Hotmail and Yahoo! inc, as well as many other companies with name recognition.

    Now provide proof in your argument or numbers to nullify mine. Otherwise it is useless supposition.
  • When LW was scheduled Microsoft was still fooling around with RC2 and telling the press to expect a 4Q 1999 release of Windows 2000.

    But what you say may have some merit. Perhaps Microsoft sought to buy a few extra days before their new OS was exposed as a total security nightmare.. With all the talented hackers and sysadmins out doing the Linux/BSD thang, surely no one would find the bugs!
  • > Linux is fully POSTIX compliant.

    Oh dear. Tell me, which POSTIX standards does Linux comply with? What are the manyfold advantages of the "ELF file format" over..what are the alternatives again? I'm sorry to say that you come across like someone who is just repeating what they think they heard someone else say. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

    The various BSDs have lots of features, large and small, which Linux doesn't have - if you were really interested you can find out more yourself by doing a bit of research. And similarly, Linux has lots of features, large and small, which the BSDs do not have.

    Even supposing there were no feature differences, they're just different. Some prefer Linux, some prefer the different structure and environment of BSD. Why should we consolidate and join the collective just because Linux also works similarly?

    And then there's the fact that the BSD license is commercial-friendly (i.e. companies can do what they want with the code, not what Richard Stallman wants, namely forced disclosure of code. This is NOT friendly to the business models of most software companies). Some of us (probably most BSD developers) are coding under the BSD license because they want to raise the bar of software quality, so all companies everywhere (yes, even the evil ones like microsoft) can use the same high-quality code as a starting point even if they want to keep it closed-source. It's about providing tools to everyone, regardless of their ideology towards keeping software open.

    As someone else said recently, without this "copycenter" (thanks to Kirk McKusick for this wonderful expression) approach to software, there would not BE an internet today and we'd all be using OSI for our networking.

    Why must we all be forced into a one world, one OS, one true Linux (or Microsoft) way? Isn't the ability to choose one of the things the "Linux movement" is supposed to be about? Or does "freedom to choose" only mean "freedom to choose Linux".
  • The reason I oppose the GPL, as I've stated many times before, is not due to any form of "bigotry" but because the GPL is fundamentally unethical. Sensible people will readily agree that it is unethical to damage others and attempt to destroy their livelihoods and business prospects out of spite. This is what the GPL was explicitly designed to do, and in fact what it is doing.

    I do write good and readily available open source code; however, I also want to promote ethical behavior. Hence my desire to raise awareness of the origins, mechanisms, and effects of the GPL.

    Of course, simply stating that people should avoid the GPL and GPLed code isn't sufficient; one must also present them with a feasible alternative. This is where the BSDs come in. Besides being excellent work in their own right, they also provide a viable alternative to the (unfortunately) GPLed Linux. So, happily, the goals of discouraging use of GPLed software and promoting BSD UNIX coincide. I do both.

    --Brett Glass

  • About 2 weeks ago we moved over from NT to BSD, I'm sure you're thinking didn't you think of linux first? Of course we did, my roommate and I both run linux on our personal boxes. But we wanted to try it out.

    Here we're our initial reasons:

    The name BSD "feels" more like a REAL server
    I'd head that it can handle mass load, e.i. hotmail, yahoo

    Not much to go on...

    So we installed the puppy and found it actually easier to get up and running then a linux box, the port collection is dreamy, all the files we're pretty right where you'd expect them. it's just very simple and logically laid out, with no extra crap thrown in.

    So now that it's been two weeks I've found

    I don't know jack about being a unix sys admin
    Fork() is a very dangerous thing (lpmud was crashing the box due to a infinite fork)
    Perl scripts rule
    Sendmail is a bitch, bind is it's horny cuisine

    Linux has more apps, BSD has less crap. Nuff said.

    -Jon

  • I always read people calling BSD a cathedral model and Linux the bazaar model. I really do think you have it backwards.

    BSD has forked. There is no single, one true BSD. I don't think you get more bazaar than that.

    Linux on the other hand, has Linus on high, with his archangel Alan. It is true that you can send a patch, but I think a prayer has more of a chance.

    I think Linux started out as a bazaar and has changed into a cathedral. And think that BSD started out as a cathedral and has changed into a bazaar.

  • BOF stands for "Birds of a Feather" its essentially a "special interest meeting"

    anyone who's been involved in USENIX related activities would know.

    wow, I've been slashdotted!!
  • As one of the sponsors of this BoF (I am the founder of the BSD Users of New York), I don't understand why it always has to be BSD vs. Linux.

    Approximately a week ago, there was an interview with Larry Augustin posted to /. In the comments, several StarMedia employees, including myself, made reference to BSD's high perfomance under network load. None of us here are against linux.

    In fact, BUNY has cooperated with LUNY, LXNY, and NYLUG on a number of occasions here in NY. There seems to be no rivalry here. We have *preferences*.

    So people, lets stop the BSD/Linux Flamewar, lets stop the mockery, lets stop criticizing. Its all about tools. I prefer BSD tools, you may prefer GNU/Linux tools.

    My dad prefers Makita, and his friend prefers Craftsman...so what?

    So anyone who wants to know what its really about, I invite you to show up.

    If you are that closeminded as to not learn something, thats *your* problem, not mine.

    -Pat
  • While I understand the reasoning, I don;t particularly agree. This is probably about the only forum the BSD's will get at this conference, as its LinuxWorld. However, I wouldn't publicize it at USENIX or anywhere else.

    and Yes, its BSD news, Nik posts what he thinks is BSD news, and a BoF at a Linux dominated conference is definitely it.

    -Pat

  • Re:What is the point of BSD? (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 01, 2000 @11:31AM (#1314717)
    Mindshare does not a good operating system make.

    What makes a good operating system is dedicated users,
    developers and documentors, and *BSD has all of these.
    It's not possbily to simply dismiss the hundreds of developers
    with direct CVS write access to FreeBSD, for example, or
    the thousands of code submitters, 3000+ ported applications,
    and countless users of FreeBSD and *BSD, including
    Verio, UUNet, HotMail, and countless others.

    BSD provides many features that Linux doesn't, in the
    same way that Linux provides many features that BSD
    doesn't: they're neither mutually exclusive, nor
    incompatible. BSD provides strong security, and a
    clear orientation towards scalable service providing:
    take the recent jail() code added to FreeBSD, allowing
    providers to easily create virtual machines for each
    virtual domain customer. Cool feature, and clearly
    targetted at one the the prime FreeBSD audiences,
    network service providers. The feature is not in Linux.
    Sure, it could be easily enough, but it's not. Similar
    to Linux support for dos emulation: sure, it could be,
    but it's not.

    Some of the great strengths of both Linux and BSD lie
    in the applications that run on it, and you'll find that
    almost all serious applications run on both: XWindows,
    KDE, Apache, Samba, and many more.

    And there seem to be no signs of either the Linux or
    BSD worlds slowing down in gaining mindshare: while
    Linux is a few steps ahead on the curve to popularism,
    that doesn't mean that BSD isn't on the same curve,
    or that it's not going in the same direction. As with
    Linux, FreeBSD has seen exponential growth use,
    increased media coverage, and adoption by major
    consumers and vendors.

    An exclusivist attititude is not an open source attitude:
    if the goal is a better operating system, being able
    to select best of breed features from multiple source bases
    leads to strength through diversity, not stagnation. We
    see stagnation in places where there's a single vendor,
    not multiple vendors competing, and cross-pollinating.

    rwatson

  • Re:What is the point of BSD? (Score:3)

    by dennisp ( 66527 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2000 @01:14PM (#1314718)
    Your argument is nullified by your apparent ignorance to both operating systems. Anyway, I will present my perspective.

    First, Linux does not do "much more than BSD's do". This statement sounds like a corporate propaganda campaign that doesn't actually have any real arguments. Next time, please properly articulate features that you value in both operating systems.

    Second, the world does not rotate around Linux. You may think that all the applications that you use in Linux were in fact specifically made for it, but this is in fact false. Many, many applications were not only developed to be specifically cross platform, but also were primarily developed on other UNIX-like operating systems.

    "users want to feel 'superior' by using a 'real' UNIX"

    These people are either ignorant or feel they can make weak statements such as that just because it's slashdot.

    "having nostalgic fixation on an ancient code base"

    Which of course brings about the fact that all the BSD's are in fact not full of ancient code but are being constantly modified just like Linux.

    Under the direction of your argument, we could also say that we should stop using gtk or kde and use the other, stop using sendmail and use qmail etc. Different people use and develop for what they like. Your argument is just a weak minded attempt to bring uniformity where it has no place.

    "Whatever technical advantages BSD may have over Linux, Linux will simply incorporate"

    That's a stupid argument. Replace BSD with microsoft or SCO or solaris and you'll see how stupid it is. If you meant straight code lifting, who cares. It doesn't take away from the BSD projects. Those interested will contribute.

    To elaborate upon my choices of OS:

    - 2 co-located freebsd i386 shell and web servers. According to my benchmarks, Freebsd was faster serving static web pages. This, however, is irrelevant, given that I never come close to maximizing the 100mbps interfaces on each, and each is within that performance threshold. I like the ease in which I can secure freebsd, as well as the standardized setup where I can easily determine where everything is. The ports collection (along with packages collection) were also a very good plus (ports, because I often do makefile and minor source mods before make install). Another factor was also the fact that I had used FreeBSD in the past (at a time when Linux 2.0 was a joke compared to FreeBSD), so I found no compelling reason to switch to linux

    - 1 2xp3 (debian)linux db2 server. Couldn't get db2 working properly on freebsd to even benchmark (linux base 6.1 wasn't available at that time). Linux SMP is also reportedly better, so I just thought I would use it. I wish I had a sparc with solaris with oracle, but budget was a consideration.

    - 1 p200 FreeBSD firewall and nat gateway. I do not like ipchains. Netfilter seems to be getting there, but not yet. I don't particularly like ipfw for freeBSD, so I use ipfilter for filtering. I also use dummynet for traffic shaping (which is find superior to the solutions offered for Linux). It also doubles as a samba server.

    - 1 FreeBSD 4.0 workstation. I enjoy playing with new features, so I'm running -CURRENT here. I use X, with the Window Maker window manager. I also have some kde applications installed. I do some java, c, and quick and dirty perl development here. I also run some multimedia applications. I also have cvs, samba and postgresql running here. The new jail chroot environment is also really interesting, especially for large shell login environments. Anyway, I do not see any compelling reason to go to Linux here. My ata 66 hard drive works fine, window maker works fine, kde applications work fine, performance is also comparable to linux in this configuration.

    - 1 windows 98 workstation. I use editplus for most coding (as well as developer studio). I use ie5 heavily. I play counterstrike, a half-life mod when I have free time. I sometimes use word to format specifications documents and letters. I also create PDF's. Another reason to keep it around is proprietary media formats such as windows media, real and the sorenson codec in quicktime.

    As you can see, I have plenty of reasons to use multiple operating systems.

  • Re:BSD is dying (Score:3)

    by kkenn ( 83190 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2000 @11:46AM (#1314719)
    How can FreeBSD, a non-commercial entity, go bankrupt? This is like saying the Linux kernel is on the verge of going broke.

    I didn't hear of any Linux booths at the FreeBSD Con last october - even RedHat didn't show. I thus conclude that Linux is on the verge of death.

    You are a twit.

  • Re:BSD License (Score:3)

    by Brett Glass ( 98525 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2000 @07:39PM (#1314720) Homepage
    With the BSD license, the creator of a derivative work can only "hide" his or her changes. The original is still available. If someone makes improvements, they belong to that person; he or she should have a choice of sharing them or not. To try to force him or her to give up that work with no compensation is confiscation, pure and simple. This is what the GPL tries to do: confiscate programmers' work using the government's guns and courts.

    This is neither fair nor just.

    --Brett Glass

  • The 2 second guide to acronyms... (Score:3)

    by Gokmop ( 147245 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2000 @10:42AM (#1314721) Homepage
    IANAL = I am not a lawyer
    AFAIK = As far as I know
    BOF = Bastard Operator From (...)

    Dammit BSD people, what the hell DOES "BOF" stand for???

    What bugs me is that the acronyms have been getting longer. Earlier in my formative BBS years, the longest you had to contend with was "ROFL" = Roll on the Floor Laughing or even the absurdly long (for an acronym) ROFLMAO (MAO=My Ass off) Now AFAIK and IANAL are actually common...I tell you, it's obscene.

    In my day, we respected our elders, ate our vegetables, didn't say dirty words like "Microsoft" and "EULA" in polite company, and we CERTAINLY didn't use long acronyms. (Of course, BOF is not a long acronym, but I've spun far enough off-topic that I can't stop now)

    Jeez, when do I see somebody prefix their slashdot post with:

    OYMBAINIUMEAPMSOS = Obviously you must be an idiot not immediately understanding my el33t acronymz. Ph33r m3 spl01t2, Or something

  • Re:Bring 'em on. (Score:4)

    by warpeightbot ( 19472 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2000 @12:14PM (#1314722) Homepage
    To add to what was said up there:

    I'm an RHCE, and run Mandrake at home. I haven't bothered to mess with *BSD; when I got into throwing M$ off the desktop, Linux was what was ready to hand.

    That said, I have one thing for all the daemon-bashers out there: Where would any of us be, any of us including IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Sun, et alia ad infinitum nauseumque, without BSD 4.3 networking?

    If you jerked all that Berzerkeley code out of "The Internet", The Net As We Know It would cease to exist (at least until we could re-engineer all that, each vendor his own way, and we all know what THAT would entail....)

    Bash M$ all you want, I don't care. Leave the daemons alone. Maybe they don't understand that free as in beer doesn't measure up to free as in speech... But without that original codebase and the original idea of giving away sofware, no enthusiasm for Unix in the university setting, no Internet as we know it, and therefore nothing for RMS to get excited or pissed off about, nor anything for Linus to base an OS on. Without the Daemons, there ARE no Penguins. And without Penguins, there would be no Slashdot. And without Slashdot... ~~*&%$#
    NO CARRIER


    :)

  • OT: Bug in Slash? (Score:4)

    by TheTomcat ( 53158 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2000 @10:47AM (#1314723) Homepage
    This is offtopic. Sorry.
    I was skimming the replies to this article below my threshold (usually 2), and I saw a bunch of the usually trollish first post (well, first 30 posts this time) garbage. I noticed something really weird about the posts, though.

    The article is dated:
    "Tuesday February 01, @02:31PM"
    BUT, if you read post #1, you see that it is dated:
    "Thursday January 27, @07:54PM EST"

    I haven't looked at the slash code yet, and my perl isn't really that good anyway, but:
    What the heck?

  • good to see... (Score:4)

    by Ice ( 93492 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2000 @10:53AM (#1314724) Homepage
    Despite the general consensus around here, BSD is a very worthwhile operating system, that in many ways is much easier to use than Linux. I am curious what BOF stands for, though? Anyone figured that out yet? Despite what might be said, however, BSD is not "jumping" on the linux bandwagon at all. It's just that when people start looking around for alternatives to Windoze they see Linux... and if they look a bit further they bump into BSD. I run both Mandrake and FreeBSD (with my primary gateway being FreeBSD for stability) and I would highly recommend some Slashdotters to try out both (if you have the machines and the chance to hook both up as gateways/firewalls... even not connected to the net, it's an interesting experience) because the differences between the two are both interesting and informative. Yes, BSD is at a Linuxworld conference, but that's only because there's no BSDworld. All I'm saying is it's good to see both great operating systems represented.

  • Re:TMA's (Score:5)

    by seoman70 ( 69627 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2000 @10:45AM (#1314725) Homepage

    FOLDOC Illuminates: http://www.instantweb.com/~foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query =bof [instantweb.com]

    1. Birds Of a Feather.
    2. Boring Old Fart.

    Birds Of a Feather
    (BOF) (From the saying "Birds of a feather flock together") An informal discussion group, scheduled on a conference program or formed ad hoc, to consider a specific issue or subject. It is not clear where or when this term originated, but it is now associated with the USENIX conferences for Unix techies and was already established there by 1984. It was used earlier than that at DECUS conferences and is reported to have been common at SHARE meetings as far back as the early 1960s.

  • Bring 'em on. (Score:5)

    by Gokmop ( 147245 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2000 @10:35AM (#1314726) Homepage
    I'm going to be at linuxexpo, it's in fact going to be my first linux trade show despite the fact that I've been using linux for close to 4 years now.

    The BSD's are not the enemy of linux. They're just a "cousin" so to speak. I don't approve of their licenses, but hey, that's not really the issue. The issue in my mind is that they're bringing good free software to the table for everybody to use. Now, some people may think of BSD as the ugly third cousin that we try to keep locked in the closet :) but I don't see it that way.

    It is quite interesting to see linux/BSD bigots lock horns over the advantages and disadvantages of the two - as in the maturity of BSD over the momentum of linux, the centralized development of BSD versus the bazaar development of linux, et al.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close