Originally posted by Cthulhux
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why FreeBSD Is Liking LLDB For Debugging
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by log0 View PostYou must be the most ignorant bsd fanboy ever...
Have a look here for a starter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...sed_on_FreeBSD
How many of the commercial products in this list have their code/modifications available for review?
Another famous example is the PS4, running modified FreeBSD. Where can we review this modifications?
So there you have your user freedom restricted quite clearly.
I had some things to argue to both sides of the argument, but I think I'll stay out of the flamewar.
Originally posted by BO$$ View PostAaaah the Linux fanbois still hallucinating that the reason Linux is at 1% is because Microsoft is a monopoly. Did it ever occur to you that maybe Microsoft got where it is because for most people it fits their needs better than any Linux distro?
Originally posted by JX8p View PostAs an aside-- market share is really not as important as some people think. It is another cherry picked statistic. You can 'prove' just about anything by selecting the right statistics. For example, the latest release of Ubuntu has a smaller market share than Windows 98. Therefore Ubuntu's latest release is worse than Windows 98. The fact of the matter is, you cannot quantise how 'good' an operating system is. You can't say, for example, Windows has 10 goods, Ubuntu has 13, and FreeBSD has 20. Everything is relative, and depends on what context it is being used in.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post... and while the Linsux kids keep stumblin' upon broken workflows, FreeBSD kicks ass.
" Jets suck, Nicks suck Yankees suck.... Krypton sucks."
Eh, who needs debugging anyway, real developers write flawless code in text editors.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cthulhux View PostSomeone here claimed market share to be proving anything. Not me.
I'm point out that windows has only a big market share, only if you're very specifically defining the market you're considering.
As "the OS running specifically on the home desktop/laptop and on the few corporate servers in medium-/bigger- enterprises."
Then yes, windows has big market share.
But using the same tactics you could also argue that Contiki has near market monopoly as an operating system, at least if you choose the reference market wisely (such as measurement sensor hardware, and experience on legacy 8bits hardware).
If you take a step back, and look widely at the whole range of CPU above micro-controller (i.e.: any hardware in the class that can run Windows, Linux, all BSD, etc.) windows' position seems very marginal. At both ends of the scale (from supercluster all the way down to embed), Unixes (such as Linux, BSD, etc.) are clearly holding most of the market share.
And with the current highly technical modern society, the most commonly deployed CPUs aren't desktops.
There's maybe about 1 or 2 desktops per familly in occidental society, whereas in the same home, there are probably a dozen of other gadgets powered by similar "above micro-controller"-class of CPUs, none of which run Windows.
so I'm disagreeing with your use of "Windows" and it's market share as an answer for "does more widespread means better quality ?".
Or maybe not. I disagree that Windows has any relevant global market share as of today.
Given that fact, Windows could be taken as one more data-point for the argument "does more widespread means better quality ?": it has probably big problems stepping out of its very restricted market share because *it is* actually a piece of crap.
Originally posted by Cthulhux View PostInterestingly, Linux only runs on my smartphone. Reality can be harsh, huh?
Chance are that "only on my smartphone" means "as opposed to my desktop which runs Windows", not "as opposed to the 15 other CPU-powered gizmo which I encounter in my everyday life although I barely notice them".
Most of them will be running Linux, BSD derivatives, QNX, or other.
Again, back to my main topic in my post:
- its not faire to consider that Windows has market share of 99%, when you're specifically looking in a fery narrow sub-group of the whole class of hardware able to run such a scale of OS.
Hence the security holes.
Yup, indeed, lots of security holes are *FOUND*. But also subsequently *fixed*. With big efforts undergoing to introduce better security technologies and processes (deterministic build for critical software, various forms of protetion, such as SElinux and AppArmor for Linux, FreeBSD being touted for all the effort going into security, etc.)
Windows gets much frequently hosed than any thing else. Some argues that this is due to bigger market share. I don't agree: As a simple exemple, take a subset of the market such as "servers".
Linux is probably having the biggest market share in this class.
If people were right that "biggest player" is the only relevant criterium to whether a OS will be targeted by malware, media would be a constant string of news about viruses spreading like wildfire among Linux servers. Yet this doesn't happen. Microsoft Windows Server + IIS is the typical stack that is regularily targeted and hit by worms such as Red Code, etc.
Worms targeting home router are rather rare even if that market is probably more than 90% of Linux embed.
Over all, Unix derivative, specially the opensource ones where lots of people can audit the code (Linux and *BSDs) have much better security track than windows.
Hence the dozens of new distributions per month, incompatible with each other.
That would be the same as seing that bitcoins will never catch because there's a whole zoo of alt coins. Yeah, completely not missing the point...
Most of the time when "Linux" is referred to, what is meant is one of the "big names" linux. (Red Hat, Ubunti, SuSE, etc.)
There about 4 or 5 distro which cover most of what people designate by linux.
Yes, there are lot of very small specific linux distro that pigeon-hole on a very specifc group of target users (I do use SystemRescueCD a lot, but I doubt that this is relevant for any regular user not into admin tasks), or regularily new experimental disto showing up to explore some new design and stuff.
But these aren't much relevant to general public. These are only to fill specific needs of very small subgroups of users.
In short, if your software works for the 4-5 big names, it will work for most persons out there, and it will very likely work on at least a dozen of other smaller relatives.
As an exemple: Steam was initially released by valve as a Ubuntu-only beta.
that doesn't prevent lots of enthousiats of trying actually managing to run it on other distros. Within a week or two, I have personally witnessed it being available for Arch, Gentoo, and Suse (not as a hack where you have to copy-paste commands from a dozen of blog post. simply as "select it from a given 3rd party repository").
Hence the claim of some Debian developers that Ubuntu never gives anything back.
RedHat/Fedora and Suse, on the other hand, have developpers on they payroll that actively contribute to code for the whole ecosystem to enjoy. As en exemple, one of the first Radeon drivers was started by Suse employee. Redhat and Suse has actual developper who write code generally useful for everyone and is contributed back.
Canonical mostly only develops projects for their own use, which aren't useful for anyone else (Unity being the best example).
The situation is slightly different in the BSD world, where the licensing allow anyone to grab and run away with it. Thus company have incentive NOT to publish and contribute back what they've done, even if it is things that would massively benefit all BSD users at the same time, because that would disclose advantage that any competitor could grab for themselves.
So what you wanted to say is that only Windows has kernel panics ("bluescreens")? I see.
Which would tend to indicate two things:
- That public screens are one of the few market subset where Windows XP-e still has a foot hold (my initial idea when posting it) as opposed to almost every other market.
- That the difference in stability is such that only Windows XP-e is seen crashing (wasn't my idea, but it could be possible. That the case with ATMs: there's a whole zoo of OSes running on them, even including OS/2 descendant. But photos of blue-screens are the only critical fails I've seen. Thank fully, the banks I use here around seem not to be showing any blue screen, probably not the Windows XP-e running kind).
Originally posted by Cthulhux View PostWhile we're speaking of POSIX: Why are some Linux distributions (like Gentoo) not POSIX-compatible? Why doesn't the Linux community care about standards? BSD does.
That's good enough for me, and that's good enough for a lot of people.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DrYak View Posttwo times in this thread your answers were about pointing Windows market share and asking if that's a proof of quality.
I do know market share is irrelevant. Those don't.
Originally posted by DrYak View PostIs you home router powered by WinCE? Are WinCE and Windows XPe running on all the other piece of technology around you?
Originally posted by DrYak View Post- its not faire to consider that Windows has market share of 99%, when you're specifically looking in a fery narrow sub-group of the whole class of hardware able to run such a scale of OS.
Originally posted by DrYak View PostHuh ? The various open-source clones of Unix (Linux, *BSDs, etc.) are among the most secure OS.
Originally posted by DrYak View PostYup, indeed, lots of security holes are *FOUND*. But also subsequently *fixed*.
Originally posted by DrYak View Postvarious forms of protetion, such as SElinux and AppArmor for Linux
Originally posted by DrYak View PostWindows gets much frequently hosed than any thing else.
Originally posted by DrYak View PostLinux is probably having the biggest market share in this class.
Originally posted by DrYak View PostIf people were right that "biggest player" is the only relevant criterium to whether a OS will be targeted by malware, media would be a constant string of news about viruses spreading like wildfire among Linux servers.
Originally posted by DrYak View PostOver all, Unix derivative, specially the opensource ones where lots of people can audit the code (Linux and *BSDs) have much better security track than windows.
Originally posted by DrYak View PostMost of the time when "Linux" is referred to, what is meant is one of the "big names" linux. (Red Hat, Ubunti, SuSE, etc.)
There about 4 or 5 distro which cover most of what people designate by linux.
"The Linux world" is fragmented into the thousands, and everyone can see that. Some call it diversity, I call it a problem.
Originally posted by DrYak View PostIn short, if your software works for the 4-5 big names, it will work for most persons out there, and it will very likely work on at least a dozen of other smaller relatives.
Most Ubuntu software I have stumbled upon has different versions for different Ubuntus. Seems like Ubuntu 13.x is not even compatible to 12.x. "Very likely", huh?
Originally posted by DrYak View PostThe main complain is that for most things, Ubuntu does do *anything*. It justs repackages Debian stuff.
Originally posted by DrYak View PostUntil now, bluescreen and XPe desktops (and other typical quircks such as Windows' dialog asking about DST changes) is the most frequent type of failure mode I've seen on public display screens
Originally posted by DrYak View PostThat's good enough for me, and that's good enough for a lot of people.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cthulhux View PostYou're kindly invited to review the first postings in this thread, the license discussion has been brought up by Linux fanboys.
Simply ignoring the "BSD Sucks Dicks" - or whatever name they currently chose - Linux fan trolls doesn't validate this statement either. I can't remember any BSD user called "Linsux LOL" here. Can you?
So much about "acting like children".
The first thing you did coming into this thread was saying things like "Linsux" and crap like that. Even though the article have nothing to do with Linux. It's about FreeBSD and LLDB. I've heard good things about LLDB, licences aside. I do not know why the FreeBSD devs won't touch the GPLv3, propably because they want FreeBSD to still be attractive to corporations that want to make modifications without releasing them. GCC is supposed to be messy code, bash that if you want. Linux however, is not made by the same devs.
Oh, and stop requesting sources from people if you won't provide them yourself. Show us these security holes, and issues with "glued together code" you're speaking of. In fact, let us see the proof that BSD is better once and for all, I'm tired of always reading that, but never actually seeing the proof.
Comment
-
Originally posted by xeekei View PostI know there are Linux using trolls that bash BSD too, and they are annoying. However among BSD fans, Linux bashers seem to be the norm. I am trying to get a foot into that world, but get repulsed in every forum, especially the FreeBSD forums.
The first thing you did coming into this thread was saying things like "Linsux" and crap like that. Even though the article have nothing to do with Linux. It's about FreeBSD and LLDB. I've heard good things about LLDB, licences aside. I do not know why the FreeBSD devs won't touch the GPLv3, propably because they want FreeBSD to still be attractive to corporations that want to make modifications without releasing them. GCC is supposed to be messy code, bash that if you want. Linux however, is not made by the same devs.
Oh, and stop requesting sources from people if you won't provide them yourself. Show us these security holes, and issues with "glued together code" you're speaking of. In fact, let us see the proof that BSD is better once and for all, I'm tired of always reading that, but never actually seeing the proof.
Please don't listen to the Linux/BSD bashers; try the various systems for yourself and choose only as a consequence of your experience with the system.
I like BSD very much for various reasons: their rich history going back to UC Berkeley and DARPA, their notion of freedom and (obviously) their technical merits, which includes lots of innovations over time.
I think all that arguments that say BSD is "technically" superior goes down to the following: Linux, in their urge to keep up with new hardware, and being backed by so many corporations (and interests) are most likely to introduce problems that translate into an unstable system, and perhaps various security flaws. I think this is undeniable and inherent to the incredible pace at which Linux is being developed. Perhaps this can effectively translate to FreeBSD being more stable than Linux, although I wouldn't say it is technically superior (perhaps this was true in the past).
Comment
-
Originally posted by xeekei View PostI know there are Linux using trolls that bash BSD too, and they are annoying. However among BSD fans, Linux bashers seem to be the norm.
Originally posted by xeekei View PostThe first thing you did coming into this thread was saying things like "Linsux" and crap like that.
Originally posted by xeekei View PostI do not know why the FreeBSD devs won't touch the GPLv3
Originally posted by xeekei View PostOh, and stop requesting sources from people if you won't provide them yourself.
Originally posted by xeekei View PostShow us these security holes
Originally posted by xeekei View Postand issues with "glued together code" you're speaking of.
Originally posted by xeekei View Postlet us see the proof that BSD is better once and for all
Comment
-
Originally posted by dee. View PostNo, you miss the point about how that doesn't matter. Why does Apple not release their modifications to BSD openly? Because if they did, someone could just take it, make their own proprietary MacOS, do improvements to the code, and start competing with Apple with an improved MacOS where all the improvements would be closed to Apple.
CUPS is basically Apple. Everything related to mDNS is Apple. GCD is Apple. launched is Apple.
What exactly are the widely relevant to the outside world mods to BSD that you think Apple should release and which they haven't?
Comment
Comment