RE: Is this bunk.
Thank you all for your replies. The information I posted to you all was NOT my opinion or statement. I use and like FreeBSD more than windows having been introduced to it by a friend some years ago. I was and am most certainly NOT trolling, I merely did not know how much truth was in the statement that it was anything to do with Apple. In fact the message I sent was quoted from the original sender to me an Mr Oliver Stiebel when I asked him what BSD had to do with Apple. When he originally sent me this message I wouldn't recommend Apple to anyone. in response to my message. Linux Oliver !, lets at least go for one of the BSD flavours. Personally I prefer FreeBSD. Thank you for your help. I am willing to send a single person on this list a copy of the original email as I received as proof of this conversation, I have no wish to be considered a troll on this group. As I said I had no knowledge of Apple having anything to do with BSD and so asked for clarifications sake for myself. Garry -Original Message- From: David Kelly [mailto:dke...@hiwaay.net] Sent: 23 August 2010 04:18 To: Garry Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is this bunk. On Aug 22, 2010, at 7:25 PM, Garry wrote: This is a conversation held on a UK group page, can you confirm or deny this as twaddle. Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. Apple hired a lot of key people from the FreeBSD project. I don't know just what comes back to FreeBSD out of Apple but suspect the reason you and myself don't know is that Apple doesn't care to toot their own horn. Apple made a significant contribution a while back testing and improving NFS. As for how much of MacOS X is BSD, pretty much all of the command line stuff. Apple has gone to great lengths to XML-ize most everything so while MacOS is BSD, its probably the most distant BSD cousin. Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for instance. NT 3.51 used to flash a Berkeley Software Distribution copyright message on the text console during boot because some code was used. Doubt MS could leave well enough alone to simply lift the entire stack. The VMS-inspired NT kernel was probably not organized in such a way as to optimally use an unmodified BSD network protocol stack. So, in supporting/using BDS i would enevatibaly end up writing code for it, or filing bugs or whatever. (I have assisted with a few Linux drivers and written kernel patches, as well as working on things like DirectX 3D 9 for Wine and work on KDE etc...) Having seen how BDS license software has been used, to create highly tied in, almost crippled proprietary software, I do not feel that I can support software developed under such licenses. So why are you here? Trolling? It bugs the heck out of some people when others manage to build on their work to make something better, and then not give it away to everyone else. Others realize that if what we do is truly useful then others will want to use it to build bigger and better things. That it doesn't matter if we sell our work or give it away, what others do with it is no skin off our noses. Our original work is still exactly as accessible as it was before others made something more of their own version of it. Web-Kit has actually worked quite well as an open system, even though Apple done a hostile take over of the project from KHTML in KDE. So, the GPL has worked to produce an open product in Web-kit but the BSD license has lead to vendor lock-in on the part of Microsoft and most significantly Apple. Thats one of the big problems of the GPL-mindset. Seems they spend a whole lot more time cloning the work of others than in actually creating anything new. This does not mean to say that I have a problem with the quality of the code in BSD, I just feel that the license is counter productive. There is nothing in the BSD license permitting a hostile takeover. Some would claim FreeBSD has executed a hostile takeover of what it is to be BSD. The pre-FreeBSD code is out there, you are welcome to it. Some would say OpenBSD attempted a hostile takeover of BSD. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dke...@hiwaay.net Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Is this bunk.
This is a conversation held on a UK group page, can you confirm or deny this as twaddle. Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for instance. So, in supporting/using BDS i would enevatibaly end up writing code for it, or filing bugs or whatever. (I have assisted with a few Linux drivers and written kernel patches, as well as working on things like DirectX 3D 9 for Wine and work on KDE etc...) Having seen how BDS license software has been used, to create highly tied in, almost crippled proprietary software, I do not feel that I can support software developed under such licenses. Web-Kit has actually worked quite well as an open system, even though Apple done a hostile take over of the project from KHTML in KDE. So, the GPL has worked to produce an open product in Web-kit but the BSD license has lead to vendor lock-in on the part of Microsoft and most significantly Apple. This does not mean to say that I have a problem with the quality of the code in BSD, I just feel that the license is counter productive. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
can ping, can't download through firewall
hi, i'm a reasonably experienced linux/bsd user - i've installed a few boxes in my time and usually with a good level of success. but this time i'm stumped. i'm trying to set up a freebsd gateway to share my cable modem connection. from the gateway itself i can ping the world, from the attached clients i can ping the world, i can even do dns lookups. doing: curl --head http://www.website.com gives me a good-looking header and everything, but if i do lynx http://www.website.com no joy. i get: HTTP request sent; waiting for response. and it stops there. this is true from both the clients and the gateway itself. i just can't download anything for all the pings in the world. my current set up is -- kernel config: options IPFIREWALL options IPDIVERT options IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE_LIMIT=10 -- /etc/rc.conf gateway_enable=YES firewall_enable=YES firewall_type=OPEN natd_enable=YES natd_interface= rl0 natd_flags= which are both straight out of the handbook. -- ipfw -a list 00050 1844 130026 divert 8668 ip from any to any via rl0 00100 96 11166 allow ip from any to any via lo0 002000 0 deny ip from any to 127.0.0.0/8 003000 0 deny ip from 127.0.0.0/8 to any 65000 2481 200907 allow ip from any to any 655350 0 allow ip from any to any ethernet cards - a pair of 8139's - rl0 external, rl1 internal. as far as i can tell they work fine. i've tried the same thing using ipfilter and ipnat instead of natd and ipfw - with the same results. i've noticed that if i turn on the firewall my pings to the isp's router are much much less reliable, sometimes losing 30%+ of the packets but generally degraded compared to the setup with no firewall enabled. the firewall stats show that everything is passing ok. i really don't know what's going on. unfortunately my web searches have turned up nothing similar. does anyone have any ideas/comments/suggestions/experience of the same? is it the network cards? pings from the client machine when connected directly work perfectly but from the gateway are at best a little dodgy - losing 15% of the packets. any help greatly appreciated. Garry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new 5.1 install network problem.
Name resolution is not working and the network connection seems to be timing out a lot as all network functions are very sluggish. For instance, I CAN ping the IP of my name server, however even though the response is less than 1ms, there is about 80% packet loss. i was having a very similar problem a while ago. losing 33% of my pings but in my case i couldn't download past 1024 bytes of anything and that not often. in my case it turned out to be a dodgy cable... some kind of internal wire smudge that meant although it looked like a full connection (all lights on etc) it just didn't work with my cards (except on my Mac, which took it fine). have you tried changing the cable? g Thanks for the Reply: No, I hadn't checked, but the autosensing looks good. Both the card and switch are at 100 and full-duplex. Thanks again, Cla. - Original Message - From: Mike Gruen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Clarence Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:35 PM Subject: Re: new 5.1 install network problem. Clarence Brown wrote: Thanks for the Reply: I believe that the DNS timeout is a symptom rather than cause of the problem, because I'm getting an 80% packet loss when pinging the IP address of the DNS server. I'm running the DNS servers, and they are on the same LAN. I've seen this type of response when there is a mismatch of autosensing network adapters. Try forcing your network card to whatever speed and duplex setting you prefer to run at and make sure that the switch port your connected to is set the same. The machine you're configuring is at full-duplex, but the switch may be at half duplex. resolv.conf is same on this machine as on other machines that do work. The LAN does have DHCP, but I assigned this FreeBSD machine a static IP at an unused address in a range of addresses that I have reserved for servers. in rc.conf (the ip addresses are the values I expect): defaultrouter=###.###.###.### hostname=fbsd04.fakeDOMAINname.com ifconfig_xl0=inet ###.###.###.### netmask ###.###.###.### in hosts, I had to add the correct domain to localhost, and add entries for the machine's own name, but this didn't seem to help. With further testing, still getting 60%-80% packet loss when trying to ping IP address of other machines on network from problem machine, but some DO get through. Other machines are getting similar results when trying to ping the IP address of the problem machine. Thanks again, Cla. - Original Message - From: fbsd_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Clarence Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:07 AM Subject: RE: new 5.1 install network problem. You are correct, sure sounds like DNS time out problem. Do you have hostname='gateway.fakeDOMAINname.com' in rc.conf Do you have entry in /etc/hosts file for ip address of Nic card and it's FQDN IE: 'gateway.fakeDOMAINname.com' If this PC is connected to lan, does the lan use DHCP, and if so do you have ifconfig_xl0=DHCP in rc.conf? Check /etc/resolv.conf to see that it has the IP address of your ISP DNS severs. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Clarence Brown Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: new 5.1 install network problem. Please help me troubleshoot a network problem. In the past, after installing, it has all just worked, so I'm not sure exactly how to best proceed. When the PC was formatted as Win98 the network connection worked fine, and the cabling is on my work bench and works fine on other test systems, so I don't suspect a hardware problem. I just installed 5.1 from the CD's on to an IBM Aptiva E96. It has a 3Com 3C905B-TXNM card, which seems to have been correctly identified. On Boot things seem to proceed normally until the Sendmail message where the boot seems to stop for several minutes. (I thought I selected to not enable sendmail ) Name resolution is not working and the network connection seems to be timing out a lot as all network functions are very sluggish. For instance, I CAN ping the IP of my name server, however even though the response is less than 1ms, there is about 80% packet loss. nslookup can't connect to the name server, even using IP, and again I suspect that it is timing out. Was able to connect to my FTP server using its IP to try to transfer some files, for this email, but the connection timed out nd was reset when trying to cd to the input directory. Here are what I think are the relevant lines from my messages log where the card is found on boot: Dec 22 09:16:27 fbsd04 kernel: xl0: 3Com 3c905B-TX Fast Etherlink XL port 0x7080-0x70ff mem 0x8010-0x8010007f irq 10 at device 13.0 on pci0 Dec 22
can ping, can't download through firewall
hi, i'm a reasonably experienced linux/bsd user - i've installed a few boxes in my time and usually with a good level of success. but this time i'm stumped/jiggered. i'm trying to set up a freebsd gateway to share my cable modem connection. from the gateway itself i can ping the world, from the attached clients i can ping the world, i can even do dns lookups. doing: curl --head http://www.website.com gives me a good-looking header and everything, but if i do lynx http://www.website.com no joy. i get: HTTP request sent; waiting for response. and it stops there. this is true from both the clients and the gateway itself. i just can't download anything for all the pings in the world. my current set up is -- kernel config: options IPFIREWALL options IPDIVERT options IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE_LIMIT=10 -- /etc/rc.conf gateway_enable=YES firewall_enable=YES firewall_type=OPEN natd_enable=YES natd_interface= rl0 natd_flags= which are both straight out of the handbook. -- ipfw -a list 00050 1844 130026 divert 8668 ip from any to any via rl0 00100 96 11166 allow ip from any to any via lo0 002000 0 deny ip from any to 127.0.0.0/8 003000 0 deny ip from 127.0.0.0/8 to any 65000 2481 200907 allow ip from any to any 655350 0 allow ip from any to any i've tried the same thing using ipfilter and ipnat instead of natd and ipfw - with the same results. ethernet cards - a pair of 8139's - rl0 external, rl1 internal. as far as i can tell they work fine. on the internal network the pings are 100% - i can ftp ssh the works without problem. i've noticed that if i turn on the firewall my pings to the isp's router are much much less reliable, sometimes losing 30%+ of the packets but generally degraded compared to the setup with no firewall enabled. the firewall stats show that everything is passing ok. i really don't know what's going on. unfortunately my web searches have turned up nothing similar. does anyone have any ideas/comments/suggestions/experience of the same? is it the network cards? pings from the client machine when connected directly work perfectly but from the gateway are at best a little dodgy - losing 15% of the packets. is there some incompatibility between the network card and the router? oh, and install is FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE any help greatly appreciated. it's doin my head in. Garry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: can ping, can't download through firewall
thanks for the advice. natd_interface= rl0fix this statement there should not be space between first quote and rl0 rl0 rl0 the space comes from me copying and pasting from a website, not from my config files. that space was never in my config files. What happens if you boot using the original generic kernel with no firewall enable statements in rc.conf? IE: kernel without IPFW or IPFILTER compiled in. Do you have total access to public internet with generic kernel and no firewall it's the same situation. pingo-rama but no downloads. the response isn't even consistent. doing a fetch -v http://207.126.111.202/index.html; (which is rheet.mozilla.or) sometimes (more often than not) it gets to the requesting http://...; but no more but then sometimes it gets as far as receiving... but never gets more than 1024 bytes. but, the good news is, i figured it out. it was the bloody cable after all that. the ifconfig was showing up as 100baseTX but not 100baseTX full-duplex but what really pointed it out was the lack of a link status light when i tried a different ethernet card. so somewhere in that cable something is broken, i just don't know where. changing the plastic bits hasn't helped. the strangest thing is that it works (is working right now) without a hitch here on my mac - must be that the mac drivers/nic are more robust/less fussy than the i386/8139/freebsd counterparts. i don't know enough about full- or half- duplex to make more sense out of it. so, after two days of racking my brains and beating my head against various bits of brick and styrofoam padding we're back on track. thanks again, g What happens if you boot using the original generic kernel with no firewall enable statements in rc.conf? IE: kernel without IPFW or IPFILTER compiled in. Do you have total access to public internet from your gateway box? [ie will lynx http://www.website.com work] If so then, add the rc.conf statements enable statements for the firewall of your chose and the firewall loadable module will be dynamically loaded at boot time. See if this makes any difference. If not then problem is not in the creation of new kernel, but in the firewall rules you are using. natd_interface= rl0fix this statement there should not be space between first quote and rl0 rl0 rl0 Change this rule allow ip from any to any to allow log ip from any to any And only test one outbound service like lynx http://www.website.com and them check your log to see what happened. BE careful this will generate a lot of log msgs. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Garry Hill Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:53 AM To: FreeBSD Subject: can ping, can't download through firewall hi, i'm a reasonably experienced linux/bsd user - i've installed a few boxes in my time and usually with a good level of success. but this time i'm stumped/jiggered. i'm trying to set up a freebsd gateway to share my cable modem connection. from the gateway itself i can ping the world, from the attached clients i can ping the world, i can even do dns lookups. doing: curl --head http://www.website.com gives me a good-looking header and everything, but if i do lynx http://www.website.com no joy. i get: HTTP request sent; waiting for response. and it stops there. this is true from both the clients and the gateway itself. i just can't download anything for all the pings in the world. my current set up is -- kernel config: options IPFIREWALL options IPDIVERT options IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE_LIMIT=10 -- /etc/rc.conf gateway_enable=YES firewall_enable=YES firewall_type=OPEN natd_enable=YES natd_interface= rl0 natd_flags= which are both straight out of the handbook. -- ipfw -a list 00050 1844 130026 divert 8668 ip from any to any via rl0 00100 96 11166 allow ip from any to any via lo0 002000 0 deny ip from any to 127.0.0.0/8 003000 0 deny ip from 127.0.0.0/8 to any 65000 2481 200907 allow ip from any to any 655350 0 allow ip from any to any i've tried the same thing using ipfilter and ipnat instead of natd and ipfw - with the same results. ethernet cards - a pair of 8139's - rl0 external, rl1 internal. as far as i can tell they work fine. on the internal network the pings are 100% - i can ftp ssh the works without problem. i've noticed that if i turn on the firewall my pings to the isp's router are much much less reliable, sometimes losing 30%+ of the packets but generally degraded compared to the setup with no firewall enabled. the firewall stats show that everything is passing ok. i really don't know what's going on. unfortunately my web searches have turned up nothing similar. does anyone have any ideas/comments/suggestions/experience of the same? is it the network cards? pings from the client machine when connected directly work perfectly but from the gateway are at best
