Re: Getting CPU usage in FreeBSD

[Pedro A M Vazquez]

|o|... Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:56:30PM -0800, Kris Kennaway ...|o| wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Pedro A M Vazquez wrote:
> 
> > > We probably should make this into a sysctl to divorce the binaries from
> > > having to read kvm.
> > 
> > it's already there:
> > 
> > vm.loadavg: { 1.40 1.33 1.23 }
> 
> Thats the system load average. The question referred to CPU usage
> percentages.
yep, never answer a question at 4:00AM  
> 
> Kris
> 
> 
> In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
> -- Charles Forsythe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 

-- 
.sig: license expired, contact your vendor


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Getting CPU usage in FreeBSD

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Pedro A M Vazquez wrote:

> > We probably should make this into a sysctl to divorce the binaries from
> > having to read kvm.
> 
> it's already there:
> 
>   vm.loadavg: { 1.40 1.33 1.23 }

Thats the system load average. The question referred to CPU usage
percentages.

Kris


In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles Forsythe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[jack]

On Mar 11 Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

   Michael Bacarella said:
> > Corporations care only for their interests. Their stockholders will be
> > pissed if they act otherwise. Do you really think there's something wrong
> > with people who are scrutinizing this move?
> 
> No, I only feel there's something wrong with those who are both
> scrutinizing it and jumping to a lot of premature conclusions about
> it.  I expect scrutiny.  I don't expect chicken-little running around
> and yelling about the sky falling.

I think what the Prophets of Doom fail to realize is that this is
actually two different mergers involving three separate and
distinct entities, and that Walnut Creek and FreeBSD are not one
in the same.  Yes there is a relationship between the two, one
that has been beneficial to both sides, but neither controlls
the other.

WC pays people to work on FreeBSD, that has never been a secret.  
But it has only been a very very small percentage of the
committers and contributors who make up FreeBSD, certainly not
enough to think that they have controlled the project.  
Countless other companies have also paid people to add features,
drivers, or whatever else they needed to FreeBSD and contributed
the results to the project.  That has not given any of those
companies control over FreeBSD.

What WC has brought to the table has been, primarily, promotion
and distribution.  The corporate merger between WC and BSDi, one
of the two mergers, should increase what's available in those
areas.  Plus, BSDi brings the commercial support that FreeBSD has
lacked and has prevented its use in many corporate environments.
What's the down side to this?

The corporate merger will also bring more full time developers to
FreeBSD, a Good Thing[tm] IMO.  The number of paid developers
will still remain a small percentage of the contributors.  Many
of the people who currently hold the keys to the commit bits are
already on the corporate payroll.  I see no reason to expect a
change in their principles, commitment, or judgment just because
their paychecks may be drawn on a different account.

The second merger is the merging of the source trees.  Control of
the FreeBSD source remains with FreeBSD.  What gets merged into
FreeBSD's tree will be entirely under FreeBSD's control not the
control of any corporation.  Why would anyone expect anything but
the best code from the two trees as the result?

--
Jack O'NeillSystems Administrator / Systems Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Crystal Wind Communications, Inc.
  Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for my PGP key.
   PGP Key fingerprint = F6 C4 E6 D4 2F 15 A7 67   FD 09 E9 3C 5F CC EB CD
   enriched, vcard, HTML messages > /dev/null
--



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Getting CPU usage in FreeBSD

[Pedro A M Vazquez]

|o|... Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 11:37:18PM -0800, Kris Kennaway ...|o| wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> 
> > Then look up the definition of kread() in the same file, and
> > how the contents of cur.cp_time are used in the cpustats()
> > function.  Note that "cur" is a "struct statinfo", which is
> > defined in /usr/include/devstat.h.  The CPU states are defined
> > in /usr/include/sys/dkstat.h.
> 
> We probably should make this into a sysctl to divorce the binaries from
> having to read kvm.

it's already there:

vm.loadavg: { 1.40 1.33 1.23 }

pedro

> 
> Kris
> 
> 
> In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
> -- Charles Forsythe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

-- 
.sig: license expired, contact your vendor


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Getting CPU usage in FreeBSD

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Oliver Fromme wrote:

> Then look up the definition of kread() in the same file, and
> how the contents of cur.cp_time are used in the cpustats()
> function.  Note that "cur" is a "struct statinfo", which is
> defined in /usr/include/devstat.h.  The CPU states are defined
> in /usr/include/sys/dkstat.h.

We probably should make this into a sysctl to divorce the binaries from
having to read kvm.

Kris


In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles Forsythe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Kenny Drobnack]

> > >I fail to see how you can read anything bad into this announcement.  If
> > >you're really concerned, you have just as much right to the code as any
> > >one else, feel free to take the 4.0 code base and create your own system.
> > >BSDidier has a nice ring to it.
> > >
> > >Personally, I've been running FreeBSD since 1.0, and I'll be sticking 
> > >with it for quite some time to come.
> > 
> > Ever read Animal Farm? Remember that BSD/OS started out as "cheap with
> > source" and grew into "just another OS company". Good ideas can turn bad
> > very quickly.
> 
> Instead of assuming that they are going to "go wrong", why not give them a
> chance to do it right?  Everything is in place for exactly the right
> things to happen, I couldn't have planned it better myself, but some folks
> aren't happy unless they see conspiracy.
> 
> When you see something wrong, you can speak up, but stop complaining about
> stuff that hasn't even happened yet.  You could generate enough ill
> feelings and bad publicity to *cause yourself* the exact thing you're
> worried about.

What's there to worry about anyway?  If things go good, we have a
better FreeBSD. If things go wrong, just branch off the source!

-
In computer terms, hardware is the stuff you can hit with a baseball bat,
and software is the stuff you can only swear at.
   -from a web page explaining what hardware, software, and firmware are




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Getting CPU usage in FreeBSD

[Oliver Fromme]

Felipe Paulo Guazzi Bergo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
 > I am the author of gPS (http://gps.seul.org) and I'm trying to finish the
 > FreeBSD native poller. All I need now is a routine to get the CPU usage.
 > [...]
 > I've already looked at the source of top but couldn't get much from there.

I'd recommend that you look at the vmstat source, located at
/usr/src/usr.bin/vmstat.c.  In particular, look at the line

   kread(X_CPTIME, cur.cp_time, sizeof(cur.cp_time));

Then look up the definition of kread() in the same file, and
how the contents of cur.cp_time are used in the cpustats()
function.  Note that "cur" is a "struct statinfo", which is
defined in /usr/include/devstat.h.  The CPU states are defined
in /usr/include/sys/dkstat.h.

That should get you going.  :-)

Regards
   Oliver

-- 
Oliver Fromme, Leibnizstr. 18/61, 38678 Clausthal, Germany
(Info: finger userinfo:[EMAIL PROTECTED])

"In jedem Stück Kohle wartet ein Diamant auf seine Geburt"
 (Terry Pratchett)


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 09:50:02AM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
> The FreeBSD genie is out of the bottle and has been for over 7 years
> now.  Any attempts to put it back in are doomed to failure and
> everyone at BSDI knows this very well already.  Do you folks honestly
> think I haven't covered this in great detail in our pre-merger
> discussions already?

No, I suppose not.  After all, this is the kind of thinking, among other
things, that gets one into the core, I suppose.

/me who obviously just loves answering rhetorical questions

-- 
Giorgos Keramidas, < keramida @ ceid . upatras . gr >
For my public PGP key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint, phone and address in the headers of this message.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

FreeBSD CD Distribution

[Ted Sikora]

Will WC continue to sell FreeBSD packaged sets or will BSDI or a new
vendor take that over?

--
Ted Sikora
Jtl Development Group 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://powerusersbbs.com


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

ATA-disk question

[Sitaram Iyer]

(kernel 4.0-2208-CURRENT)

I have a question about adstrategy() in ata-disk.c: it says

bufqdisksort() -- which appends to the drive queue using CSCAN,

and immediately, without a check for adp->active, there is

ad_start() -- which removes it from there and puts it into the
  controller queue, thereby nullifying CSCAN's effect
  completely (drive queue length always = 0 or 1) and
  blowing up the controller TAILQ to occasional spurts
  with tens of requests (I measured this).

on browsing through cvsweb, I find that such a check used to be there
earlier ( bufqdisksort(&adp->queue, bp); if (!adp->active) ad_start(adp); )
till "1.14 Fri Jun 25 9:02:59 1999 UTC by sos" (the 9th ATA update), and the
only thing in the commit log that's making sense to me is:

"The disk driver has been changed a bit to prepare for tagged
queing, which is next on my list." -- sos

What's the exact rationale behind doing away with CSCAN? is it temporary?
Its not entirely clear to me how "tagged queueing" (whatever that is) would
remedy the fact that requests are taken away from drive queues as soon as
they're put there.

Hoping for enlightenment,

-- 
Sitaram Iyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/
Phone (off)  713-348-2265 (rice xBANK)
  (home) 713-383-6279 (713-EVE-MARY), and if that *keeps ringing*, then
 713-799-8980 (my other residential line)


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?(NO)

[Wes Peters]

Paul Richards wrote:
> 
> I'd like to the see the core team being more prominent in promoting
> FreeBSD to other commercial backers, rather than continuing to push WC
> as the home of FreeBSD.

The opportunity has always been there for another company to promote
and profit from FreeBSD.  Not a single one has shown any interested.
Pacific Hi-Tech did for a short time, but then wandered off into
obscurity.  Rich Morin as much as admitted he missed the boat on
FreeBSD and made Bob Bruce's business by doing so at FreeBSD Con
last year.

So, if you know of a disc vendor who wants to get into the FreeBSD
business, tell them to go right ahead.  I'm not holding my breath
waiting for it.

-- 
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"

Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://softweyr.com/


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Wes Peters]

John Grimes wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
> > Didier Derny wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
> > > CDROM. (March 10 2000).
> > >
> > > I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling
> > > it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free.
> > >
> > > Has the FreeBSD project become the test-bed for BSDI ? or
> > > the single user evaluation of BSDI...
> >
> > Apparently you didn't read all of the press release.  The BSDI technology
> > will be folded into FreeBSD, which will remain free and open.  What this
> > really means is that there will be several more people paid to work on
> > FreeBSD full time, and to bring exciting new technologies to FreeBSD 5.0.
> > There will also be a professional support organization that can offer
> > support contracts for FreeBSD if you wish to purchase one.
> >
> > I fail to see how you can read anything bad into this announcement.
> 
> I don't entirely agree with the statement above.  I would like to mention a
> point to ponder.  In the 13th paragraph of the announcement on the
> FreeBSD.org website, I quote the following, "BSDI will continue to
> distribute packaged versions of FreeBSD"  Is this another way of saying
> that in the future that the distribution of FreeBSD may take on the Sun model
> for their "free" operating system software, which you pay $$$ for the media, and
> it is not freely downloadable from the net nor freely distributable?

No, it means they will continue to sell CD-ROM packages, and perhaps
DVD-ROM packages in the future.  They will also continue to publish
books and manuals, and perhaps even printed man page sets, as demand
warrants.

BSDI cannot prevent people from downloading FreeBSD over the net, they
DON'T OWN FREEBSD!  They will continue to provide FTP and HTTP servers
for the free distribution and maintenance of FreeBSD, and if you really
want to see it continue to succeed you will keep buying CD-ROM sets,
buttons and stickers, and other goods that help promote FreeBSD and
fund its ongoing development.

None of this is changing, so please stop trying to invent a conspiracy
where none exists.

-- 
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"

Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://softweyr.com/


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Midnight Commander and FreeBDS

[Victor Ivanov]

  FreeBDS? Is that some Bulgarian Standart or what ;^)

  I think your question is not for this list.. But I want to say something
for the keyboard which involves midc.

  I posted before a message with the same content.. but no response..
  It is about two keyboard patches (kernel). The first sets the ALT key to
be META on AT keyboards (turns on the METAS1 flag). The seconds adds new
ioctl similar to KDGKBDSTATE, allowing users to get the shift keys state
(with a little patch for the mcedit shift+arrows work fine). I prefer vim
for editing but lots of people use mcedit (including my local users).

  So.. what is the problem adding these to the config file or something?




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Warner Losh]

: > bsdi is doing everything to slow down the development of freebsd...

Hmmm.  BSDi isn't paying my salary.  Timing Solutions is.  They tell
me to do or not to do development on their nickle.  I commit code I've
completed.  Where does BSDi enter into it at all?  The answer is very
simple: no where.

And if they tried, I know that myself and most other developers would
have a hissy-shit-fit right on the spot and they would lose.

Warner


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Dennis' inability to fix the eepro driver

[Mike Smith]

> [snip - paying a dropout $100/h to fix drivers]
> 
> > Another point is that Open Source is virtually synonomous with "Totally
> > undocumented". The linux community, years into it, are still totally
> > dependent on Alan Cox to fix drivers properly (mostly because the OS is
> > completely undocumented and changes are made on a whim regularly). D.
> > Becker continues to be the only one that can properly fix the ethernet
> > drivers because they are such a mess and poorly documented. 
> 
> Why haven't you considered hiring somebody to document the parts you are
> intersted in? Would solve at least half the problem...

To be fair to Dennis, it's not the cost of paying the dropout to fix this 
driver that's at issue here.  

Documentation for the eepro parts is not easy to get; I only have one 
outdated hardcopy, and I get all sorts of weird stuff thrown at me.

However, to the best of anyone's knowledge the driver isn't actually
broken per se.  There are a number of reported cases where it's unhappy in
a given system setup, but it's actually characterising these cases that's 
the problem.

What Dennis fails to point out here is that at least we're going to admit 
this in public.  You won't get this concession from your average 
closed-shop vendor. 8)


-- 
\\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\  Mike Smith
\\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself,  \\  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\  [EMAIL PROTECTED]




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Jordan K. Hubbard]

> me..). WC/BSDI could take away the bandwidth. WC/BSDI could take away the
> hosting of servers, there are a ton of people with servers and bandwidth
> that would take over exactly what hub/freefall/bento/etc do right now. The
> USWest machines are living proof of that.
> 
> I'd even venture to say that Jordan (and core) already have contingent plans 
> for such a "disaster". 

We have more than contingency plans - we're seriously investigating
moving everything to a co-location facility at this point purely for
bandwidth reasons.  As much as we've sincerely appreciated its use all
these years, from a connectivity perspective Walnut Creek CDROM's T1
connection simply sucks. :-)

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Mike Smith]

> > All I see here are a lot of fears and unfounded statements about who
> > BSDI are or what they're going to be in a year's time.  If you think
> > you know all the answers to those questions, please introduce me to
> > your fortune teller!  Otherwise, I'd say you're doing a lot more harm
> > than good with this kind of speculation and have to seriously question
> > your motives at this point.
> 
> I'm not a doom-sayer, but try to understand this from our point of view.

Prozac.

-- 
\\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\  Mike Smith
\\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself,  \\  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\  [EMAIL PROTECTED]




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Jordan K. Hubbard]

> Corporations care only for their interests. Their stockholders will be
> pissed if they act otherwise. Do you really think there's something wrong
> with people who are scrutinizing this move?

No, I only feel there's something wrong with those who are both
scrutinizing it and jumping to a lot of premature conclusions about
it.  I expect scrutiny.  I don't expect chicken-little running around
and yelling about the sky falling.

> Your view of this will obviously be different from ours since you actually
> discussed this merger with BSDI --- Wait, JUST HOW LONG has this been
> going on anyway? You've probably been discussing this for at least more

Since around August of last year, and if you think that it would have
been prudent for me to discuss something as sensitive (to BSDI) as a
potential merger in this mailing list then you're completely off-base.

All through our discussions, BSDI was terrified that word would get
out prematurely, their customers would hear about it, and sales of
BSD/OS would drop to zero as everyone waited to see what the next move
was.  Which could very well have been nothing.  I've been involved in
two merger attempts which collapsed just hours before signing (that
being when the real issues tend to come up) and we honestly weren't
sure there WOULD be a merger until last Friday.  BSDI requested our
discretion on this until it was done-deal and we understood why.

Now that said, we DID have some sensitivity to this taking people by
surprise and that's why the entire core team also met with BSDI upper
management last October and set some of the framework in place.  We
also sent out an announcement to everyone in -committers (the
ostensible developers of FreeBSD), and that's over 150 people, last
year when it looked like this might even be a serious prospect.  Just
getting BSDI to agree to let us do that was like pulling teeth, the
"leak" prospects from over 150 people in-the-know being pretty big.
If you think I could have just blythly discussed this in -hackers
without shooting the whole deal dead in the process (BSDI would have
considered that an irrevokable breach of trust) then there's certainly
someone being stupid in this discussion, but it's not me.

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[David Greenman]

>me..). WC/BSDI could take away the bandwidth. WC/BSDI could take away the
>hosting of servers, there are a ton of people with servers and bandwidth
>that would take over exactly what hub/freefall/bento/etc do right now. The
>USWest machines are living proof of that.
>
>I'd even venture to say that Jordan (and core) already have contingent plans 
>for such a "disaster". 

   Yes, that is why the freebsd.org DNS is controlled by me with the primary
server on my DSL connection here in my home. No matter what happens in
Concord, I can re-target freebsd.org resources to non-WC machines in a matter
of minutes.

-DG

David Greenman
Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org
Creator of high-performance Internet servers - http://www.terasolutions.com
Pave the road of life with opportunities.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead?

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:51:01AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Kevin M Geraci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000311 03:54] wrote:
> > Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is doing
> > and let Walnut Creek merge with BSDi with out FreeBSD.
> 
> We'd be better off if people making suggestions like this would
> "spin off".

A great deal better, since all it takes to see what will come from the
merger is a little tiny bit of patience.  Those who impatiently start
suggesting spin offs and other such funny things are definitely not,
uhm, patient enough for me to work with :/

-- 
Giorgos Keramidas, < keramida @ ceid . upatras . gr >
For my public PGP key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint, phone and address in the headers of this message.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Bill Fumerola]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 09:59:50AM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

> > I am sure of the FreeBSD Projects intentions but like the previous post
> > things can 'turn ugly fast with the greatest intentions' The fact a
> > for-profit company controlling it's movements is cause for concern.
> 
> How many different ways can we say this?  THE COMPANY DOES NOT CONTROL
> THE FREEBSD PROJECT'S MOVEMENTS.  It can't!

A little perspective for the naysayers:

I do not work for Walnut Creek. I am a FreeBSD committer, I could call
Bob Bruce, Pat Reitz, or BSDI high level people and tell them off and curse
and swear or talk about their mothers.

I would still be a FreeBSD committer. BSDI/WC can't take that away. (I'd
imagine Jordan would be pissed, but I'm trying to prove a point, work with
me..). WC/BSDI could take away the bandwidth. WC/BSDI could take away the
hosting of servers, there are a ton of people with servers and bandwidth
that would take over exactly what hub/freefall/bento/etc do right now. The
USWest machines are living proof of that.

I'd even venture to say that Jordan (and core) already have contingent plans 
for such a "disaster". 

Is it true that FreeBSD has benefited because of Walnut Creek's financial
backing, yes. Is it also true that so many people are involved with FreeBSD
who work for companies MUCH larger then WC that similar arrangements coudld
be made quickly, yes. Is it true that when all 185+ committers and the
thousands of submitters/developers saw that something bad happened that
they would just keep on truckin' with the relocated FreeBSD machines, yes.

FreeBSD is the community, not the physical machines that host it.

-- 
Bill Fumerola - Network Architect
Computer Horizons Corp - CVM
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Office: 800-252-2421 x128 / Cell: 248-761-7272




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Histrionic Ranting...

[Jack Rusher]

Dear Hackers,

  In all of the discussion that has poured forth in the aftermath of
the press release concerning the merging of Walnut Creek and BSDI, no
one seems to have stated this simple fact: this merger brings an
amazing team (back) together to work on the collective product that
will be the future of both free and commercial BSD; Karels, McKusick,
Leffler, Torek, etc.  To my mind there has only been one other group
in the last thirty years (Kernigan, Ritchie, Pike, Bach, etc) that
has done as much for the state of modern computing.  When you add in
the value brought to the project by people like Greenman, Hubbard,
Fagen, Lehey, and the rest of the FreeBSD team, and then layer on top
of that the tremendous resources of the contributing user base,
well...  it makes me want to send off my resume to see if I can do
anything to help--not scream bloody murder.

Yours,

-- 
Jack Rusher, Senior Software Engineer | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Integratus, Inc.  | http://www.integratus.com


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Michael Bacarella]

> > I'm not a doom-sayer, but try to understand this from our point of view.

[..snip..]

> does this clear up the difficulty for you?
> did they need to clear this with you first?

I had no difficulties in the first place. I entirely support this. I was
just speculating as to why people could be upset, and what possible POVs
they might have. Simply dismissing them as mal-intents is the wrong
way to treat their confusion.

-MB




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Andrzej Bialecki]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

> your fortune teller!  Otherwise, I'd say you're doing a lot more harm
> than good with this kind of speculation and have to seriously question
> your motives at this point.

(Well, I was going to stay away, but I can stand it no longer...)

Be sure all of you that there are many (majority?) people who regard this
merge as something very promising, giving us fantastic opportunities. If
you hear the voices of doom-sayers here, it's only because many other
people are so content that they just sit on a sofa, purring and thinking
of the possibilities...

Andrzej Bialecki

//  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> WebGiro AB, Sweden (http://www.webgiro.com)
// ---
// -- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freebsd.org 
// --- Small & Embedded FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ 




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead? Well, not in theory...

[Narvi]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Dennis wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes...
> 
> >The very fact that source is available means that you can pay any scruffy
> >unshaven hacker to fix it for you, instead of suffering at the hands and
> >whims of, say, a FreeBSD "vendor" as you are doing. I would figure that at
> >least you (of all people) realize that someone else can come in and get it
> >done, and that you could optionally pay someone to do this.
> 

[snip - paying a dropout $100/h to fix drivers]

> Another point is that Open Source is virtually synonomous with "Totally
> undocumented". The linux community, years into it, are still totally
> dependent on Alan Cox to fix drivers properly (mostly because the OS is
> completely undocumented and changes are made on a whim regularly). D.
> Becker continues to be the only one that can properly fix the ethernet
> drivers because they are such a mess and poorly documented. 

Why haven't you considered hiring somebody to document the parts you are
intersted in? Would solve at least half the problem...

[snip]

> 
> dennis
> Emerging Technologies, Inc.
> 
> -
> 
> 
> http://www.etinc.com
> ISA and PCI T1/T3/V35/HSSI Cards for FreeBSD and LINUX
> Multiport T1 and HSSI/T3 UNIX-based Routers
> Bandwidth Management Standalone Systems
> Bandwidth Management software for LINUX and FreeBSD
> 



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Julian Elischer]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Michael Bacarella wrote:

> 
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> 
> > > One day we will discover that we can't use FreeBSD as freely and / or
> > > with the same quality.
> 
> > I wish you doom-sayers would actually come up with some conclusive
> > rationale for your fears here.  Nobody has yet to come up with a
> > single reason as to how or why all these disaster scenarios would come
> > to pass and there has been considerable evidence to the contrary
> > already presented here.
>  
> > All I see here are a lot of fears and unfounded statements about who
> > BSDI are or what they're going to be in a year's time.  If you think
> > you know all the answers to those questions, please introduce me to
> > your fortune teller!  Otherwise, I'd say you're doing a lot more harm
> > than good with this kind of speculation and have to seriously question
> > your motives at this point.
> 
> I'm not a doom-sayer, but try to understand this from our point of view.
> 
> Corporations care only for their interests. Their stockholders will be
> pissed if they act otherwise. Do you really think there's something wrong
> with people who are scrutinizing this move? We all love FreeBSD and don't
> want anything bad to happen to it.
> 
> Your view of this will obviously be different from ours since you actually
> discussed this merger with BSDI --- Wait, JUST HOW LONG has this been
> going on anyway? You've probably been discussing this for at least more
> than 24 hours. Did it ever cross your mind to ask WE, the faithful FreeBSD
> users for some input? Were you anticipating this unfound resentment to the
> merger and felt that a better course of action would be to approve the
> move, and just let everyone whine after the fact, as opposed to let
> everyone whine during the fact, and cause more outrage if you went ahead
> and did it despite protest.
I've know about it for about 5 months so it's definitly not 24 hours,
however you are STILL misunderstanding the situation..

nobody is buying or merging with FreeBSD inc.

BSDI is merging with WC.
WC had no control over FreeBSD except to teh a SUBCONTRACTOR to FreeBSD
inc.

In effect this is the situation:
FreeBSD inc hired WC to produce the CDs and in fact it was not even an
exclusive thing. In return WC payed for the costs of doing the
organisation work needed to produce regular releases. BSDI is merging
with the subcontractor. This no more affects FreeBSD than if the local
pizza manufacurer (also crucial to freeBSD) were to be sold.


The biggest difference is:
Because of this change, BSDI personell will be spending time working on
freeBSD. SOME of there staff are already WEEL KNOWN and in HIGHLY REGARDED
in the BSD world due to the fact that they created it. These people will
therefore
be accepted into the BSD world at a rank that one would expect. 
Mike Karels, As a major architect of BSD in general will
be going into core. This would happen should he suddenly switch to using
FreeBSD no matter what the situation (Merger or no merger). Mike WROTE THE
SOCKETS CODE and as such he's already served his time.

Don't confuse the (re)enterance of the old BSD guys (and associated
shake-ups as some responsibilities are re-arranged,) with the merger of
two separate companies, both of which are separate from freebsd inc.
and the core group.

> 
> Perhaps some people are feeling left out, maybe even betrayed. I would
> have a hard time believing that you can't understand that, having dealt
> with the user base for as many years as you have.

You seem to consider that WC was in someway beholden to the FreeBSD 
developers. The organisation you are thinking of is FreeBSD inc.
and THAT is not involved (except  in an indirect manner) in this deal.
WC payed many of the costs of FreeBSD inc. (e.g. supplied office space
and support staff) but is was never in control of freeBSD, nor 
did it ever try to be so, instead, accepting the releases to publish
as we threw them over the wall. AT OUR SCHEDULE (we, the developers).

> 
> The fact that nobody (except maybe your trusted circle of supporters) was
> made aware of this beforehand only adds to our suspicion now, even if your
> actions were totally innocent. In fact, personally I think you're just
> stupid, as opposed to malicious. :)

There has been no change to the status of FreeBSD, other than the influx
of some old developers back into this fold. Our printing subcontractor has
however changed it's name.

does this clear up the difficulty for you?
did they need to clear this with you first?

Julian



> 
> You will have to do a lot to convince the naysayers otherwise, though.
> 
> -MB
> 
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> 



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Sean Eric Fagan]

In article 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>merge + give code to freebsd --> lack of $$ but future investment
>bsdi unhappy to have given code but thinking to the future
>freebsd users happy of the new features

Er, no.

I've known a lot of the BSDi folks since before there was a FreeBSD.  One of
them, who is not with the company any longer, _might_ have felt that way --
but, then, given the popularity of Linux, he quite likely would have changed
his mind.

One engineer at BSDi has told me he's quite happy to be working on free
software again.

I don't deny that I have some trepidation about it, but nobody is entering
into this with any "evil intents."



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead? Well, not in theory...

[Joe Abley]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 01:36:31PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> Not realistically. First of all, most "scruffy unshaven hackers" are not
> qualified to make serious changes to important drivers. they might be able
> to find a stray pointer, but not to make structural improvement.

This is just silly.

> Another point is that Open Source is virtually synonomous with "Totally
> undocumented".

This is sillier.

> My point was that because of open source you have an unfinished product
> that  never gets finished.

That's the description of a product that is still alive. A product on
which development stops is a dead product.



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Narvi]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Marco van de Voort wrote:

> > > Then, what are the benefits for both parties ?
> > > 
> > > For the FreeBSD project :
> > > - many more supported platforms (Sparc, PowerPC, Arm ?)
> 
> Merced? .
>  
> > definately.
> 
> I'm not sure if that is a good thing if it is pursued by the core team,
> at least not for impopular or older targets. 
> 

Which targets would these be? ARM?

Note that for the code - when it is available for integration - needs to
be actually integrated by somebody, not to mention the userland,
maintenance, etc. 

> 
> Marco van de Voort ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> 
> 



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Michael Bacarella]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

> > One day we will discover that we can't use FreeBSD as freely and / or
> > with the same quality.

> I wish you doom-sayers would actually come up with some conclusive
> rationale for your fears here.  Nobody has yet to come up with a
> single reason as to how or why all these disaster scenarios would come
> to pass and there has been considerable evidence to the contrary
> already presented here.
 
> All I see here are a lot of fears and unfounded statements about who
> BSDI are or what they're going to be in a year's time.  If you think
> you know all the answers to those questions, please introduce me to
> your fortune teller!  Otherwise, I'd say you're doing a lot more harm
> than good with this kind of speculation and have to seriously question
> your motives at this point.

I'm not a doom-sayer, but try to understand this from our point of view.

Corporations care only for their interests. Their stockholders will be
pissed if they act otherwise. Do you really think there's something wrong
with people who are scrutinizing this move? We all love FreeBSD and don't
want anything bad to happen to it.

Your view of this will obviously be different from ours since you actually
discussed this merger with BSDI --- Wait, JUST HOW LONG has this been
going on anyway? You've probably been discussing this for at least more
than 24 hours. Did it ever cross your mind to ask WE, the faithful FreeBSD
users for some input? Were you anticipating this unfound resentment to the
merger and felt that a better course of action would be to approve the
move, and just let everyone whine after the fact, as opposed to let
everyone whine during the fact, and cause more outrage if you went ahead
and did it despite protests?

Perhaps some people are feeling left out, maybe even betrayed. I would
have a hard time believing that you can't understand that, having dealt
with the user base for as many years as you have.

The fact that nobody (except maybe your trusted circle of supporters) was
made aware of this beforehand only adds to our suspicion now, even if your
actions were totally innocent. In fact, personally I think you're just
stupid, as opposed to malicious. :)

You will have to do a lot to convince the naysayers otherwise, though.

-MB



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead? Well, not in theory...

[Dennis]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes...

>The very fact that source is available means that you can pay any scruffy
>unshaven hacker to fix it for you, instead of suffering at the hands and
>whims of, say, a FreeBSD "vendor" as you are doing. I would figure that at
>least you (of all people) realize that someone else can come in and get it
>done, and that you could optionally pay someone to do this.

Not realistically. First of all, most "scruffy unshaven hackers" are not
qualified to make serious changes to important drivers. they might be able
to find a stray pointer, but not to make structural improvement. Stray
pointers shouldnt exist in the first place. Plus, you'll want DGs next
version (say in 4.0), and you dont want to pay some college drop out $100.
an hour to hack it every time a new intel chip comes out. Commercial
companies that modify the  mainstream stuff (cobalt networks for example,
stuck on 2.2.12, working on 2.2.14 and 2.2.15+ comes out) are constantly
battling to keep up. You almost HAVE to  use the mainstream code.

Another point is that Open Source is virtually synonomous with "Totally
undocumented". The linux community, years into it, are still totally
dependent on Alan Cox to fix drivers properly (mostly because the OS is
completely undocumented and changes are made on a whim regularly). D.
Becker continues to be the only one that can properly fix the ethernet
drivers because they are such a mess and poorly documented. 

My point was that because of open source you have an unfinished product
that  never gets finished. The "fix it if you want...you have the source"
mentality is not what corporate america wants. they want the opposite. Many
of them won't even use open source products without guaranteed support. You
are a hacker, you are incapable of understanding. You are like a guy who
fixes his own car...but the "world" is the 98% that cant. I dont want a car
with a great warranty. I want a car the doesnt need a warranty. The reason
that the "free" os's are becoming popular is that, for most functions, they
work out of the box with few bugs.

BSDI's existing support sucks by the way...There is zero way they can offer
better support than the existing "informal" structure that exists.

dennis
Emerging Technologies, Inc.

-


http://www.etinc.com
ISA and PCI T1/T3/V35/HSSI Cards for FreeBSD and LINUX
Multiport T1 and HSSI/T3 UNIX-based Routers
Bandwidth Management Standalone Systems
Bandwidth Management software for LINUX and FreeBSD


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?(NO)

[Chuck Robey]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Paul Richards wrote:

> It's interesting that everyone is jumping up and down worrying about the
> effect that the merger between BSDI and WC will have. As you say, in
> *theory* FreeBSD has nothing to do with WC and is a totally independent
> project.
> 
> In practice however WC has manoeuvered their market position over the
> last few years to be the "FreeBSD company" rather than a seller of
> cdroms. It's worth noting that BSDI isn't merging with WC because they
> need a cdrom division, they're merging with WC because to all intents
> and purposes they own many of the assets of the FreeBSD project. Most of
> the resources of the project are held by WC and a fair number of the key
> developers are on the payroll.

I do hope that BSDI doesn't minimize that part of WC; a lot of WC's other
cdroms are really nice ones.

Anyhow, guys, you're handling this thing with the paranoid crowd all
wrong.  We need to post this notice on Hackers:

NOTICE:

We know who you are!  Anyone making strange, baseless accusations about a
very unlikely BSDI conspiracy, we're going to put you on a List!  A VERY
SECRET list.  We won't tell you who's on the List!  Please post about it
again, so we can get your names!  The CIA will get this List!  The US Post
Office will get this List!


Chuck Robey| Interests include C & Java programming, FreeBSD,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  | electronics, communications, and signal processing.

New Year's Resolution:  I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up
fictitious words in the dictionary.




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?(NO)

[Rajappa Iyer]

Paul Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The devil is in the detail. If the core team is stuffed full of WC and
> BSDI employees, who have a responsibility to their employer as well as
> to the project, then there will clearly be conflicts of interest and an
> undoubted leaning to solutions and methods of management that fit the
> commercial interests of their employer.

The question really boils down to: do we trust the core team members
to look out for the best interests of the community?  Nothing I've
seen or heard so far indicates that there is reason to be concerned
about that, but even if that happy situation does not persist, the
community is larger than the core team.  If, at any time, the
community feels that the core team does not represent its best
interests, I'm sure that appropriate remedies can be applied---from
gentle advocacy to changing the core team members.  If even that
doesn't work, there is always the solution of last resort: forking.

That said, I must repeat: I have seen evidence of nothing but the
highest degree of integrity on part of the core team members and as
such they deserve not just our appreciation, but trust as well.  I see
no reason to be concerned about the demise of FreeBSD as we know and
love it.

Rajappa
-- 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.New York, New York.
Where would we be without rhetorical questions?


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Marco van de Voort]

> > Then, what are the benefits for both parties ?
> > 
> > For the FreeBSD project :
> > - many more supported platforms (Sparc, PowerPC, Arm ?)

Merced? .
 
> definately.

I'm not sure if that is a good thing if it is pursued by the core team, at least not
for impopular or older targets.
 
> Access to the developer pool ?

Sure, and with that accesss to internal maillists (if they exist), cc's of bugreports
etc. Very important point I think. Generating quality feedback is always a problem, 
and now  the FreeBSD developpers will provide their own quality feedback, AND 
distille the high quality feedback from the large volume of feedback from news and 
email.


Marco van de Voort ([EMAIL PROTECTED])




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead? Well, not in theory...

[Michael Bacarella]

> >> >What are their alternatives?  Think about how the world is waking up to
> >> >Open Source.  Think about how companies are realizing that a small group
> >> >of paid engineers simply can't keep up with a world-wide organization of
> >> >contributors.  What would you do if you didn't feel you could keep up?

> Open Source is a lot of bunk. People want stuff that works. Linux is
> growing in popularity because since 2.2 came out it actually works well.
> Linux had the marketing in place and they are soaring. We sell 10 to 1
> linux now. I was getting bloodied pushing FreeBSD. Its like selling tax
> custs to poor people. Its bad politics, no matter how right it is.

> the people buying linux servers from VAR research and the like dont care
> about source, they care about functinality. Thats why BSDI doesnt get it.
> its not about the source, its about the price. People perceive that BSD/OS
> and FreeBSD are substantially similar in functionalty, and freebsd is free.
> The source is only important to a tiny, tiny portion of the market. The
> hackers list is not the market...corporate america is the market. 

> We all have source to the eepro driver but if DG doesnt fix it it doesnt
> get fixed. I'll take a driver that works anyday over the option to fix it
> myself. and so will most commercial entities.

The very fact that source is available means that you can pay any scruffy
unshaven hacker to fix it for you, instead of suffering at the hands and
whims of, say, a FreeBSD "vendor" as you are doing. I would figure that at
least you (of all people) realize that someone else can come in and get it
done, and that you could optionally pay someone to do this.

Open source leaves businesses in control, which is something that I've
seen more than 1 PHB consider. There's little I can do if I'm running NT
in that scenario. So, yes, I would definitely buy what works.

-MB



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Narvi]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

> > I am sure of the FreeBSD Projects intentions but like the previous post
> > things can 'turn ugly fast with the greatest intentions' The fact a
> > for-profit company controlling it's movements is cause for concern.
> 
> How many different ways can we say this?  THE COMPANY DOES NOT CONTROL
> THE FREEBSD PROJECT'S MOVEMENTS.  It can't!


Heh.

Are you sure arguing with them isn't futile? For some reason, they have
taken upon to bear a banner (and a big one at that) with the lettering
"*WE* will stand up for poor little FreeBSD, if nobody else does". Not
even thinking if FreeBSD needed standing up for, was poor, or for that
matter little.

Think of them as of people who watch "Tom and Jerry" and then start
organising pickets in front of governement buildings bearing banners
"Don't let mice exterminate cats!"

> 
> - Jordan
> 




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Jordan K. Hubbard]

> I am sure of the FreeBSD Projects intentions but like the previous post
> things can 'turn ugly fast with the greatest intentions' The fact a
> for-profit company controlling it's movements is cause for concern.

How many different ways can we say this?  THE COMPANY DOES NOT CONTROL
THE FREEBSD PROJECT'S MOVEMENTS.  It can't!

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?(NO)

[Jordan K. Hubbard]

> Since WC didn't control any more than the server for the CVS tree, and
> since we all have mirrors of that thanks to cvsup, if they decided to
> make it unfree, then we as the FreeBSD development group would just
> nominate a different central server and life would continue as before, ...
> without them.

Thank you for making this point.  Sometimes I see things like this as
being so obvious that I forget that others may not, in fact, see them
at all.

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Jordan K. Hubbard]

> FreeBSD.org website, I quote the following, "BSDI will continue to 
> distribute packaged versions of FreeBSD"  Is this another way of saying
> that in the future that the distribution of FreeBSD may take on the Sun model
> for their "free" operating system software, which you pay $$$ for the media, 
and
> it is not freely downloadable from the net nor freely distributable?

No, it is not another way of saying that.  In fact, in other press
announcements BSDI has been very clear in saying that it will offer
the SAME degree of support that Walnut Creek CDROM did, and that
includes making it available for download.

Heck, if we stopped doing that I can also tell you exactly what would
happen: Someone else would start making ISO images and putting them up
on the net and CheapBYTES, who already sells CDs very cheaply, would
make even more money.

The FreeBSD genie is out of the bottle and has been for over 7 years
now.  Any attempts to put it back in are doomed to failure and
everyone at BSDI knows this very well already.  Do you folks honestly
think I haven't covered this in great detail in our pre-merger
discussions already?

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead?

[Narvi]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, W Gerald Hicks wrote:

> From: Kevin M Geraci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is
> > doing and let Walnut Creek merge.
> 
> I don't see why that thought even crossed your mind.
> 
> Anyone could "spinoff" FreeBSD anytime they wanted to.
> So far, there has been no compelling reason to do so
> and it's hard to believe a splinter faction would add
> any value over the course that's been laid.
> 

And those harbouriong such thoughts should dig into the archives and find
Terry's mail on "why not TerryBSD".

> --
> Jerry Hicks
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> 



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Jordan K. Hubbard]

> the equations are quite simple

Only if you're taking powerful drugs, perhaps.  There are a number of
things which are hardly "simple" here and let's go over them:

> bsd/os  = $$ for bsdi
> freebsd = lack of bsd/os sold by bsdi --> lack of $$ for bsdi

False.  If BSDI thought there was no money in selling support,
consulting and training services for FreeBSD (none of which involve
"selling bits") then there would have been no reason to merge the
companies.  You're thinking one-dimensionally here at best.

> merge + give code to freebsd --> lack of $$ but future investment
> bsdi unhappy to have given code but thinking to the future
> freebsd users happy of the new features

I don't even understand quite what you're trying to say here, but even
assuming that there are lots of new features we could become
"addicted" to (and that's an awfully strange concept) indicates that
you're not actually that familiar with the BSD/OS code base.  There
are SOME features we may be interested in going forward, but only
some.  It's the cooperative work we can do going forward in FreeBSD
that interests me a lot more than BSD/OS's feature set now.  If you
want to do something more concrete than just spread FUD, however, then
perhaps you can tell ME just what these features we're supposed to get
and become addicted to are.  Be specific!  You've already thrown out
enough vague and unsubstantiated crap to completely lose any
credibility you might have once had here, so perhaps it's time for you
to stop doing that.

> bsdi is doing everything to slow down the development of freebsd...

AHA!  And tell me please just how that's supposed to happen?  Again,
some credible specifics would be a good idea right about now.

> freebsd is late behind bsd/os
> some freebsd users have started to pay for bsd/os [too many drivers /
> features are missing in freebsd and bsd/os is the nearest compatible
> system so it's easyier to move from freebsd to bsd/os rather than to
> linux]

And now I know you're off in the weeds somewhere, looking for a pipe.
The actual reality of the situation is likely to be quite the opposite
given that there are hundreds of FreeBSD developers and, at last
count, somewhere around 10 BSD/OS developers.  Since none of these
hundreds of FreeBSD developers can be prevented from doing their work
(and if you think so, again, be SPECIFIC as to how and why) I can't
see how any of this makes any sense.

In short, Didier, I think it's time for you to end this thread since
you're clearly in the grip of a paranoia so deep that it borders on
the clinical at this point.  I don't see any rationality to your
arguments, just a lot of fear and general hand-waving.  I can
understand the fear since these are new and uncertain times, but the
hand-waving we can really do without.  If you want to go run OpenBSD
or NetBSD now, that's your choice and I daresay that there are now
many here who would be quite happy to see you do so.  This kind of
insubstantial and unsubstantiated FUD we can all really do without.

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?(NO)

[Paul Richards]

Julian Elischer wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, John Grimes wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
> >
> > I don't entirely agree with the statement above.  I would like to mention a
> > point to ponder.  In the 13th paragraph of the announcement on the
> > FreeBSD.org website, I quote the following, "BSDI will continue to
> > distribute packaged versions of FreeBSD"  Is this another way of saying
> > that in the future that the distribution of FreeBSD may take on the Sun model
> > for their "free" operating system software, which you pay $$$ for the media, and
> > it is not freely downloadable from the net nor freely distributable?
> >
> This shows a lack of knowledg of the present set-up.
> 
> Walnut creek is not presently responsible for FreeBSD, the FreeBSD source
> or FreeBSD development.
> The merger of WC and BSDI can not therefore change any of these
> things. These things have been overseen by teh core-group and FreeBSD inc.

It's interesting that everyone is jumping up and down worrying about the
effect that the merger between BSDI and WC will have. As you say, in
*theory* FreeBSD has nothing to do with WC and is a totally independent
project.

In practice however WC has manoeuvered their market position over the
last few years to be the "FreeBSD company" rather than a seller of
cdroms. It's worth noting that BSDI isn't merging with WC because they
need a cdrom division, they're merging with WC because to all intents
and purposes they own many of the assets of the FreeBSD project. Most of
the resources of the project are held by WC and a fair number of the key
developers are on the payroll.

> 
> In the  new picture this differentiation is even more marked.
> 
> BSDI will rely on FreeBSD being successful, but they will not be
> controlling it.
> this in my mind is a very brave move, and one I wouldn't make lightly.
> 
> The only thing WC is (was) responsible for is the agreement with FreeBSD
> inc, (and the developers) that they are responsible for producing the CD
> image and selling it. The cost of this to them is that they pay  for
> Jordan's time to produce actual snapshots to sell.
> 
> Since WC didn't control any more than the server for the CVS tree, and
> since we all have mirrors of that thanks to cvsup, if they decided to
> make it unfree, then we as the FreeBSD development group would just
> nominate a different central server and life would continue as before, ...
> without them.

I think a wait and see attitude is best for everyone here. Let's give WC
and BSDI the benefit of the doubt and see how things unfold. The press
releases all sound like they are along the right lines, in that a
FreeBSD not for profit organisation will be set up and control of the
project (including the trademark) will be passed over to it. All things
I've been an advocate of for many years.

Will all the core team members become directors in this new company?

The devil is in the detail. If the core team is stuffed full of WC and
BSDI employees, who have a responsibility to their employer as well as
to the project, then there will clearly be conflicts of interest and an
undoubted leaning to solutions and methods of management that fit the
commercial interests of their employer.

This is a fact of life, we all do it to different degrees and I wouldn't
hold it against core members who did to some extent. The only concerns I
have regarding this merger is whether the core team will remain
impartial enough in it's decisions regarding the project and how much
influence the new company will have on its decisions. It's a question of
balance, given the resources that WC/BSDI will be putting behind the
project it's to be expected they will wield some influence over what
happens in the future, and it should be noted that some of these guys
will have very pertinent input to the discussion given who they are. We
should be careful though to make sure that the core team has the best
interests of FreeBSD in mind when they make decisions.

One of the things that they will need to be very careful of is a
tendency to favour their employer when it comes to supporting commercial
ventures. There are other people in the business who make a living out
of FreeBSD and it would be damaging to the project as a whole if the
core team became an advocate of WC/BSDI above all the other commercial
companies who support FreeBSD. I have definate concerns in this area
given that there is undoubtedly a bias to pushing WC FreeBSD products at
the moment.

I'd like to the see the core team being more prominent in promoting
FreeBSD to other commercial backers, rather than continuing to push WC
as the home of FreeBSD.

Paul Richards.
Originative Solutions Ltd


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Getting CPU usage in FreeBSD

[W Gerald Hicks]

Hi Felipe,

(You should probably be targeting -current for software under development)

Perhaps consulting /usr/src/usr.bin/top/machine.c might offer up
some clues.

Cheers,

Jerry Hicks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Jordan K. Hubbard]

> One day we will discover that we can't use FreeBSD as freely and / or
> with the same quality.

I wish you doom-sayers would actually come up with some conclusive
rationale for your fears here.  Nobody has yet to come up with a
single reason as to how or why all these disaster scenarios would come
to pass and there has been considerable evidence to the contrary
already presented here.

All I see here are a lot of fears and unfounded statements about who
BSDI are or what they're going to be in a year's time.  If you think
you know all the answers to those questions, please introduce me to
your fortune teller!  Otherwise, I'd say you're doing a lot more harm
than good with this kind of speculation and have to seriously question
your motives at this point.

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Jordan K. Hubbard]

> I hope I'm totally wrong and that FreeBSD will continue as it was before

And I hope that people will actually wait to SEE if they're wrong
before acting as if they really know how this is all going to turn
out, as it appears you and several other people are already doing in
extremely premature fashion.

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Getting CPU usage in FreeBSD

[Felipe Paulo Guazzi Bergo]

Hi,

I am the author of gPS (http://gps.seul.org) and I'm trying to finish the
FreeBSD native poller. All I need now is a routine to get the CPU usage.
My program needs it every quarter of second, so the loadavg value is not
enough accurate for me. (the objective is the CPU/memory history window
shown in the third screenshot at the website)

I've already looked at the source of top but couldn't get much from there.

On Linux this is what I do to get this value:  Measure the number of
scheduled jiffies (hundreths of second), measure elapsed time since last
measurement, divide. What I need is a scheduler-oriented cpu usage poller.
I have already found some symbols in the kernel that may provide this
value, but I couldn't get them to scale in a closed range (when I though I
got the correct factor, I got CPU usages of 1280 % and the like).

I am using FreeBSD-3.4-RELEASE/i386 for development, and would like to
code to be portable for the widest range of FreeBSD versions possible.

Can someone help me with code or good reference ?

Thanks,

.
  Felipe Paulo Guazzi Bergo, undergradute in Computer Engineering
[EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Unicamp - Campinas - SP - Brazil - Earth
  



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead?

[W Gerald Hicks]

From: Kevin M Geraci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is
> doing and let Walnut Creek merge.

I don't see why that thought even crossed your mind.

Anyone could "spinoff" FreeBSD anytime they wanted to.
So far, there has been no compelling reason to do so
and it's hard to believe a splinter faction would add
any value over the course that's been laid.

--
Jerry Hicks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Ted Sikora]

David Greenman wrote:
> 
> >>I fail to see how you can read anything bad into this announcement.  If
> >>you're really concerned, you have just as much right to the code as any
> >>one else, feel free to take the 4.0 code base and create your own system.
> >>BSDidier has a nice ring to it.
> >>
> >>Personally, I've been running FreeBSD since 1.0, and I'll be sticking
> >>with it for quite some time to come.
> >
> >Ever read Animal Farm? Remember that BSD/OS started out as "cheap with
> >source" and grew into "just another OS company". Good ideas can turn bad
> >very quickly.
> 
>The is all just FUD. From the FreeBSD side of things, BSDI is going to
> opensource a bunch of their software that we can then integrate into FreeBSD.
> We're still very much in control of the FreeBSD development effort and what
> fundamentally comprises FreeBSD. In fact nothing really changes as far as
> the FreeBSD Project is concerned - it's the same core team, the same
> developers, and the same BSD-license source code. It's just as "free" as ever,
> and nothing is going to change that. BSDI may decide not to make all of their
> BSD/OS open-sourced, but that's their decision and that will in no way
> deminish what we have in FreeBSD today.
>As others have said, this is a win for everyone and will result in FreeBSD
> being a much better open-source OS in the future. I really hope that people
> will go and read the various press releases and look at this in an objective
> and rational frame of mind. If you do, then there is only one conclusion that
> you can get from the facts: This is a great thing for FreeBSD and our future
> couldn't be brighter.

I am sure of the FreeBSD Projects intentions but like the previous post
things can 'turn ugly fast with the greatest intentions' The fact a
for-profit company controlling it's movements is cause for concern.
(mozilla comes to mind) I use BSDI and love their products but what
happens when it continues to stagnate. I see this as a way to boost
their own flagship product only? at FreeBSD's expense. I may be wrong
but already I see my other favorite OS Slackware teetering on the edge
of obscurity. I wish them the best.

Regards,
--
Ted Sikora
Jtl Development Group 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://powerusersbbs.com


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Midnight Commander and FreeBDS

[bush doctor]

Out of da blue M Pendev aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> Hi people !
> 
> I am new in this mail list and  i like Free BSD verry much, I hope that this
> guys
> from BSDI have brain in their heads and dont want to stop this cool OS
> 
> Iam triyng to install Gnome Midnight Commander on FreeBSD
> but without success...
> 
> I read that i must have at least gtk and dlib in order to install it
> 
> Have somebody make this before ?
It's a port.  As root do the following ...

cd /usr/ports/x11-fm/gnomemc
make install

This is better asked on -questions ...

> 
> M Pendev
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 

#;^)
-- 
So ya want ta hear da roots?
bush doctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Of course I run FreeBSD!!
http://www.freebsd.org/


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Midnight Commander and FreeBDS

[M Pendev]

Hi people !

I am new in this mail list and  i like Free BSD verry much, I hope that this
guys
from BSDI have brain in their heads and dont want to stop this cool OS

Iam triyng to install Gnome Midnight Commander on FreeBSD
but without success...

I read that i must have at least gtk and dlib in order to install it

Have somebody make this before ?

M Pendev
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Narvi]

I snipped the following from the cc: 
"Jordan K. Hubbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
Didier Derny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 

hope they don't mind 8-)

On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Thierry.herbelot wrote:

> "Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
> > 
> [SNIP]
> > 
> > If you think it's possible to bend the FreeBSD project to anyone's
> > corporate will then you've never even come close to understanding who
> > we are or what we stand for.  That's a shame since one would think 6
> > years to be more than enough time to gain such an understanding.
> > 
> > - Jordan
> 
> Then, what are the benefits for both parties ?
> 
> For the FreeBSD project :
> - many more supported platforms (Sparc, PowerPC, Arm ?)

definately.

> - better Intel SMP ?

Possibly not only intel smp, according to Wes Peters.

> - new developpers ?

I would say yes.

> - increased credibility via the support network of BSDi ?
> 

add marekting, market penetration, additional name recognition, corporate
contacts and a lot of other things.

> For BSD/OS :
> - better exposure thanks to OpenSource ?
> - Yahoo dollars ?
> - access to a greater community of **volunteer** testers ?
> 

Access to the developer pool ?

>   TfH
> 
> (This is absolutely not a flame bait : I'm very happy to imagine I could
> eventually get for-pay support for FreeBSD machines at work)
> 
> > 
> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> 
> -- 
> Thierry Herbelot  /"\   ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
>   \ /  AGAINST HTML MAIL & NEWS
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  X PAS DE HTML
> http://perso.cybercable.fr/herbelot   / \DANS LES COURRIELS
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> 



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?(NO)

[Julian Elischer]

On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, John Grimes wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
> 
> I don't entirely agree with the statement above.  I would like to mention a 
> point to ponder.  In the 13th paragraph of the announcement on the 
> FreeBSD.org website, I quote the following, "BSDI will continue to 
> distribute packaged versions of FreeBSD"  Is this another way of saying
> that in the future that the distribution of FreeBSD may take on the Sun model 
> for their "free" operating system software, which you pay $$$ for the media, and
> it is not freely downloadable from the net nor freely distributable?
> 
This shows a lack of knowledg of the present set-up.

Walnut creek is not presently responsible for FreeBSD, the FreeBSD source
or FreeBSD development.
The merger of WC and BSDI can not therefore change any of these
things. These things have been overseen by teh core-group and FreeBSD inc.

In the  new picture this differentiation is even more marked.

BSDI will rely on FreeBSD being successful, but they will not be
controlling it.
this in my mind is a very brave move, and one I wouldn't make lightly.

The only thing WC is (was) responsible for is the agreement with FreeBSD
inc, (and the developers) that they are responsible for producing the CD
image and selling it. The cost of this to them is that they pay  for
Jordan's time to produce actual snapshots to sell.


Since WC didn't control any more than the server for the CVS tree, and
since we all have mirrors of that thanks to cvsup, if they decided to
make it unfree, then we as the FreeBSD development group would just
nominate a different central server and life would continue as before, ...
without them.

julian



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Julian Elischer]

The big thing that you are missing from this equation is the 
people.

Kirk and Mike, who I know, are more dedicated to seeing
BSD as a whole succeed, than most people, so I think that you
have to factor that in.
I think they see that they are spending too much of their time
trying to play catch-up on the issues of kernel development etc and 
being distracted by what what we as FreeBSD are happy to do for free,
and they would rather spend that effort on pushing BSD forward
in the maketplace.

I am sure that 'conspiracy theorists' are having a field day
but the grassy knoll doesn't come into this one.

Julian

On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Didier Derny wrote:

> it was this announcement, but it's only words, the reallity can be
> very different...
> 
> the equations are quite simple
> 
> step 1
> --
> bsd/os  = $$ for bsdi
> freebsd = lack of bsd/os sold by bsdi --> lack of $$ for bsdi
> 
> step 2
> --
> merge + give code to freebsd --> lack of $$ but future investment
> bsdi unhappy to have given code but thinking to the future
> freebsd users happy of the new features
> 
> ... a few months ... 
> 
> freebsd users 'addicted' by the new features
> 
> ... a few other months ...
> 
> bsdi is doing everything to slow down the development of freebsd...
> 
> ... a few other months ...
> 
> step 3
> --
> freebsd is late behind bsd/os
> some freebsd users have started to pay for bsd/os [too many drivers /
> features are missing in freebsd and bsd/os is the nearest compatible
> system so it's easyier to move from freebsd to bsd/os rather than to
> linux]
> 
> ... 1 .. 2 .. 3 years ...
> 
> step 4
> --
> freebsd is dead
> freebsd users are now running bsd/os (big bucks for BSD/OS)
> finally it was a good operation for BSDI
> 
> I've already seen this mechanism several times in the past
> 
> sorry, that's how I see the things, even if I hope that I'm wrong
> that's also how some of my clients / friends see the things
> 
> --
> Didier Derny
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Sam Leffler wrote:
> 
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Didier Derny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 3:02 AM
> > Subject: Is FreeBSD dead ?
> > 
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
> > > CDROM. (March 10 2000).
> > >
> > > I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling
> > > it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free.
> > >
> > > Has the FreeBSD project become the test-bed for BSDI ? or
> > > the single user evaluation of BSDI...
> > >
> > 
> > Not sure what announcement you read (no URL provided), but if you look at
> > http://www.bsdi.com/press/2310.mhtml you'll see the following:
> > 
> > "BSDI will continue to develop, enhance and distribute BSD/OS and FreeBSD
> > according to the terms of the business-friendly, unencumbered Berkeley
> > software license, which encourages development for open source software
> > projects, embedded systems, specialized applications, information appliances
> > and other operating system-enabled products.
> > BSDI will expand and accelerate Walnut Creek CDROM's FreeBSD open source
> > initiatives by sharing BSD/OS technical innovations with the FreeBSD Project
> > and by providing this open source project with operational and technical
> > support, marketing and funding. BSDI will continue to distribute packaged
> > versions of FreeBSD and also plans to develop value-added products based on
> > FreeBSD as well as to provide technical support, consulting services,
> > educational services and training for FreeBSD customers. These steps are
> > expected to promote and invigorate the BSD open source computing movement.
> > The FreeBSD Project develops the popular FreeBSD operating system and
> > aggregates and integrates contributed software from more than 5,000
> > developers worldwide."
> > 
> > which clearly states that FreeBSD will benefit greatly from this action.
> > 
> > FWIW I'm the person that was responsible for 4.2BSD (and lots of the code
> > you still find in FreeBSD) and based on my information you've got things
> > very wrong.
> > 
> > Sam
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> 



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[John Grimes]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
> Didier Derny wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
> > CDROM. (March 10 2000).
> > 
> > I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling
> > it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free.
> > 
> > Has the FreeBSD project become the test-bed for BSDI ? or
> > the single user evaluation of BSDI...
> 
> Apparently you didn't read all of the press release.  The BSDI technology
> will be folded into FreeBSD, which will remain free and open.  What this
> really means is that there will be several more people paid to work on
> FreeBSD full time, and to bring exciting new technologies to FreeBSD 5.0.
> There will also be a professional support organization that can offer
> support contracts for FreeBSD if you wish to purchase one.
> 
> I fail to see how you can read anything bad into this announcement.  

I don't entirely agree with the statement above.  I would like to mention a 
point to ponder.  In the 13th paragraph of the announcement on the 
FreeBSD.org website, I quote the following, "BSDI will continue to 
distribute packaged versions of FreeBSD"  Is this another way of saying
that in the future that the distribution of FreeBSD may take on the Sun model 
for their "free" operating system software, which you pay $$$ for the media, and
it is not freely downloadable from the net nor freely distributable?

>If
> you're really concerned, you have just as much right to the code as any
> one else, feel free to take the 4.0 code base and create your own system.
> BSDidier has a nice ring to it.
> 
> Personally, I've been running FreeBSD since 1.0, and I'll be sticking 
> with it for quite some time to come.
> 
> -- 
> "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
> 
> Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://softweyr.com/
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Andrew Kenneth Milton]

+[ Didier Derny ]-
| it was this announcement, but it's only words, the reallity can be
| very different...
| 
| the equations are quite simple

No they're not. Your equations are naive, and show that you do not realise
what FreeBSD is worth to BSDi other than a saleable product. FreeBSD is 
(worth) more than the sum of its parts.

-- 
Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet|  P:+61 7 3870 0066   | Andrew Milton
The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd  |  F:+61 7 3870 4477   | 
ACN: 082 081 472 |  M:+61 416 022 411   | Carpe Daemon
PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: inner workings of the C compiler

[Marco van de Voort]

> > > to try things out i create a static binary and coerce it to use my
> > > C library instead of the system's one.
> > > 
> > > this is how i compile my program:
> > > 
> > > cc -g -DYP -DFreeBSD -Wall -pedantic -ansi -c -I../../libc/include nss-test.c 
> > > cc -g -nostdlib -static -L../../libc -o nss-test nss-test.o \
> > >   ../../csu/i386-elf/crt1.o ../../csu/i386-elf/crti.o -lc
> > 
> > I'm no expert, but I tried something like this a few weeks back(to totally link 
>without 
> > libc), and I was wondering, aren't you missing crtbegin and crtend ?
> >  
> 
> YES! that took care of the double calling of the first function of the
> first file... 
> 
> I still get the bus error at the end of my program in the atexit() call.
> this is because _fini is invalid.
> 
> do you know the exact order in which I should link the objects? 

prt1 first,and crtbegin ownmodule crtend I believe, I added the others to
the end, and that worked. (But I didn't link libc or any other lib)

So

crt1 crtbegin myobject crtend crti crtn.


P.s. Could you sent me a minimal C program linking to libc, and the 
commandline to compile it with -nostdlib ?

I could throw all these experiences with non standard linking in a little tex doc.
( --nostdlib with and without libc, pure assembler instead of c (no gcc), some
small chapter about syscall conventions etc)
Marco van de Voort ([EMAIL PROTECTED])




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Didier Derny]

it was this announcement, but it's only words, the reallity can be
very different...

the equations are quite simple

step 1
--
bsd/os  = $$ for bsdi
freebsd = lack of bsd/os sold by bsdi --> lack of $$ for bsdi

step 2
--
merge + give code to freebsd --> lack of $$ but future investment
bsdi unhappy to have given code but thinking to the future
freebsd users happy of the new features

... a few months ... 

freebsd users 'addicted' by the new features

... a few other months ...

bsdi is doing everything to slow down the development of freebsd...

... a few other months ...

step 3
--
freebsd is late behind bsd/os
some freebsd users have started to pay for bsd/os [too many drivers /
features are missing in freebsd and bsd/os is the nearest compatible
system so it's easyier to move from freebsd to bsd/os rather than to
linux]

... 1 .. 2 .. 3 years ...

step 4
--
freebsd is dead
freebsd users are now running bsd/os (big bucks for BSD/OS)
finally it was a good operation for BSDI

I've already seen this mechanism several times in the past

sorry, that's how I see the things, even if I hope that I'm wrong
that's also how some of my clients / friends see the things

--
Didier Derny
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Sam Leffler wrote:

> - Original Message -
> From: "Didier Derny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 3:02 AM
> Subject: Is FreeBSD dead ?
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
> > CDROM. (March 10 2000).
> >
> > I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling
> > it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free.
> >
> > Has the FreeBSD project become the test-bed for BSDI ? or
> > the single user evaluation of BSDI...
> >
> 
> Not sure what announcement you read (no URL provided), but if you look at
> http://www.bsdi.com/press/2310.mhtml you'll see the following:
> 
> "BSDI will continue to develop, enhance and distribute BSD/OS and FreeBSD
> according to the terms of the business-friendly, unencumbered Berkeley
> software license, which encourages development for open source software
> projects, embedded systems, specialized applications, information appliances
> and other operating system-enabled products.
> BSDI will expand and accelerate Walnut Creek CDROM's FreeBSD open source
> initiatives by sharing BSD/OS technical innovations with the FreeBSD Project
> and by providing this open source project with operational and technical
> support, marketing and funding. BSDI will continue to distribute packaged
> versions of FreeBSD and also plans to develop value-added products based on
> FreeBSD as well as to provide technical support, consulting services,
> educational services and training for FreeBSD customers. These steps are
> expected to promote and invigorate the BSD open source computing movement.
> The FreeBSD Project develops the popular FreeBSD operating system and
> aggregates and integrates contributed software from more than 5,000
> developers worldwide."
> 
> which clearly states that FreeBSD will benefit greatly from this action.
> 
> FWIW I'm the person that was responsible for 4.2BSD (and lots of the code
> you still find in FreeBSD) and based on my information you've got things
> very wrong.
> 
> Sam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead?

[Alfred Perlstein]

* Kevin M Geraci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000311 03:54] wrote:
> Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is doing
> and let Walnut Creek merge with BSDi with out FreeBSD.

We'd be better off if people making suggestions like this would
"spin off".

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Didier Derny]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Chuck Robey wrote:
> 
> When you see something wrong, you can speak up, but stop complaining about
> stuff that hasn't even happened yet.  You could generate enough ill
> feelings and bad publicity to *cause yourself* the exact thing you're
> worried about.
> 

One day we will discover that we can't use FreeBSD as freely and / or
with the same quality. That day it will be to late to change from FreeBSD
to something and the only solution will probably be to pay bsdi for their
products. Small ISP are not deciding the day before what they will do the
day after It takes us months.

--
Didier Derny
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Is FreeBSD dead ?

[Didier Derny]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Warner Losh wrote:

> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Didier Derny writes:
> : I've been using FreeBSD since August 1994 (FreeBSD 1.1.5.1)
> 
> I think you are wrong.  Dead wrong.  This will allow the WC to pump
> more money into the FreeBSD organization to fix some of the glaring
> problems that we have now.
> 
> Warner
> 

I hope I'm totally wrong and that FreeBSD will continue as it was before

but the experience I've had in the past makes me think the worse.

yesterday I've already had a phone call from a client asking me what
I thought about OpenBSD/NetBSD (as replacement for FreeBSD)

some friends called me too with the same concern.

It is clear that I was planning to use FreeBSD 4.0 at home (to replace
FreeBSD 3.x in the future) and that know I'll try NetBSD/OpenBSD/Linux

the worse is that some clients are already reproaching me to use FreeBSD
instead of Linux...

-- 
Didier Derny
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Is FreeBSD dead?

[Kevin M Geraci]

Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is doing
and let Walnut Creek merge with BSDi with out FreeBSD.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Is FreeBSD dead?

[Kevin M Geraci]

Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is doing and let Walnut Creek
merge.



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Is FreeBSD dead?

[Kevin M Geraci]

Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is.



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

No Subject

[Kevin M Geraci]

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message