Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DragonFlyBSD 3.4 Coming Soon, Focuses On DPorts

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DragonFlyBSD 3.4 Coming Soon, Focuses On DPorts

    Phoronix: DragonFlyBSD 3.4 Coming Soon, Focuses On DPorts

    The DragonFlyBSD 3.4 release is anticipated for release in mid-April and one of the features to this next BSD operating system update is the formation of DPorts, a derivative of the FreeBSD ports collection...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTMzODk

  • #2
    Funny,

    On one cares about BSD much DragonflyBSD today. They can't even match Linux and Linux is now far ahead in capability, security, code quality, virtualization and others. It's funny to watch those BSD nutcases try to add useless or out of date features to thier worthless operating system just to delay the inevitable death of BSD.

    Comment


    • #3
      Funny

      On one cares about BSD much DragonflyBSD today. They can't even match Linux and Linux is now far ahead in capability, security, code quality, virtualization and others. It's funny to watch those BSD nutcases try to add useless or out of date features to thier worthless operating system just to delay the inevitable death of BSD.

      Comment


      • #4
        BSD also lives in Linux.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lesterchester View Post
          Funny,

          On one cares about BSD much DragonflyBSD today. They can't even match Linux and Linux is now far ahead in capability, security, code quality, virtualization and others. It's funny to watch those BSD nutcases try to add useless or out of date features to thier worthless operating system just to delay the inevitable death of BSD.
          Both Linux and BSD learn from each othet, Linux is ahead of BSD in n many things but not security, just look at OpenBSD, no other system can match him in terms of security, his packet filter implementation PF is years ahead of iptables

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by LightBit View Post
            BSD also lives in Linux.
            zomfg, stop talking fuck.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dante View Post
              linux is ahead of bsd in n many things but not security, just look at openbsd, no other system can match him in terms of security, his packet filter implementation pf is years ahead of iptables
              hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

              what bullshit, Linux is more security cause more people give a fuck about it.

              No one gives fuck about BSD so no checking of code
              Last edited by killing BSD; 03-31-2013, 09:59 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                BSD also lives in Linux.
                Hey LightBitch, guess who's back. Kill BSD, havent seen see in a long time

                Looks like BSD crap is still going on, time to clean it up

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dante View Post
                  Both Linux and BSD learn from each othet, Linux is ahead of BSD in n many things but not security, just look at OpenBSD, no other system can match him in terms of security, his packet filter implementation PF is years ahead of iptables
                  Linux doesn't have to learn from BSD, because it has all that BSD has and more. BSD on the other hand has to learn a lot from Linux but they always resist and thus are never catch up with linux. examples: package management and visualization. BSD goons keep saying it's irrelevant and ports and jails are superior. Well now they are scrambling to implement pkgng and Bhyve in 2012. More then 10 years after Linux equivalents. And both are just crap and don't live up to their promise.

                  Linux is far ahead of BSD. In fact I'd say BSD is use securely designed then windows, no kidding. First of all Linux code is heavily audited by many people. BSD code is not, so little people care about it and those who do are bias and ignore most flaws they found. OpenBSD is the prime example. In fact in December 2010, OpenBSD has allowed the FBI to place backdoors in Both OpenSSH, OpenBSD itself and PF. Linux has in-built security mechanisms such as SELinux, AppArmor etc. *BSD has non of that. They claim, their code is so audited that they don't need those. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

                  PF is totally lacking in features and usable security compared to IPTABLES. It's virtually useless. You either block out access to the internet totally or you leave your system wide open. PF and OpenBSD is useless
                  Last edited by lesterchester; 04-02-2013, 06:52 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                    BSD also lives in Linux.
                    You mean there's former BSD code in Linux. Remember that BSD license allows you to remove it from the code so it's no longer BSD code, it's GPL code.

                    There is no BSD in Linux

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by lesterchester View Post
                      First of all Linux code is heavily audited by many people. BSD code is not, so little people care about it and those who do are bias and ignore most flaws they found. OpenBSD is the prime example. In fact in December 2010, OpenBSD has allowed the FBI to place backdoors in Both OpenSSH, OpenBSD itself and PF.
                      Wrong
                      http://arstechnica.com/information-t...e-of-backdoor/

                      Wrong
                      http://it.slashdot.org/story/08/05/1...keys-guessable

                      If you're going to troll, at least put some effort in first.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lesterchester View Post
                        You mean there's former BSD code in Linux. Remember that BSD license allows you to remove it from the code so it's no longer BSD code, it's GPL code.

                        There is no BSD in Linux
                        Have to disagree here. The BSD license does not allow you to remove the license, just to mix the BSD-licensed code with other differently-licensed code without imposing requirements on the *other* code.

                        Most of the graphics drivers in Linux are X11 licensed (X11 license is similar to 2-clause BSD) and retain that license in the kernel tree.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lesterchester View Post
                          You mean there's former BSD code in Linux. Remember that BSD license allows you to remove it from the code so it's no longer BSD code, it's GPL code.

                          There is no BSD in Linux
                          Also, BSD is not only a kernel.

                          For remote access you are probably gonna use OpenSSH, unless you still use rsh.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by lesterchester View Post
                            Linux doesn't have to learn from BSD, because it has all that BSD has and more. BSD on the other hand has to learn a lot from Linux but they always resist and thus are never catch up with linux. examples: package management and visualization. BSD goons keep saying it's irrelevant and ports and jails are superior. Well now they are scrambling to implement pkgng and Bhyve in 2012. More then 10 years after Linux equivalents. And both are just crap and don't live up to their promise.

                            Linux is far ahead of BSD. In fact I'd say BSD is use securely designed then windows, no kidding. First of all Linux code is heavily audited by many people. BSD code is not, so little people care about it and those who do are bias and ignore most flaws they found. OpenBSD is the prime example. In fact in December 2010, OpenBSD has allowed the FBI to place backdoors in Both OpenSSH, OpenBSD itself and PF. Linux has in-built security mechanisms such as SELinux, AppArmor etc. *BSD has non of that. They claim, their code is so audited that they don't need those. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

                            PF is totally lacking in features and usable security compared to IPTABLES. It's virtually useless. You either block out access to the internet totally or you leave your system wide open. PF and OpenBSD is useless
                            On the begining Linux learned a lot from BSD. BSD is missing some features Linux has, but it's definitely not package management.

                            OpenBSD devs responds far faster then Linux devs, when it comes to vulnerabilities. But they are very slower when it comes to hardware incompatibility or features.
                            Security mechanisms like SELinux, AppArmor ... are not protection for vulnerabilities in kernel and they said that they won't implement them, because they are hard to configure correctly.
                            Anyway FreeBSD has such mechanism: http://www.trustedbsd.org/sebsd.html.

                            PF and iptables are pretty much the same, but PF has nicer syntax and PF is probably faster on single processor (most firewalls) than iptables.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                              Have to disagree here. The BSD license does not allow you to remove the license, just to mix the BSD-licensed code with other differently-licensed code without imposing requirements on the *other* code.
                              True, but in practise it is as he said. In a BSD-licensed file, if I do a change licensed under the GPL, it "taints" the file in that it as a whole is GPL. My change cannot be merged to any BSD codebase under the BSD license, and as those changes accumulate, finding out which parts are still only BSD becomes rather unwieldy.

                              This happens in the linux kernel a lot.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X