76

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Oliver wrote:

To be true, most of the "pros" aren't found of the mere existence of such "desktop-BSDs".

That's true, but a user base of 5,000 for *ALL* of FreeBSD just seems way low to me, and forum users is one gauge. 

The petition we floated got about 1200 signatures, which I thought was very low, but if that really is all the penetration FreeBSD has in the desktop market, it is not even large enough to count for anything.  I find it hard to believe that my tiny company has .1% of the installed base.

If the numbers really are that low, it is no wonder that no one is supporting the BSDs.  I don't recall the petition statistics exactly, but Free (with PC-BSD and Desktop) had about 70% or 80% of the signatures, followed by Open and then Net.

Are there really so few BSD users?  If so, I will stop my cry for commercial support, since it just is not going to happen.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

>If the numbers really are that low, it is no wonder that no one is supporting the BSDs.

It's of course nothing compared to any Linux userbase. But you'll see most of the pros in mailinglists and some of the beginners at forums, furthermore you'll see most of administrators nowhere at all, only if something fails and then probably at the mailinglists. This is perhaps just an assumption, but a very strong one.

F!XMBR

Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. --Pericles

78

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

I agree with you.  The newbies on the PC-BSD board are so annoying that I stopped reading it.  I don't use the product anyway, but that is one of the few areas where there is an interest in BSD on the desktop.

In fact, I was thinking of finding the number of distinct names from the mailing lists over the last year.  While that is not an absolute number either, it would probably give the best indication of number of serious users.  You still don't know how many computers each manages, but it is the best metric I can come up with.

Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

To veer the topic slightly, what if the BSD's changed licence , as crazy and wacky as it sounds.
Linux is popular because nobody can hide  changes to the development, take a look at mac osx, some consider it really usable on the desktop, but apple do not have to contribute back.
Of course a lot of BSD licenced projects have not gone into closed source projects and been successful.

80

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Apple supposedly *has* given code back, at least according to what I have read quoted from people who should know.  (Do I get points for tortured language?)

And I don't think the license is going to change.  Too many of us like it, and if it too were to become GPL (for example), then why bother using BSD?  It is one reason I use it.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

No I like the license because I call this real freedom. And Apple? Yes Apple has give *something* back, but to be true just common things. Apple don't give back any of its "crown jewels", but without BSD4.x in NextStep or FreeBSD x.x in MacOS, KHTML in Safari and so on, there wouldn't be any Mac OS X. So to be honest, Apples system heavily depends on opensource - Apples "old" OS 8/9 was just a dead end.

F!XMBR

Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. --Pericles

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

DrJ wrote:

Apple supposedly *has* given code back, at least according to what I have read quoted from people who should know.  (Do I get points for tortured language?)

And I don't think the license is going to change.  Too many of us like it, and if it too were to become GPL (for example), then why bother using BSD?  It is one reason I use it.

perhaps you mean this http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html

I use BSD for technical reasons more than the license, the licence adds to my decision.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Oliver wrote:

So to be honest, Apples system heavily depends on opensource

so why can't they give a cut of there profit to the BSDs ? or some aqua code

84

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

lobster wrote:

perhaps you mean this http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html

No, there was an interview with one of the FreeBSD developers recently (Sam Loeffler?) who mentioned that Apple did give code back.

On your other question (profits returning to the project): certainly Apple could but they chose not to.  OTOH, I think they will make sure that one of the BSDs -- probably Free -- will stay around over the long haul.  They just get too much out of it to let them go under.

FWIW, one reason that the Mac is appealing to me is that it does have a BSD userland, though I'm sure they have mucked with the directory structure and the inits (rc.conf?  What's that?).  BSD Unix, the ability to run Windows, lots of software -- what's not to like?  Other than the hardware lock-in, I suppose.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

lobster wrote:
Oliver wrote:

So to be honest, Apples system heavily depends on opensource

so why can't they give a cut of there profit to the BSDs ? or some aqua code

Guess why? It's their business, have a look at their software patents.

F!XMBR

Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. --Pericles

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

DrJ wrote:
lobster wrote:

perhaps you mean this http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html

No, there was an interview with one of the FreeBSD developers recently (Sam Loeffler?) who mentioned that Apple did give code back.

On your other question (profits returning to the project): certainly Apple could but they chose not to.  OTOH, I think they will make sure that one of the BSDs -- probably Free -- will stay around over the long haul.  They just get too much out of it to let them go under.

FWIW, one reason that the Mac is appealing to me is that it does have a BSD userland, though I'm sure they have mucked with the directory structure and the inits (rc.conf?  What's that?).  BSD Unix, the ability to run Windows, lots of software -- what's not to like?  Other than the hardware lock-in, I suppose.

Yes it's a FBSD userland with lot of layers above it - if you go to shell in MacOS it can be somewhat of a hell wink

F!XMBR

Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. --Pericles

87

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Oliver wrote:

Yes it's a FBSD userland with lot of layers above it - if you go to shell in MacOS it can be somewhat of a hell wink

What do you mean?  Clearly I've not used a Mac.  Well, that's not quite true.  I used one for a few years about 12 years ago.  It drove me nuts -- this was after I was used to a big-screen Sun workstation, so it was quite a shock.  But that waaayyy predates OS X.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

In the shell you have to cope with "plain Unix", but in desktop environment you actually don't see exactly the same directories for example. So there are some kinds of "translators" at work. You can see this at work if you're using e.g. UFS, it's possible but you're loosing some special abilities from Mac OS at desktop - so it's somewhat "Unix" at the base, but only to some extent. NextStep for example was the base for Mac OS X, they did some massive adjustment too (like collaborative networking).

F!XMBR

Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. --Pericles

89

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Oliver wrote:

In the shell you have to cope with "plain Unix", but in desktop environment you actually don't see exactly the same directories for example. So there are some kinds of "translators" at work.

Oh s**t.  Is there no way to turn that off?

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

I don't think so, because it's the way Mac OS works. According to Apple you shouldn't work with shell at all wink

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFS_Plus

This is the filesystem and if you read how it works, you'll see too why there is sometimes a big difference. Actually you see this difference too, coping for example with German folders at the desktop and English ones in the Unix base.

F!XMBR

Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. --Pericles

91

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Thanks, Oliver.  I would be interested in discussing this more, but it is getting a bit far from the topic.  I'll start a new thread.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

In fact, I was thinking of finding the number of distinct names from the mailing lists over the last year.  While that is not an absolute number either, it would probably give the best indication of number of serious users.  You still don't know how many computers each manages, but it is the best metric I can come up with.

Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment.

I do.
The number that came up was 13,566.
Assume a (rather large) error margin of 5% (people changing names, people using different email-adresses with different names, ect) then we've got atleast 12,891 users.

This count was done for the period Jan 2006 until Feb 2007, and includes all FreeBSD maillinglists.

Last edited by Carpetsmoker (2009-01-25 01:31:05)

Trust me, I know what I'm doing.

93

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Thank you! 

Thirteen thousand serious users, give or take.  Boy that is not many, but a lot more than the 5000 estimate given earlier.  PC-BSD probably has twice that alone.  So maybe 50,000 total users.  I wonder how many computers that is.  I have five on BSD myself -- I have to believe that this is not unusual for "serious users."  So maybe 100K computers running BSD?

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

>So maybe 100K computers running BSD?

So we should be happy to have some companies like Nvidia or Sun which do care at all.

F!XMBR

Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. --Pericles

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

Hmm, not sure...
I'm a serious OpenBSD user, but I've never posted on any of the OpenBSD maillinglists (Even though I'm active in the BSD community, like these forums, FreeBSD lists, ect)
Just never had a reason to post anything on a OpenBSD list so far...

If we assume there are 1 billion computers (Can't find any hard data on this, but 1 billion looks OK to me) and BSD has a .01% market share, then we still have 1 million BSD machines...
For your 100k to be exact there have to be "only" 100 million machines (which seems pretty low) or BSD has a .001% market share (And if that's true, then it's time for panic)

bsdstats.org was started to take a guess at the number of BSD machines, but not a lot of people seem to have it installed ... hmm

Trust me, I know what I'm doing.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

>And if that's true, then it's time for panic

It depends on the direction of the userbase.

OpenBSD has about 80 developers and fulfills some difficult tasks in establishing a secure foundation. So numbers aren't a mark for a healthy system. But numbers are maybe a mark for the variety within a operating system.

F!XMBR

Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. --Pericles

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

I would like all the BSD's not just openbsd to audit the code, I am not just meaning the os, but also the 3rd party ports and packages , which i believe openbsd does.
In theory someone could include a rootkit into a freebsd port, with openbsd that cannot happen, because all ports are audited, except the close source package like opera.

Ive heard some people actually compile there own source on freebsd because there paranoid.

Personally i think the freebsd ports tree is secure as where the 3rd party project came which is the reason i use it.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

OpenBSD doesn't audit package and port code.

http://www.openbsd.org/ports.html

see the red-colored paragraph there.

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

asemisldkfj wrote:

OpenBSD doesn't audit package and port code.

http://www.openbsd.org/ports.html

see the red-colored paragraph there.

thanks for pointing that out smile

Re: What do you want or like to see in any of the BSD's ?

There have one thing I want in FreeBSD:
Transaction-like configuration for the very important things that make FreeBSD run as a Server. Say, I've sent the Server to a remote date center. If I want to change the configuration of the firewall, there has a chance that I'll make a mistake and I can't connect to manage the server anymore, thus make the server 'off-manage' or even 'off-service', and the only I can do is go to the date center and login from the console. If there have a SETUP->COMMIT-or-TIMEOUT_ROLLBACK, this will not happen. Maybe at can do that, but human always make mistake, maybe some one will forget or make a incorrect at.

For desktop I have to say it not easy the set it up. Now I'm using a computer run FreeBSD+GNOME2.0, but compare to Fedora, it need more effort. And this computer is only for test, weather I should use FreeBSD or Fedora as my desktop is still not decided yet, because for FreeBSD there have many things I can't do, but with Fedora I don't like many feathers it has. If FreeBSD want to compare with Linux as a desktop, I think it should make the configuration centralized and consistent. One thing I don't like Fedora is that it have different ways to set up one thing, but not consistent, say the ifcfg-xxx script, system-config-network and NetworkManager, the former two is almost the same but in system-config-network I can chose not to save in the ifcfg-xxx files, and NetworkManager is very different thing.
And of course, configuration should keep consistent in different release. Usually the end users don't need too much different new thing.  For example I used Windows NT 4.0 until 2001, the only reason I change to Win2000 is because NT can't support I new hard disk, and  ship to XP in late 2005 only because the driver of 2000 can't support my new computer's combo and I can't figure out a seperate driver for it, then I installed XP for test, very thing going fine.