True believers mind-meld FreeBSD with Ubuntu to burn systemd Another shot has been fired in the war between *nix true believers and systemd advocates, with a group of diehards welding the Ubuntu body onto the FreeBSD chassis. Their beta, ubuntuBSD, has taken its first breaths at Sourceforge, and the counter tells us more than 2,800 daredevils have already hit the download button. It …
It's pretty easy to run Linux binaries on FreeBSD. You have to install a Linux base package, so that you have all the libraries to link against, but after that other stuff works just fine. There just isn't much need for it, since most things can be recompiled for the native BSD platform.
The down side presumably
There is no downside for normal userspace binaries - you can run them. You could run them for decades. I remember running StarOffice 3.x on FreeBSD circa 4.x or thereabouts more than a decade ago.
In the specific case of Debian or Ubuntu you do not care about binaries anyway as they are all re-built for you. If memory serves me right t ~ 95% of the packages are available for the BSD port and work. That is more than for example most of non-x86 systems like the old mac mini.
As a matter of fact, as BSD does have its advantages especially when it comes to file system stuff, I am seriously tempted to rebuild one of my older NAS-es using Debian-on-BSD.
>> Hopefully this will see some uptake and means more diversity for our OS choices. A good thing, no?
NO. Good god no! What is this fucking retarded obsession with CHOICE? I guess it's OK if you have the time/interest/knowledge to actually care, but 99.999999% of people just want a thing that works. I've worked with shit like this my entire life (over 30 years now) and I'm fucking fed up of having to make choices between 17 extremely similar and similarly shit things. Face it, nothing's perfect. Everything technological will find some way to piss you off. So who cares about choice, just give me something that'll do the job, I'll learn to use it, and with the time I saved not having to make a fucking choice I'll go down the pub and get pissed to forget the living hell my career choice has turned my life into.
And ZFS too. It solves two major developmental problems that are holding up Linux's progress.
Some see SystemD as being important, but really it's just tinkering at the edges. Who cares how neatly system startup is managed when the network stack and file systems you end up with don't cut the mustard any more.
If this gets any traction it could be a big threat to Linux's current popularity, and the Linux kernel guys might not be able to react quickly enough in response. Everyone wants better network stacks, better file systems, etc because ultimately they save money. Some of the reasons why Linux is "stuck" is GPL2. This development could underline how problematic that can be.
There's also bound to be the weird prospect of someone complaining about GPL code being contaminated by or linked to none GPL licensed FreeBSD code.
Hammer, nail, head.
Picture the scene at Redmond:
"Shit! The lusers are moving to linux!"
'No problem; we'll just embrace, extend and extinguish linux - kill it stone dead.'
"We can't."
'What?'
"It's GPLed - we can't obfuscate the code."
'Shit! We're screwed.'
"No. wait."
'What?'
"The beardy weirdies don't like systemd."
'So?'
"So they'll adopt BSD instead."
'So?'
"That's released under the BSD licence; we can release as much as we like under that without having to supply the source along with binaries. And we can charge for the binaries too!"
'Great; start pushing systemd stat!'
when people in their early formative years get bored by working systems and design complex systems for weird edge cases. This is in part caused by university courses teaching whatever fashionable technology they hear about even though it has long proven to not be as useful as it originally sounded.
@bazza, quote below from OA
"This project owes a lot to Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and I'd like to send you a sincere offer for collaboration," he writes, promising that there will be contributions back to that project soon.
Quote from Wikipedia stub article at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD
"Debian GNU/kFreeBSD was discontinued as an officially supported platform as of Debian 8.0."
I wish the project luck, but I wonder how wide the uptake will be. Most BSD* people prefer to use their own tool chain rather than the GNU one. Also watch out for launchd!
@keithpeter,
"Quote from Wikipedia stub article at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD
"Debian GNU/kFreeBSD was discontinued as an officially supported platform as of Debian 8.0."
I wish the project luck, but I wonder how wide the uptake will be. Most BSD* people prefer to use their own tool chain rather than the GNU one. Also watch out for launchd!"
Oh no! There's even more combinations of stuff out there than I thought possible!!!!!
Isn't variety wonderful? Though it is occasionally a pain in the arse... Anyway, lets see if I can think of some weird ones: Gnome on top of a Windows kernel? The way MS are heading perhaps that's where they'll go, but would that actually be an improvement? Cinnamon on top of OS-X? OS/2 Shell on top of Free BSD?
Don't worry, I'm sure Systemd will adopt their own network stack and file system eventually.
Plus a browser, mail client and server, word processor, spreadsheet and some more stuff.
Any incompatibilities with existing software and protocols will be the fault of those existing products.
That's the problem - apparently they've now "embraced" udev. That's why Devuan is proposing an unemcumbered rewrite vdev.
Pottering et al have learned something from the Borg - and what they're attempting seems to be acceptance not on merit but on lockin by stealth. And a lot of propaganda that their way is always best.
The hairball is getting bigger - sooner or later the security nightmares will surface.
Personally my feeling is - if you think you're that good take a couple of weeks off and write a bloody kernel, stuff that in systemd and ^%}) off for good.
Yes, while I personally don't use Windows unless needed, Windows is good enough for some applications, not the applications I choose to run, but for lots of other peoples workloads.
I've run Linux, I've run FreeBSD 9 and 10.
They are nice systems, but I prefer the gnu userland, I'm more experience with modifying the Linux kernel.
I think Linux is good enough that I don't consider BSD for my POSIX prototypes unless I need a BSD specific feature, like say dummynet. Is FreeBSD a better "Unix", yes, is RandomDistro/Linux somewhat scuffy in comparison to FreeBSD curated approach yes, do I or my customer base really care ? no.
GPL v2 licensed Linux kernel is doing just fine and spreading like wildfire in Android devices so where is that stuck you're talking about ? Just because Sun came with their weird license for ZFS in order to avoid GPL has nothing to do with Linux kernel prospects. And if you compare the installed base of Linux and *BSD you'll discover that licensing was not an impediment for Linux.
GPL is not imperfect just because it doesn't fit your taste.
FreeBSD already "neatly" starts up. Oh I don't want to hear about it about the RC* files. The SystemD apologists wax lyrical about startup time but they all ignore...this is UNIX. When the fuck do we actually reboot? Not very often.
Pottering is an ass. Forget SystemD, let's talk about his other abortion, Pulse Audio.
the Linux kernel guys might not be able to react quickly enough in response.
That's because the kernel guys have dropped the stable/development duality, and have now a unique stablopment approach with 10 flavours of dead branches and 1 unstable tree.
If Linux came back to the good old days, the kernel guys could react quickly, but under current circumstances they will not be able to. I guess Linus became conservative and comfortable with age.
My next system will be a BSD. After 19 years of love with Linux, may-be time has come. I just hope KDE runs well on *BSD.
"Why wouldn't they just not use systemd on Linux, rather than making the effort required to not use it on FreeBSD?"
A good question. The quick answer is that the way Linux is evolving more and more stuff is expecting systemd to be there. However they've clearly had to work round such expectations in Ubuntu in order to achieve this so why not work round it with a Linux kernel and sysv init.
My guess, without taking a closer look at it, is that init, logging, log-in & anything else that systemd's scope creep has hit in Linux comes from BSD as upstream Linux development has largely if not entirely ceased. It's stuff outside that - binutils and desktop for instance - that weill come from Ubuntu.
/sbin/init is not the worlds most complicated program
busybox provides a fully functional init system and syslog.
vdevd provides device node udev style hotplug
What else do you need to replace ? I can't think of anything else I really need on a machine, and even hotplug not a deal-breaker for me.
If you don't want systemd, it doesn't seem that hard to purge at least for the case of building your own rootfs.
Just debootstrap into a directory, delete the files you don't want.
NO, there was no evolution. SystemD was FORCED in place, and dependencies on SystemD were SHOVED up our asses. There was no "choice," there was no "evolution." It was largely unwanted, with good reason. Look at Pottering's other messes, like Pulse Audio.
WHY exactly does a so-called "init" replacement need access to iptables? Oh give it a few minutes..the breathless SystemD people will announce yet another module. And the SystemD astroturfers will be out in force.
This is exactly why I started looking at FreeBSD. I didn't need Microsoft-like astroturfing and megalomaniacs like Pottering and Red Hat.
With XFCE as the (default?) desktop, isn't it more of an Xubuntu/BSD?
I read the initial title and thought it extremely unlikely to be Unity based. Any group not willing to use Systemd has got to include as a subset (at least) those not willing to use Unity (or any modern desktop).
What happens when the ubuntu software stack gets even more divergent from Debian? (as it will in the next year or so, with Snappy packages, desktop converging with the phone/tablet etc.
Still, A++ for being innovative.
"Any group not willing to use Systemd has got to include as a subset (at least) those not willing to use Unity (or any modern desktop)."
AIUI Gnome 3 depends on systemd or at least on a shim to replace it. So anything based on Gnome 3 is going to be excluded but that's not the entirety of modern desktops. KDE is fine on BSD.
I wasn't including KDE as a modern desktop (really should have put quotes round 'modern').
I was referring to desktops that don't have the 'traditional' taskmanager layout or ability to orient a panel natively to behave like a traditional desktop. KDE can be made to look and behave like even Unity (somewhat).
KDE has been fine in BSD for years, but will it continue to be so?
Personally I don't use KDE or any desktop much these days, but I do use KDE applications in Xmonad and other tiling Wms.
Sourceforge is awful, up until this year it was basically malware distribution and their other monetization techniques were questionable at best (Devshare anyone? https://sourceforge.net/blog/today-we-offer-devshare-beta-a-sustainable-way-to-fund-open-source-software).
Although things seem to be getting better with the new owners a large chunk of the stuff on there was long ago abandoned for Github and the likes, I don't think it will ever regain the trust of a lot of the Open Source community.
Yeah, the new owners emailed my twice with their "SlashdotMedia - Fair processing notice", about how I can request them to remove my data/etc.
Twice I've responded to them. They've not deigned to reply to either.
So, not so hopeful the new owners are going to be doing the right things after all. :(
And that's that every part of your operating system should be replaceable with very little effort.
If you don't like the logging daemon, just replace it, if you don't like the file system just do the same. If you don't like the printer spooling daemon, write your own. If you want a different kernel, free free to use it.
This was simple because those pieces of software had very limited interaction. All all of that interaction was designed to be understood by both machines and people. You didn't have complex messaging services or anything like that.
Quite. When I first encountered Systemd, I wondered what the hell all this poorly-organised stuff running with too much privilege could be. I thought I'd been infected. Can't say my opinion's changed much since then.
As someone who's opted to use systemd from the early days (Gentoo - it's about choice) I've been amazed at how simple things are with it - especially for configuration. Now that systemd is in more and more distros configuring Linux will be the same on all of them - rather than having to use (and figure out) each distros utilities. I like journald and the power it holds with everything logging to it. I love the boot times but that's less important when I only reboot to update the kernel. I like that when I insert a USB thumb drive it can automatically FSCK it if needed. These are all little things but when you put them all together they make a huge difference to usability.
Its strange that the people who complain most loudly about systemd have no qualms with either util-linux or busybox. As for all the hate directed for Poettering - he's actually trying to improve Linux, whether you agree with him or not. If you really disagree with him do what the UbuntuBSD or Devuan folk have done - create a better alternative.
We're a fickle bunch in IT - we'll happily jump ships to a better option - just now that option is systemd
"... just now that option is systemd[.]"
To quote Francis Urquhart "You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment".
Well, not in a family forum anyway.
You are right in one way, haters will hate but have you ever considered that there might just might, be a reason for them to do so?
Yes I thought about it - I've even ran into a few of the bugs people use as reasons for systemd being hated on so much - they were fixed though
The one people comment the most about is how un-unix like it is - it's not a monolithic binary (like busybox) - it's an umbrella for everything you need to get your system up and also configured (much like util-linux is an umbrella for lots of useful utilities)
Even Linus himself has taken a very pragmatic approach to systemd. He told the dev's of for not dealing with bugs properly and he uses it on his own system. If he thought it was something terrible he would have given it the middle finger as he does with anything he doesn't like
As a Gentoo and Raspbian user, I've got to say I prefer OpenRC to systemd, mainly because using openrc, I don't have any problems getting network file systems to come up at boot, which just doesn't seem to work on raspbian with systemd... What on earth is so wrong with specifying mount points in fstab that meant that systemd has to do something different?
Hmmm. I know what I like and what I don't like, and I like things that make sense, are clear in purpose, and can evolve to become better without adversely affecting their surroundings. Systemd is none of these. Systemd appears to be more a way to completly co-opt Linux and control it from systemd... that's more than an init method, that's a coup against all distros by RH (who BTW are in bed with M$ at the moment).
Yeah I know, that's a bit OTT tinfoil hat-wise, but lets see what happens; oh, and lets make sure there's an exit handy so everything doesn't have to regress back to the last known source code for all files of a systemd-less distro-release (if one can still be found).
Yes it replaced an init system - but it was never supposed to be just that and it never claimed to be
As for RedHat - they contribute more to Linux (both the kernel and the rest of the stack) than anyone else. It's in their best interests for it to do well - that's how they make money.
Since Microsoft allows Linux systems on their Azure platform and now offers .net and SQL Server on Linux it would make sense for any "linux company" that have customers that wish to use these services to support them.
I understand the tinfoiled hatness - I don't really trust microsoft as far as I can throw them - but they're no longer market leaders, especially on servers. They know if they don't change their tune and give their customers what they want they'll be irrelevant and mostly likely not making any money. Companies don't do things out the goodness of their hearts - they do things that will help them turn a profit
@nematoad
"Both have stated that they will not be using systemd."
Got a reference for the Slackware statement? The Slackers seem a pragmatic bunch and I am not aware that they have ruled out systemd in a possible future release as a result of dependencies on the systemd suite.
"The Slackers seem a pragmatic bunch and I am not aware that they have ruled out systemd in a possible future release as a result of dependencies on the systemd suite"
I haven't seen anything concrete on this, but the general consensus seems to be "we'll see how it goes, but we don't feel the need to implement it right now".
It's definitely not in -current, and 14.2 went to first release candidate last week. They recently implemented PulseAudio, so Pat V isn't exactly sitting in a darkened room with a wax doll of Lennart and a big box of pins.
Hvaing recently attempted to setup a Debian Jessie system that was inflicted with systemd (which I'd never used before) my biggest gripe isn't what it does, but that there no fscking way to find out what it thinks it's doing and how to change it. Crap docs, inconsistent command lines, lousy logging. It should not take an hour of Googling to figure out how to debug a Samba installation.
Even Googling for systemd help is dangerous, since most of the solutions will be posted by people who've simply poked around until they got something which seems to work. They then write a nice "howto" blog which explains how you "only" have to hack 13 system files to achieve your aim, after which a dozen other things are borked after the next reboot. If you're lucky you'll eventually find the right way to do it, which is likely to be one simple change in a file you've never heard of and which has no manpage. If you're really, really, lucky you'll then be able to untangle all the faulty changes and get back to something like your initial starting point.
When the best solution the web can offer to NFS startup dependency hell is to add "sleep 30" before looking for rpcbind, you know your system startup is in a bad way. And I thought Solaris SMF was bad...
When the best solution the web can offer to NFS startup dependency hell is to add "sleep 30" before looking for rpcbind, you know your system startup is in a bad way. And I thought Solaris SMF was bad...
Oh and wasn't systemd supposed to be the silver bullet that fixes those odd startup issues. Oh well..
Yeah Solaris SMF could be, how shall I put it, 'interesting' to work with.
Well about improving Linux - systemd *attempts* to improve Linux desktop/mobile installations. None of the systemd "improvements" make any sense in a server environment. Faster boot times? Fsck a thumb drive?
Have you seen systemd's cron replacement? Yuck! Binary logging is in no way an improvement over text logs. The FreeBSD init system is a much better fit for server systems.
I've got no real issues with systemd on a desktop system aside from the fact that it becomes a dependency of other stuff. How on earth that came about I have no idea. :(
"I like journald and the power it holds with everything logging to it."
"I like that when I insert a USB thumb drive it can automatically FSCK it if needed. These are all little things but when you put them all together they make a huge difference to usability."
What was preventing you from doing these things using traditional Unix-style facilities before systemd came along?
"Now that systemd is in more and more distros configuring Linux will be the same on all of them - rather than having to use (and figure out) each distros utilities."
You say that like it's a good thing. Having a choice means being able to avoid those distros which are more trouble than they're worth and use one which suits your own working methods. Unfortunately systemd does not suit my working methods. That doesn't make me a "hater", just someone who prefers to use something else.
...
Now that systemd is in more and more distros configuring Linux will be the same on all of them - rather than having to use (and figure out) each distros utilities.
On a unix like system configurations are text files in /etc. Ok, if different flavour uses different version of a particular daemon, the configuration file might be slightly different. Usually easily resolved with quick check on its man page
I like journald and the power it holds with everything logging to it. I love the boot times but that's less
I like syslogd and the way it just is there and logs to a text file.
important when I only reboot to update the kernel. I like that when I insert a USB thumb drive it can automatically FSCK it if needed. These are all little things but when you put them all together they make a huge difference to usability.
Glad it works for you. I prefer to know if there is an issue with a media and choose myself if I want to run fsck on it or not. I really don't want something like Windows' "This SD card is blank, would you like to format it" ...to automatically format without giving me the choice to realise I plugged in a wrong card that had different filesystem (ie not FAT or NTFS) on it.
Its strange that the people who complain most loudly about systemd have no qualms with either util-linux or busybox. As for all the hate directed for Poettering - he's actually trying to improve Linux, whether you agree with him or not. If you really disagree with him do what the UbuntuBSD or Devuan folk have done - create a better alternative.
What does busybox have to do with this? It's mostly for embedded systems.
I'm sure Poettering in his own mind thinks he is improving Linux. In my humble opinion he is killing it and completely misunderstanding the unix philosophy.
I like that when I insert a USB thumb drive it can automatically FSCK it if needed.
I don't. I want my devices to stay intact until I decide to do something with them.
This sort of thing means that forensic examination is no longer possible - if the device is altered as soon as you plug it in, your evidence is destroyed.
Vic.
"I like that when I insert a USB thumb drive it can automatically FSCK it if needed."
You _can_ already do that without systemd with a simple shell script... however it's one of those automatisms that regularly drive people forced into using NetworkManager or other FreeDesktop users mad.
If your computer is not doing something you wanted it to do, you can always do it separately. If your computer is doing things you don't want to do it, it's a big problem.
... NAS4FREE, PC-BSD and pfSense are good examples of what is possible.
Mind you it isn't too difficult to create a FreeBSD 'distro' just using the FreeBSD ports system. Anyone thinking of trying ubuntuBSD might want to give it a try. Here's a good place to start: https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/35308/
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
"Why not just use the term "unix-like system", instead of the silly "wildcard in place of the u", notation?"
The PFY clearly has no concept of ""The UNIX[tm] Way." It is obviously young, and new to the wonders of the power of *nix. It will probably grow up. Eventually.
"And if you want to "write it out properly", try Unics."
Unics is a similar, but different kettle of worms.Think "proto *nix".
I'm late on this one, but Linux isn't UNIX. *BSD is not UNIX, even though its close. Solaris, AIX, z/OS, and HP-UX are UNIX. OS X is UNIX. If it meets the Single Unix Specification, its UNIX. If it doesn't, its not UNIX. And while POSIX compatability is part of the SUS, it is not everything in it.
"Ok, but why not run FreeBSD directly?"
I've tried it out. I don't need to cut over permanently until Debian 7 runs out of LTS. My immediate impression is that the FreeBSD community has a little of the hair-shirt mentality that Linux used to have:
The installer is rough round the edges (he Install option on the menu is labelled Multiuser or something lose to that as nobody could be arsed to change it and it doesn't offer to make the installation bootable, you have to know the command line incantations for that and they're not documented in the generally excellent documentation).
There's a command-line package installer similar to apt but nothing equivalent to aptitude or synaptic to search for packages; you have to break out to a web site for that. Searching the forums reveals that suggestions for something better have been met by hostility. PC-BSD does have a GUI package handler but my experience was that trying to use it chewed up an Atom processor for long periods which was incomprehensible given that the FreeBSD version is so fast.
What's needed is the sort of polish that Ubuntu brought to Linux.
I'm running FreeBSD exclusively these days. It's still a bit behind the curve with hardware drivers compared to linux, but my server, and desktop Just Worktm, The laptop used to run Ubuntu primarily because of the hardware support but mainly because updates with Ubuntu, both distro and "apps" was simple. These days, the hardware on my oldish laptop is fully supported, even the built-in webcam.
Agreed about the installer though I'm not sure what you mean by the installation not being bootable. It is. The default doesn't start any 3rd party stuff such as X, window managers or desktop environments though.
pkg search wildcard is the command you are looking for and beleive someone is working on a GUI wrapper for the pkg system. The pkg system has the same downsides as all other binary upgrade systems though. You get the "default" build options which may not be what you want or for licensing or other reasons, no binary package at all, so you still end up using ports building from source for some stuff.
Wrapping the whole lot into an XUbuntu "wrapper" might well help others find the One True Way :-)
Like PC-BSD it takes a lot of the post-install "hard" configuration and set up away from the user such as configuring WiFi or USB automounting etc. On the upside, FreeBSD has a very structured userland which is part of "the system" unlike the fragmented Linux world so no matter which FreeBSD "distro" you use, under the bonnet everything is where you expect it and the user stuff is kept away from system stuff, eg /etc and /usr/local/etc
Ok, but why not run FreeBSD directly?
On servers, its awesome. Most every bit of hardware you will want is well supported and has great drivers.
On consumer kit like laptops, not so much. We lag behind with things that are primarily Linux driven by manufacturer choices. As an example, DRM support (that's Direct Rendering Manager, not any encryption malarky) lags behind Linux, so Intel graphics are really only supported up to Ivy Bridge.
This is because everything that Intel will push to the linux kernel has to be ported to FreeBSD, and there is a very small team of people (led by the awesome Juan-Sebastien Pedron) competent enough and with enough free time to actually do it. On Linux, there are teams of Intel employed software engineers doing this. Also, for a long time no-one in the Linux world could agree how the kernel interfaces should work for DRM; when there is that uncertainty, or it changes every year to a new system, it is disheartening to pour immense amounts of effort in to porting it.
Even when you have a consumer device manufacturer who does port stuff themselves, like nvidia who produce excellent closed source BSD drivers for their discrete cards, often there are rough edges, like missing CUDA or Optimus support.
I don't mean to be down on Intel, their server support is reasonable for chipsets and network drivers. (Its only "reasonable" because there is one guy for *BSD NIC drivers, and a team for Linux NIC drivers, and last I read Jack doesn't even get access to the cool test hardware, he has to borrow it from the Linux team..)
Not THE Jon Boden, surely?
There ain't no such beast in the xBSD world. Linux is a kernel and "distros" build a userland and apps ecosystem around it, making all sorts of arcane (and sometime different!) decisions about where files should be stored.
The xBSD family build and deliver a complete OS including the userland so any "distro" is effectively just a skin over the top of the same build, possibly with supplied apps. PC-BSD does a bit of weirdness with it's package system but the underlying ports and pkg system, which is part of the FreeBSD OS, still work and you can switch the whole PC-BSD install back over to "traditional" FreeBSD quite easily.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Dissatisfied with systemd for quasi-idealogical reasons and unimpressed by OpenRC or other alternatives*, they choose Ubuntu!?!
Facepalm!!!
The logical conclusion would have been Slackware/Gentoo/<similarly systemd-unecumbered option>, (B)LFS, or PacBSD**, surely.
Or, oh, I don't know, just off the top of my head, something like, say, some flavour of BSD itself.***
* nope, not even Devuan.
** https://github.com/PacBSD
*** if they really want to run linux binaries then FreeBSD would be the obvious choice.
This post has been deleted by its author
Either this is a backdoor attempt at getting Pottering's idiocy into the BSD world, or Canonical is making the same mistake Red Hat made with "RMS Linux" (if anyone remembers that stupidity).
Why would anyone take apt over BSD's native pkg system? pkg is far superior and much faster.
No, I think this is more about establishing systemd in the BSD world. Just watch and wait. It will happen.
First paragraph: Really? Diehards vs Mindless fools following the Linux takeover by the NSA or other shadowy powers bent on world-domination if you ask me.
In a bunker deep inside a mammoth fort somewhere in Utah:
Hmmm... (evil cackle) how to we infiltrate Linux to make it more breakable and easy to monitor people? We pay Lennert to create a monster that breaks to founding principles of the Linux way...
Not long afterwards: Wow, even we didn't think it would be that easy! The whole lot of sheep have swallowed it hook, line and sinker! (evil laugh)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
