OpenBSD Journal

Wind River terminating BSD/OS

Contributed by Dengue on from the so-long dept.

Charles Hill writes : "While this isn't specific to OpenBSD, it is important. For example: "BSD/OS already made its BSD Authentication System code available and it is used by OpenBSD." " has the whole scoop, it looks like bsd/os suffered hard at the hands of OpenSource:

Many BSD/OS users over the past few years have been commenting on the list about their migrations from BSD/OS. Users have made comments like: "Our FreeBSD migration is almost complete" and "have migrated all BSD servers to Red Hat Linux 9".
That'll leave a mark on revenues after awhile.

(Comments are closed)

  1. By Matt () on

    But why are people moving away from BSD/OS ? Do they not want to pay license fees (are there any?). Are they jumping ship because they want the bells and whistles of Redhat? FreeBSD has a well earned reputation for stability, but last I checked netcraft reported many of the top uptime machines as being BSD/OS. Uptime doesn't mean everything of course, but its not a bad thing to say that they are the uptime champions.

    Does anyone have first hand experience and want to share?

    1. By anonymouse me () on

      wonder if the bsd's would like the smp code that is here.. it would be nice to make some ground on smp support.. although I know the guys are working hard at it..

      1. By Ben () on

        FreeBSD developers already were given access to the BSD/OS (or limited sections) tree and that is where FreeBSD 5.x SMP came from. Also talking with a few friends the SMP from BSD/OS is a dead end implemention.=( It has a major flaw in it. She suggested looking at dragonflyBSD for a better SMP implementation idea.

      2. By Anonymous Coward () on

        interesting SMP info in the following pdf

    2. By cmetz () on

      For a long time, BSD/OS had the old 4.4 (Mach derived?) VM, which had long-term stability problems. FreeBSD fixed those problems with a more or less rewrite and I believe NetBSD did the same. So if you're a production BSD user, and BSDI costs money *and* has reliability issues, and Free/Net is free of cost and doesn't, which will you choose? BSDI started out with a strong and loyal following but this issue lost them a lot of that.

      Also, as Free/Net/Open took off, they got much broader driver support and more features. BSD/OS just couldn't keep up.

    3. By Anonymous Coward () on

      Well, I'm no expert... but seems to me its non-free/non-oss software, its technologically not substantially (if at all) ahead of the OSS *BSD's, and since it looks like all their new features are coming from open source anyway, why pay for what you can have for free? I mean c'mon, their final release (not out yet) will sport fancy "new" USB 1.1 support... they're just behind the curve.

    4. By RC () on

      > But why are people moving away from BSD/OS

      I would say it's mainly because they are well behind the open source Unices when it comes to supporting new programs, hardware, etc.

      If you think that OpenBSD is behind when it comes to compiliers, assemblers, hardware, etc., then you should take a look at BSDi and see what lagging behind is really all about. Maybe that's a side-effect of some other problems, I don't know. What I do know, is that those problems where major show-stoppers for many of it's users, and prevented it from really being adopted by new users.

  2. By PhilJ () on

    In other words, does it lag behind the 'mainstream' *BSD's as far as applications and general development, similar to the way Debian does?

    Apparently, in Debian's case it's for stability.

Latest Articles


Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]