Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD an officially supported GNOME platform
GlockaDe writes: "FreeBSD is now a supported platform for the GNOME project. This means that now, new GNOME releases will not ship unless they successfully build and run on FreeBSD. The actual note is buried in these minutes."
I installed fbsd this morning (as an experiment, interests sake etc etc) on my gateway. So far it's performing great. I must admit that part of my motivation for installing fbsd (please, no flames here) was to get away from the linux crowd. I love linux but lately (I guess the last year or so) I've become dis-illusioned. So many "newbies" installing linux and even developing on it. While this is not a bad thing, I feel that Linux has entered the "mainstream" and hence I am looking for something else to sink my claws into. A challenge if you like. Every man and his dog seems to have at least tried linux these days... heck even Katz installed it. As I said, this is a good thing(tm) for linux, but I have an itch to boldly go where no man has gone before. Maybe it's *BSD or maybe it's HURD... I'm not sure yet, but I'll bet it will be a fun adventure.
Is this just to say that Linux runs on Alpha? Since Windows NT runs on it, LInus automatically feels it also needs to run on it? I hope this isn't the only reason. I guess it's a good thing to be platform independant.
Er, no. FreeBSD SMP isnt the best in the world (5.0 will fix that) but it works well enough and, coupled with all its other kernel advantages over Linux, an SMP FreeBSD machine is still faster than the same machine running Linux. This dovetails quite nicely with my experience as well. Given that there are no other "benchmarks" than those I've linked to, your belief in Linux's superiority remains just that, belief.
Saying any free software is "officially supported on this-or-that-system" is a huge mistake, and it totally jeopardizes the "release early, release often" philosophy.
Free software projects depends on someone building and submitting system specific patches.
Wow, you'd better tell all those FreeBSD users running vmware that. They're probabally going to be annoyed that they have to stop using vmware simply because you aren't allowed to port kernel modules?
/proc for everything? It's kind of like old DOS programming in that it's almost completely tied to the OS (and is not actually a standard, so it can change at any time) and platform. I can see using /proc occasionally when you don't have any other options, but it seems like some Linux programmers (not Unix programmers) like to use it in every damn program. It's really annoying for those of us who port applications.
I'll give you half credit though, vmware had problems in prior to 4-STABLE as of the beginning of the year, and won't run at all on anything prior to 4-STABLE.
Rant mode: On
By the way, what is the deal with everybody in Linux using
Rant mode: Off
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
I read the internet for the articles.
"If I'm not mistaken, you could run Gnome under FreeBSD with Linux compat"
Why would you want to? Linux compatibility is primarily useful for running closed-source apps built to run on Linux. GNOME can simply be compiled for FreeBSD by whoever maintains the FreeBSD packages for GNOME.
"Whoever thought it was only for Linux?"
From assorted remarks I've seen on Slashdot and Linux Today, it seems that a lot of people seem to think of KDE and GNOME as Linux projects rather than Unix projects. Go figure.
Here are some desirable closed-sources apps for Linux:
WordPerfect, StarOffice (not the OpenOffice beta), Adobe Acrobat Reader, RealPlayer, Java from Blackdown or Sun.
Some people like to run these.
GNOME is supposed to be a Unix desktop, not just a Linux desktop, so portability across Unices would be a goal anyway. I doubt that KDE had much to do with it.
I recently sent an email to Eazel support regarding some problems I was having with Nautilus. The response made it sound like there was something wrong, the email thanked me for my support at this "challenging time", yet I have not heard that Eazel was having any problems.
It is not my intention to start rumours, but it would be a real shame if they were having problems since Nautilus has so much potential, but is still somewhat unusable (too bloated, and too difficult to install).
--
Hi,
Just thought I'd write a line about my experiences with FreeBSD. I recently ran (up until yesterday, actually) FreeBSD. I was up to 4.3-BETA.
My experience with XFree (and I was using 4.0.3) was that it was actually easier to set up under FreeBSD than it was on the various Linux distributions I've used. Apps ran great, everything worked more or less fine.
In the end, though, I wanted cdparanoia without getting involved in a major porting project (it's in the OpenBSD ports tree, but there are some differences between OpenBSD and FreeBSD) and I was tired of waiting for DRI support. Heck, maybe it was there, but I couldn't find it and anyone I asked was too busy being l33t to help (and hell, while I'm at it, there are just some times when telling someone you used to run Linux is a bad idea.)
I wish the FreeBSD crowd all the luck in the world because they've got a potential Linux killer, but they're going to have to step up the development process' speed.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Nautilus may not be supported, but it builds and runs. It's an easier build on FreeBSD-release than it is on, say, Slackware-current.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
I switched my wife to FreeBSD a few months ago. The only thing she noticed was that her system no longer seems to freeze for a few seconds at a time under heavy loading.
This is mainly because FreeBSD was designed from the start with the attitude of "let's do it the Right Way", rather than "let's get this working, and re-write it later". That has the disadvantage that you don't necessarily get nifty new features as quickly as the Linux folks. Linux seems to support every piece of hardware ever made to varying degrees. However, if a feature is including in the current release, then you can bet that it works - I've yet to find an alpha-quality driver or system in FreeBSD.
Anyway, she runs Netscape, Mozilla, Gnome, Enlightenment, ESD, and pretty much all of the other apps that you'd want on a Linux desktop. She can't tell that she's not the Debian system that it replaced, except for the never-freezing difference.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Yes, it will; this FreeBSDzine article discusses it. (Hint: just because it requires help from the kernel, that doesn't mean FreeBSD's kernel can't provide that help, even if the kernel modules in question had to be written by somebody other than the people at VMware.)
No, that's not good enough - Wine runs native on FreeBSD.
You want to run Linux VMware on the FreeBSD running on VirtualPC, and then run NT on VMware.
Then you can run Hercules on NT (yes, it runs on Linux as well, so you could run Linux on VMware instead)...
...and boot the S/390 version of Linux on that.
No, wait, you do want to run Linux on VMware. Then you'd run the NT version of Hercules under Wine....
i have used gnome/enlightenment under freebsd since the dawn of time. get out of my face with that kde.
----
Just one man beneath the sky,
Unless it's an SMP system, that is... :)
Give the BSD drum a break and just enjoy the article for once; I like BSD as much as the next guy, but you needn't belittle everyone else to promote your "OS of choice" (whatever that is). Heck, Windows is great for many things that neither Linux nor BSD is good at.
The next time someone comes trolling for BSD flames, just ignore them; especially an AC on /. ; Every OS is a hobbiest's system to someone else.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
Well, I noticed that current FreeBSD does seem to be a bit more responsive than Linux 2.2.x (haven't tried 2.4.x yet), but 14 times as fast? No way, not even close.
Be cautious if you dual-boot with Windows, though. Both Open and Net BSD trash your partition table with their "disklabels", making your system unbootable if you later uninstall them and try to boot into Windows. fdisk /mbr doesn't work, I had to delete all partitions and start over.
If there is a way to prevent this please let me know, I'd like to try OpenBSD again.
Man, you and the post you replied to must be IT management. One can tell by the way that you just don't get it and probably never will.
vim builds in DOS, but I don't think gvim (the GUI version) would run there.
I agree. Slack and FreeBSD are my personal favorites as well. They are both developed in the classical Unix style... KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).
I did set the bootable partition back to Windows... "No operating system found".
Didn't try GRUB, but I'm not exactly hopeful enough to go through reinstalling Windows again :P
Thanks for the non-answer Mr. Smartypants.
BTW, I've done this with Linux and FreeBSD dozens of times with no problems.
I got to get around to trying this BSD....
There's just so much to explore and so little time.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Back when I ran OS/2 I once fired up a Win/OS2 session running a dos box running a commodore 64 emulator, on a 486.
The cursor blinked about once every fifteen seconds.
These days, I could probably do that all that under Plex86 from within Linux. I'm just trying to figure out how to squeeze Wine into there...
Rob
I swear this bastard cuts and pastes this post along with the other "BSD is dead" post. If I ever run into an M$ PR guy; I swear to fucking god; it's the crips and bloods all over again.
BANG BANG.
Hail the sign of the DEVIL!.
Three system calls to read something from /proc:
open()
read()
close()
One system call to read a sysctl:
sysctl()
--
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Personally, I use BNOME.
It's faster, more stable, and inherently superior. It's also authentic NOME, not some piddly work-a-like. It's also way more obscure, which makes it very 31337.
-lx
To run the only usable web browser available for any Unix (save OS X, natch): Opera?
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
I'll try another KDE build tonight, but the last time I tried it (a 2.0mumble build, out of /usr/ports) Konqueror was totally unstable. And how good is Konqueror's keyboard-ability? The reason I started using Opera is that everything is keyboard controlled, which is important as I don't like to stress my poor RSI wrists any more than is absolutely necessary.
Peace,
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
Yea and Debian ARM
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Also, there hasn't been a "schedule" until recently (i.e. the last couple of months). There were goals and rough dates to shoot at, but no hard and fast schedule--you can't schedule that far in advance, you can only set goals. But in the last few months we have set a schedule and have done a pretty good job of sticking to our primary goal which was to release Gnome 1.4 before GUADEC. Barring any major issues this should happen.
----
Celebrate the finer things in life
GNOME has run on BSD for quite some time; that's not the point. The point is that now it's part of the GNOME project's list of reference platforms. I avoid the use of the word "support" since there's no support in the traditional sense of the word from the GNOME project itself, but BSD is a compatible platform and officially considered in the release plans.
----
Celebrate the finer things in life
From the Gnome (Ximian) Download Page:
"Please note: Ximian GNOME is not currently available for Mandrake 7.2. Users of Mandrake 7.2 are cautioned not to try to install Ximian GNOME on their systems."
I find it odd and infuriating that they can branch out to FreeBSD - a platform that GNOME was not originally designed to serve - when they haven't even gotten this right in one of the most popular linux distro's (in the US, anyway) yet.
"These are the thoughts that kept me out of the really *good* schools." --George Carlin
Whoever thought it was only for Linux? Linux is not GNU, and GNOME is a GNU project. If it can't run on any other platform besides Linux when happens when TGS is finally released?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
What is it with you and BSD? Why should you even care what other people are running? Did Theo insult you or something?
You spend so much time dissing BSD that it's like you're trying to compensate for some unknown inadequacy. Small dick? Small brain? What?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
And GNOME is different how?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Okay, I'll feed the troll 'cuz I hate to see the little buggers starve to death...
although the source is open, the development team is not.
I seem to recall that only Linus Torvalds gets to bless kernel code with "officialdom". Funny, I heard that GNU operates in a similar way.
Furthermore the license allpws proprietary software to "steal" source code and use it.
The oldest FUD in the book. You cannot steal what is free. Try it sometime if you don't believe me. No matter how hard you try, you cannot take FreeBSD away from the FreeBSD Core Team. No matter how much you close, fold, spindle and mutilate it, it will still be there untouched and as pristine as before!
"Steal" is definitely not the right word.
What must be done is an opening up of the development process OR a GPL-style restriction on redistribution.
So, you're saying that they either need to be LESS restrictive or MORE restrictive? Which one is it!
Recently I became aware of two GPLd projects that are using some of my BSD licensed code. Fantastic! Great! Go Bulldogs! It didn't bother me one bit that my code was being used in alternately licensed projects. However, if the shoes were on the other foot, it could not have happened.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
This is the problem. People just don't understand. GNOME and just about every other package/application runs under FreeBSD w/ minimal effort compaired to GNU/Linux. Packages/library upgrades are one of the most easy things with FreeBSD. http://www.freebsd.org/ports/.
Justen Stepka
Um? It would seem to me that the version of Aqua they shipped did compile on Darwin. A quick 'uname -a' reveals the following.
Darwin localhost 1.3 Darwin Kernel Version 1.3: Thu Mar 1 06:56:40 PST 2001; root:xnu/xnu-123.5.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
Many times i've had a great deal of "FUN" trying to compile the latest gnome on FreeBSD...
Same goess with kde2.1.... on which kdeinit still hangs on some "QT mutex issues "
These projects need a very strong lesson into wirtting portable code. Portable code's benefits are not only in the portability, but by writting portable code, you're force to write better and cleaner code.
And this, is the unix way...
QT: Woah, by judging by the previous comments, slashdot has really turned into a place of uninformed/fanatic trolls...
there really needs to be a tronger registration system...
heck, even a micropayment slashdot is starting to look good.
fprintf is not a syscall. It's a C library function.
Debian PPC while they're at it....:-D
yah! and you only have to download 400 packages or update your compiler and compile a metric buttload of source to get it working and it trashes your old 1.x kde install!
How we know is more important than what we know.
Personally, I like the central development model that FreeBSD uses as opposed to Linux. FreeBSD uses CVS for the entire tree of code. This is the kernel and the user-land software. The ports system is quite easy to use.
:)
:)
For me, the only thing I miss from Linux is some of the drivers. The nVidia driver would be nice, especially if they would just license the source under the MIT license for inclusion into XFree86. I am not bitter at nVidia! Grrrr!!!
For a true comparison, you would have to try it out yourself as my needs are probably different than yours. I had nothing to hold me on Linux. FreeBSD had everything that I needed. As for you, I don't know your requirements for a Unix system.
Your first step is to check on the FreeBSD website for hardware compatibility. You should do this for any operating system. I learned that lesson when I first started using Linux during the 0.99.14? days. Anyone else remember the SLS distribution?
Enlightenment (BSD licensed) works for me. Does that help you?
echo 1> /proc/sys/rant
.
. /proc/sys/rant
;-)
. [ do some ranting ]
echo 0>
At this point, both HP and Sun have announced plans to (eventually) phase out CDE and replace it with Gnome as their primary desktop. HP, at least, has even committed to shipping Gnome with the next update to HPUX, due sometime mid 2nd half of this year...
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Proc probably isn't as fast or portable as a system call. But last I checked, system calls are hardly portable as well. Maybe you could help me out on this one, because I probably dont know everything I should. Wouldn't it be just as hard to port a syscall as a filesystem read from /proc?
I forgot the Linux users' mantra. "Free over Useful".
Come on that's pretty much a troll and a mistatement of GNU philosophy. The goal of GNU is to make Free software that is every bit as useful as proprietary software. If everyone just gave up on that vision there wouldn't be any free software. Whenever you give up your freedoms you have to weigh the decision very carefully. Proprietary software is sometimes unavoidable, but the long term goal is to not need it at all.
Call it a difference of opinion, however I think that the best tool for the job is always the one that should be used. If there is a free-as-in-source replacement on the way that is wonderful
That's good and well. This attitude doesn't rule out trying to advance free software. You say you'd use free software if it gets the job done (weighing in of course cost matters and development concernes). But you haven't said if you think the long term goal of the GNU project is good. To give users like yourself a Free alternative to proprietary software. If you're only a user of software (as you imply) then I would encourage you to try to use Free software and help advance it. If the philosophy of free software is something you don't really care about, then I can understand, and call that a difference of opinion. But you really haven't opined on that.
Is this just to say that it runs on BSD. Since KDE runs on it, GNome automaically feels it also needs to run on it? I hope this isn't the only reason. I guess it's a good thing to be platform independant.
what a co-incidence! Apple recently stated that they wouldn't ship any future version of Aqua until it compiles on Darwin! go BSD! ;)
- j
Uh... huh?
You must have been thinking 'Slackware' and somehow typed 'Debian' instead by accident, right?
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Now we just need Ximian Gnome!
The Linux boom is leveling off and people are realizing that there are other systems like FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD which are all rather nice.
Sure the BSD's do not focus on being desktop workstations but that does not mean the Gnome and KDE developers cannot make it work nicely as one. At times it is hard setting up X under BSD, but once it is running it is pretty sweet.
I use FreeBSD since it seems well rounded with tons of ported applications and many performance enhancements for the x86 platform while the other two main branches are happy producing a great server OS which runs on all kinds of hardware. I am unsure how well X and Gnome runs on those systems. I doubt many NetBSD users would feel bad if someone said XFreeBSD is hard to install onto NetBSD. One place that I know is using NetBSD has it running several large printers. I think they manage them through SNMP.
Pick the right OS for the job. I am glad FreeBSD works well as a server and can do the job as a workstation so long as I do not mind tinkering with it till the sound works.
FreeBSD continues to improve nicely. I cannot wait to see when 5.0 is released sometime in the next year or so. The integration of BSDi features like fine grained SMP will be great, even for a single processor. A nicely threaded kernel will be good for everything. Take that along with more development on KQueues and you will have a fine desktop platform and a database/web server.
Brennan Stehling - http://brennan.offwhite.net/blog/
Linux procfs usually provides information in plain text usually. That is evil since making text output similar between two operating systems is unpractical, especially when these operating systems tend to change their interfaces often. And why spending valuable processor time converting _binary_ data from text and then back? Or do you really think that the developer who puts essentially device interfaces like AGP under /proc really knows what he is doing? I hope you do not really advocate the idea that BSD's should follow that strange at best path?
Procfs on Linux does things it should not do at all. What the hell 'process fs' has to do with device control? TCP/IP stacks paramaters? That _is_ strange no matter what you are trying to come out to justify Linux' flawed design. Regarding NIH accusation in one of your previous postings let me note that BSD's have procfs for a time longer than Linux but quite successfully managed not to turn it into a kitchen sink it is on Linux. If text is the 'Unix way', then why syscalls live statfs, stat, etc are all returning binary structures? Pretty non-Unixy :) Let me repeat myself - given the fact, that Linux procfs has no business representing information better exposed by other means, discussion about in what exactly format it is exporting data is moot.
Yes, sysctl.conf will most likely not work as expected across all the BSD's. I never claimed that it is portable. Neither will be linprocfs text interface. What I actually was saying that given the differences between the operating systems, adding unnesessary and hard to syncronise interface just for the sake of Linux compatibility will only double the burden. Sysctl is present and is doing its jobs adequately, so there is no point adding yet another feature which does not provide you any signficicant gain (if any at all). And questionable justification behing Linux procfs implementation very unlikely to inspire BSD developers. Their energy will be better spent somewhere else.
Binary to text conversion is slow. I am not sure I follow your argument where you trying to convince me otherwise. Each open syscall on procfs node will involve text string formatting and possible parsing back into binary form in userland, while corresponding sysctl will not have this overhead at all. Yes, while not touched, procfs does not spend your processor time but each access retrieval from it is order of magnitude slower than binary only syscall.
> It still seems like a case of favouring tradition over a superior design.
That I am ready to agree with, except for that 'superior' word. 'Slow and redundant' might be a better word choice. And yes, you did not state any sigle advantage Linux procfs has over sysctl excpept for some 'Unix way' religious mantras.
Sorry, that was /proc/mtrr
Is is as bloated in Plan 9 as it is in Linux? Well no :)
Remote filesystem sharing - does it even make sense for
_procfs_? Plan 9 has nice private namespaces consept, but how does that prove anything in this discussion?
The only BSD that matters now is MacOSX
BSD operating systems have a history of being licensed under free software terms. Mac OS X is not free software; on the contrary, it's proprietary software that runs on proprietary hardware, and you don't know how much copy "protection" is in the hardware and software.
It takes a visionary company like Apple to wash and scrub an awful GUI like X away.
X is only a network-transparent graphics subsystem. The GUI is provided by X toolkits and clients such as GTK+ apps and Qt apps. (The Qt (not QT) logo looks too much like a hammer and sickle.) I agree that the GNOME people have a lot to learn from Apple, and vice versa.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The above link is more than a month old, and what's noteworthy now is that Nautilus is not supported on FreeBSD. Nautilus is GNOME 1.4. To complicate matters, GNOME 1.4 is way behind schedule, and before this article on Slashdot, I don't think FreeBSD was a priority at all!
In short, this article should strong-arm the GNOME Foundation into delaying GNOME even more, for better or for worse.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
VMware is one reason.
chris@xanadu:~$ whatis /.
/.: nothing appropriate.
Thanks for the link, wish I found that article a few days ago.
chris@xanadu:~$ whatis /.
/.: nothing appropriate.
I'm sorry, but you obviously have not been following the development of BSD in recent history. "There is no significant improvement for any of the original kernel codehistory." Male Bovine Excrement! The VM subsystem rocks! and is a substantial improvement over the original 4.4-Lite code. Softupdates and filesytem snapshots are leaps and bounds above the 4.4 ffs code, "...left over device driver architecture lacking all the topological efficiency and flexibility." Please, take a look at the newbus and the USB subsystems and see if you can still say this. As for "Its design no better than BSD, even worse in some parts." I disagree, Linux is better in some respects, worse on some, and on parity with others. This is a healthy thing, as long as Linux and BSD can fight a good, honest, respectful,clean fight neither will be forced into the muck that others choose to fight in.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
That's not the point. :)
/dev you need the same system calls, open(), read() and close(). If you use a non-UNIX system, it usually only requires one call to do the same thing, usually along the lines of device_read().
/dev, I don't see why that should be any different for kernel config. Speed is not really much of an issue when controlling kernel parameters in any case, whilst it certainly is for reading/writing data from device drivers.
/proc, and that's not-invented-here syndrome.
/proc, besides speed (not really significant)? It just doesn't make sense to me.
In order to read data from a device in
UNIX already makes an ease-of-use/speed trade-off for
From a consistency point of view, it's illogical. From a speed point of view, the difference is small and essentially irrelevant. I can only see one good reason why the BSD's don't use a
Are there any other advantages to using sysctl over
It's because it's much more sensible and true to the UNIX philosophy than sysctl is (everything is a file), and I wish more people would use it, if just to convince the xBSD developers to support it in addition to the traditional sysctl framework.
/proc rather than sysctl because it is, to them, a superior interface. I have to agree with this, using file I/O is a whole pile easier and unix-like than mucking around with sysctl.
/proc support is in there, it will quickly become popular. It just works better!
Linux supports both, and developers choose to use
There's no reason why any of the BSD's can't support it other than developer inertia, and for the BSD traditionalists, it doesn't have to be the primary kernel config interface, merely a compatibility option. However, believe me, once
Procfs represents data as text because again, that is the UNIX way. There are two things that are basically unique to UNIX systems, and they are that, in userland, everything is a file, and that plain text is a universal data format. Procfs adheres to this, sysctl does not.
/proc - those are control and information files (which belong in /proc), not the device interfaces. The actual device read/write interfaces are, as you'd expect, in /dev - /dev/agpgart on my Linux box. That's not strange at all.
/proc from time to time, yes, but not that often. In any case, sysctl has a similar problem - kernel interfaces do change, and the changes in the kernel are reflected in the sysctl interface. In fact, I'd argue that the fact that procfs forces a conversion to plain text makes it _more_ likely that the data format will stay the same, as it adds a layer of abstraction that sysctl does not.
/etc/sysctl.conf work flawlessly across FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and BSDI? I thought not, and that's even though they originate from the same codebase.
/proc is not actually generated from the kernel until the relevant file is open()'ed. So, the /proc tree takes precisely zero extra processor time and zero extra memory until you read or write something to it.
You misunderstand the AGP files in
The format (and location) of the data does change in
As for cross-platform issues, tell me, does your
And to your most relevant point, that binary to text conversion is slow and memory intensive. Well, this would be a problem if procfs was a real in-memory filesystem... but it isn't. The data inside
Are there any other arguments for sysctl and against procfs? It still seems like a case of favouring tradition over a superior design.
"the only usable web browser available for any Unix
Try Konqueror from KDE 2.1. I think that you will be very pleasantly surprised.
Yes, nearly everything can be keyboard controlled in Konqueror-2.1. KDE in general now is pretty good about this now. You can even customize what key combinations trigger what actions. But, just like Netscape, IE, and Lynx, tabbing through an entire page of links to get to the one you want to follow is still a pain.
I've had no stability problems whatsoever with KDE2.1 (including Konqueror). Supposedly there was a threading issue with KDE2.1 and XFree86-4.0.x on FreeBSD, which has since been worked around in the latest KDE2.1 port.
And run a Linux app on FreeBSD...
now I too can natively run the same bloatware under FBSD that Linux lusers have enjoyed for years....oh the joy....
I'm sorry, wm is good enuff for me...
serisouly thou, glad to see yet more software be 'native'...no matter what it is
wee........
NO SPORK
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
For instance, Windows VMWare under Wine?
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Yeah, and why would you want to run closed source apps under linux?
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
And for Alpha Linux.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
There is a god!
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
How come you got modded +4 funny and I didn't, when I pulled the first joke?
OK, technically I was wrong, but
Life sucks.
:(
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
now how about a ximian gnome release for freebsd?
Just because someone repeats the same posting many kilotimes over does NOT make belief into BELIEFS!!
P.S. Gnome has always run natively on FreeBSD. The only problem is that it crashes for reasons that are more arcane even than those of Windoze.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Don't. Debian is a good enough OS to not want to change to FreeBSD. But please don't take that as a generalisation that applies to all Linux distributions.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
BTW, Enlightenment is ported, too.
-chrisp
"If that makes any sense to you, you have a big problem."
no it just stupid. like this: :-)), So if he says that BSD sucks, then he also says that Linux is crap.
FreeBSD has a reputation of being the "fastest" BSD on x86 hardware. Actual memory bandwidth performance is a fraction of all of Sun's offerings.
eeh, so I guess that Linux is even worse?? Many tests has shown FreeBSD to be faster and more stable than Linux(Not trying to troll myself
--------
Would be extremely cool to have Aqua & Enlightenment on the same machine, it would.
Blue skies... Barthie burgers... girls.
FreeBSD is a more stable, secure, cohesive, faster, and tighter OS than any version of Linux. If you're willing to muck with Linux for long enough, you may be able to bring it up to the same level of quality, but it is difficult. In all fairness, Linux is for toying with your OS whereas FreeBSD makes a much better production platform. I personally looked into BSD after various Linux ditros took their turns at mucking up my system. I installed FreeBSD and never looked back. YMMV.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
FreeBDS has been with us for a long time and it is a VERY solid product. With its ever increasing popularity this past year, it only makes sense that GNOME would honor the OS by putting it on the list. This is good not only on the part of the FreeBSD people, who get full support for the awesome GNOME, but also for GNOME who's domination of the desktop will be spread even further. Now it will have a much bigger tester and programmer base. I say its about time, GO GNOME!
God first, wife second, math third, and physics fourth. Wait
God first, wife second, math third, and physics fourth. Wait
God first, food second, wife third...
Several problems with your conclusions:
n fr revu/
1. FreeBSD is not a commercial OS, BSDi is the commercial version.
2. Market share? Qualify this please! Is this commercial market share or is market share being judged be Netcraft surveys? Or worst yet, MicroSoft press?
3. FreeBSD DID NOT OWN walnut Creek. Walnut Creek is a major distributer of FreeBSD. Walnut Creek is also a major distributor of Linux distributions. By your conclusion, Slackware would have also owned Walnut Creek. This is just plain incorrect. Incidentally, Walnut creek = ftp.cdrom.com (the largest public FTP site on the Internet, supporting 6000 simultaneous users, on FreeBSD OS).
4. Given your conclusion that "hobbyists" use *BSD, please explain the use of FreeBSD by:
Hotmail.com
yahoo.com
cdrom.com
Then factor in press articles such as:
http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/2001/01/i
http://www.byte.com/column/BYT20010130S0010
And the numerous others at
http://www.FreeBSD.org/news/press.html
Thanks for all the fish,
Anonymous
why is this even news? gnome has been the the freebsd portlist for a while now. how many freebsd users do you know that would rather download something and do it by hand rather than use the port collection. btw, gnome compiles on freebsd fine. it's not a matter of worry if it's gonna compile, because it will. btw, to all you trolls, this has nothing to do with "bsd dying", as you so bluntly put it. this isn't even a linux vs. bsd war. this is a kde vs. gnome war. maybe all you linux users just wanna take jabs at a faster, more stable OS. you don't realize that most of us freebsd users could care less about what list we are on for being supported. check www.freshports.org if you would like to see what the freebsd community ports to itself without having to wait for lil announcements like this one.
--
Tres_Status
stephen
If I'm not mistaken, you could run Gnome under FreeBSD with Linux compat, so I guess the only news is... Gnome won't be shipped if it doesn't compile? Sounds good but that doesn't do much for downloads of Gnome and all the dependancies, and if your on dialup ... (ouch). Either way its nice to see developers still focusing on the BSD's contrary to beliefs that BSD is dying.
csh-2.04# uname -snrm
FreeBSD ritalin.deficiency.org 4.1-RELEASE i386
360 degrees of Karma
I was making a statement in general, so there was no need to state this, I for one have been using FreeBSD, and OpenBSD since FBSD 3.2 and Open 2.6 so I'm pretty familiar with ports, the purpose of my initial post was to point out what I understood, Gnome wouldn't ship unless it compiled which is what I took it to be.
360 degrees of Karma
After trying to install Linux on my PC, and having a bitch of a time getting it all working right, I borrowed a friends FreeBSD disk.
Setup was easy and went without a hitch. I currently run the linux version of netscape and the linux version of a couple other binary only distributions.
If I had a supported 3D accelerator card, I'd probably buy some of the lokisoft games. I believe http://www.chguy.net/news/aug00/BSDgamesloki.html you'll find that has been well covered here on Slashdot.
Saying FreeBSD is marginal and unimportant is as stupid as it was to say the same thing about linux in '92 or so. And unless you're a kernel coder, you probably will not be able to differentiate for 90% of all things.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
...I can run BSD in emulation using Virtual PC in Mac Classic mode while using OSX as my main operating system?
[Insert the usual disclaimer here]
I agree with your opinions and concerns over BSD development throughout the years since the 4.4BSD-Lite made public. All the BSD variations were doomed years ago because the developers of these variations have lacked of a new ground up kernel design and development. All they have done was to cream up some kernel modules, add swampy device drivers and pretend like elite kernel hackers. There is no significant improvement for any of the original kernel code inherited from big'ol 4.4BSD-Lite. A kick-ass(!) monolitic kernel and a UC-Berkeley left over device driver architecture lacking all the topological efficiency and flexibility. On the other hand, I am not very optimistic about the future of over popular Linux either. Its design no better than BSD, even worse in some parts. Dont get me wrong, I think that Linux was a tremendous achivement but doomed to the oblivion when Linus didnt want to get some good advice for his over optimistic and monolitic OS design. He could have used some help at the beginning;however, superego for a fast OS to run on a 20Mhz computer at the time has taken over the entire architecture of Linux. Look over the internet Linus versus famous OS professors. Here is a 1992 conversation between linus and Tenanbaum. You judge it. http://www.dina.dk/~abraham/Linus_vs_Tanenbaum.htm l
No, this is funny. "Release staging - how to get it to the mirrors before it gets to slashdot." I guess its too late now.