Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore
Jerry
juveniles ranting against Microsoft; however, I did find this rather
interesting post this morning.
"Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore"
<http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/11/07/16/0020243/Lennart-Poettering-BSD-Isnt-Relevant-Anymore>
Interestingly enough, a great deal of it is true. It might be
interesting to know how others feel about it. Obviously, asking that
question on this forum is like playing against a stacked deck; however,
it still might prove interesting.
--
Jerry ✌
jerry...@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored.
Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
_______________________________________________
freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"
Jens Jahnke
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 07:10:59 -0400
Jerry <je...@seibercom.net> wrote:
J> "Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore"
J>
J> <http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/11/07/16/0020243/Lennart-Poettering-BSD-Isnt-Relevant-Anymore>
J>
J> Interestingly enough, a great deal of it is true. It might be
J> interesting to know how others feel about it. Obviously, asking that
J> question on this forum is like playing against a stacked deck;
J> however, it still might prove interesting.
having seen him in action on the last chaos communication congress I
consider him to be not relevant anymore at least to me. ;-)
Having used Linux since around 1995 I switched to FreeBSD by release
8.0 and I have never looked back. There are some small things I miss
but I want my systems to "just work".
I made the switch after I realised that I had to tinker around with
Linux nearly as much as with Windows to suit my needs.
Just my two cents...
Jens
--
17. Heuert 2011, 13:44
Homepage : http://www.jan0sch.de
In any country there must be people who have to die. They are the
sacrifices any nation has to make to achieve law and order.
-- Idi Amin Dada
Svein Skogen (Listmail account)
> While I usually consider Slashdot nothing more than a bunch of
> juveniles ranting against Microsoft; however, I did find this rather
> interesting post this morning.
>
>
>
> Interestingly enough, a great deal of it is true. It might be
> it still might prove interesting.
Given that most of his creations are half-done and half-working, and how
his intentions seems to Applify Linux into an iToy-lookalike-OS, I
consider his "opinions" ... well ... let's just say I'm pretty sure
he's afraid of direct sunlight.
//Svein
--
--------+-------------------+-------------------------------
/"\ |Svein Skogen | sv...@d80.iso100.no
\ / |Solberg Østli 9 | PGP Key: 0xE5E76831
X |2020 Skedsmokorset | sv...@jernhuset.no
/ \ |Norway | PGP Key: 0xCE96CE13
| | sv...@stillbilde.net
ascii | | PGP Key: 0x58CD33B6
ribbon |System Admin | svein-l...@stillbilde.net
Campaign|stillbilde.net | PGP Key: 0x22D494A4
+-------------------+-------------------------------
|msn messenger: | Mobile Phone: +47 907 03 575
|sv...@jernhuset.no | RIPE handle: SS16503-RIPE
--------+-------------------+-------------------------------
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
------------------------------------------------------------
Picture Gallery:
https://gallery.stillbilde.net/v/svein/
------------------------------------------------------------
Subbsd
All of us know that in many cases BSD do not concede technically
Linux. However is the fact. The quantity of the companies using
FreeBSD catastrophically decreases! In what a problem? As I see one of
popularization's problems - there is no information on innovations
(DTRACE, ccTCP, VIMAGE, HAST, SIFTR, Capsicum, LLVM, Grand Central
Dispatch ) -
yes, not one of it has not reached stability level.
BSDMAG + ISXsystem do good work, releasing BSD Magazine and PC BSD
assemblage. But people simply hear nothing now except Linux, Linux,
Linux. The New generation comes also a get on-default Linux. Thus, BSD
community decreases. It is a pity that many developers of FreeBSD have
left in Apple, the small part works over {NET,OPEN,DRAGONFLY}.BSD but
as a whole it already absolutely small small groups of people.
Dick Hoogendijk
> community decreases. It is a pity that many developers of FreeBSD have
> left in Apple, the small part works over {NET,OPEN,DRAGONFLY}.BSD but
> as a whole it already absolutely small small groups of people.
Fernando Apesteguía
> While I usually consider Slashdot nothing more than a bunch of
> juveniles ranting against Microsoft; however, I did find this rather
> interesting post this morning.
>
> "Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore"
>
> <http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/11/07/16/0020243/Lennart-Poettering-BSD-Isnt-Relevant-Anymore>
>
> Interestingly enough, a great deal of it is true. It might be
> interesting to know how others feel about it. Obviously, asking that
> question on this forum is like playing against a stacked deck; however,
> it still might prove interesting.
In the original interview at linuxfr he admits that sometimes he
should have shut up a bit earlier in order to avoid flamewars. This
could be one of those times.
However, what worries me is how influential he is in some open source
projects. He suggested that Gnome should be Linux specific because
trying to keep compatibility with other UNIX systems (BSD for example)
holds them from going further in the development. I wouldn't be happy
if the gnome developers followed his advice.
>
> --
> Jerry ✌
> jerry...@seibercom.net
>
> Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored.
> Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
>
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
"C. Bergström"
> Op 17-7-2011 14:17 schreef Subbsd:
>> community decreases. It is a pity that many developers of FreeBSD have
>> left in Apple, the small part works over {NET,OPEN,DRAGONFLY}.BSD but
>> as a whole it already absolutely small small groups of people.
> And do you feel this will be the end of FreeBSD?
an OS irrelevant?
1) Is it used in production? If so does it serve a critical role?
2) What commercial support options are available? (Also what popular
commercial/proprietary software are available )
3) How well is it keeping pace with existing sw and hw technologies?
4) How focused and productive is the development community?
I have some personal views on the above, but I consider *BSD severely
lacking in a few areas. (No I can't personally help and only kick these
questions off from the sidelines)
Software typically exists to solve a problem. What problem is *BSD
trying to solve? If something serves a purpose then there should be no
denying it's future relevance.
"C. Bergström"
>
> However, what worries me is how influential he is in some open source
> projects. He suggested that Gnome should be Linux specific because
> trying to keep compatibility with other UNIX systems (BSD for example)
> holds them from going further in the development. I wouldn't be happy
> if the gnome developers followed his advice.
2) Why care about *BSD as a workstation? (Which I see as a next level in
stability/usability beyond a toy "desktop")
In the specific case about Gnome - really if you care so much then you
can submit patches and contribute. If nobody is willing to do the work
(scratch the itch) then ultimately it really doesn't matter.
Oh this is flamebait, but I hope gnome does do this.. Maybe then more
people would forget about it and focus on making KDE better ;)
Daniel Staal
said:
> 1) Why care about *BSD as a desktop?
> 2) Why care about *BSD as a workstation? (Which I see as a next level in
> stability/usability beyond a toy "desktop")
--As for the rest, it is mine.
Because it is easier to get your admins to support a server if they can
have a working development desktop that matches the server's OS and config.
(Apart from their interface and development software, which would only be
on the dev box.)
Just a thought. ;)
Daniel T. Staal
---------------------------------------------------------------
This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Glatting
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011, Jerry wrote:
> While I usually consider Slashdot nothing more than a bunch of
> juveniles ranting against Microsoft; however, I did find this rather
> interesting post this morning.
>
> "Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore"
>
> <http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/11/07/16/0020243/Lennart-Poettering-BSD-Isnt-Relevant-Anymore>
>
> Interestingly enough, a great deal of it is true. It might be
> interesting to know how others feel about it. Obviously, asking that
> question on this forum is like playing against a stacked deck; however,
> it still might prove interesting.
>
Yawn. I remember sitting on the can reading BSD mags in the 80s when they
were saying the same thing regarding OSF. There there were/are other
Linuxes, BSDs, and Unixes.
I've done a bunch of infrastructure and tasked-support work using Linux
for the past couple of years. The FreeBSD pieces work better. Does Linux
have some advantages? Yes. Does FreeBSD have some deficiencies? Yes.
There, I said it. I'm over it now.
Fernando Apesteguía
> On 07/17/11 07:24 PM, Fernando Apesteguía wrote:
>>
>> However, what worries me is how influential he is in some open source
>> projects. He suggested that Gnome should be Linux specific because
>> trying to keep compatibility with other UNIX systems (BSD for example)
>> holds them from going further in the development. I wouldn't be happy
>> if the gnome developers followed his advice.
>
> 2) Why care about *BSD as a workstation? (Which I see as a next level in
> stability/usability beyond a toy "desktop")
>
> submit patches and contribute. If nobody is willing to do the work (scratch
> the itch) then ultimately it really doesn't matter.
Yes, I've heard this before. I care about FreeBSD as a desktop because
I use it as a desktop.
Regarding the Gnome issue, it is easy to say, "hey, go and fix it",
but even if I lack the
skills to send patches and / or fix a certain issue, it does not mean
I don't care.
At this point, when Gnome is not Linux-specific, a big amount of work
is put to make the FreeBSD
Gnome releases stable. If Gnome goes Linux-specific it will be really
difficult (if not impossible) to
keep the pace of the original project (think about what would happen
if Gnome depends on systemd
to activate session services, for example).
>
> Oh this is flamebait, but I hope gnome does do this.. Maybe then more
> people would forget about it and focus on making KDE better ;)
>
Outback Dingo
> The FreeBSD pieces work better. Does Linux have some advantages? Yes. Does
> FreeBSD have some deficiencies? Yes.
>
> There, I said it. I'm over it now.
>
>
The only reason i can see netcraft making suh states is because of
virtualization
and cloud computing instances anyway, Name one cloud provider providing
FreeBSD 8x or 9X
to run as instances..... I know of one coming... question is are there
others
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-**questions<http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-**
> unsub...@freebsd.org <freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org>"
Mario Lobo
> In the specific case about Gnome - really if you care so much then you
> can submit patches and contribute. If nobody is willing to do the work
> (scratch the itch) then ultimately it really doesn't matter.
>
> people would forget about it and focus on making KDE better ;)
>
YES !! I hope so too.
--
Mario Lobo
http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br
FreeBSD since 2.2.8 [not Pro-Audio.... YET!!] (99% winblows FREE)
Joshua Isom
> On Sunday 17 July 2011 10:13:13 C. Bergström wrote:
>> In the specific case about Gnome - really if you care so much then you
>> can submit patches and contribute. If nobody is willing to do the work
>> (scratch the itch) then ultimately it really doesn't matter.
>>
>> I hope gnome does do this.. Maybe then more
>> people would forget about it and focus on making KDE better ;)
>>
>
> YES !! I hope so too.
>
What about enlightenment? Most of it's BSD licensed, so it's currently
probably the best BSD licensed desktop environment, due to lack of
competition.
Adam Vande More
> and cloud computing instances anyway, Name one cloud provider providing
> FreeBSD 8x or 9X
> to run as instances..... I know of one coming... question is are there
> others
>
There are plenty already. Rootbsd for one, among others. Also there
wouldn't be any supporting FBSD 9 since it's not released yet.
--
Adam Vande More
Outback Dingo
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Outback Dingo <outbac...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> and cloud computing instances anyway, Name one cloud provider providing
>> FreeBSD 8x or 9X
>> to run as instances..... I know of one coming... question is are there
>> others
>>
>
> There are plenty already. Rootbsd for one, among others. Also there
> wouldn't be any supporting FBSD 9 since it's not released yet.
>
Im pretty sure they are only XEN based and not "cloud" based per se, as
there appears to be no elasticity on demand, Granted RootBSD is nice
but on demand expansion of memory, cpu and disk under ones control is more
what i would describe as FreeBSD in the cloud,
Aryeh Friedman
for rack space but since it is a common framework attempting to make
it vendor neutral)
per...@pluto.rain.com
> >> I hope gnome does [go Linux-only].. Maybe then more
> >> people would forget about it and focus on making KDE better ;)
> What about enlightenment?
For us old-timers :)
What's the advantage of any of these "desktop environments" (Gnome,
KDE, enlightenment, Xfce) over ordinary X11 with (say) FVWM2 or TWM?
Certainly there are some useful apps that, for better or worse, are
built with gtk or the KDE toolkit, but what does the full-blown
environment really contribute (other than bloat)?
Joshua Isom
> Joshua Isom<jri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/17/2011 6:16 PM, Mario Lobo wrote:
>>> On Sunday 17 July 2011 10:13:13 C. Bergstr??m wrote:
>>>> I hope gnome does [go Linux-only].. Maybe then more
>>>> people would forget about it and focus on making KDE better ;)
> ...
>> What about enlightenment?
>
> For us old-timers :)
>
> What's the advantage of any of these "desktop environments" (Gnome,
> KDE, enlightenment, Xfce) over ordinary X11 with (say) FVWM2 or TWM?
> Certainly there are some useful apps that, for better or worse, are
> built with gtk or the KDE toolkit, but what does the full-blown
> environment really contribute (other than bloat)?
Desktop options are why linux has grown so well. If gnome and KDE
didn't exist, linux wouldn't have gotten the market share it did.
Desktop environments are a foot in the door technique for server
environments. Windows clearly isn't the best server, especially older
versions, but it's popular because desktop Windows is popular. The
"server" editions of linux distributions are almost mirrors of their
desktops, gui and all.
per...@pluto.rain.com
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Adam Vande More <amvan...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Outback Dingo <outbac...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >> as instances..... I know of one coming... question is are there
> >> others
> >
>
> Im pretty sure they are only XEN based and not "cloud" based
> per se, as there appears to be no elasticity on demand, Granted
> RootBSD is nice but on demand expansion of memory, cpu and disk
> under ones control is more what i would describe as FreeBSD in
> the cloud,
Perhaps a Linux cloud instance can be depenguinated?
Chad Perrin
> While I usually consider Slashdot nothing more than a bunch of
> juveniles ranting against Microsoft; however, I did find this rather
> interesting post this morning.
>
> "Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore"
>
> <http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/11/07/16/0020243/Lennart-Poettering-BSD-Isnt-Relevant-Anymore>
>
> Interestingly enough, a great deal of it is true. It might be
> interesting to know how others feel about it. Obviously, asking that
> question on this forum is like playing against a stacked deck; however,
> it still might prove interesting.
Most of his opinions seem to boil down to "Features trump function. It
doesn't matter if it works; it only matters if it claims to support more
features."
The Linux community as a whole seems to be following that philosophy all
the way to bug-parity with MS Windows. Once it arrives there, nothing
will positively differentiate it from MS Windows, and it will become
obsolete.
That's how things look right now, anyway. Maybe something will change
before it gets there. If it does get there, though, BSD Unix systems
will be more important than ever, because they'll fill the niche that
Linux-based systems are abandoning like rats fleeing a sinking ship.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Adam Vande More
> Im pretty sure they are only XEN based and not "cloud" based per se, as
> there appears to be no elasticity on demand, Granted RootBSD is nice
> but on demand expansion of memory, cpu and disk under ones control is more
> what i would describe as FreeBSD in the cloud,
>
Cloud computing by most definitions I'm aware of refer to the decades old
practice of outsourcing data storage and processing needs. RootBSD fits
comfortably into this definition. Elastic cloud computing(IMO an often
overrated attribute) is an enhanced version of such services. The definition
is something of a moot point in this discussion as either setup is available
for FreeBSD guests with multiple hosting providers.
http://www.reliacloud.com/ and http://www.elastichosts.com/ are a couple
examples of the more sophisticated ones.
--
Adam Vande More
Polytropon
> On 7/18/2011 8:05 AM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> > Joshua Isom<jri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/17/2011 6:16 PM, Mario Lobo wrote:
> >>> On Sunday 17 July 2011 10:13:13 C. Bergstr??m wrote:
> >>>> I hope gnome does [go Linux-only].. Maybe then more
> >>>> people would forget about it and focus on making KDE better ;)
> > ...
> >> What about enlightenment?
> >
> > For us old-timers :)
> >
> > What's the advantage of any of these "desktop environments" (Gnome,
> > KDE, enlightenment, Xfce) over ordinary X11 with (say) FVWM2 or TWM?
> > Certainly there are some useful apps that, for better or worse, are
> > built with gtk or the KDE toolkit, but what does the full-blown
> > environment really contribute (other than bloat)?
>
> Desktop options are why linux has grown so well. If gnome and KDE
> didn't exist, linux wouldn't have gotten the market share it did.
Again, we see a common mixture of market share (who buys a
product or support for it), usage share (who uses a typically
free product) and mind share (who knows about typically free
alternatives).
In terms of market share, well... it's hard to judge about
a system that doesn't _primarily_ show up in unit sales.
> Desktop environments are a foot in the door technique for server
> environments.
Although it sounds quite stupid, I have to agree. People do
want on the server what they know from the desktop. And the
way _to_ the desktop is primarily reached through GUI and
applications. Yes, it's not the OS that counts, it's the
software that allows you to get work done, and of course,
it's also the look & feel of that software.
People are different in their preference regarding the last
aspect. Some like big desktop environments like KDE, others
like things like WindowMaker. Some urgently need a desktop
full of icons, others prefer a system that stays out of their
way and lets them work. Some need good keyboard support,
others don't even touch the many complicated keys with the
strange signs.
This differences among users is also differences among
administrators, those who have to run the servers. Sadly,
those are often _not_ the people DECIDING about the
servers. This is mainly a task of suit-wearing (l)users
who believe in the oh holy marketing church. All the
numbers Poettering is using to "prove" his claim come
from the field of economy, of companies, of market
share. Other aspects are mostly left out.
A common problem is bloat, as it has correctly been
mentioned above. Some say that bloat isn't bloat - it's
_neccessary_ for modern application development. However,
this is highly debatable. :-)
If you see the "race conditions" in software development,
where systems get better and software gets worse, you
end up with the same "overall usage speed" (boot the
machine, start the OS, start the program, interact with
the program and so on):
hardware resources ++
overall speed = ------------------------ = const.
software requirements ++
And it's even "more const." if you are willing to agree
that those who make up the majority of "market share" are
typically users who treat their plentycore tenmelonhundred
GHz and endless disks PCs as WORSE TYPEWRITERS! :-)
In this regards, most mainstream Linusi (let alone "Windows")
could never show impressive improvements. For example, you
update FreeBSD and non-bloated applications on the _same_
hardware. What do you get? Faster "overall speed": System
comes up faster, programs run faster. Doing the same on
bloated systems, "overall speed" gets ssssslllloooowwwwweeerrrr.
In order to maintain CONSTANT speed, you need to update your
hardware. You need to do it regularly. If you don't do it,
you're out of business soon. (This is one of the aspects
that contribute to how "market share" works - this constant
renewal of otherwise fully functional parts keeps the
industry running, selling people "the same" stuff over
and over. On the other hand, it's the motor behind
development of new technology that makes today's
top technology become incredibly cheap for the masses
tomorrow, so there's no fully negative connotation here.)
And don't tell me about "advanced". There are many users
that want CERTAINITY and a constantly working environment.
They do not "advance" in the way hardware vendors, media
industry or governments want them to "advance".
> Windows clearly isn't the best server, especially older
> versions, but it's popular because desktop Windows is popular.
And the follow-up question is: _Why_ is "Windows" that popular?
Marketing and product placement strategies. Definitely NOT
quality of software.
> The
> "server" editions of linux distributions are almost mirrors of their
> desktops, gui and all.
Yes, and I'm old enough to fail to see why I would want to
have a GUI on a server that doesn't even have a GPU. :-)
Allow me to add a very personal comment:
I'm using FreeBSD for many years now, and I have also tried
many Linusi for home use, office use, project work and even
for some critical stuff. I've always come back to FreeBSD
for most uses. This is because I'm primarily a developer.
Developers traditionally want GOOD documentation, stable
APIs and ABIs, and a system they can trust, which is willing
to give them insight to its internals. Secondary, I'm a kind
of psychologist who is able to see why _other_ systems are
so successful in many fields of IT. With some knowledge it's
not hard to conclude where development is heading.
Although there are (or have been?) some "big users" of
FreeBSD, I would say that this particular system is a
niche system. As there are many audiences in IT (to name
a few: ISPs, home commodity & entertainment users, gamers,
lamers, education, text processing offices, industrial
machine control, diagnostics & repair, mobile applications),
there _have_ to be many systems, and FreeBSD _fits_ some
niches where everything else just FAILS. There is no kind
of "one size fits all" operating system.
No system is dead that has its users. FreeBSD _has_ and
surely _will have_ users who use it, who develop it, who
help it carrying on in the future.
Poetterings generic statement "isn't relevant anymore"
can be proven wrong by _one_ counterexample (as according
to logic all allquantified statements can): FreeBSD is not
irrelevant _to me_. (And it gets even more strange, as
Poettering is allquantifying *BSD!)
And furthermore, I've found some Linux users migrating
AWAY from Linux, using FreeBSD instead. How can this be
combined with Poettering's claim?
I've really waited some time to write a statement to a
discussion that _I_ consider isnt relevant, as well as
Poettering and his creations. Please don't see this as
a persomal offence, it's _my_ individual statement as
PulseAudio, Avahi and systemd are fully irrelevant to
me. He made _his_ personal statement, I made _mine_. :-)
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Christian Barthel
Linux orientates more on Windows and Mac rather than POSIX, Unix and BSDs.
Unity and Gnome3 do the same way: They want to be better than Apple/Windows and gain market share - the "Linux as desktop"-rubbish. But this is not the way I want to work and I really **hate** this movement. I don't need eye candy - I need something to get my work done!
So - for people who want to work (and not to play) with an operating system - the BSDs are a good place to start.
And as server operating system, BSDs will never die because they are stable, secure and functional!
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 07:10:59AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> While I usually consider Slashdot nothing more than a bunch of
> juveniles ranting against Microsoft; however, I did find this rather
> interesting post this morning.
>
> "Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore"
>
> <http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/11/07/16/0020243/Lennart-Poettering-BSD-Isnt-Relevant-Anymore>
>
> Interestingly enough, a great deal of it is true. It might be
> interesting to know how others feel about it. Obviously, asking that
> question on this forum is like playing against a stacked deck; however,
> it still might prove interesting.
>
> --
> Jerry ✌
> jerry...@seibercom.net
>
> Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored.
> Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
>
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"
--
Christian Barthel (Public-Key: http://bc.user-mode.org/bc.asc )
Mail: b...@user-mode.org
Web: http://bc.user-mode.org
Server: nemesis.user-mode.org
Status: 09:25:41 up 11 days, 1:54, 9 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
"C. Bergström"
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Outback Dingo<outbac...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Im pretty sure they are only XEN based and not "cloud" based per se, as
>> there appears to be no elasticity on demand, Granted RootBSD is nice
>> but on demand expansion of memory, cpu and disk under ones control is more
>> what i would describe as FreeBSD in the cloud,
>>
> Cloud computing by most definitions I'm aware of refer to the decades old
> practice of outsourcing data storage and processing needs. RootBSD fits
> comfortably into this definition. Elastic cloud computing(IMO an often
> overrated attribute) is an enhanced version of such services. The definition
> is something of a moot point in this discussion as either setup is available
> for FreeBSD guests with multiple hosting providers.
>
> http://www.reliacloud.com/ and http://www.elastichosts.com/ are a couple
> examples of the more sophisticated ones.
pricing page (http://www.reliacloud.com/pricing/)
I'm not sure how serious these efforts are or where it actually gives
more information on how they are powered by BSD in any way.
--------
I wish people would spend as much time solving problems in *BSD as they
do trying to defend an irrelevant OS ;)
Adam Vande More
>
> One of those links gives a 404 on the root domain
Works for me.
> and the other on the pricing page (http://www.reliacloud.com/**pricing/<http://www.reliacloud.com/pricing/>
> )
>
Not sure where you got that link. Use the menu.
> I'm not sure how serious these efforts are or where it actually gives more
> information on how they are powered by BSD in any way.
>
Do you understand the topic? What part of this discussion requires the
hosting provider to be powered by BSD?
I wish people would spend as much time solving problems in *BSD as they do
> trying to defend an irrelevant OS ;)
>
We all wish a lot of things. One of mine would be that people shouldn't
have strong opinions on subjects they know little to nothing about.
--
Adam Vande More
Anton Shterenlikht
> Joshua Isom <jri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/17/2011 6:16 PM, Mario Lobo wrote:
> > > On Sunday 17 July 2011 10:13:13 C. Bergstr??m wrote:
> > >> I hope gnome does [go Linux-only].. Maybe then more
> > >> people would forget about it and focus on making KDE better ;)
> ...
> > What about enlightenment?
>
> For us old-timers :)
>
> What's the advantage of any of these "desktop environments" (Gnome,
> KDE, enlightenment, Xfce) over ordinary X11 with (say) FVWM2 or TWM?
> Certainly there are some useful apps that, for better or worse, are
> built with gtk or the KDE toolkit, but what does the full-blown
> environment really contribute (other than bloat)?
+1
mwm is all I need. Since it is a part of
open-motif, which is required by few other
important ports like xpdf, gnuplot and teTeX,
I don't even need to install a separate twm.
I'd speculate that the idea that one
needs to install a fucking monster of
a package A to do a job B, and then
another fucking monster C to do a job D
might be coming from Windows world.
IMHO the old unix philosophy of
having a combination of multiple simple
tools to do a multitude of complex tasks
is still true for modern FreeBSD.
--
Anton Shterenlikht
Room 2.6, Queen's Building
Mech Eng Dept
Bristol University
University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK
Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944
Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423
Gour-Gadadhara Dasa
Polytropon <fre...@edvax.de> wrote:
> And furthermore, I've found some Linux users migrating
> AWAY from Linux, using FreeBSD instead. How can this be
> combined with Poettering's claim?
I'm the one...using Linux since '99 (SuSE, Gentoo,Arch) and moved to
PCBSD-9.0 some months ago. I'm *very* happy and cannot believe how
little time I spend doing admin work 'cause the OS 'just works'.
Otoh, Linux was saga with *constant* tweaking, updating, fixing...
Sincerely,
Gour
--
“In the material world, conceptions of good and bad are
all mental speculations…” (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu)
http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810
Peter Vereshagin
2011/07/18 03:49:59 -0500 Adam Vande More <amvan...@gmail.com> => To C. Bergstr?m :
AVM> We all wish a lot of things. One of mine would be that people shouldn't
AVM> have strong opinions on subjects they know little to nothing about.
It's about me too, but I'm interested if this thread is about that too:
http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-on-ec2/
http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2011-07-08-FreeBSD-on-EC2-via-defenestration.html
(=
73! Peter pgp: A0E26627 (4A42 6841 2871 5EA7 52AB 12F8 0CE1 4AAC A0E2 6627)
--
http://vereshagin.org
Howard Jones
> I'm the one...using Linux since '99 (SuSE, Gentoo,Arch) and moved to
> PCBSD-9.0 some months ago. I'm *very* happy and cannot believe how
> little time I spend doing admin work 'cause the OS 'just works'.
>
> Otoh, Linux was saga with *constant* tweaking, updating, fixing...
Linux (Debian and CentOS), to get away from the packaging/ports mess :-)
I've been spoilt by apt-get and yum and first-class support in Puppet.
I've been a FreeBSD user since 2.x, but keeping a significant number of
systems up to date is just tedious without a decent binary package
manager/updater.
Howie
Jerry
C. Bergström articulated:
> I wish people would spend as much time solving problems in *BSD as
> they do trying to defend an irrelevant OS ;)
Personally, I wish they would spend more time in developing fully
functional wireless drivers as opposed to simply bumping the major
version number every 18 months +/-. I have two new laptops ion front of
me that I cannot use FBSD on simply because they don't support the
wireless (N class obviously) installed in them.
I simply refuse to purchase a machine to accommodate an OS; nor will I
attempt to change the wireless network card/chip for the same reason.
OK, now the usual group of "blame the manufacturers", blame Microsoft",
blame everyone else for the problem are free to chime in. I was
seriously considering hiring a professional programmer to write drivers
for devices for me; however, it was then I remembers something I
learned in business school, class 101. I weighted the cost of
developing the drivers as opposed to simply purchasing an OS that all
ready had those drivers readily available. Guess which was "many" times
cheaper? Cost analyses proved that developing my own drivers was not
cost effective.
I suggested several years ago, and I will re-suggest that FreeBSD start
a program that would allow programmers to be paid to write code that
either the regular contributors do not want to write or are not capable
of writing. Other OS's are currently working on that model. No one
would be forced to contribute. This would prove beneficial to everyone
and should satisfy both capitalist who don't mind paying for quality
products and socialist like Poly who want everything for nothing. It
would be a win-win situation.
With the advent of the next version of FBSD soon to be upon us,
this would be a propitious moment to start such a project. FBSD has
never been considered a dreadnought in the driver development field and
this might work to change that. At the very least, it would
create a brouhaha among others although the pigeon-livered average
FreeBSD user would probably abstain from support this project either
from a lack of need or indifference to others or basic socialist/fascist
concepts.
--
Jerry ✌
jerry...@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored.
Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Polytropon
> I suggested several years ago, and I will re-suggest that FreeBSD start
> a program that would allow programmers to be paid to write code that
> either the regular contributors do not want to write or are not capable
> of writing. Other OS's are currently working on that model. No one
> would be forced to contribute. This would prove beneficial to everyone
> and should satisfy both capitalist who don't mind paying for quality
> products and socialist like Poly who want everything for nothing. It
> would be a win-win situation.
Erm... you're invited to prove the "everything for nothing"
as well as the "socialist" claim. I'm old enough not to
take this insult personally, but still (for maintaining
discussion culture) please back up your statement, or it
will simply classify you as impolite and stupid.
Besides that nonsense, I agree with your statement. With
support (usually by money) and help of manufacturers that
are interested in bringing their hardware to a better
support situation by providing information and documentation
so developers could write drivers for many platforms, it
would be a win-win situation. It would even be better than
cost-intensive reverse engineering - means: better drivers
in less time, so FreeBSD could be used on most modern
hardware. The more standards are used, the less work is
needed to bring the new hardware up. (Just imagine you
would need a driver for a hard disk...)
Personally, this is no issue for me as I don't own such
things, but because you claim that I "want everything for
nothing"... :-) Keep in mind that I've also spent money
on software, but on one that WORKS.
Maybe this could even affect the whole *BSD family, so
by the availability of more drivers, more desktop share
could be gained, which seems to be the measurement of
OS quality today.
> With the advent of the next version of FBSD soon to be upon us,
> this would be a propitious moment to start such a project. FBSD has
> never been considered a dreadnought in the driver development field and
> this might work to change that.
The idea seems to have lots of potential. With paid
developers who are willing to license their work as
BSDL code, it could really improve the "out of the box
support" of the system.
On the other hand - as you mentioned -, it may be
the lack of support of the community, but THAT is
the main force behind FreeBSD. Other operating systems
have big companies behind them who are able and willing
to spend money on "prestige projects", as well as their
everyday work because they need to make their living from
it - or gain world domination. :-)
The more the FreeBSD community depends on having certain
hardware working, the more support I see for developers.
But as the community seems to be spread across all the
many forms of OS use (mostly servers, but also stationary
workstations, just a minority seems to be using mobile
devices), I'm not sure it will be sufficient. It's not
that FreeBSD is a "desktop-only OS" which can invest all
its energy in getting commodity hardware working, while
leaving quality aside on other fields. Poorly implemented
features, broken code, messing around with quirks and
short-time solutions do not seem to be very welcome among
FreeBSD users.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Aryeh Friedman
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:47:24 +0700
> C. Bergström articulated:
>
>> I wish people would spend as much time solving problems in *BSD as
>> they do trying to defend an irrelevant OS ;)
>
> Personally, I wish they would spend more time in developing fully
> functional wireless drivers as opposed to simply bumping the major
> version number every 18 months +/-. I have two new laptops ion front of
> me that I cannot use FBSD on simply because they don't support the
> wireless (N class obviously) installed in them.
>
> I simply refuse to purchase a machine to accommodate an OS; nor will I
> attempt to change the wireless network card/chip for the same reason.
>
> OK, now the usual group of "blame the manufacturers", blame Microsoft",
> blame everyone else for the problem are free to chime in. I was
> seriously considering hiring a professional programmer to write drivers
> for devices for me; however, it was then I remembers something I
> learned in business school, class 101. I weighted the cost of
> developing the drivers as opposed to simply purchasing an OS that all
> ready had those drivers readily available. Guess which was "many" times
> cheaper? Cost analyses proved that developing my own drivers was not
> cost effective.
>
> a program that would allow programmers to be paid to write code that
> either the regular contributors do not want to write or are not capable
> of writing. Other OS's are currently working on that model. No one
> would be forced to contribute. This would prove beneficial to everyone
> and should satisfy both capitalist who don't mind paying for quality
> products and socialist like Poly who want everything for nothing. It
> would be a win-win situation.
>
> this would be a propitious moment to start such a project. FBSD has
> never been considered a dreadnought in the driver development field and
> create a brouhaha among others although the pigeon-livered average
> FreeBSD user would probably abstain from support this project either
> from a lack of need or indifference to others or basic socialist/fascist
> concepts.
The issue your talking about is actually caused by a fundamental flaw
in *ALL* pure open source projects namely in return for the freedom to
look at the code and stuff we give up market forces. If there where
real market forces then *SOMEONE* in the larger freebsd community
would find it profitable to write such drivers (and other needed
unglamorous but necessary tasks). A model I proposed (with about 3
others from different FOSS backgrounds) a few years ago is still as
relivent now as it was then despite the lack of reconition that it
allows for all the freedoms of open source but without the neglecting
of user demands (i.e. market forces). The model is actually really
simple: the source code is freely available to *ANYONE* for
study/research/evaluation/educational *BUT* the minute you compile it
becomes economically valuable to the user (assuming that there is no
value to the above free uses [it is not a bad assumption if you look
at it]) and thus *MUST* be paid for. Now the one small twist this
has over any other model is that with basic (but careful) planning it
always for anyone who has contributed to get their fair share of any
revenue. Think of it as the idea that everyone must contribute to
the project either with money and/or work to improve it (let their own
enlightened self interest dictate what mix they choose). The only
legal hurdle to this is that the OSD definition of open source does
not allow for licenses to "descriminate" between classes of users
(people who only read the source code but do not use it and those that
do use it).
"C. Bergström"
> I suggested several years ago, and I will re-suggest that FreeBSD start
> a program that would allow programmers to be paid to write code that
> either the regular contributors do not want to write or are not capable
> of writing.
(If such a thing doesn't currently exist it would be a good idea for
someone to start one) In my experience though they generally don't get
a lot of attention and you're maybe better off on a case-by-case basis
approaching a developer you know that could do the work for you.
Is there a company that produces a commercially supported version of
FreeBSD that also actively contributes back and doesn't keep anything
closed? (ixsystems is about as close as I can think to such a thing.
Sorry if this is really obvious, but I don't track this space so closely)
Aryeh Friedman
firm and they *ONLY* reason we have not released the majority of our
internal lib is because we are essentially giving something of huge
value (to us) up for nothing in return but if there was money involved
to compensate for the time and effort we put into writing the lib we
would gladly contribute it to any deserving project. But, sadly
since we live and die as consultants by having a unique competitive
advantage (in this case a lib that adds commercial value to our work
by completing projects faster).
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Aryeh Friedman
<aryeh.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Jerry <je...@seibercom.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:47:24 +0700
>> C. Bergström articulated:
>>
>>> I wish people would spend as much time solving problems in *BSD as
>>> they do trying to defend an irrelevant OS ;)
>>
>> Personally, I wish they would spend more time in developing fully
>> functional wireless drivers as opposed to simply bumping the major
>> version number every 18 months +/-. I have two new laptops ion front of
>> me that I cannot use FBSD on simply because they don't support the
>> wireless (N class obviously) installed in them.
>>
>> I simply refuse to purchase a machine to accommodate an OS; nor will I
>> attempt to change the wireless network card/chip for the same reason.
>>
>> OK, now the usual group of "blame the manufacturers", blame Microsoft",
>> blame everyone else for the problem are free to chime in. I was
>> seriously considering hiring a professional programmer to write drivers
>> for devices for me; however, it was then I remembers something I
>> learned in business school, class 101. I weighted the cost of
>> developing the drivers as opposed to simply purchasing an OS that all
>> ready had those drivers readily available. Guess which was "many" times
>> cheaper? Cost analyses proved that developing my own drivers was not
>> cost effective.
>>
>> I suggested several years ago, and I will re-suggest that FreeBSD start
>> a program that would allow programmers to be paid to write code that
>> either the regular contributors do not want to write or are not capable
Jerome Herman
> On 07/17/11 07:43 PM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
>> Op 17-7-2011 14:17 schreef Subbsd:
>>> community decreases. It is a pity that many developers of FreeBSD have
>>> left in Apple, the small part works over {NET,OPEN,DRAGONFLY}.BSD but
>>> as a whole it already absolutely small small groups of people.
>> And do you feel this will be the end of FreeBSD?
> I doubt that *BSD will *end*, but at which point does lack of usage
> make an OS irrelevant?
>
> 1) Is it used in production? If so does it serve a critical role?
> 2) What commercial support options are available? (Also what popular
> commercial/proprietary software are available )
> 3) How well is it keeping pace with existing sw and hw technologies?
> 4) How focused and productive is the development community?
>
> I have some personal views on the above, but I consider *BSD severely
> lacking in a few areas. (No I can't personally help and only kick
> these questions off from the sidelines)
>
> Software typically exists to solve a problem. What problem is *BSD
> trying to solve? If something serves a purpose then there should be
> no denying it's future relevance.
The problem *BSD is trying to solve (in my humble opinion) is reliable
long term maintenance, from developers and sysadmin point of view.
Linux frequent API/ABI breaks makes it a real hell to maintain. And the
ever changing method of configuration/ever moving location of
configuration files doesn't help.
*BSD are stable in every sense of the word.
This of course implies that there are a lot fewer "advanced" features in
BSD than in Linux (by advanced I actually mean hyped). But then again
most of these features end up in the rubbish can with Linux. SE-Linux ?
Realtime ? Hal ? Containers ? You do not want to look in what state they
are in. And you hardly want to learn how to use them as the entire thing
is very likely to change completely before 6 months are passed.
Jerome Herman
Jamie Paul Griffin
> I suggested several years ago, and I will re-suggest that FreeBSD start
> a program that would allow programmers to be paid to write code that
> either the regular contributors do not want to write or are not capable
> of writing. Other OS's are currently working on that model. No one
> would be forced to contribute. This would prove beneficial to everyone
> and should satisfy both capitalist who don't mind paying for quality
> products and socialist like Poly who want everything for nothing. It
> would be a win-win situation.
I think that's a good idea. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a sensible amount if it meant i'd be getting a system that has increased support and also fewer problems in other areas as well. Once that starts, though, i would be concerned about the cost becoming too high over-time.
I think it's easy to forget that we get this great os for free and take the work of those involved in developing it for granted.
Jamie Paul Griffin
> I suggested several years ago, and I will re-suggest that FreeBSD start
> a program that would allow programmers to be paid to write code that
> either the regular contributors do not want to write or are not capable
> of writing. Other OS's are currently working on that model. No one
> would be forced to contribute. This would prove beneficial to everyone
> and should satisfy both capitalist who don't mind paying for quality
> products and socialist like Poly who want everything for nothing. It
> would be a win-win situation.
I think that's a good idea. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a sensible amount if it meant i'd be getting a system that has increased support and also fewer problems in other areas as well. Once that starts, though, i would be concerned about the cost becoming too high over-time.
I think it's easy to forget that we get this great os for free and take the work of those involved in developing it for granted.
jamie
Sergio de Almeida Lenzi
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:47:24 +0700
> C. Bergström articulated:
>
> > I wish people would spend as much time solving problems in *BSD as
> > they do trying to defend an irrelevant OS ;)
>
> Personally, I wish they would spend more time in developing fully
> functional wireless drivers as opposed to simply bumping the major
> version number every 18 months +/-. I have two new laptops ion front of
> me that I cannot use FBSD on simply because they don't support the
> wireless (N class obviously) installed in them.
Thanks Jerry....
Personally I think that the solution is simply $$$$... and it is not a
BIG $$$
Here In Brazil , I am raising a company that sells FreeBSD solution, if
I
spend about US$1000/month for R&D on FreeBSD , by putting a bid on some
projects,
(wireless drivers, network manager...), I think in few time we will have
the network drivers,
running. US$1000/month is about 12.000/year.. I bet there is a lot of
people willing
to earn that money.
The code would be donated to the FreeBSD community. It is cheaper than
hire
a full time programmer. (and have the job done in few time too).
Sergio
Anton Shterenlikht
> On 07/18/11 06:30 PM, Jerry wrote:
> >I suggested several years ago, and I will re-suggest that FreeBSD start
> >a program that would allow programmers to be paid to write code that
> >either the regular contributors do not want to write or are not capable
> >of writing.
>
> (If such a thing doesn't currently exist it would be a good idea for
> someone to start one)
http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/activities.shtml
*quote*
We're pleased to announce that the University of Melbourne
has been awarded a grant to implement support of
feed-forward clock synchronization algorithms.
We are pleased to announce a call for project proposals.
We will accept proposals until February 15th. Please
read Project Proposal Procedures to find out what
needs to be included in your proposal.
*end quote*
Is this not what you want?
--
Anton Shterenlikht
Room 2.6, Queen's Building
Mech Eng Dept
Bristol University
University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK
Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944
Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423
Peter Vereshagin
AF> > version number every 18 months +/-. I have two new laptops ion front of
AF> > me that I cannot use FBSD on simply because they don't support the
AF> > wireless (N class obviously) installed in them.
Are there external options like usb wi-fi adapters?
About a cost analysis: you may think about 4front guys to be stupid enough to
pay that much for their OSS drivers development?
73! Peter pgp: A0E26627 (4A42 6841 2871 5EA7 52AB 12F8 0CE1 4AAC A0E2 6627)
--
http://vereshagin.org
Jerry
Polytropon articulated:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:30:00 -0400, Jerry wrote:
> > I suggested several years ago, and I will re-suggest that FreeBSD
> > start a program that would allow programmers to be paid to write
> > code that either the regular contributors do not want to write or
> > are not capable of writing. Other OS's are currently working on
> > that model. No one would be forced to contribute. This would prove
> > beneficial to everyone and should satisfy both capitalist who don't
> > mind paying for quality products and socialist like Poly who want
> > everything for nothing. It would be a win-win situation.
>
> Erm... you're invited to prove the "everything for nothing"
> as well as the "socialist" claim. I'm old enough not to
> take this insult personally, but still (for maintaining
> discussion culture) please back up your statement, or it
> will simply classify you as impolite and stupid.
>
> Besides that nonsense, I agree with your statement. With
> support (usually by money) and help of manufacturers that
> are interested in bringing their hardware to a better
> support situation by providing information and documentation
> so developers could write drivers for many platforms, it
> would be a win-win situation. It would even be better than
> cost-intensive reverse engineering - means: better drivers
> in less time, so FreeBSD could be used on most modern
> hardware. The more standards are used, the less work is
> needed to bring the new hardware up. (Just imagine you
> would need a driver for a hard disk...)
There are so many fundamental problems with the "standards" concept.
For starters it limits or prevents basic product improvement or
development. It the wireless "A" protocol were to have been made a
standard then improvement on its deficiencies would have taken far
longer than needed. In all too many cases, the FOSS invents a
"standard" that locks users into one specific culture. Any obstacle
placed in front of a developer that impedes his/her attempt to improve
upon an existing protocol or the creation of a newer one is absolutely
unacceptable. Then again, standards are irrelevant. There are, after
all, so many of them to choose from.
> Personally, this is no issue for me as I don't own such
> things, but because you claim that I "want everything for
> nothing"... :-)
If you don't own it, then you have no vested interest in it making your
statement irrelevant. Plus, both here and in an abundant of other posts
you have stated that product developers after spending X number of
US dollars, German Marks (DEM), Euros (EUR) or whatever currency
you like, freely give their work away to the FOSS community. That is
just plain "bullshit" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit>. Only a
dyed-in-the-wool <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dyed-in-the-wool>
socialist/fascist would even make such a statement.
> Keep in mind that I've also spent money
> on software, but on one that WORKS.
{citation needed}
Besides, why would any moron purchase software that doesn't work?
Obviously you failed to think that statement through.
> The more the FreeBSD community depends on having certain
> hardware working, the more support I see for developers.
> But as the community seems to be spread across all the
> many forms of OS use (mostly servers, but also stationary
> workstations, just a minority seems to be using mobile
> devices), I'm not sure it will be sufficient. It's not
> that FreeBSD is a "desktop-only OS" which can invest all
> its energy in getting commodity hardware working, while
> leaving quality aside on other fields. Poorly implemented
> features, broken code, messing around with quirks and
> short-time solutions do not seem to be very welcome among
> FreeBSD users.
You fail to even begin to equate the relationship between support for
"mobile" as opposed to "conventional" units. You are under the illusion
that FreeBSD does not fully support "mobile" units because of the lack
of a substantial user base. I beg to differ with that analysis. I
would use FreeBSD on at least on of my "mobile" units it _IT_ (meaning
FreeBSD) supported it. For years, pundits have been proclaiming the
"Year of Linux on Laptops". Obviously that has never truly come to
pass. How could it, considering how poorly Linux worked on any medium
to high end unit. FreeBSD, unfortunately, doesn't even reach that
plateau.
While poor implementation of code, etcetera is certainly a concern on
any OS, the lack of code is a greater concern for many users of modern
equipment. Any one, and all to may do, prefer to stay with the status
quo rather than invest in the future. In many businesses, that is
called "Dinosaur thinking", and we all know what happened to them.
--
Jerry ✌
jerry...@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored.
Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Frank Shute
> things, but because you claim that I "want everything for
> on software, but on one that WORKS.
>
> by the availability of more drivers, more desktop share
> could be gained, which seems to be the measurement of
> OS quality today.
>
>
>
> > this would be a propitious moment to start such a project. FBSD has
> > never been considered a dreadnought in the driver development field and
> > this might work to change that.
>
> developers who are willing to license their work as
> BSDL code, it could really improve the "out of the box
> support" of the system.
>
> On the other hand - as you mentioned -, it may be
> the lack of support of the community, but THAT is
> the main force behind FreeBSD. Other operating systems
> have big companies behind them who are able and willing
> to spend money on "prestige projects", as well as their
> everyday work because they need to make their living from
> it - or gain world domination. :-)
>
> hardware working, the more support I see for developers.
> But as the community seems to be spread across all the
> many forms of OS use (mostly servers, but also stationary
> workstations, just a minority seems to be using mobile
> devices), I'm not sure it will be sufficient. It's not
> that FreeBSD is a "desktop-only OS" which can invest all
> its energy in getting commodity hardware working, while
> leaving quality aside on other fields. Poorly implemented
> features, broken code, messing around with quirks and
> short-time solutions do not seem to be very welcome among
> FreeBSD users.
>
I like Jerry's proposal. The FreeBSD Foundation should organise their
donations page so that you can donate to various different areas of
development like TUG do:
https://www.tug.org/donate.html
It should be at least split into server, workstation and general
development.
I donate to both FreeBSD and TUG but I far prefer the TUG model. When
I donate to the Foundation, I know a lot of my money is going to
esoteric server development which doesn't benefit me much but benefits
large corporations who can afford to fund their own development to
scratch *their own* itches. I want mine scratched!
Regards,
--
Frank
Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html
Polytropon
> There are so many fundamental problems with the "standards" concept.
> For starters it limits or prevents basic product improvement or
> development. It the wireless "A" protocol were to have been made a
> standard then improvement on its deficiencies would have taken far
> longer than needed. In all too many cases, the FOSS invents a
> "standard" that locks users into one specific culture. Any obstacle
> placed in front of a developer that impedes his/her attempt to improve
> upon an existing protocol or the creation of a newer one is absolutely
> unacceptable. Then again, standards are irrelevant. There are, after
> all, so many of them to choose from.
Let's see.
There are many different implementations in layers of
abstraction to access specific hardware. An example are
the many different sound systems employed by various
desktop environments. As a developer, you would have to
choose which one to use, as they are traditionally not
compatible.
On the other hand, see accessing standards for SCSI
hardware. Although hardware has improved, you still do
not need specific drivers to access a SCSI hard disk,
as the "da" driver implements this functionality, of
course assuming that the device uses that standard.
Many USB storage devices also use this standard. However,
some of them don't. This limits them in where they can
be used.
FOSS locking users was a new concept to me, I always
thought this would be a privilege of proprietary software
because it has much better chances to force people to use
a given product as there is no concurrent product they
could use. Does the same develop into FOSS now? How
scary... and _how_ does it, when there is the source
available for the "locking mechanism"? Maybe you are
refering to the fact that even if source and documetations
exist, someone would have to do the work, and this would
create costs.
Well-thought standards should _not_ prohibit evolution of
products implementing them, prohibit developers using them,
or making products obsolete by "switching" to something
different.
Just imagine the web wouldn't have HTML as standard. Imagine
there would be no TCP/IP, but many incompatible ISP-specific
protocols, plugs, access programs. It doesn't say that
standards are always the most efficient. In fact, you can
argue that TCP/IP is inferior to X.25, or that rendering
from PostScript is "generally slower" than PCL.
> If you don't own it, then you have no vested interest in it making your
> statement irrelevant. Plus, both here and in an abundant of other posts
> you have stated that product developers after spending X number of
> US dollars, German Marks (DEM), Euros (EUR) or whatever currency
> you like, freely give their work away to the FOSS community.
As a sidenote, the currency Deutsche Mark (DM) has been
removed in favour of the Euro in 1999. Here's also a
WP article for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Mark
Back on topic:
I see the problem in investing resources (time and money,
often hardware, external consulting, maybe even testing)
in developing drivers. Giving that functionality to the
community still happens. This does mean:
a) Developers are doing it for free, for fun, for whatever
is their motivation to do so. Of course, you can't run
a business or make a living from that attitude.
b) Developers are paid by a company that is okay with in-
vesting into the community. After all, this will bring
more usage share, and therefore maybe even market share
for their products, enabling it to enter market segments
that haven't been available before, e. g. "I don't buy
this printer as it's not compatible with the OS or soft-
ware I'm using."
There are even "big pieces" of software that find their
way - after investing lots of $$$ - into a free community.
IBM's office suite is one example. Solaris also is. And
still, it doesn't harm IBM in earning the big bucks. And
Sun... well, that sadly is a different topic.
If this wouldn't have happened, we would not have any
free or open source software.
q.e.d.
> That is
> just plain "bullshit" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit>. Only a
> dyed-in-the-wool <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dyed-in-the-wool>
> socialist/fascist would even make such a statement.
You should read the WP articles about socialism and fascism
to rethink that statement, and I really thing only morons
do make such generalized statements. It's simply NO discussion
culture to throw stereotypes onto people you know NOTHING
about. Statements like this give an unpleasant color to the
rest of your message (which doesn't deserve it).
> > Keep in mind that I've also spent money
> > on software, but on one that WORKS.
>
> {citation needed}
>
> Besides, why would any moron purchase software that doesn't work?
_YOU_ tell me. :-)
If you can't, ask support people, ask developers and
ask service providers about their daily work. Actually,
people spend lots of money for things that don't work,
or don't work as intended. However this isn't seen as
a problem as this is to be expected for the price paid.
(You get what you pay for.)
> > The more the FreeBSD community depends on having certain
> > hardware working, the more support I see for developers.
> > But as the community seems to be spread across all the
> > many forms of OS use (mostly servers, but also stationary
> > workstations, just a minority seems to be using mobile
> > devices), I'm not sure it will be sufficient. It's not
> > that FreeBSD is a "desktop-only OS" which can invest all
> > its energy in getting commodity hardware working, while
> > leaving quality aside on other fields. Poorly implemented
> > features, broken code, messing around with quirks and
> > short-time solutions do not seem to be very welcome among
> > FreeBSD users.
>
> You fail to even begin to equate the relationship between support for
> "mobile" as opposed to "conventional" units. You are under the illusion
> that FreeBSD does not fully support "mobile" units because of the lack
> of a substantial user base.
You, Sir, fail to see the meaning of "mobile". Okay, maybe
it's my fault. It's obvious that English is not my native
language, and sometimes I'm just using the wrong terminology.
With "mobile devices" I'd like to refer to anything you can
carry around, like laptops, netbooks, and maybe even smart-
phones. A big problem known for the first two groups of
mobile devices is even "simple" basic stuff, like acting
on closing the lid, or maintaining suspend / resume / hiber-
nate functionality. Why is this? Is this because every device
is different in implementing it, or is it because there is
no developer being interested in implementing well-documented
functionality? (It's a honest question; I really don't know
why this is such a problem, but luckily I don't own such
hardware so I'm not depending on it.)
Multimedia often is the same.
But what I wanted to say: There are two groups of interested
people: The most important group is the users, those who demand
a certain functionality (like specific wireless chipsets
working, support for a specific printer+scanner, support
for a USB multimedia device and so on). Those make up the
user base. The more people are interested in getting something
working, MAYBE the easier it is to get money to pay developers
to do it (if possible). And this is the other group: The
developers. There are many hard working persons who deserve
thank and honour for providing a stable, predictable and
overall GREAT operating system for free. Who am I to keep
crying that my 15$ inkpee printer doesn't work?
Can you imagine that I would _love_ to see _one_ printer
subsystem, provided by the OPERATING SYSTEM, to access
all the various devices with their many functionalities?
But as this doesn't seem to be probable, maybe not even
possible, I believe that I have no chance to make it happen.
This makes me decide on what to buy and what to use according
to the abilities of the software I use - NOT on what
marketing tells me to believe is "good". On the other
hand, I sometimes have a situation where I cannot choose
about the software I use, because there's just "the one"
product that does what I need.
This means: The missing functionality could be implemented
either by manufacturers giving enough specifications so
the FreeBSD developers could implement it "for free", or
the user base demanding such features could fund enough
money to pay developers (or maybe even manufacturers?)
to provide the missing functionality. However, this can
be problematic for the last idea as source code "lacking"
is something that doesn't fit most commercial models,
e. g. you can't sell what you've already given away.
> I beg to differ with that analysis. I
> would use FreeBSD on at least on of my "mobile" units it _IT_ (meaning
> FreeBSD) supported it.
Me too. I would use FreeBSD to utilize _all_ functionality
of, let's say, a netbook.
Sadly, most of such commodity mobile devices have a short
life. At the moment some functionality is implemented, the
device isn't sold anymore. Its successor will have a fully
different way to do things, so there's no compatibility.
But after all, I have to admit that I'm not part of the
mobile user target group, as I'm not primarily interested
in this field of use. But as you suggested, getting into that
market may be very important to keep using an OS.
> For years, pundits have been proclaiming the
> "Year of Linux on Laptops". Obviously that has never truly come to
> pass. How could it, considering how poorly Linux worked on any medium
> to high end unit. FreeBSD, unfortunately, doesn't even reach that
> plateau.
Yes. A situation that I would not disagree with. However,
there are very few niche products that can - often given
some tweaking - be made working. But that's often out of
scopen when "just buying" something.
> While poor implementation of code, etcetera is certainly a concern on
> any OS, the lack of code is a greater concern for many users of modern
> equipment.
Hmmm... that's debatable. Would you - for example as a
system administrator - like to run critical systems on
a well-documented and high quality OS where you have
access to the code in case of trouble, or would you
rely on a vendor-supplied "black box" (in terms of
software) that they claim "will just work", but in fact
surprises you with lots of trouble you can't even diagnose?
The modern equipment of today will be the electronic
garbage of tomorrow. The same is true for data which
will be the binary garbage of tomorrow (see: digital
medieval times).
Here the circle closes: Without STANDARDS, you wouldn't
be able to view the digital pictures you took with a
camera 10 years ago because the manufacturer decided
to use a proprietary image format without any documentation,
as you should only use the software supplied by the
manufacturer. Dropping program version X and advertising
version Y with the new models of the digital camera,
and everything you'll have is a bunch of files nobody
can read anymore. You can also see this in computer
media, although with a lower half-life period.
If you want to get into the future, rely on established,
open and free standards.
In my opinion, there is no alternative. Everything else
would just increase costs (e. g. migration costs). But
there are fields of use where costs simply doesn't matter
(as it seems).
> Any one, and all to may do, prefer to stay with the status
> quo rather than invest in the future. In many businesses, that is
> called "Dinosaur thinking", and we all know what happened to them.
You are _fully_ correct here. Here in Germany, I do
currently observe this thinking in many places, and
it's still _far_ behind many other countries. If you
want to see old-fashioned work, come here and have a
look into "modern offices". It's scary how money is
wasted and how poor security is, let alone efficiency
of work! Those businesses that "don't get it" will be
doomed to disappear from the market. Sadly, we have a
lot of state-funded (means: kept alive by taxpayers!)
economy, so "not enough money" isn't any concern for
them.
However, I said that many users don't feel the urge to
"evolve" in a way that others want them to. Investing in
the future is very important to keep in business and in
operation, but defining future as giving up freedom of
choice, giving up security, individualism, privacy and
independence would be wrong. Relying on "big industry"
to "carry" us into the future, with _them_ defining how
it will be, is also wrong in my opinion.
I hope you're not believing in the "free market" in
general. Business is not about being nice to people.
It's primarily about making money. And therefore, some
uncomfortable thoughts have to be sacrificed to the
goal of growth in unit sales (or whatever).
This is where FreeBSD enters the game: It doesn't care
about unit sales. It doesn't define its goals depending
on market share in relation to others, or in catering
specific target groups in customers. I agree with you
that this implies certain disadvantages, like not being
able to access "short term functionalities". On the
other hand, FreeBSD can run hardware and software that
no other OS can address, and there _are_ cases in which
this is highly welcome.
I want to see FreeBSD being existing and usable in the
future. Sadly, I'm just a lame user who cannot help to
improve the system by contributing to code or documen-
tation. I applaud those who can - and DO, and I really
appreciate what they've done. I may even say that most
of the FreeBSD users feel the same. There is ___no___
ingratitude in this statement, even if it contains with
mentioning that something isn't (yet) working.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Chip Camden
> Joshua Isom <jri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/17/2011 6:16 PM, Mario Lobo wrote:
> > > On Sunday 17 July 2011 10:13:13 C. Bergstr??m wrote:
> > >> I hope gnome does [go Linux-only].. Maybe then more
> > >> people would forget about it and focus on making KDE better ;)
> ...
> > What about enlightenment?
>
> For us old-timers :)
>
> What's the advantage of any of these "desktop environments" (Gnome,
> KDE, enlightenment, Xfce) over ordinary X11 with (say) FVWM2 or TWM?
> Certainly there are some useful apps that, for better or worse, are
> built with gtk or the KDE toolkit, but what does the full-blown
> environment really contribute (other than bloat)?
> freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"
Your rhetorical question expresses my feelings exactly. I use xmonad
precisely because it sacrifices all eye candy to the efficient use of
screen space. All a developer really wants is to be able to manage
multiple apps and especially terminal windows with a minimum of fuss.
--
.O. | Sterling (Chip) Camden | http://camdensoftware.com
..O | ster...@camdensoftware.com | http://chipsquips.com
OOO | 2048R/D6DBAF91 | http://chipstips.com
Jerry
Frank Shute articulated:
> I like Jerry's proposal. The FreeBSD Foundation should organise their
> donations page so that you can donate to various different areas of
> development like TUG do:
>
> https://www.tug.org/donate.html
>
> It should be at least split into server, workstation and general
> development.
>
> I donate to both FreeBSD and TUG but I far prefer the TUG model. When
> I donate to the Foundation, I know a lot of my money is going to
> esoteric server development which doesn't benefit me much but benefits
> large corporations who can afford to fund their own development to
> scratch *their own* itches. I want mine scratched!
Thanks, I was not familiar with "tug". I will definitely investigate it
further. I am also in total agreement with you statement regarding
donations to the Foundation. How much money (I don't really expect an
answer) was donated to the Java group. Yet, they never delivered an
up-to-date version.
By the way Frank, agreeing with anything I propose on this forum will
probably draw Poly's wrath not to mention the general disapproval of
the masses at large. Unfortunately, the "Something for Nothing" mindset
permeates all too strongly though the community. I honestly believe
that there are users here who would rather eat garbage than pay a
dollar (currency of your choosing) to have a fine meal.
--
Jerry ✌
jerry...@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored.
Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Polytropon
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:51:55 +0100
> Frank Shute articulated:
>
> > I like Jerry's proposal. The FreeBSD Foundation should organise their
> > donations page so that you can donate to various different areas of
> > development like TUG do:
> >
> > https://www.tug.org/donate.html
> >
> > It should be at least split into server, workstation and general
> > development.
> >
> > I donate to both FreeBSD and TUG but I far prefer the TUG model. When
> > I donate to the Foundation, I know a lot of my money is going to
> > esoteric server development which doesn't benefit me much but benefits
> > large corporations who can afford to fund their own development to
> > scratch *their own* itches. I want mine scratched!
>
> Thanks, I was not familiar with "tug". I will definitely investigate it
> further. I am also in total agreement with you statement regarding
> donations to the Foundation. How much money (I don't really expect an
> answer) was donated to the Java group. Yet, they never delivered an
> up-to-date version.
I'd like to express my sympathy for such a donation
model. It would give those who are not able to
contribute to system development to "vote with
their wallets" - showing the directions where more
development is needed and which functionality is
important to them.
The question is: How differentiated can such an
approach be in reality?
> By the way Frank, agreeing with anything I propose on this forum will
> probably draw Poly's wrath not to mention the general disapproval of
> the masses at large.
Again, you are wrong, because it seems that you
think throwing stereotypes at people you know
nothing about makes you look superior (instead
of giving a good argumentation).
In the case above, your suggesion _is_ a very good
one, and I have no problem agreeing to it, no matter
if any obscure "masses at large" would approve or
disapprove.
Wrath is a feeling unknown to me.
> Unfortunately, the "Something for Nothing" mindset
> permeates all too strongly though the community. I honestly believe
> that there are users here who would rather eat garbage than pay a
> dollar (currency of your choosing) to have a fine meal.
Not to mention those who pay money to actually eat
garbage while being told it's a fine meal. :-)
In fact, I would not hesitate to fund development that
would fit my individual interests (as my donation would
also be individual). If this benefits the whole community
(as a "nice side effect"), where would be the problem?
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
CyberLeo Kitsana
> The issue your talking about is actually caused by a fundamental flaw
> in *ALL* pure open source projects namely in return for the freedom to
> look at the code and stuff we give up market forces.
Perhaps the benefits inherent in enriching the global pool of free
knowledge and understanding can far outweigh the drawbacks of
contributing without recompense?
That's certainly why I'm here.
--
Fuzzy love,
-CyberLeo
Technical Administrator
CyberLeo.Net Webhosting
http://www.CyberLeo.Net
<Cybe...@CyberLeo.Net>
Furry Peace! - http://wwww.fur.com/peace/
Adam Vande More
> On 18/07/2011 11:14, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa wrote:
>
> Interesting - I'm in the process of switching our FreeBSD servers to
> Linux (Debian and CentOS), to get away from the packaging/ports mess :-)
> I've been spoilt by apt-get and yum and first-class support in Puppet.
> I've been a FreeBSD user since 2.x, but keeping a significant number of
> systems up to date is just tedious without a decent binary package
> manager/updater.
>
What I find interesting is how strongly you speak of FreeBSD's power. You
have to replace it with two Linux distributions, greatly expanding your
management overhead.
--
Adam Vande More
Howard Jones
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Howard Jones <ho...@thingy.com
> <mailto:ho...@thingy.com>> wrote:
>
> On 18/07/2011 11:14, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa wrote:
>
> Interesting - I'm in the process of switching our FreeBSD servers to
> Linux (Debian and CentOS), to get away from the packaging/ports
> mess :-)
> I've been spoilt by apt-get and yum and first-class support in Puppet.
> I've been a FreeBSD user since 2.x, but keeping a significant
> number of
> systems up to date is just tedious without a decent binary package
> manager/updater.
>
>
> What I find interesting is how strongly you speak of FreeBSD's power.
> You have to replace it with two Linux distributions, greatly expanding
> your management overhead.
>
myself on my personal server. Even if it weren't though, I'd still be
glad to skip portupgrade and friends. I will miss ipfw and netgraph on
the other hand.
Robison, Dave
process of upgrading to 8.x now), our systems moved well over 1.6
trillion dollars in business to business financial transactions last year.
I'd hardly call that irrelevant.
On 07/17/2011 04:10, Jerry wrote:
> While I usually consider Slashdot nothing more than a bunch of
> juveniles ranting against Microsoft; however, I did find this rather
> interesting post this morning.
>
> "Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore"
>
> <http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/11/07/16/0020243/Lennart-Poettering-BSD-Isnt-Relevant-Anymore>
>
> Interestingly enough, a great deal of it is true. It might be
> interesting to know how others feel about it. Obviously, asking that
> question on this forum is like playing against a stacked deck; however,
> it still might prove interesting.
>
--
Dave Robison
Sales Solution Architect II
FIS Banking Solutions
510/621-2089 (w)
530/518-5194 (c)
510/621-2020 (f)
da...@vicor.com
david....@fisglobal.com
______________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
Arthur Barlow
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:00:49 +0200
> From: Jerome Herman <jhe...@dichotomia.fr>
> Subject: Re: Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore
> To: freebsd-...@freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <4E242071...@dichotomia.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I'm sick and tired of Linux people reinventing the wheel five or six
times with very little if any benefit to the end user. Thank goodness
for more sensible *NIX types with BSD.
Bill Tillman
________________________________
From: "per...@pluto.rain.com" <per...@pluto.rain.com>
To: jri...@gmail.com; cberg...@pathscale.com
Cc: freebsd-...@freebsd.org
Sent: Mon, July 18, 2011 9:05:47 AM
Subject: Re: Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore
Joshua Isom <jri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/17/2011 6:16 PM, Mario Lobo wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 July 2011 10:13:13 C. Bergstr??m wrote:
> >> I hope gnome does [go Linux-only].. Maybe then more
> >> people would forget about it and focus on making KDE better ;)
...
> What about enlightenment?
For us old-timers :)
What's the advantage of any of these "desktop environments" (Gnome,
KDE, enlightenment, Xfce) over ordinary X11 with (say) FVWM2 or TWM?
Certainly there are some useful apps that, for better or worse, are
built with gtk or the KDE toolkit, but what does the full-blown
environment really contribute (other than bloat)?
_______________________________________________
freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"
I'm with you on this one. My FreeBSD servers are SERVERS and I don't need a gui
to be efficient and reliable with them. And when I do occassionally go with a
FreeBSD for my desktop I don't need all the bloat of GNOME or KDE. I have used
TWM from the beginning and it does just fine by me.
Now as for BSD becoming irrelevant....I think that's all sour grapes. Linux gets
all the hype but I don't see te BSD's going by the wayside because of it. I do
wish there was a more richer library of drivers available, like with Linux. That
I would not complain about.
Peter Vereshagin
BT>
BT> ________________________________
BT> From: "per...@pluto.rain.com" <per...@pluto.rain.com>
BT> To: jri...@gmail.com; cberg...@pathscale.com
BT> Cc: freebsd-...@freebsd.org
BT> Sent: Mon, July 18, 2011 9:05:47 AM
BT> Subject: Re: Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore
BT>
BT> Joshua Isom <jri...@gmail.com> wrote:
BT> > On 7/17/2011 6:16 PM, Mario Lobo wrote:
BT> > > On Sunday 17 July 2011 10:13:13 C. Bergstr??m wrote:
BT> > >> I hope gnome does [go Linux-only].. Maybe then more
BT> > >> people would forget about it and focus on making KDE better ;)
BT> ...
BT> > What about enlightenment?
BT>
BT> For us old-timers :)
BT>
BT> What's the advantage of any of these "desktop environments" (Gnome,
BT> KDE, enlightenment, Xfce) over ordinary X11 with (say) FVWM2 or TWM?
BT> Certainly there are some useful apps that, for better or worse, are
BT> built with gtk or the KDE toolkit, but what does the full-blown
BT> environment really contribute (other than bloat)?
BT>
BT> I'm with you on this one. My FreeBSD servers are SERVERS and I don't need a gui
BT> to be efficient and reliable with them. And when I do occassionally go with a
BT> FreeBSD for my desktop I don't need all the bloat of GNOME or KDE. I have used
BT> TWM from the beginning and it does just fine by me.
BT>
BT> Now as for BSD becoming irrelevant....I think that's all sour grapes. Linux gets
BT> all the hype but I don't see te BSD's going by the wayside because of it. I do
BT> wish there was a more richer library of drivers available, like with Linux. That
BT> I would not complain about.
In the past one of BSDMags was devoted to the FreeBSD's agnosticism on desktop
environments.
Had known it for years but in early May, 2011 some of the WindowMaker's applets
were removed from the ports tree as 'unsupported and a dead download link
ressource' several at once.
In sight of speculations about dropping FreeBSD support especially wouldn't it
be nice if I'd try to re-establish download link source for the applets of my
interest and PR about I need them?
Not a C coder though to know about to support them in a right way.
73! Peter pgp: A0E26627 (4A42 6841 2871 5EA7 52AB 12F8 0CE1 4AAC A0E2 6627)
--
http://vereshagin.org
Gary Gatten
I've always been curious why "Linux" seemed to take off so fast when other FOSS / non Winblow$ OS's were available for some time with not much traction; OS/2, BeOS, *nix with X11, etc.
Not just on the desktop, but servers as well. "Supported" versions of Linux such as RHEL, Suse, etc. seem to have made more headway into the enterprise computing environment in the last ten years than *BSD did in the last 30.
>From my personal experience - which is relatively limited - it seems applications just work on Linux? When I need to compile an app, it takes a few mins on Linux - but may take me a few weeks on FBSD. Granted someone more knowledgeable with FBSD, Compilers, etc. could do it much faster than I.
Anyway, if someone has a brief explanation of why Linux has apparently triumphed (in so far as installed base, desktop penetration, etc.) where so many others have failed (including IBM with OS/2) I'd be interested in hearing those thoughts.
TIA
Gary
<font size="1">
<div style='border:none;border-bottom:double windowtext 2.25pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'>
</div>
"This email is intended to be reviewed by only the intended recipient
and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any review, use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of this email
and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by
return email and delete this email from your system."
</font>
Jerry
Polytropon articulated:
> Here the circle closes: Without STANDARDS, you wouldn't
> be able to view the digital pictures you took with a
> camera 10 years ago because the manufacturer decided
> to use a proprietary image format without any documentation,
> as you should only use the software supplied by the
> manufacturer. Dropping program version X and advertising
> version Y with the new models of the digital camera,
> and everything you'll have is a bunch of files nobody
> can read anymore. You can also see this in computer
> media, although with a lower half-life period.
>
> If you want to get into the future, rely on established,
> open and free standards.
>
> In my opinion, there is no alternative. Everything else
> would just increase costs (e. g. migration costs). But
> there are fields of use where costs simply doesn't matter
> (as it seems).
I apologize for cherry picking this; however, your analysis is so
faulty that I was force to. You camera analogy is simply absurd.
You were aware that Kodak dropped the C22 development process decades
ago which effectively make all films designed for that process useless.
It also spelled then end of GAF, but that is another story. KODACHROME
Film was discontinues after a 74 year run. Actually, it was created due
to Kodak's inability to properly stabilize the layers in the color film
it was trying to create; but that is another story. I still have
several collector's grade cameras that used films such as the 116 and
616 designations. These films were discontinued in 1984. Should I sue
Kodak, or any other manufacturer for their failure to continue support
for these devices? When wan the last time you purchased a new Polaroid?
News Flash: It was discontinued. Now, can you guess why? Perhaps you
have noticed people using cameras that don't apparently use any film.
You might want to investigate that further. You will find that newer
technology supersedes and eventually obsoletes older technology.
The point is, time moves on and technology advances. To continue to
keep an industry shackled to an out dated protocol simple because some
user, somewhere, sometime, may actually use it would only serve to
enervate the software and hardware industry. Further more, this would
serve to invigorate a cottage industry based on creating applications
that could be used to "convert" such files to a newer format. Actually,
several such programs exist now.
I really hate the way "standard" is used by so many FOSS users. They
use it as a shied against innovation. Rather than embrace newer
technologies, they throw up the "standard" shield and claim that
product "A" (product being anything your want it to designate) is bad
because it doesn't follow some arbitrary standard. A product will
stand or fall on its own merits. To insist that any product follow any
strict guide lines effectively removes the developer's ability to
improve upon or create new or better products.
In my own country, we had the basis for HD TV back in the early 80's. I
know individuals who were working with RCA at the time. Yet, it took
30 years for the industry to finally dump the existing framework and
basically start over, You see Poly, sometimes you do have to change,
unless you want to go the way of the dinosaur. Now, if this had been a
FOSS project, we would still be watching B&W TV on a big 19" screen.
--
Jerry ✌
jerry...@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored.
Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Jerry
Gary Gatten articulated:
> <snip>
>
> I've always been curious why "Linux" seemed to take off so fast when
> other FOSS / non Winblow$ OS's were available for some time with not
> much traction; OS/2, BeOS, *nix with X11, etc.
>
> Not just on the desktop, but servers as well. "Supported" versions
> of Linux such as RHEL, Suse, etc. seem to have made more headway into
> the enterprise computing environment in the last ten years than *BSD
> did in the last 30.
I think the explanation is rather simple, "Give the user what he wants,
not what you think he wants." You are never going to satisfy every
conceivable user, so concentrate on the core users. Microsoft has done
that extremely well. On the latest Windows 7, getting wireless up and
running is the most effortless thing I have done in awhile. Windows
does everything but fill in the password. On FreeBSD, well lets just
say if that even if they had a driver for the wireless card I have
installed, getting it up and running would be another matter. Correct
me if I am wrong, but even "network manager" is not available on
FreeBSD is it? I have not checked in awhile. I know that there are some
programs listed, but none of them work as seamlessly as Microsoft's. It
is a basic truism in any business that in order to beat your rival, you
have to produce a better product or one that costs less and
still maintains the same basic usability. Simply creating a free product
that is not as usable is not enough. If you cannot accomplish that,
then at least try to create the illusion of it. FreeBSD has failed at
the goal also.
> >From my personal experience - which is relatively limited - it seems
> >applications just work on Linux? When I need to compile an app, it
> >takes a few mins on Linux - but may take me a few weeks on FBSD.
> >Granted someone more knowledgeable with FBSD, Compilers, etc. could
> >do it much faster than I.
>
> Anyway, if someone has a brief explanation of why Linux has
> apparently triumphed (in so far as installed base, desktop
> penetration, etc.) where so many others have failed (including IBM
> with OS/2) I'd be interested in hearing those thoughts.
OS/2 was IBM's fault from the beginning. They insisted that it be tied
to the 286 processor. Gates attempted to talk them out of it in a
famous meeting in Armonk, NY. IBM refused and effectively wrote it's own
death sentence with OS/2. As with any product, first impressions are
crucial. Their first one failed. Unfortunately, so many FOSS pundits
have not learned this simple lesson.
From Wikipedia:
OS/2 1.x targeted the 80286 processor: IBM insisted on supporting the
Intel 80286 processor, with its 16-bit segmented memory mode, due to
commitments made to customers who had purchased many 80286-based PS/2's
because of IBM's promises surrounding OS/2.[16] Until release 2.0 in
April 1992, OS/2 ran in 16-bit protected mode and therefore could not
benefit from the Intel 80386's much simpler 32-bit flat memory model
and virtual 8086 mode features. This was especially painful in
providing support for DOS applications. While, in 1988, Windows/386 2.1
could run several cooperatively multitasked DOS applications, including
expanded memory (EMS) emulation, OS/2 1.3, released in 1991, was still
limited to one 640KB "DOS box".
Polytropon
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:58:08 +0200
> Polytropon articulated:
>
> > Here the circle closes: Without STANDARDS, you wouldn't
> > be able to view the digital pictures you took with a
> > camera 10 years ago because the manufacturer decided
> > to use a proprietary image format without any documentation,
> > as you should only use the software supplied by the
> > manufacturer. Dropping program version X and advertising
> > version Y with the new models of the digital camera,
> > and everything you'll have is a bunch of files nobody
> > can read anymore. You can also see this in computer
> > media, although with a lower half-life period.
> >
> > If you want to get into the future, rely on established,
> > open and free standards.
> >
> > In my opinion, there is no alternative. Everything else
> > would just increase costs (e. g. migration costs). But
> > there are fields of use where costs simply doesn't matter
> > (as it seems).
>
> I apologize for cherry picking this; however, your analysis is so
> faulty that I was force to. You camera analogy is simply absurd.
I wanted it to be understood as an analogy.
> You were aware that Kodak dropped the C22 development process decades
> ago which effectively make all films designed for that process useless.
> It also spelled then end of GAF, but that is another story. KODACHROME
> Film was discontinues after a 74 year run. Actually, it was created due
> to Kodak's inability to properly stabilize the layers in the color film
> it was trying to create; but that is another story. I still have
> several collector's grade cameras that used films such as the 116 and
> 616 designations. These films were discontinued in 1984.
You're talking hardware (film material) here, not software.
Your analogy illustrates how technology does disappear. It
gets more and more complicated working with film material,
as digital cameras allow you to do all the things that you
could do with expensive cameras only in the past. Even
professionals have switched (of course to expensive and
therefor professional camera models), both for photographing
and for movies.
In software, see "planned obsolescense" and "digital medieval
times" ("digital middleage") and movements that want to keep
witnesses of our today's culture.
This means you will _always_ have to judge: Need a short-term
solution that is "the best" for a short term, or need a long-
term solution that is "good" (or even just "good enough") for
a longer period of time.
Sloppily engineered and halfway done solutions can - by means
of marketing - be sold for the first kind of products quite
easily, and "constantness" is not an important topic for the
main markets (home consumers).
> Should I sue
> Kodak, or any other manufacturer for their failure to continue support
> for these devices? When wan the last time you purchased a new Polaroid?
> News Flash: It was discontinued. Now, can you guess why? Perhaps you
> have noticed people using cameras that don't apparently use any film.
> You might want to investigate that further. You will find that newer
> technology supersedes and eventually obsoletes older technology.
It's _always_ that way. Interestingly, some oldest technology
still prevails. There are still books made of paper even though
there are alternatives. In the last year, more paper was used
and printed than in the year before, and the trend continues.
Even if you can argue that the use of actual paper is less and
less _required_, it's more and more _performed_.
We know paintings in caves older than 2000 years, books
older than 1000 years, paintings older than 500 years.
What will be present of our _today's_ digital culture
when the encryption codes are lost? When there are no
drives to read the media, or the media simply dissolved?
Of course you are right that newer technology will _always_
supersedes and eventually obsoletes older technology. But
you will also have to agree that technology will be used
as long as it's possible to make money from it, just see
petrol-driven cars as an example, and oil-based technology
in general.
> The point is, time moves on and technology advances.
Advances - yes.
Improves - not implicitely.
Fast and with best intentions for whole mankind and
environment - debatable.
Time moves on, and it's hard _not_ to move on.
I may point you to the "Matrix" movie trilogy. When mankind
finally looses interest in what it creates, because industry
tells us "It's all okay, just buy, just consume, it's the
best for you", then we will be unable to control our own
future. Just voting with the wallet seems to be insufficient.
It IS important in a market, but as the market isn't free
(as per definition), it's hard to see 100 percent control
in here. Free alternatives must be present in order to keep
the commercial products "on track", so they follow the needs
of the customers instead of _defining_ them. This would only
make technology its own purpose, and finally, in the end of
the ongoing obsoleting, it obsoletes man.
Maybe a strange approach, but do _you_ want your life to be
fully defined by others who create a golden cage for you,
which still would be a cage?
> To continue to
> keep an industry shackled to an out dated protocol simple because some
> user, somewhere, sometime, may actually use it would only serve to
> enervate the software and hardware industry.
There are (admittedly not obvious) branches of industry
where "old fashioned" stuff is still used, often because
it "just works" and there were massive costs in making it
work, and there are expected much more costs to migrate.
An example is MAN Diesel, using proprietary VMS software
on a SimH emulation basis. Or look into banking, into
insurances or fiscal administration where "old fashioned"
mainframe stuff is used. Those branches do _not_ advance
in a way economy would want it. Just find out what COBOL
is and why it's still important, as well as RPG, even if
it may be older than you. :-)
> Further more, this would
> serve to invigorate a cottage industry based on creating applications
> that could be used to "convert" such files to a newer format. Actually,
> several such programs exist now.
Yes, OpenOffice for example. :-)
Of course, formats _not_ requiring continuous conversions
are better and more efficient. But after all, it's not
about efficiency in fields of use where money is not
important (or can be "re-gained" from customers or
taxpayers).
> I really hate the way "standard" is used by so many FOSS users. They
> use it as a shied against innovation. Rather than embrace newer
> technologies, they throw up the "standard" shield and claim that
> product "A" (product being anything your want it to designate) is bad
> because it doesn't follow some arbitrary standard.
It doesn't have to be that way. As an example, see HTML 5.
This standard obsoletes the "how it looks" of traditional
HTML and replaces it by "what it is", separating semantic
description from style description. Sounds familiar? It's
what LaTeX does for many years now.
Another field where standards are needed is when content
should be brought to the widest audience. Proprietary
formats simply can't do that. Patent & IP problems are
mainly - in my opinion - the biggest stop sign for inventions
and improvements. How can a developer be sure to release
something new or make a product from it when he has to fear
to be sued into ground next day?
THIS is the big danger for developers.
Standards are the key to market share, they must be free and
open to be implemented. A camera that can be attached to
_any_ Mac or PC will sell better than a camera that works
with just _one_ selected operating system version (and also
requires a plug similar to USB, but mechanically slightly
different, and electronically fully different). A cellphone
that can connect to _any_ provider will be of higher interest
to customers than one that just works with one provider in
a specific region of Europe. And a printer that can be fed
normal paper will be more comfortable than one you have to
buy specific-sized special paper for.
A good example are network-connected devices, either by
Ethernet cabling or even wireless. Just assume there would
be no standards in plugs and protocols - network printing,
NAS and special devices such as networked surveilance
cameras would be the total chaos.
> A product will
> stand or fall on its own merits.
Those merits are mostly defined by the customers buying that
product, so market share is all that counts.
Is it? For economical reasons - for sure. For improving the
society, and if it's just by adding something to the diversity
of available options...
> To insist that any product follow any
> strict guide lines effectively removes the developer's ability to
> improve upon or create new or better products.
Conforming to standards is exactly what brought the PC to
where it today is. In the beginning, complying to industry
standards (e. g. serial port RS-232) was the alpha and omega
if you wanted to sell any computer, as the primary target
group insisted on it. Over time, demands have changed, but
target groups also have. Today, home customers seem to be
in the focus of software makers, and you can clearly see
this in the platforms used and programs created.
Sadly, history of program development has shown that the
market leader defines standards, just the same way as the
winner of a confrontation rewrites history afterwards
according to his own requirements. So what's left for
FOSS development? Mostly to re-implement what's already
present on proprietary systems. There is even no need for
improving it, no need for "better", as "the same" is what
users are interested in, of course "the same for free".
You'll even find inferior products in fields where better
free alternatives do exists, but due to marketing those
are out of scope.
> In my own country, we had the basis for HD TV back in the early 80's. I
> know individuals who were working with RCA at the time. Yet, it took
> 30 years for the industry to finally dump the existing framework and
> basically start over, You see Poly, sometimes you do have to change,
> unless you want to go the way of the dinosaur.
With the development of FOSS in mind, you have the chance
NOT to "swim with the swarm", with all advantages and
disadvantages it implies.
Your TV example is very good. I've recently read a text
that predicts the future of CDs - a text from the late 80's.
When we consider what we are _currently_ using, the text
predicting "no important future for CDs" looks quite funny.
> Now, if this had been a
> FOSS project, we would still be watching B&W TV on a big 19" screen.
Sometimes, the old fashioned technology is _everything_ you
can rely on. For example in regions where you have no internet
connection and no cell phone access, for broadcasting you
use middlewave (AM) radio, and maybe CB for communication.
Coming back to the TV example, it's still funny how industry
continues the ongoing renewal of technology, making "images
sharper than reality", obsoleting things by newer things that
are supposed to be the nonplusultra, just to obsolete them
within few years. Abandoning analog satelite TV is a good
example, as well as terrestrial TV. There are many other
approaches sold as nonplusultra that have vanished today.
As I often say: The top technology of today is the garbage
of tomorrow. It's just _your_ decision in how far you do
participate in an ongoing renewal of all your stuff - and
if you can afford to do so.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Paul Schmehl
> <snip>
>
> I've always been curious why "Linux" seemed to take off so fast when
> other FOSS / non Winblow$ OS's were available for some time with not much
> traction; OS/2, BeOS, *nix with X11, etc.
>
> Not just on the desktop, but servers as well. "Supported" versions of
> Linux such as RHEL, Suse, etc. seem to have made more headway into the
> enterprise computing environment in the last ten years than *BSD did in
> the last 30.
>
>> From my personal experience - which is relatively limited - it seems
>> applications just work on Linux? When I need to compile an app, it
>> takes a few mins on Linux - but may take me a few weeks on FBSD.
>> Granted someone more knowledgeable with FBSD, Compilers, etc. could do
>> it much faster than I.
>
> Anyway, if someone has a brief explanation of why Linux has apparently
> triumphed (in so far as installed base, desktop penetration, etc.) where
> so many others have failed (including IBM with OS/2) I'd be interested in
> hearing those thoughts.
>
I'll hazard a guess. Linux was new and shiny and all the rage when
computer science really took off in the higher ed field. So geeks wanted
to use it, but to do so at that time you had to be a bit of a coder. So
the number of people hacking on it and submitting changes ballooned.
Basically, anyone who wanted to submit a change could, but Linux kept the
base kernel code management to prevent major mistakes.
Then all their friends wanted it too, but they couldn't code. So the push
for ease of use began. That was the genesis of projects such as kde and
gnome and the drive behind getting things like flash and "cutting edge"
drivers working in Linux.
Meanwhile, the *BSDs were those "old" "stogdy" OSes that "nobody" was using
any more, so there was no great incentive for geeks to check it out and use
it. Remember the old saw, "Unix is user friendly. It's just picky about
who its friends are."?
So Linux was becoming more "user friendly" and gaining all sorts of GUI
crud that made it easier for non-geeks to be "admins" while the BSDs were
still rolling down the tried and true path of development that required
that you actually understand the innards if you really wanted to be an
admin.
Linux hasn't "triumphed", BTW, it's merely in ascendancy right now. It
could well go by the wayside if a major problem erupts and doesn't get
resolved quickly.
In short, some people chase the newest shiniest thing. Others prefer to
stick with what works. Often, the newest shiniest folks, after they've
gained some wisdom, move to the other camp. So you could well see a
resurgence of BSD as Linux admins who've grown tired of its quirks but have
gained some unix skills start moving back toward the BSD side.
--
Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
are my own and not those of my employer.
*******************************************
"It is as useless to argue with those who have
renounced the use of reason as to administer
medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson
"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very
intelligent person could believe in them." George Orwell
Paul Schmehl
> On 07/17/2011 04:10, Jerry wrote:
>> While I usually consider Slashdot nothing more than a bunch of
>> juveniles ranting against Microsoft; however, I did find this rather
>> interesting post this morning.
>>
>>
>> snt-Relevant-Anymore>
>>
>> Interestingly enough, a great deal of it is true. It might be
>> interesting to know how others feel about it. Obviously, asking that
>> question on this forum is like playing against a stacked deck; however,
>> it still might prove interesting.
I thought it was one of the funniest threads I've read in a long time.
Polytropon
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:44:15 -0500
> Gary Gatten articulated:
>
> >
> > I've always been curious why "Linux" seemed to take off so fast when
> > other FOSS / non Winblow$ OS's were available for some time with not
> > much traction; OS/2, BeOS, *nix with X11, etc.
> >
> > Not just on the desktop, but servers as well. "Supported" versions
> > of Linux such as RHEL, Suse, etc. seem to have made more headway into
> > the enterprise computing environment in the last ten years than *BSD
> > did in the last 30.
I've waited for your answer, it's very interesting,
and in my opinion it shows where you're wrong. Allow
me to illustrate my assumption.
> I think the explanation is rather simple, "Give the user what he wants,
> not what you think he wants."
It's even better if you can "teach" users what they
want, or make them believe that what you're delivering
_is_ what they want.
A friend once told me: The art in sales is _not_ to
sell the customer what he wants, but what he _needs_,
and do this in a way that he finally says: Hey, that's
exactly what I wanted.
> You are never going to satisfy every
> conceivable user, so concentrate on the core users.
This is fully correct.
> Microsoft has done
> that extremely well. On the latest Windows 7, getting wireless up and
> running is the most effortless thing I have done in awhile. Windows
> does everything but fill in the password. On FreeBSD, well lets just
> say if that even if they had a driver for the wireless card I have
> installed, getting it up and running would be another matter. Correct
> me if I am wrong, but even "network manager" is not available on
> FreeBSD is it? I have not checked in awhile. I know that there are some
> programs listed, but none of them work as seamlessly as Microsoft's.
Again, fully agree, but also it's not important for me,
luckily. :-)
> It
> is a basic truism in any business that in order to beat your rival, you
> have to produce a better product or one that costs less and
> still maintains the same basic usability.
It's not about creating the product, it's about _selling_
it, as creating (research development, testing and so on)
does _cost_ money, while only selling it _brings_ money.
It's just about how good you get your investitions going.
> Simply creating a free product
> that is not as usable is not enough.
Even if it's a proprietary product, your statement is
true, just see what has happened to OS/2 or BeOS.
> If you cannot accomplish that,
> then at least try to create the illusion of it. FreeBSD has failed at
> the goal also.
Not delivering an illusion, even for free, and instead
keeping up truth is not that bad. Better say: "No, this
product isn't compatible" or "Support is there, but you
have to do it manually" is a honest statement at last.
> OS/2 was IBM's fault from the beginning. They insisted that it be tied
> to the 286 processor.
I think OS/2 was present up to the Pentium lines of processors,
still being compatible with the basic x86 architectures.
On one hand, OS/2 did perform quite well, and even ran
DOS and "Windows" program in "almost real parallel" which
"WIndows" never got working. On the other hand, many
applications required by users were not present, and
the GUI was, compared to "Windows '95", quite "old looking".
Sometimes within the 90's, OS/2 even came preinstalled
on PCs, just as "Windows" comes today. IBM was always
famous for their "funny price tags", so OS/2 was very
quickly considered "too expensive".
> As with any product, first impressions are
> crucial. Their first one failed.
Even though the first impression is not a judged statement
born out of properly using educated thinking and concluding,
it's the most _important_ for further decisions.
> Unfortunately, so many FOSS pundits
> have not learned this simple lesson.
Sadly, I can even confirm this, by the example of KDE,
which I _thought_ I had installed in the German language
variant. Still, there were too many english error messages
and programs that didn't obey the language setting, and
many software was that sloppily translated that it was a
pain to use that. In this regards, Gnome seemed to be much
more quality.
In the FOSS development, from time to time you can encounter
programs that exactly match your statement. They are of such
a bad quality (both in implementation and in use) that you
will very quickly stop using them - and move on. Luckily,
nearly no program is free of alternatives. You just have to
invest the time (and therefor sometimes the money) to find
out what works for you. Or you rely on advertising telling
you, often resulting in a scary nightmare - the thing that
happens when you recognize that you've been fooled, like:
"What? No support? You mean I have to buy a new PC _and_
a new printer? I just bought _that_ stuff for 2000$, and
you tell me it's already useless?" (I've seen similar
situations in business contexts many times.)
> From Wikipedia:
>
> OS/2 1.x targeted the 80286 processor: IBM insisted on supporting the
> Intel 80286 processor, with its 16-bit segmented memory mode, due to
> commitments made to customers who had purchased many 80286-based PS/2's
> because of IBM's promises surrounding OS/2.[16] Until release 2.0 in
> April 1992, OS/2 ran in 16-bit protected mode and therefore could not
> benefit from the Intel 80386's much simpler 32-bit flat memory model
> and virtual 8086 mode features. This was especially painful in
> providing support for DOS applications. While, in 1988, Windows/386 2.1
> could run several cooperatively multitasked DOS applications, including
> expanded memory (EMS) emulation, OS/2 1.3, released in 1991, was still
> limited to one 640KB "DOS box".
But read further until OS/2 Warp. This was the last half-way
important release.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Polytropon
> In short, some people chase the newest shiniest thing. Others prefer to
> stick with what works. Often, the newest shiniest folks, after they've
> gained some wisdom, move to the other camp. So you could well see a
> resurgence of BSD as Linux admins who've grown tired of its quirks but have
> gained some unix skills start moving back toward the BSD side.
And to add this:
Sometimes, it's the "old guys" with their "outdated knowledge"
and "strange systems" that keep the obsoleted programs of the
shiny boxes on artificial life support, so that those who are
used to rely on that software that includes a "self destruct
mechanism" (see: planned obsolescense) can carry on using it,
believing it "just works" and "is everything that exists". :-)
Sadly, modern Linusi often don't encourage the user to gain
knowledge. Understandable - why should they? It's about "just
using", not about knowing anything, as (successfully) propagated
by the marketing mechanisms of other systems. The knowledge
you need to do work often is short-term knowledge: it's
useless as soon as a new product comes out, simply because
the new product "does everything better".
That's why you don't find a "perfect product", as you could
sell this one just ONCE. But just imagine you could sell a
car that never fails. When the market is saturated, you
don't sell anything anymore. So all the quirks, mistakes,
problems and bugs in a product do benefit the selling process
of the next product - which of course is promoted to be
"free of bugs" (like its predecessor was, and its successor
will be). And in regards of software, such a product would
be limited to a specific hardware platform, preventing any
improvements, maybe even hindering new innovative and useful
products entering the market.
Bruce Ferrell
> --On July 18, 2011 2:44:15 PM -0500 Gary Gatten <Gga...@waddell.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've always been curious why "Linux" seemed to take off so fast when
>> other FOSS / non Winblow$ OS's were available for some time with not
>> much
>> traction; OS/2, BeOS, *nix with X11, etc.
>>
>> Not just on the desktop, but servers as well. "Supported" versions of
>> Linux such as RHEL, Suse, etc. seem to have made more headway into the
>> enterprise computing environment in the last ten years than *BSD did in
>> the last 30.
>>
> to stick with what works. Often, the newest shiniest folks, after
> they've gained some wisdom, move to the other camp. So you could well
> see a resurgence of BSD as Linux admins who've grown tired of its
> quirks but have gained some unix skills start moving back toward the
> BSD side.
>
386BSD was a glimmer of articles in Dr Dobbs I and a lot of other *IX
enthusiasts dutifully compiled what was given us. Among us there was a
young Finnish student who want to contribute... And wasn't allowed. SO
he went on to create this new thing that accepted contributions from
anyone just so the code hung together. He called it Linux as a sort of
pun on the then prevelent training system called MINIX. Because it
accept contributions from anyone who could code or test, it gained
enormous popularity. It wasn't exclusive.
*BSD to this day still suffers from it's exclusive attitude to this very
day. You can find the attitude in it's developers as evidenced by
fairly recent posting from lead developers says (or words to this
effect) BSD is for developers and we don't care what the desktop users want.
This isn't intended as a flame, just a historical recounting. If you
want to know what's wrong (and in my opinion Lennert is every bit as
wrong in the same exact way) look inward.
Jerome Herman
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:44:15 -0500
> Gary Gatten articulated:
>
>>
>> I've always been curious why "Linux" seemed to take off so fast when
>> other FOSS / non Winblow$ OS's were available for some time with not
>> much traction; OS/2, BeOS, *nix with X11, etc.
>>
>> Not just on the desktop, but servers as well. "Supported" versions
>> of Linux such as RHEL, Suse, etc. seem to have made more headway into
>> the enterprise computing environment in the last ten years than *BSD
>> did in the last 30.
> not what you think he wants."
me what you want, I will give you what you asked."
I did this only once, some stupid foe in management asked me to activate
and send him every little warning of anything that would happen to the
production servers.
I advise against it, but he insisted, I then stubbornly refused and he
threaten to have me fired.
So I activated the every thing SNMP trap I could think of and forwarded
him. In the first hour, even before any backup or maintenance operation,
he received about 10 000 mails.
> You are never going to satisfy every
> that extremely well. On the latest Windows 7, getting wireless up and
> running is the most effortless thing I have done in awhile.
disconnect/reconnect operations if by any chance you sit between two AP,
you will learn new meanings for pain if your wifi is not natively
supported by windows.
Most of the time Windows wifi management, and closed vendors wifi
management do not get along too well. True there were huge progress made
in Windows 7, but honestly I still do prefer the FreeBSD approach were I
can choose my AP once and for all.
> Windows
> does everything but fill in the password. On FreeBSD, well lets just
> say if that even if they had a driver for the wireless card I have
> installed, getting it up and running would be another matter. Correct
> me if I am wrong, but even "network manager" is not available on
> FreeBSD is it?
I never saw the use of the tool "network manager" under Linux. Very
honestly I turn it off and remove it as soon as I can. The only thing it
ever did to me is giving headaches.
FreeBSD forces you to pick your wireless card carefully. But it is not a
huge problem.
> I have not checked in awhile. I know that there are some
> programs listed, but none of them work as seamlessly as Microsoft's. It
> is a basic truism in any business that in order to beat your rival, you
> have to produce a better product or one that costs less and
> still maintains the same basic usability.
FreeBSD users are expected to be able to read and to use this ability.
Sure this does cut FreeBSD from quite a lot of potential users, but then
again making an OS for people who do not want to read the manual is a
very bad idea.
> Simply creating a free product
> that is not as usable is not enough. If you cannot accomplish that,
> then at least try to create the illusion of it. FreeBSD has failed at
> the goal also.
>
>> > From my personal experience - which is relatively limited - it seems
>>> applications just work on Linux? When I need to compile an app, it
>>> takes a few mins on Linux - but may take me a few weeks on FBSD.
>>> Granted someone more knowledgeable with FBSD, Compilers, etc. could
>>> do it much faster than I.
>> Anyway, if someone has a brief explanation of why Linux has
>> apparently triumphed (in so far as installed base, desktop
>> penetration, etc.) where so many others have failed (including IBM
>> with OS/2) I'd be interested in hearing those thoughts.
> OS/2 was IBM's fault from the beginning. They insisted that it be tied
> to the 286 processor. Gates attempted to talk them out of it in a
> famous meeting in Armonk, NY. IBM refused and effectively wrote it's own
> death sentence with OS/2. As with any product, first impressions are
> crucial. Their first one failed. Unfortunately, so many FOSS pundits
> have not learned this simple lesson.
>
> From Wikipedia:
>
> OS/2 1.x targeted the 80286 processor: IBM insisted on supporting the
> Intel 80286 processor, with its 16-bit segmented memory mode, due to
> commitments made to customers who had purchased many 80286-based PS/2's
> because of IBM's promises surrounding OS/2.[16] Until release 2.0 in
> April 1992, OS/2 ran in 16-bit protected mode and therefore could not
> benefit from the Intel 80386's much simpler 32-bit flat memory model
> and virtual 8086 mode features. This was especially painful in
> providing support for DOS applications. While, in 1988, Windows/386 2.1
> could run several cooperatively multitasked DOS applications, including
> expanded memory (EMS) emulation, OS/2 1.3, released in 1991, was still
> limited to one 640KB "DOS box".
>
>
_______________________________________________
per...@pluto.rain.com
> We are pleased to announce a call for project proposals.
> We will accept proposals until February 15th. Please
> read Project Proposal Procedures to find out what
> needs to be included in your proposal.
> *end quote*
>
> Is this not what you want?
This seems to be a mechanism for a developer, who is seeking funding
to develop a particular feature or capability, to seek support from
the Foundation. Not quite the same thing as someone who needs a
particular feature or capability developed, and is willing to fund
(or help fund) the development, seeking a developer to do the work.
Gary Gatten
This may get me flamed (probably will) but I'm wondering what the relationship is between FreeBSD and PC-BSD? PERHAPS if they were to somehow join forces, share development load, etc. and "unify" the FreeBSD offerings under one roof; ie: PC-BSD and SERVER-BSD.
I believe several flavors of Linux have successfully done this. Perhaps for licensing reasons more than technical, but nonetheless there were two offerings each focused on either a desktop or server deployment strategy.
Just a thought. I'm not married to any particular OS - it's a tool and I use what suites my needs best. I enjoy FreeBSD and like what it stands for - I would like to see it grow; both technically and in popularity.
Now, if only FreeBSD could find a mascot that didn't offend me so much...
G
PS: yes, I'm being sarcastic about being offended; referring to threads that pop up on occasion re "Beastie"
<font size="1">
<div style='border:none;border-bottom:double windowtext 2.25pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'>
</div>
"This email is intended to be reviewed by only the intended recipient
and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any review, use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of this email
and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by
return email and delete this email from your system."
</font>
_______________________________________________
Jerome Herman
> <snip>
>
> This may get me flamed (probably will) but I'm wondering what the relationship is between FreeBSD and PC-BSD? PERHAPS if they were to somehow join forces, share development load, etc. and "unify" the FreeBSD offerings under one roof; ie: PC-BSD and SERVER-BSD.
FreeBSD, so it is not the same at all than what you can see with Linux
distros.
PC-BSD offers a graphical and simple installer, and an arguably easier
package system.
Also it installs KDE and automatically makes a few decisions.
You can actually just use the graphical installer in order to install a
standard FreeBSD, even if some tricky options won't be available from
the installer (but you can still run sysinstall later to activate them)
I personnally use it as an easy installer for Crypto-ZFS servers.
>
> I believe several flavors of Linux have successfully done this. Perhaps for licensing reasons more than technical, but nonetheless there were two offerings each focused on either a desktop or server deployment strategy.
>
> Just a thought. I'm not married to any particular OS - it's a tool and I use what suites my needs best. I enjoy FreeBSD and like what it stands for - I would like to see it grow; both technically and in popularity.
Well the PC-BSD layer gives a great installer, now the only thing needed
would be a great server/daemons management layer. But that is very tough
to create. Some dedicated distributions exists that do have this layer,
such as FreeNAS or PFSense. But I am not a big fan of either. The thing
is, once you get the hang of FreeBSD, you end up missing the additional
options and tweaks that an automated GUI will necessarily hide.
A FreeBSD distro with LDAP, ACL and MAC management would be nice though.
Devin Teske
> From: owner-freeb...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> ques...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Robison, Dave
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 10:53 AM
> To: freebsd-...@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore
>
> Using primarily FreeBSD, and in fact, still FreeBSD 4.11 (we are in the process of
> upgrading to 8.x now), our systems moved well over 1.6 trillion dollars in business
> to business financial transactions last year.
>
> I'd hardly call that irrelevant.
I'm with you man! That's over 10% of the current national debt ceiling!
Yet, I you and I still have co-workers that continue to claim that BSD is a toy and indeed irrelevant; even when faced with CARP, HAST, Jails, ZFS, and other great features that don't exist on any other operating system.
I say to Mr. Poettering and our similarly-hethenistic brethren that:
Just because BSD isn't relevant to you, surely you are irrelevant to BSD.
...and...
Don't you worry your pretty little head about the nasty (and totally irrelevant) BSD [[tounge in cheek]]. That beastie won't bother you any more ** until it's time to overtake your market share (muahaha).
--
Devin
>
>
>
> On 07/17/2011 04:10, Jerry wrote:
> > While I usually consider Slashdot nothing more than a bunch of
> > juveniles ranting against Microsoft; however, I did find this rather
> > interesting post this morning.
> >
> > "Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore"
> >
> > <http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/11/07/16/0020243/Lennart-Poettering-BSD
> > -Isnt-Relevant-Anymore>
> >
> > Interestingly enough, a great deal of it is true. It might be
> > interesting to know how others feel about it. Obviously, asking that
> > question on this forum is like playing against a stacked deck;
> > however, it still might prove interesting.
> >
>
>
> --
> Dave Robison
> Sales Solution Architect II
> FIS Banking Solutions
> 510/621-2089 (w)
> 530/518-5194 (c)
> 510/621-2020 (f)
> da...@vicor.com
> david....@fisglobal.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ________
> The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies;
> (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify
> the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message
> addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than
> the intended recipient. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"
_____________
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
_____________
Mario Lobo
First of all, forgive me for top posting but I don't want to "disturb" the
debate between Jerry and Polytropon. In fact, I enjoyed it so much that I
saved it in separate folder. It is just plain good reading, not only because
of the issue at hand, but also because of the elegance and intelligence of the
arguments presented by each of them, and because it was delightful to notice
how their cultural backgrounds influence their presentations, to the point
where even when using "harsh words" didn't carry offense.
I firmly believe that this is why FreeBSD exists. Because it is backed up by
people of this caliber, whether as users or developers. Even the trolls and
flame wars here (not in NO way implying that this thread was one!) make more
intelligent and enjoyable reading than in any other forum I go.
In my humble user opinion, that is why FreeBSD is more than relevant. To me,
at least, is indispensable, both as a tool and as a reference for every other
OS in existence. I am not arguing here that my preference is "better" than
anybody else's. FreeBSD itself is wide enough to fit a huge number of them.
This universe expands even more if you add the other BSDs.
This is just a thank-you note and for sharing a simple permanent feeling of
relief for having made a good choice.
The only offense that keeps coming back is the post's subject.
Best regards,
--
Mario Lobo
http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br
FreeBSD since 2.2.8 [not Pro-Audio.... YET!!] (99% winblows FREE)
--
Mario Lobo
http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br
FreeBSD since 2.2.8 [not Pro-Audio.... YET!!] (99% winblows FREE)
Jerry
Polytropon articulated:
> Your TV example is very good. I've recently read a text
> that predicts the future of CDs - a text from the late 80's.
> When we consider what we are _currently_ using, the text
> predicting "no important future for CDs" looks quite funny.
You are undoubtedly familiar with the 1986 quote:
"I think there is a world market for about five computers" — Remark
attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board of International
Business Machines)
Now, I know you want to list Bill Gates' famous, "640K ought to be
enough for anybody." statement in 1981. The only problem with that is:
1) He denies it.
2) No credible evidence or witness exists to prove he did say it.
However, he readily admits making this one:
"I see little commercial potential for the internet for the next 10"
years." Remarks at COMDEX (November 1994), attributed in Kommunikation
erstatter transport (2009) by Karl Krarup et al.
And who can forget the this 2006 beauty by Linus Torvalds:
"Which mindset is right? Mine, of course. People who disagree with me
are by definition crazy. (Until I change my mind, when they can
suddenly become upstanding citizens. I’m flexible, and not
black-and-white.)"
Actually, and this is a matter of semantics, I am technically using
DVDs and not CDs in my machines. And as surely as night follows day,
even that will be obsoleted soon enough. Heck, Blu-ray is currently
available and the 5D DVD with 10 terabytes, approximately 2000 times
the capacity of a standard DVD is on the horizon. It seems like only
yesterday I was using 5.25" floppies. The whole point being that the
text you are alluding too may not be that far from the truth.
--
Jerry ✌
jerry...@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored.
Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Mario Lobo
Best regards,
> Your TV example is very good. I've recently read a text
> that predicts the future of CDs - a text from the late 80's.
> When we consider what we are _currently_ using, the text
> predicting "no important future for CDs" looks quite funny.
>
> > Now, if this had been a
> > FOSS project, we would still be watching B&W TV on a big 19" screen.
>
> Sometimes, the old fashioned technology is _everything_ you
> can rely on. For example in regions where you have no internet
> connection and no cell phone access, for broadcasting you
> use middlewave (AM) radio, and maybe CB for communication.
>
> Coming back to the TV example, it's still funny how industry
> continues the ongoing renewal of technology, making "images
> sharper than reality", obsoleting things by newer things that
> are supposed to be the nonplusultra, just to obsolete them
> within few years. Abandoning analog satelite TV is a good
> example, as well as terrestrial TV. There are many other
> approaches sold as nonplusultra that have vanished today.
>
> As I often say: The top technology of today is the garbage
> of tomorrow. It's just _your_ decision in how far you do
> participate in an ongoing renewal of all your stuff - and
> if you can afford to do so.
_______________________________________________
Chad Perrin
>
> I think the explanation is rather simple, "Give the user what he wants,
> conceivable user, so concentrate on the core users. Microsoft has done
> that extremely well. On the latest Windows 7, getting wireless up and
> does everything but fill in the password.
This is where we find a dividing line between users who want different
things. Yes, you turn on your Win7 laptop (or wake it up) in a coffee
shop, and it connects automagically -- in fact, you probably don't even
realize it has connected. Hopefully it connected to the coffee shop's
network, and not one of those occasional skimming networks that
masquerade as coffe shop networks and exist to harvest login data and the
like. The dividing line between two schools of thought on the matter in
this example should be obvious.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but even "network manager" is not available
> on FreeBSD is it?
That's no great loss. NetworkManager is the fifth horseman of the
Apocalinux:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=2429
If it is still not available on FreeBSD, my only comment is "Keep up the
good work." Things like NetworkManager are among the few cases where I'm
*glad* when someone locks up the source with the GPL, dissuading anyone
from importing that disaster area into an OS I like to use. Software
that makes the computer behave in a(n unproductively) non-deterministic
manner should stay in the Ubuntu and MS Windows ghettos where it belongs.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Robert Bonomi
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:01:20 -0400
> From: Jerry <je...@seibercom.net>
> Subject: Re: Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore
>
> Polytropon articulated:
>
> > that predicts the future of CDs - a text from the late 80's.
> > When we consider what we are _currently_ using, the text
> > predicting "no important future for CDs" looks quite funny.
>
>
> attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board of International
> Business Machines)
*SNICKER*
So much for your reseearch skills.
"Thomas J. Watson" _died_ in NINETEEN FIFTY SIX. If he made a remark in
1986 it would have been world-shaking news.
You are citing a 1986 .sig item from a _USENET_ posting by a Convex Computer
employee. The purported remark occurred in _1943_. *IF* it was made, it is
worth noting that, as a prediction, it _was_true_ for *TEN*YEARS*. Now,
how many other 'predictions' in the field of computing have survived _that_
long?
Reputable sources have it:
"Although Watson is well known for his alleged 1943 statement: "I think
there is a world market for maybe five computers," there is scant
evidence he made it.
There *is* 'some' evidence, albeit _not_ conclusive, that his son, "Thomas
J. Watson, Jr." said something _remotely_ related in 1953, to wit:
"But, as a result of our trip, on which we expected to get orders for
five machines, we came home with orders for 18."
Polytropon
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:31:41 +0200
> Polytropon articulated:
>
> > Your TV example is very good. I've recently read a text
> > that predicts the future of CDs - a text from the late 80's.
> > When we consider what we are _currently_ using, the text
> > predicting "no important future for CDs" looks quite funny.
>
> You are undoubtedly familiar with the 1986 quote:
>
> attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board of International
> Business Machines)
IBM has a tradition in information processing for approx. 100
years today. They've been "playing the game" from its beginning
and have always aimed at the top of the customers - those that
have no problem spending "too much" money on their technology.
But this statement is claimed to be created in 1943, not in
1886; a different article claims about such a statement from
1953. At this time, those numbers sound quite obvious. They
do _not_ sound probable for the 80's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson
See section "Famous misquote".
> Now, I know you want to list Bill Gates' famous, "640K ought to be
> enough for anybody." statement in 1981. The only problem with that is:
>
> 1) He denies it.
> 2) No credible evidence or witness exists to prove he did say it.
>
> However, he readily admits making this one:
>
> "I see little commercial potential for the internet for the next 10"
> years." Remarks at COMDEX (November 1994), attributed in Kommunikation
> erstatter transport (2009) by Karl Krarup et al.
questions 19.07.11 jerry malquoted gates; rectify :-)
It's always funny how people predict development. You
traditionally find them among politicians. They know
nothing, but can explain everything. :-)
Who would have thought, in the early days of "Windows", that
this would be a mainstream OS some day? I mean, come on, it
was worth a good laugh, nothing more, if you compared it
to what competitors had to offer: highly superior. And some
features that we take for granted in X, originated from that
"ancient platforms", still have no equivalent in today's
"Windows".
See http://toastytech.com/guis/guitimeline.html - you can
also find detailed screenshots of many GUI systems. And:
You have to move to page 2 to see the first "Windows"
here.
While "Windows" will just be a footnote in IT history (in
long term considerations), UNIX will be a philosophy. It
will probably still run the Internet when users will have
moved on to something different than "Windows"...
This is just _my_ prediction, and time will tell if I'll
have to join Watson, Gates and Torvalds. :-)
> And who can forget the this 2006 beauty by Linus Torvalds:
>
> "Which mindset is right? Mine, of course. People who disagree with me
> are by definition crazy. (Until I change my mind, when they can
> suddenly become upstanding citizens. I’m flexible, and not
> black-and-white.)"
Sound like "Everyone is free to have his own opinion - as long
as it matches mine." :-)
> Actually, and this is a matter of semantics, I am technically using
> DVDs and not CDs in my machines. And as surely as night follows day,
> even that will be obsoleted soon enough.
Of course it will, like VHS, Betamax, data tape. It's not
a question IF it will. It's just WHEN. The next question
will be: What will be NEXT? Better or worse?
Will newer materials chemically dissolve faster or slower?
Will more precise readers and writers (due to higher information
packing rate) fail more often? Will it be compensated by
cheap pricing?
Home consumers who have precious memories on VHS-C tapes,
on DV tapes or something similar will have to transition
this content to new media. They will _always_ have to do
this as long as no backwards compatibility isn't present.
If they can't do it theirselves... tadaa! Market.
Development is about creating markets, not about solving
present problems, let alone future ones. Just see what
happens in car industry: Fatter cars, more dirt, more
consumption. There's really a market for that! Unbelievable.
But it's also in IT: Fatter PCs, higher energy consumption,
slower "overall usage speed" (see one of my previous posts
for definition), higher TCO, faster "renewal".
I simply can't imagine that this is what customers want.
In many cases, customers do not even _know_ what they
want, let alone what they really NEED. And here marketing
and advertising enters the game: It tells them.
> Heck, Blu-ray is currently
> available and the 5D DVD with 10 terabytes, approximately 2000 times
> the capacity of a standard DVD is on the horizon. It seems like only
> yesterday I was using 5.25" floppies. The whole point being that the
> text you are alluding too may not be that far from the truth.
It's simply a present danger. The question is: How do _YOU_
take care for the future?
Governments, for example, don't have the problem to pay
attention to pricing. Today, they're using tape silos
with "mounting robots", but that's already being obsoleted.
Storage must be accessed faster. Solution? Disks. Many disks.
Problem: Today's disks don't run for 10 years. So what?
Copy data to new disks every two years. And copy them some
more for backup storage (one for working, at least two for
backup and archiving).
But what for the files? Currently, there's a "big problem"
in the banking and insurance sector here in Germany. They
"suddenly" got "surprised" that they can't access some
"important" data anymore. Solution? Hire COBOL programmers.
Problem? COBOL isn't "state of the art" anymore. There are
just a few programmers who are still able to properly use
that language, and _THEY_ can feeely choose their wage.
Why? Because they _CAN_! They are "living dinosaurs",
according to your terminology, and sometimes, you exclusively
need those people to get a job done, because all the modern
script-kiddies, spoiled by the nonsense in their shiny
boxes, can't do it.
And here, FreeBSD states is RELEVANCE: It can be considered
a "living dinosaur" which is quite healthy and powerful for
its age. Because of its proven ability to survive and to
accomodate changings without turning into a music box it
is highly regarded a relevant system for critical areas
where stability and continuity are absolutely required.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Polytropon
> On 19/07/2011 01:21, Gary Gatten wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > This may get me flamed (probably will) but I'm wondering what
> > the relationship is between FreeBSD and PC-BSD? PERHAPS if
> > they were to somehow join forces, share development load, etc.
> > and "unify" the FreeBSD offerings under one roof; ie: PC-BSD and SERVER-BSD.
> Basically, PC-BSD is just a layer of candy over an almost untouched
> FreeBSD, so it is not the same at all than what you can see with Linux
> distros.
PC-BSD offers a new interactive installer, and comes with KDE
preinstalled and preconfigured. There's also some autodetect
magic under the hood. On sufficiently recent hardware, it works
very well. However, its hardware requirements are _high_ above
those of a "normal" FreeBSD system.
> PC-BSD offers a graphical and simple installer, and an arguably easier
> package system.
As far as I know, the downside of the forced interactivity
is now gone, as there's also a command line tool for using
PBI packages.
Arguing... what is easier at manually locating software using
a web browser, manually downloading it and interactively
holding the installer's hand while installing software? :-)
> Also it installs KDE and automatically makes a few decisions.
> You can actually just use the graphical installer in order to install a
> standard FreeBSD, even if some tricky options won't be available from
> the installer (but you can still run sysinstall later to activate them)
The default installation works quite well, there's only few
things you need to configure (especially if you're not
comfortable with the default settings). I have some friends
being long-term PC-BSD users, it's just no _my_ cup of tea
as I don't like KDE much.
> I personnally use it as an easy installer for Crypto-ZFS servers.
The installer can even be used to install configurations that
sysinstall can't.
> > I believe several flavors of Linux have successfully done
> > this. Perhaps for licensing reasons more than technical,
> > but nonetheless there were two offerings each focused on
> > either a desktop or server deployment strategy.
But there are "mixed forms" of systems. Precisely differentiating
between "a server" and "a PC" isn't always possible. For
example, if you have a workstation that is used by more than
one user, is this a PC, a _personal_ computer anymore? Or
what if you use a laptop computer (maybe due to energy
consumption) to act as a server, and once a week you use
it as a desktop?
> > Just a thought. I'm not married to any particular OS -
> > it's a tool and I use what suites my needs best. I
> > enjoy FreeBSD and like what it stands for - I would
> > like to see it grow; both technically and in popularity.
>
> Well the PC-BSD layer gives a great installer, now the only thing needed
> would be a great server/daemons management layer.
And better german language support in KDE. :-)
> A FreeBSD distro with LDAP, ACL and MAC management would be nice though.
You could create a port that brings all this functionality
in one rush. Remember that the ports collection is more than
just about installing software - it can be used to even
bring such features to the system and configure them.
Jerome Herman
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 01:39:02 +0200, Jerome Herman wrote:
>> On 19/07/2011 01:21, Gary Gatten wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> This may get me flamed (probably will) but I'm wondering what
>>> the relationship is between FreeBSD and PC-BSD? PERHAPS if
>>> they were to somehow join forces, share development load, etc.
>>> and "unify" the FreeBSD offerings under one roof; ie: PC-BSD and SERVER-BSD.
>> Basically, PC-BSD is just a layer of candy over an almost untouched
>> FreeBSD, so it is not the same at all than what you can see with Linux
>> distros.
> PC-BSD offers a new interactive installer, and comes with KDE
> preinstalled and preconfigured. There's also some autodetect
> magic under the hood. On sufficiently recent hardware, it works
> very well. However, its hardware requirements are _high_ above
> those of a "normal" FreeBSD system.
>
>
>
>> PC-BSD offers a graphical and simple installer, and an arguably easier
>> package system.
> As far as I know, the downside of the forced interactivity
> is now gone, as there's also a command line tool for using
> PBI packages.
>
> Arguing... what is easier at manually locating software using
> a web browser, manually downloading it and interactively
> holding the installer's hand while installing software? :-)
about installing.
General management tends to be a little harder, for example if you need
a specific version of PHP-LDAP, that matches your server LDAP and your
server SASL.
Rigid packages won't allow fine grained tweaking that you might need.
A port that would reboot in single user, use tunefs to activate ACL here
and there, activate MAC and move most users to an LDAP auth ? I don't
think so.
Actually I would be scared if such a port was accepted in the port tree.
Polytropon
> On 19/07/2011 08:11, Polytropon wrote:
> > Arguing... what is easier at manually locating software using
> > a web browser, manually downloading it and interactively
> > holding the installer's hand while installing software? :-)
> Well, of course installing is easier. But package management is not just
> about installing.
Of course it's not _that_ simple. :-)
> Rigid packages won't allow fine grained tweaking that you might need.
In such cases, compiling from source seems to be the
preferred method - which is still possible on PC-BSD,
although it's often suggested to stay with PBI.
> > You could create a port that brings all this functionality
> > in one rush. Remember that the ports collection is more than
> > just about installing software - it can be used to even
> > bring such features to the system and configure them.
> A port that would reboot in single user, use tunefs to activate ACL here
> and there, activate MAC and move most users to an LDAP auth ? I don't
> think so.
> Actually I would be scared if such a port was accepted in the port tree.
In fact, that would be dangerous - especially if used
by people who have no clue about what they're doing.
What I was refering to is the ability of a meta-port
to install a selected mix of ports, apply configuration
and provide templates for common configurations. Of
course it's up to the admin to instantiate those new
functionality on the system.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Jerry
Chad Perrin articulated:
> This is where we find a dividing line between users who want different
> things. Yes, you turn on your Win7 laptop (or wake it up) in a coffee
> shop, and it connects automagically -- in fact, you probably don't
> even realize it has connected. Hopefully it connected to the coffee
> shop's network, and not one of those occasional skimming networks that
> masquerade as coffe shop networks and exist to harvest login data and
> the like. The dividing line between two schools of thought on the
> matter in this example should be obvious.
You do realize that all of that is configurable; ie, auto connect,
preferred network, etcetera. If you have not taken the time to read the
documentation and properly configure the wireless app correctly then
why bitch? I am not implying that it is perfect; however, given the
grave limitations that FreeBSD places on wireless connections;
specifically lack of drivers, and the inordinate amount of manual
intervention to accomplish what Microsoft and other OSs, (does the name
Ubuntu sound familiar) have achieved, it is readily apparent that the
FreeBSD implementation is trailing the pack.
--
Jerry ✌
jerry...@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored.
Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Jerry
Mario Lobo articulated:
> First of all, forgive me for top posting but I don't want to
> "disturb" the debate between Jerry and Polytropon. In fact, I enjoyed
> it so much that I saved it in separate folder. It is just plain good
> reading, not only because of the issue at hand, but also because of
> the elegance and intelligence of the arguments presented by each of
> them, and because it was delightful to notice how their cultural
> backgrounds influence their presentations, to the point where even
> when using "harsh words" didn't carry offense.
Ah, how sweet. You have just made my Christmas Card list. I apologize
if you are a non-Christian.
Let me clarify that statement. I am not apologizing because you might
not be a Christian, but rather for offering to place you on my
Christmas Card list if you aren't. I thought I had better make that
clear less someone with an IQ of a cockroach claims I was attacking
non-Christians.
Jerry
Robert Bonomi articulated:
>
> > Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:01:20 -0400
> > From: Jerry <je...@seibercom.net>
> > Subject: Re: Lennart Poettering: BSD Isn't Relevant Anymore
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:31:41 +0200
> > Polytropon articulated:
> >
> > > Your TV example is very good. I've recently read a text
> > > that predicts the future of CDs - a text from the late 80's.
> > > When we consider what we are _currently_ using, the text
> > > predicting "no important future for CDs" looks quite funny.
> >
> > You are undoubtedly familiar with the 1986 quote:
> >
> > "I think there is a world market for about five computers" a
> > Remark attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board of
> > International Business Machines)
>
> *SNICKER*
>
> So much for your reseearch skills.
>
> "Thomas J. Watson" _died_ in NINETEEN FIFTY SIX. If he made a
> remark in 1986 it would have been world-shaking news.
>
> You are citing a 1986 .sig item from a _USENET_ posting by a Convex
> Computer employee. The purported remark occurred in _1943_. *IF* it
> was made, it is worth noting that, as a prediction, it _was_true_ for
> *TEN*YEARS*. Now, how many other 'predictions' in the field of
> computing have survived _that_ long?
>
>
> Reputable sources have it:
> "Although Watson is well known for his alleged 1943 statement: "I
> think there is a world market for maybe five computers," there is
> scant evidence he made it.
>
> There *is* 'some' evidence, albeit _not_ conclusive, that his son,
> "Thomas J. Watson, Jr." said something _remotely_ related in 1953, to
> wit: "But, as a result of our trip, on which we expected to get
> orders for five machines, we came home with orders for 18."
Actually, the research was fine; I simple failed to include reams of
documentation, notes and citations. I felt that it would be overkill in
the given environment. I was not attempting to fulfill the duties of a
raconteur. I was simply demonstrating some of the factual or fictional
statements made by supposedly intelligent individuals over time.
Eduardo Morras
>>>A FreeBSD distro with LDAP, ACL and MAC management would be nice though.
>>in one rush. Remember that the ports collection is more than
>>just about installing software - it can be used to even
>>bring such features to the system and configure them.
>A port that would reboot in single user, use tunefs to activate ACL
>here and there, activate MAC and move most users to an LDAP auth ? I
>don't think so.
>Actually I would be scared if such a port was accepted in the port tree.
Perhaps a jail based distribution, the port creates a jail, sets acl
and mac on a new dedicated disk/slice/partition/mount point/whatever
and moves users to the ldap. Currently FreeNAS, pfsense, nor
monowall don't allow installation in a jail, it could be great.
Sam George
> While I usually consider Slashdot nothing more than a bunch of
> juveniles ranting against Microsoft; however, I did find this rather
> interesting post this morning.
>
>
>
> Interestingly enough, a great deal of it is true. It might be
> interesting to know how others feel about it. Obviously, asking that
> question on this forum is like playing against a stacked deck; however,
> it still might prove interesting.
Having come to BSD from Linux less than a month ago, I find it
interesting that the very thing, which Mr. Pottering is encouraging in
Linux development, is what has lead me to search for other options
besides Linux. Of late Linux has been loosing the 'plays well with
others award'. First they cut the .AppleDouble support from the
appletalk drivers, then they refused to let the ReiserFS code into the
kernel, and I suppose their lack of implementing ZFS is possibly same
motivation (given that they _do_ have the man power to port the code).
If they feel that they are an end-all and be-all and don't need to
support "legacy" systems, obscure hardware, or other ways of doing
things, well, I'll find another way. This thing is about Freedom, if
they cut that from their development plan, then it's time to say farewell.
Pottering seems to have forgotten, or perhaps he is too young to
remember? Linux was a 'toy OS'. And if it's too big a burden to support
'toy OS'es then Pottering is no different from the people who worked at
the big companies twenty years ago.
Getting back to the message I'm replying to, I disagree with mr
pottering's basis statements: "If Debian was my project I'd try to focus
on making (or keeping) it _professionally relevant_" -- I'll translate
this as: If it ain't business and making money, drop it. "...we want to
make sure Linux enters the mainstream all across the board." -- This
sounds like desktop systems to me, but there is much more to the world
than the shrinking market share of the desktop. UNIX was born in the
research world as a pet project to have fun -- written after hours. BSD
continued that journey toward freedom recoding the parts of UNIX that
had been stripped out by unscrupulous business dealings. Hopefully
Linux won't turn out to be an evolutionary miss-step, but...
If Kerningham and Richie were focused on staying 'professionally
relevant' UNIX would never have /existed/, and as its decedents, neither
would have BSD or Linux. Is BSD relevant? Looks like it's /essential/
given the context of the question.
Live Free.
Sam George
Michael Sierchio
distributions with support - Red Hat, SUSE, etc. The only attempts to
do this for BSD have been undercapitalized and/or half-hearted.
But I find the general premise of the discussion to be - how to say
this politely? - stupid. Things that interest me are relevant, things
that don't presumably are not, until they are.
- Michael (FreeBSD since 2.2.2)
Jerry
Michael Sierchio articulated:
> IMHO what has helped Linux is the existence of commercial
> distributions with support - Red Hat, SUSE, etc. The only attempts to
> do this for BSD have been undercapitalized and/or half-hearted.
Yes, it is hard to sell a car sans support. Giving the new owner an
instruction manual and telling him to fix it himself is not an ideal
business model.
> But I find the general premise of the discussion to be - how to say
> this politely? - stupid.
Ah, such fine manners.
> Things that interest me are relevant, things that don't presumably
> are not, until they are.
Now that I will agree with, unless I don't. :)
--
Jerry ✌
jerry...@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored.
Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Mario Lobo
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:33:01 -0300
>
> Mario Lobo articulated:
> > First of all, forgive me for top posting but I don't want to
> > "disturb" the debate between Jerry and Polytropon. In fact, I enjoyed
> > it so much that I saved it in separate folder. It is just plain good
> > reading, not only because of the issue at hand, but also because of
> > the elegance and intelligence of the arguments presented by each of
> > them, and because it was delightful to notice how their cultural
> > backgrounds influence their presentations, to the point where even
> > when using "harsh words" didn't carry offense.
>
> Ah, how sweet. You have just made my Christmas Card list. I apologize
> if you are a non-Christian.
>
> Let me clarify that statement. I am not apologizing because you might
> not be a Christian, but rather for offering to place you on my
> Christmas Card list if you aren't.
Well, no apologies needed!. I am truly honored to be in your Christmas card
list, even if I was not a Christian, though that doesn't necessarily means
that I am a Christian, at least in the pagan sense of the word (i.e. - what
non-believers/atheists/whatever think a Christian is), or even in the
non-pagan sense.
Anyway, consider your offer mutual.
> I thought I had better make that
> clear less someone with an IQ of a cockroach claims I was attacking
> non-Christians.
Gook thinking! So, "apologies accepted", just in case a non-Christian moron
shows up.
--
Mario Lobo
http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br
FreeBSD since 2.2.8 [not Pro-Audio.... YET!!] (99% winblows FREE)
Chad Perrin
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:21:31 -0600
> Chad Perrin articulated:
>
> > This is where we find a dividing line between users who want different
> > things. Yes, you turn on your Win7 laptop (or wake it up) in a coffee
> > shop, and it connects automagically -- in fact, you probably don't
> > even realize it has connected. Hopefully it connected to the coffee
> > shop's network, and not one of those occasional skimming networks that
> > masquerade as coffe shop networks and exist to harvest login data and
> > the like. The dividing line between two schools of thought on the
> > matter in this example should be obvious.
>
> You do realize that all of that is configurable; ie, auto connect,
> preferred network, etcetera. If you have not taken the time to read the
> documentation and properly configure the wireless app correctly then
> why bitch? I am not implying that it is perfect; however, given the
> grave limitations that FreeBSD places on wireless connections;
> specifically lack of drivers, and the inordinate amount of manual
> intervention to accomplish what Microsoft and other OSs, (does the name
> Ubuntu sound familiar) have achieved, it is readily apparent that the
> FreeBSD implementation is trailing the pack.
If you turn off the automation that connects you to networks you do not
want, you turn off the "advantage" you suggest FreeBSD needs.
Chad Perrin
>
> Having come to BSD from Linux less than a month ago, I find it
> interesting that the very thing, which Mr. Pottering is encouraging in
> Linux development, is what has lead me to search for other options
> besides Linux. Of late Linux has been loosing the 'plays well with
> others award'. First they cut the .AppleDouble support from the
> appletalk drivers, then they refused to let the ReiserFS code into the
> kernel, and I suppose their lack of implementing ZFS is possibly same
> motivation (given that they _do_ have the man power to port the code).
Actually, as I understand it, the reason the Linux community has had
trouble integrating ZFS is licensing. That's a major downside of
copyleft licensing: most copyleft licenses (GPL, CDDL, et cetera) are
mutually incompatible. Because the FreeBSD kernel is BSD licensed, and
the Linux kernel is GPLed, it is easier to get ZFS working legally with
the BSD kernel in a distributable form than with the Linux kernel.
I'm a little iffy on the details, though. I have not looked into the
matter in any depth, and may have misstated myself a bit.
>
> If Kerningham and Richie were focused on staying 'professionally
> relevant' UNIX would never have /existed/, and as its decedents, neither
> would have BSD or Linux. Is BSD relevant? Looks like it's /essential/
> given the context of the question.
In general, I think you make good points, and like this wrap-up of yours.
I just wanted to point out a little-recognized detail of the benefit of
BSD Unix systems over GPLed systems, once you (sorta inadvertently)
brought up one of the effects of that difference.
Jerry
Chad Perrin articulated:
> If you turn off the automation that connects you to networks you do
> not want, you turn off the "advantage" you suggest FreeBSD needs.
Maybe its a language thing; however, I am not comprehending what you
are trying got say.
You would, or at least I would, limit the networks I want to
automatically connect to. That can be as few as one, or none if you
simply disable it entirely.
FreeBSD suffers from unneeded user intervention in order to configure
the device, assuming (and that is a large assumption) that a driver
is available for said device. In the case of "N" protocol devices, the
chances of one being available ate moot to none.
--
Jerry ✌
jerry...@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored.
Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Polytropon
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:21:31 -0600
> Chad Perrin articulated:
>
> > This is where we find a dividing line between users who want different
> > things. Yes, you turn on your Win7 laptop (or wake it up) in a coffee
> > shop, and it connects automagically -- in fact, you probably don't
> > even realize it has connected. Hopefully it connected to the coffee
> > shop's network, and not one of those occasional skimming networks that
> > masquerade as coffe shop networks and exist to harvest login data and
> > the like. The dividing line between two schools of thought on the
> > matter in this example should be obvious.
>
> You do realize that all of that is configurable; ie, auto connect,
> preferred network, etcetera. If you have not taken the time to read the
> documentation and properly configure the wireless app correctly then
> why bitch? I am not implying that it is perfect; however, given the
> grave limitations that FreeBSD places on wireless connections;
> specifically lack of drivers, and the inordinate amount of manual
> intervention to accomplish what Microsoft and other OSs, (does the name
> Ubuntu sound familiar) have achieved, it is readily apparent that the
> FreeBSD implementation is trailing the pack.
Want it like this? :-) ---> http://xkcd.com/416/
But coming back on topic (partially): What's missing in
my opinion is a system-provided user land program or
script for interacting with the driver and the settings
(as well as with "templates" for automated setup). There
_are_ however tools provided by the "big ones" (the big
desktop environments KDE, Gnome, maybe Xfce, haven't
checked) to help configuring wireless adaptors. Of
course this only applies where they are supported by
the OS.
A program I could imagine would be something like the
ppp control program that other programs, typically GUI
ones, could interface with, just as gmencoder interfaces
with the incredible power of mencoder, or gmplayer adds
lots of stuff at the GUI front to the one-size-fits-all
fantastic mplayer. So all DEs or programmers who are
interested in providing a setup tool could interface
with that specific program. So they don't have to
implement "low level things" on their own or even care
for supporting particular adaptors. This tool could
also be integrated in the FreeBSD startup system, and
maybe even activated at pre-install time, so you could
install via Internet, where Internet is provided by a
wireless adaptor that got setup automatically. This
would _also_ have the advantage of providing an
abstraction layer that was OPTIONAL, and if you really
need a better implementation (from a developer's point
of view), you can still do it on your own, interfacing
with the standard system means.
Jerry, see this as an "I agree" in relation to your
statement, given the comment that wireless isn't
relevant to _me_ at the moment. :-)
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Chad Perrin
>
> Want it like this? :-) ---> http://xkcd.com/416/
That's exactly what I don't want. That is (an exaggeration of) what
NetworkManager is trying to do and, predictably, it fails sometimes, just
as MS Windows' automated network configuration stuff fails sometimes. By
"fails" I don't mean something like "it won't connect if there isn't a
network". I mean that its primary purpose is to try to guess what the
user wants based on the developers' mental model of what users want, then
tries to make it happen -- and, too often, the developers' mental model
of what users want does not match up with the reality. Users, and their
circumstances, are not always the same.
In fact, these damned automated wireless management tools are so focused
on trying to provide what the developers expect people to do that they
often interfere with one's ability to tell them "No, I don't want you to
do that, do something else." Work-arounds for some cases do exist, but
they are often ludicrously wrong in principle (like blacklisting a
particular network) so that they create too much fiddly overhead in
practice, or inconsistently effective, or otherwise problematic.
Automation is great when it takes a back seat to serving the individual's
needs/desires, allowing itself to be overridden in simple, obvious ways.
When it does not, it sucks. To do the former, all the developers of
automated network management tools on Linux-based systems had to do is
ensure there was a manually configured, manually operated command line
toolset for network management and build automation around that.
Instead, these idiots built automated toolsets from the ground up, then
tried to add manual override capabilities into these toolsets after the
fact as exceptions to the rule. In short, they followed the MS Windows
approach, and what they ended up with was tools that not only emulate the
"pick a network, any network" default behavior of MS Windows network
management, but also emulate its apparently non-deterministic behavior,
doing different things at different times for the same evident inputs,
and fighting the user's actual needs and desires at times.
In fact, the NetworkManager set of network management tools has in some
ways outdone the stupidities of MS Windows network management. "Hey,
this is stupid, but it's not stupid enough. We can do 'better'."
This is the kind of crap I do *not* want to see make its way into FreeBSD
from the Linux world, and it's why I said I'm okay with tools like
NetworkManager being released under restrictive licensing that makes it
less likely to be harvested for ideas by OS projects like FreeBSD. The
day some asinine automated network selection line of crap like
NetworkManager makes its way into the FreeBSD base system is probably the
day I stop using it.
Polytropon
> I mean that its primary purpose is to try to guess what the
> user wants based on the developers' mental model of what users want, then
> tries to make it happen -- and, too often, the developers' mental model
> of what users want does not match up with the reality. Users, and their
> circumstances, are not always the same.
This is the _main_ problem: Because users are
different, you cannot guess what "they" want,
as there are too many of them, with very different
habits and expectations.
To give an illustration:
When printing from within Gimp, I get a message
that it "could not connect to the server", which
refers to the use of CUPS's lp* command. I don't
have CUPS installed, but it seems to be hardcoded
in Gimp to try to access it. Why? Maybe the majority
of users uses CUPS - possible. Older versions of
Gimp didn't have that bug, and: No, it's NOT a
feature. So why have some developers made things
more complicated?
Another example is a bug (in terms of annoying
and useless interruption of work flow for _no_
benefits) seen in Gtk2's file dialogs. Let's say
you are using Sylpheed mail client and want to
attach a file. Instead of manually clicking
through a file list or hierarchy, you can enter
the name. Sounds very comfortable. Let's also
say you have a file "bla.txt" you want to attach
which is in a directory /home/bla/bigdir/small/bla.txt
where bigdir contains 3000 or more files. But you
don't want one of that files. What happens? You
start typing /home/bla/bigdir/sm... hello? Erm...
what... the dialog STOPS and you can continue
typing as soon as all files that you are NOT
interested in have been listed. This may take
several seconds, depending on file count.
Why is this? The program "knows better" than me!
Properly implemented file dialogs allow you to
confirm a directory change before reading that
directory (instad of all directory on the way
to the one you want). The list should be populated
only if you _intend_ to use it. But... HOW to
communicate _that_ to the system is... well, the
developer thinks: "I'll make sure we read every
directory, just to be sure, even if it won't be
used."
Meanwhile, I have to even use xrandr to make X.org
do what XFree86 could to in the past: Run a 21" CRT
at 1400x1050 (and _not_ just 1024x768 without
stopping the whole system).
So much for the glory of prediction and autodetection. :-)
> In fact, these damned automated wireless management tools are so focused
> on trying to provide what the developers expect people to do that they
> often interfere with one's ability to tell them "No, I don't want you to
> do that, do something else."
This is commonly the situation when the autodetect
magic does _not_ work. You can also see that in X
given some specific (often older) hardware that you
need to manually setup. NEED TO, because the automated
approach doesn't work. As soon as you have the change
to actually OVERRIDE this automation, it's okay, but
as soon as you have to start FIGHTING the automation
in order to make the system do what YOU want, something's
terribly wrong.
> Automation is great when it takes a back seat to serving the individual's
> needs/desires, allowing itself to be overridden in simple, obvious ways.
> When it does not, it sucks.
Very true. Even if automation is the preferred default,
it's not _always_ welcome.
> To do the former, all the developers of
> automated network management tools on Linux-based systems had to do is
> ensure there was a manually configured, manually operated command line
> toolset for network management and build automation around that.
In my opinion, that would be the ideal approach: Easier
for building ON that working basis, and working WITHOUT
anything built upon it.
> [...] non-deterministic behavior,
> doing different things at different times for the same evident inputs,
> and fighting the user's actual needs and desires at times.
That's the WORST thing imaginable for anybody who is
using a computer with his own brain in a working condition...
> In fact, the NetworkManager set of network management tools has in some
> ways outdone the stupidities of MS Windows network management. "Hey,
> this is stupid, but it's not stupid enough. We can do 'better'."
I think this is an attitude today very often found
among developers. They just don't want to be _like_
MICROS~1, they want to be "better" in order to convince
users to use their programs. Therefore they believe
that in order to gain access to the majority (!) of
users, they need to dumb down everything. Professional
users are therefore traditionally out of scope.
> This is the kind of crap I do *not* want to see make its way into FreeBSD
> from the Linux world, and it's why I said I'm okay with tools like
> NetworkManager being released under restrictive licensing that makes it
> less likely to be harvested for ideas by OS projects like FreeBSD.
You already have "good" examples in the ports collection
(see my examples above). Luckily, for doing that on OS level,
it takes much more.
Jerry
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:56:42AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> >
> > Want it like this? :-) ---> http://xkcd.com/416/
>
> That's exactly what I don't want. That is (an exaggeration of) what
> NetworkManager is trying to do and, predictably, it fails sometimes,
> just as MS Windows' automated network configuration stuff fails
> sometimes. By "fails" I don't mean something like "it won't connect
> if there isn't a network". I mean that its primary purpose is to try
> to guess what the user wants based on the developers' mental model of
> what users want, then tries to make it happen -- and, too often, the
> developers' mental model of what users want does not match up with
> the reality. Users, and their circumstances, are not always the same.
>
> In fact, these damned automated wireless management tools are so
> focused on trying to provide what the developers expect people to do
> that they often interfere with one's ability to tell them "No, I
> don't want you to do that, do something else." Work-arounds for some
> cases do exist, but they are often ludicrously wrong in principle
> (like blacklisting a particular network) so that they create too much
> fiddly overhead in practice, or inconsistently effective, or
> otherwise problematic.
>
> Automation is great when it takes a back seat to serving the
> individual's needs/desires, allowing itself to be overridden in
> simple, obvious ways. When it does not, it sucks. To do the former,
> all the developers of automated network management tools on
> Linux-based systems had to do is ensure there was a manually
> configured, manually operated command line toolset for network
> management and build automation around that. Instead, these idiots
> built automated toolsets from the ground up, then tried to add manual
> override capabilities into these toolsets after the fact as
> exceptions to the rule. In short, they followed the MS Windows
> approach, and what they ended up with was tools that not only emulate
> the "pick a network, any network" default behavior of MS Windows
> network management, but also emulate its apparently non-deterministic
> behavior, doing different things at different times for the same
> evident inputs, and fighting the user's actual needs and desires at
> times.
>
> In fact, the NetworkManager set of network management tools has in
> some ways outdone the stupidities of MS Windows network management.
> "Hey, this is stupid, but it's not stupid enough. We can do
> 'better'."
>
> This is the kind of crap I do *not* want to see make its way into
> FreeBSD from the Linux world, and it's why I said I'm okay with tools
> like NetworkManager being released under restrictive licensing that
> makes it less likely to be harvested for ideas by OS projects like
> FreeBSD. The day some asinine automated network selection line of
> crap like NetworkManager makes its way into the FreeBSD base system
> is probably the day I stop using it.
Stop using what, FreeBSD or NetworkManager?
You do realize that no one is forcing you to use any networking tool
in either MS Windows or FreeBSD? By default there is none available in
FBSD, and the Window's applications can either be configured to your
own liking (well maybe not you own specifications since you have not
specified any) or simply deactivated. You could start here:
<http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Enable-or-disable-network-discovery>.
Chad, I have read through several of your posts and agreeing with some.
However, I have come to the conclusion that you seem to exhibit a form
of "Forward Bias" in regards to newer technology. What if, and that is a
big "IF", a suitable tool and I am not specifying "NetworkManager"
either were to be written for or ported to FBSD that would make the
discovery of networks as simple and remove the tedious and often faulty
process of manually configuring a network? If the tool was not on by
default as Microsoft's is, how could that possible offend you?
By the way, both I and I would believe the named developers would be
offended by your "Fallacy of sweeping generalization" you choose to
throw at them. You equate your feelings of hated for automation as
being shared by all users. Obviously that is grossly inaccurate. You are
smarter than that, so why make such a sweeping and inaccurate remark.
Dinosaurs are dead and the world moves forward. To deny others the
availability and use of newer methods simply because they frighten you
is beyond belief.
--
Jerry ✌
jerry...@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored.
Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Chad Perrin
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:58:26 -0600 Chad Perrin articulated:
> >
> > some ways outdone the stupidities of MS Windows network management.
> > "Hey, this is stupid, but it's not stupid enough. We can do
> > 'better'."
> >
> > This is the kind of crap I do *not* want to see make its way into
> > FreeBSD from the Linux world, and it's why I said I'm okay with tools
> > like NetworkManager being released under restrictive licensing that
> > makes it less likely to be harvested for ideas by OS projects like
> > FreeBSD. The day some asinine automated network selection line of
> > crap like NetworkManager makes its way into the FreeBSD base system
> > is probably the day I stop using it.
>
> Stop using what, FreeBSD or NetworkManager?
Seriously? It should be obvious that the day FreeBSD pushes me to use
NetworkManager is the day I stop using FreeBSD -- because I already try
to avoid NetworkManager at every opportunity.
>
> You do realize that no one is forcing you to use any networking tool in
> either MS Windows or FreeBSD? By default there is none available in
> FBSD, and the Window's applications can either be configured to your
> own liking (well maybe not you own specifications since you have not
> specified any) or simply deactivated. You could start here:
> <http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Enable-or-disable-network-discovery>.
Do you realize that some Linux distributions have actually gutted the
support for their non-automated network configuration capabilities as the
world moves toward NetworkManager?
Do you realize that MS Windows has nothing equivalent to rc.conf or
/etc/network/interfaces?
I suspect you do not realize this, or you wouldn't have asked me such a
stupid question.
. . . and do you realize that I never said automated network management
tools were available on FreeBSD by default at all? Of course not. You
are not reading my emails to understand them. You're skimming them for
excuses to attack straw men that have little or nothing to do with what I
actually said.
Disabling "network discovery" in MS Windows does not disable all the
stupid assumptions the network management system makes about how people
use networking, by the way -- and, as I said in an earlier email,
disabling a poorly designed automated system does not solve the problem
of it being poorly designed. It just eliminates the supposed benefits of
using systems with poorly designed automated systems along with the
detriments.
>
> Chad, I have read through several of your posts and agreeing with some.
> However, I have come to the conclusion that you seem to exhibit a form
> of "Forward Bias" in regards to newer technology. What if, and that is
> a big "IF", a suitable tool and I am not specifying "NetworkManager"
> either were to be written for or ported to FBSD that would make the
> discovery of networks as simple and remove the tedious and often faulty
> process of manually configuring a network? If the tool was not on by
> default as Microsoft's is, how could that possible offend you?
I do not dislike new technology. I love new technology, when it's
technology that solves a problem and does so without creating additional
problems. NetworkManager is not such a new technology. It's basically
just a new, user-obsequious, expert-hostile interface to very old
technology. I have found myself in the unenviable position of having to
use NetworkManager because the core networking tools of old on a given
Linux-based OS do not work properly any longer, neglected in the wake of
the arrival of NetworkManager as the preferred default network management
toolset. The problem is that in the past I was able to write a couple of
simple scripts to automate network management in a way that suited my
needs, but now NetworkManager has actually made things much worse.
Now, I have to install special tools that sit on top of NetworkManager to
give me a reasonably scriptable interface to NetworkManager, because I
then have to write much more complex scripts that futz around with
NetworkManager's BS in order to force it to do what I actually want my
network to do -- and the end result is that, for my purposes, it is
*less* automated overall than the simpler scripts I used to use, and
requires a metric tone of extra garbage libraries and applications
installed.
A "suitable tool" would be great, but *nobody* is writing suitable tools.
Everyone is writing horribly unsuitable tools, then neglecting or even
deprecating the tools that actually work in a reliable, easily scriptable
manner in favor of these newer, less suitable tools.
The tool may not be on by default, but from what I've seen the tendency
is to make shit simply not work even as well without the stupid-ass tool
as they do *with* it -- which is shockingly poorly.
>
> By the way, both I and I would believe the named developers would be
> offended by your "Fallacy of sweeping generalization" you choose to
> throw at them. You equate your feelings of hated for automation as
> being shared by all users. Obviously that is grossly inaccurate. You
> are smarter than that, so why make such a sweeping and inaccurate
> remark.
I'm frankly less than impressed with the sensitivities of people whose
work has rendered OSes I used to use quite simply and easily to get real
work done almost unusable in the several years I have not used them
regularly. Screw them. If anyone has a right to be offended here, it's
the guy who ended up having to install NetworkManager to get networking
to work worth a damn at all -- and even then, it requires a crapton of
extra work to get limping, and all it does is limp.
I don't hate automation. I love automation -- as long as it's not the
automation of the Sorcerer's Apprentice (Disney animation, not recent
Nicholas Cage movie), where a bunch of mops start multiplying and
flooding the basement. Automation, like any other tool, has to be
well-designed to be worth the trouble. In fact, when it is poorly
designed, automation can multiply the effects of otherwise very minor
negatives, resulting in life getting a lot more difficult.
I love automation. I loathe *bad* automation that makes my life hell.
. . . and I do not equate my feelings with those of all others.
Obviously, if everybody shared my feelings, this shit wouldn't happen.
There are legions of people who don't care if their laptops connect to
MITM networks and hand over the keys to their financial kingdoms as long
as they get connected to Facebook, but that doesn't mean that all the
automation tools in the world should facilitate that stupidity in the
occasional case of someone like me who would like to do things a little
differently.
The question is not why I made a sweeping and inaccurate remark about
what all users want. The question is:
Why do you claim I made such a remark when, in fact, I did not?
>
> Dinosaurs are dead and the world moves forward. To deny others the
> availability and use of newer methods simply because they frighten you
> is beyond belief.
You are clearly an asshole who has no interest in having a reasonable
discussion. "Newer methods" do not "frighten" me, you stupid asshole.
Learn to read.
Bruce Cran
> Do you realize that MS Windows has nothing equivalent to rc.conf or
> /etc/network/interfaces?
It does: it's in the registry.
HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces
contains a list of interfaces and their settings.
%SystemRoot%\System32\drivers\etc contains several BSD configuration
files for DNS settings, protocols etc.
--
Bruce Cran
Chad Perrin
> On 23/07/2011 22:58, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >Do you realize that MS Windows has nothing equivalent to rc.conf or
> >/etc/network/interfaces?
>
> It does: it's in the registry.
> HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces
> contains a list of interfaces and their settings.
Calling a registry key the equivalent of rc.conf or
/etc/network/interfaces is a bit like calling a Rube Goldberg device the
equivalent of my smartphone. No thanks.
Jerome Herman
> On 23/07/2011 22:58, Chad Perrin wrote:
>> Do you realize that MS Windows has nothing equivalent to rc.conf or
>> /etc/network/interfaces?
>
> It does: it's in the registry.
> HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\Tcpip\Parameters\Interfaces
> contains a list of interfaces and their settings.
Yeap, just a small detail, it doesn't bind the configuration to a
device, but to a connection interface, which in turn is bound either to
a control interface or to another service interface.
Which in turns can be bound either to a final control interface, to
another service interface or even to another connection interface.
All these bearing names in form of their class id + uid :
{XXXXXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXXX}\{XXXXXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXXXX}
You basically turn around in circle for hours, looking for the next
clue, if you do not use windows tools to do the job. Sure you can write
WSH/WPS to do the mapping for you, but that is still using windows tools.
And I definitly would not edit those manually except for very simple
changes, the imbrication of layers of control sets/interfaces/devices
can result in unexpected results (for example in the likely case where
you have a firewall, a tunnel, a VPN or anything at all also using the
interface you are editing).
I remember crying tears of blood when I had to remove (not disable,
destroy) from one tunnel connection all the 7 different version of IPv6
windows put on each and every network interface.
>
> %SystemRoot%\System32\drivers\etc contains several BSD configuration
> files for DNS settings, protocols etc.
>
_______________________________________________
Jerry
Chad Perrin articulated:
> You are clearly an asshole who has no interest in having a reasonable
> discussion. "Newer methods" do not "frighten" me, you stupid asshole.
Thanks Chad. At one time I thought you were intelligent with
conflicting views. However, the more of your posts I have read over the
past several months, the more I have become convinced that you are
suffering from Paranoia.
A fellow poster, Bruce Cran made a reference to the Windows registry.
Although he was quite correct in his remarks, you choose to belittle
his contribution.
You have serious mental health issues Chad. Get help!
--
Jerry ✌
jerry...@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored.
Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Dick Hoogendijk
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 15:58:07 -0600
> Chad Perrin articulated:
>
>> You are clearly an asshole who has no interest in having a reasonable
>> discussion. "Newer methods" do not "frighten" me, you stupid asshole.
> Thanks Chad. At one time I thought you were intelligent with
> conflicting views. However, the more of your posts I have read over the
> past several months, the more I have become convinced that you are
> suffering from Paranoia.
>> >
>> > Dinosaurs are dead and the world moves forward. To deny others the
>> > availability and use of newer methods simply because they frighten you
>> > is beyond belief.
> discussion. "Newer methods" do not "frighten" me, you stupid asshole.
>
I must say I find Chad's post very reasonable and worth reading. When
somone refers to me as a dinosaur I would also be a little offended.
Hence, I understand Chad's reaction to that statement of yours.
If your read his posts carefully you have to admid they are well thought
of, at least that's my feeling. Mind you, I might have hold myself back
of what Chad said (uou stupid asshole). I would like to think I would
have controlled my anger ;-)
> A fellow poster, Bruce Cran made a reference to the Windows registry.
> Although he was quite correct in his remarks, you choose to belittle
> his contribution.
That might be true. But I can't see how digging in Windows registry can
be compared by editing a few simple textfiles the way UNIX had always
worked. Althoudh the network settings might actually be in this registry
setting it simply is not the same as a /etc/network file. Or on freebsd
a etc/rc.conf
> You have serious mental health issues Chad. Get help!
This might also be taken offensively. You are no shrink. why make such
remarks. Let's stop this tone of arguments please. And going back on the
subject of network managers I have to agree I too hate these tools from
the moment they took over the manual way of setting things. Even good
old solaris now has this on by *default*. Horrible (imho).
C. P. Ghost
> And going back on the
> subject of network managers I have to agree I too hate these tools from the
> moment they took over the manual way of setting things. Even good old
> solaris now has this on by *default*. Horrible (imho).
Yes, nwam is terrible, isn't it? But fortunately, one can still configure
the interfaces manually on Solaris. Just disable nwam and configure
interfaces as usual, using ipadm instead of ifconfig:
# svcadm disable network/physical:nwam
# svcadm enable network/physical:default
Then use ipadm(1M).
It isn't as clean as FreeBSD's way of network config though. ;-)
-cpghost.
--
Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
Michael Cardell Widerkrantz
> I've always been curious why "Linux" seemed to take off so fast when
> other FOSS / non Winblow$ OS's were available for some time with not
> much traction; OS/2, BeOS, *nix with X11, etc.
I'm not sure what you mean by "fast" here. It took a few years, at
least.
I think most of the initial users of Linux were frustrated Minix users
and then MS-DOS users who would otherwise had gone to Minix. I bet most
of them didn't know about any alternatives. I, for one, certainly didn't
know about 386BSD when it was released in 1992. By then I was using
SunOS (not Solaris!) on a Sun 3/60 at home and was no stranger to BSD,
but still didn't know anything about the 386BSD efforts.
I first met Linux systems at work in 1995. Several developers dual
booted it on their standard issue PCs to get a better X terminal than
the crappy proprietary X server on Windows 3.11 the company had bought.
I was one of the lucky ones with a real NCD X terminal so I didn't even
have a PC in my office.
> Not just on the desktop, but servers as well. "Supported" versions of
> Linux such as RHEL, Suse, etc. seem to have made more headway into the
> enterprise computing environment in the last ten years than *BSD did
> in the last 30.
AFAIK BSD had a tremendous impact on 'servers' [1] and was much used,
especially in academical settings.
>>From my personal experience - which is relatively limited - it seems
> applications just work on Linux? When I need to compile an app, it
> takes a few mins on Linux - but may take me a few weeks on FBSD.
Weeks to compile!? How slow *is* your computer? *grin*
Seriously, I think you have stumbled on a well known problem called All
the World's a Linux Syndrome [2]. Many software developers develop for
Linux and only for Linux. They don't know much about portability.
[1] It seems a bit silly to call VAXen and PDP-11s with character
terminals 'servers', but you know what I mean.
[2] Previously "All the World's a VAX Syndrome".
--
http://hack.org/mc/
Use plain text e-mail, please. OpenPGP welcome, 0xE4C92FA5.