The Anarcat wrote:
[Foul-mouthed anti-gummint drivel deleted]
>>Actually, it is up to us to resolve this. I don't think you understand how
>>DOD operates. The vendor makes the changes, not DOD. Not the admin.
> And FreeBSD is the *vendor*? I don't think so. At least I don't hope so.
> If I'm mistaken, slap me
Consider yourself slapped. The FreeBSD project is the only DOD-approved vendor of
FreeBSD. Until the core team says otherwise.
>>Moving the non-GPL shells to /bin is a trivial request that can solve
>>problems that you obviously don't understand.
> Then we could also answer a trivial request such as making apache part
> of the base system! If the DOD need a webserver, they're screwed? They
> panic? What the heck is that? And why should we care about such
No, they aren't screwed. They don't panic. They simply say "screw FreeBSD" and just
call Sun, which does have Apache in the base
distribution, as well as the shells where the admin is allowed to use them, and
doesn't give them a bunch of anti-gummint drivel.
> Wasn't the DOD using NT?
Not for anything serious.
>>Key to this is an admin-friendly
>>environment designed to get around the pre-cambrian attitudes that prevent
>>DOD admins from using standard tools just because it's in the wrong place on
>>the disk array or because it's considered a third-party option, or even
>>worse: freeware [ooooh! step away from the keyboard, son. you going to
> Bash standard? Funny.
How many users of FreeBSD? How many users of Linux? How many people using csh? How
many people using bash?
Besides the fact that you don't reason well, you don't read too well. bash is GPL, it
wouldn't qualify for the tree. zsh is open,
and has the features of bash, and could probably be a good substitute. The
proposition here doesn't involve any specific shell,
it's a usability issue.
> I had very good comments on the easiness (sp?) ppl have installing
> third party apps in the install process. And the ports collection, and
> the packages, etc... FreeBSD is very admin friendly, IMHO.
Only when the admin has the ability to install third-party standard tools.
>>Try thinking outside the box sometime. If you want a "traditional" unix, I
>>think there is still a PDP-11 emulator and DL01 image of V7 at
> Yeah. Let's go with the New Technology: NT. All these buzzwords and
> semantics are messing things up here. It's not a matter of tradition,
> it's a matter of license (bash is GPL, FBSD is BSD-licensed), and
> functionality (bash != sh). See also the comment about resistance to
> have perl in the base system.
perl is in the base system. and again, you don't read too well, i haven't said a nice
word in this entire thread about bash, and
others have noted the GPL.
> Linux have bash in the base system simply because there's no other free close
> relative to sh around.
that was a rather inane statement... ever read the BSD license?
>>I'm more for an evolutionary unix where the idea of what's standard changes
>>to reflect the needs of it's admins and users in diverse environments.
> As much as I appreciate "evolution", I think this mentality is exactly
> the thing that makes us pull away from support from old hardware. That's
> a shame.
how does moving defacto-standard userland items into the basic system effect the
kernel? you lost me there.
>>going nowhere due to outdated beliefs "oh, but that belongs in
> Again, it's not a belief. It's a philosophy that is behind FreeBSD.
a belief that keeps freebsd out of some hardcore, high-dollar markets.
> Anyways, this has probably been burnt to death long time ago, I should
> not get into this.
Yes, and I think you should close and wipe your mouth after your foul-mouthed
anti-gummint spewing. Flys are gathering around your
>>My argument for the trivial move of the non-GPL shells to /bin, so long as
>>they are statically linked, is based on experience in a market in which
>>FreeBSD just got it's foot inside of the door. We have already done this
>>with tcsh. I don't see what the problem is getting the rest of the non-GPL
>>shells into /bin is.
> I missed something here. Is tcsh GPLed? I don't think so... A quick look
> at /usr/src/contrib/tcsh gives me 2 matches for "GNU", config.guess and
> config.sub. The rest looks like standard BSD license. Am I wrong?
2:19:01am wahoo(2): where tcsh
Hey Jethro, who put that there? did you? wasn't me! Maybe it was one of dem damned
gummint black heeleechoppers being piloted by
ET and Bill Clinton...
> Please, jim, do not take my comments too harsh. I have a very strong...
> opinion of the military, and of "progress", "evolution" or whatever you
> want to call that mad "fuite en avant" (I don't know the proper idiom in
> english (this was french)).
I'm not taking the comments too harsh. I wouldn't have answered, or, if I had, it
would have been far less tongue in cheek.
FreeBSD is largely derived from military contract work at UCB, like it or not.
Without the military, BSD would have been stillborn.
I just don't like my tax dollars being wasted on inferior crap [NT for instance, hey,
did they ever tow that ship back to port?] or
overpriced gear to do what BSD can do better [Sun, HP, etc]...
DOD is the biggest waster of money on this planet. Their budget needs to be chopped
bigtime, and can be chopped without losing
capability. FreeBSD is one way this can happen. All of the other children have had
their budgets slashed, now to slay the
fire-breathing dragon of budgets, and yes, the dinosaurs will kick and scream until
they realize they can do it better with less
money. The spoiled brat of the government needs to bitch-slapped into waking up from
their late 1970's/early 1980's computing
This is reality in America right now. The GOP overdid their lalaland tax cut. OMB as
of Saturday started calling GOP members back
to the hill and said they will withold the latest budget projections for a full week
past time for their lawful release. Call it
damage-control time, because I have it on good sources that they will have to start
dipping into Social Security AND Medicare to
cover the tax cut starting next week because of the numbers they are witholding until
they have a damage-control plan.
We need to start chopping the waste from DOD before we as a public put up with that
BS. FreeBSD is one way to chop such waste. I'd
rather they pay $5-10k for a system that performs the work of a $50-100k system, now
multiply that by many thousands. No loss in
capability, massive budgetary savings, less taxes, no tax-increase to cover the tax
cut. The tax-cut was playing with money the
"gummint" didn't even have. It was truly a fantasy-land tax-cut. The savings by
introducing FreeBSD as a practical alternative to
more expensive and inferior systems is no more "fuzzy math" than the warnings of "all
dem durned liberuls" concerning the Moron's
This is one of the many reasons I fully support the DOD's involvement with the FreeBSD
project. I can name one facility right now
that can chop several million dollars out of their budget by getting with the times.
As someone who has been an admin on contract to the DOD, I understand first-hand some
of the hurdles that admins must face to get
the job done. It would be nice if they could just copy the shell to the root
partition from /usr/local/bin, but they can't. Ever
been denied access to one of your systems for two weeks because you put a Sun-supplied
and patch-updated copy of tcsh in your
home-directory's ~/bin because it wasn't in the base distribution? I have. Like the
military or not, it's your tax dollars too.
If a contractor has to work overtime to get a job done that can be made easier by
providing simple, yet defacto-standard tools as
part of the base-distribution, then I see that as my tax dollars going down the hole,
and I take that seriously.
I hope you don't take my statements too harshly, but reality is reality, not some
ET has one helluva sense of humor!
He's always anal-probing right-wing schizos!
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message