Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD Ports for GNU/Linux
proclus writes: "GNU-Darwin has provided a special FreeBSD ports tarball (20 Mb) for GNU/Linux users. We have modified the FreeBSD Ports System to bring thousands of free software offerings within the reach of every GNU/Linux user. The system is not fully automated yet, but you can untar it in your home directory and try it. Just follow these directions. This system provides full access to the FreeBSD ports, so that users can compile and install software in their home directories. Root access is not required."
Install FreeBSD if that's what you want.
Forget GNU. Forget Linux. Forget BSD. Forget Microsoft.
Just use the system that best fits your needs. This may mean that your pet OS is not a universal fit for someone else.
I thought that most programs (that are of any use) would compile over on FreeBSD would also compile on Linux and vise versa. Doesn't FreeBSD have the ability to run Linux programs w/the same sort of thing?
What programs would I seriously want to run that are of FreeBSD fame only? None that I know of.
What do I know though?
Is it like Linux?
Note to BSD folks: It's Linux, not GNU/Linux.
That would typically take at least a week and over 20gig total, but it is worthwhile to do.
A week? Well, maybe it's time for that vacation...
Money for nothing, pix for free
But then, the FreeBSD port/package system is still the best one I've ever had the pleasure to work with, especially because of its good source/binary interoperability.
There is absolutely no reason to panic.
I don't know how many times I wanted to do this, but always got bogged down in the details. The OpenPackages project has had their system working on Linux for a while now. However, OpenPackages departs from the FreeBSD ports collection and takes a lot from OpenBSD and NetBSD as well. And it's not finished yet. Work seems to have slowed down on it too, unfortunately.
You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
If you want a better designed port system for linux try Http://www.gentoo.org. Gentoo Linux rocks!!
BSD is undead !
Get off Linux you ugly zombies !
testing, ignore this shit
Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
It's been 10 seconds since you hit 'reply'!
If you this error seems to be incorrect, please provide the following in your report to Source Forge:
Browser type
User ID/Nickname or AC
What steps caused this error
Whether or not you know your ISP to be using a proxy or some sort of service that gives you an IP that others are using simultaneously.
How many posts to this form you successfully submitted during the day* Please choose 'formkeys' for the category!
Thank you.
To tell the truth I've never used *BSD ports. I hear a lot that they are wonderful. I don't know how it works, but I'm sure that I'll try it.
The only thing I hope is that they let every choices to me. I use slackware and tarballs for one reason: the word automatic have been sounding weird for me.
Since I got tired of Mandrake and rpm automatic for me means this:
Hope not to find this kind of automation with ports.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
If you want FreeBSD ports, user FreeBSD. DUH :)
Anyone remotely interested in this should be checking out a fairly new distribution called Gentoo which is working towards their 1.0 release. You can build your entire system just by booting from a cd image, formatting, untaring a small build image, setting up network, and installing everything from their advanced ports like system called "portage". Its basically ports++ that forms the core of the distro (aka its not just for "third party packages").
;) Plus Gentoo is currently in the progress of testing its new dependency based init script system (no sysvinit or bsd init scripts here) and working on some other cool ideas.
:)
It supports stuff like profiles, etc so by editing a few text files you can define your which specific packages and versions should be installed, etc (basically define your own distro
Definatly check them out, there is no other distribution or OS quite like it!
BTW, the url is http://www.gentoo.org
--- polarbear
Both on RedHat and on Debian, installing software either from source or from binary is trivial. And almost all the software I have ever wanted has been packaged for Linux distributions. Why would I want the BSD ports? Is there any software that I don't know about that I am missing?
gentoo linux has a similar system called portage. You can download a 40M bootstrap iso and build your entire system using portage. This is a wonderful distro.
It's usually motivated by personal hatred for RMS it seems. The guy has strong ideals and has refused to compromise them. In a world where corruption and compromise is the norm, this naturally pisses a lot of people off. Even people that rely on software that exists because of his refusal to compromise. Those are the ones that are most virulently opposed to giving him any credit at all, naturally.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I prefer to compile with these options in my /etc/make.conf
:)
CPUTYPE=i686
This way you automagically have a cc -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro setup so you don't compile for 10 years old 386 cpus.
Sure, compiling KDE2 will take some time, but who cares, you can continue working while the package builds, thanks God for dual cpus and SCSI disks
You know that deep down, that is what he wants it called.
hopefully now all them Linux users will see what kinda nifty toys us BSD users have been using since the invention of the toaster...
...and then (oops, here comes the conspiracy theory) after said Linux users like the ports system, they will stop using Linux and start using BSD...(yea yea, shuddup, it's humor).
*yaay*
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I'm an avid FreeBSD user, so I am really glad to see FBSD technology making its way into the Linux camp. I hope many Linux newbies benefit from this. I believe it or not, I found FBSD easier than Linux when I knew nothing about UNIX. The Ports Tree was a huge part of that.
;)
But let me see if I've got this right...the FreeBSD ports tree is a port of Linux/nonBSD-UNIX based software (mostly Linux based) to FreeBSD, and now someone has taken it and ported it back to Linux...heh.
(Okay, okay, I realize it's the actual ports tree system which is being ported, but still...
I understand RMS' point here, but a Linux distro is much more than just Linus' kernel and a bunch of GNU stuff on top. It seems unfair to single out GNU/FSF/RMS when KDE, Gnome, XFree, MySQL, sendmail.org/Eric Allman, the ReiserFS, Emacs and LVM people and loads of others are just as well-deserved of a honourable mention. GNU doth not a distro make. If RMS keeps this up, some anal types will start compiling alternates for all the GNU utils... How's that for poetic justice?
Just give it up - GNU's not Linux.
Money for nothing, pix for free
Well, how is this better than Rock Linux?
Rock's package management system is source based, and updates, etc...
And as for elitism, I spoke with the creater on the phone a few years ago when he was starting it, and he's a really jolly bloke.
Am I missing something? GNU / Darwin is the base OS in Apple's MacOS X; it is not linux.
This distro has a ports like system natively. But rather than being based on make which wasn't designed for "package managment" it's a set of scripts and applications designed for the purpose. It allows you to install, uninstall and package pieces of software in a sane manner and handles dependancies and virtual dependancies as well.
In fact the lates rc has a new dependancy based init as well. And it's always loaded with the latest apps and libraries.
I was a long time debian weenie untill I found gentoo. Now there's no turning back.
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
I hear portage is great too... where can we get it by it's self? (for those of us who don't want to switch distro's.)
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
<doubletake / >
That's right, you can have that IRC client of your VERY OWN! I hadn't realized that the ports system did this. On the box that I control, I add new software all the time. (apt-get install this-that-and-the-kitchen-sink)
As much as apt-get rocks, however, you've pretty much gotta be root, and it likes to install things in system-wide locations. So my friend Eugene who really likes links better than lynx has to come ask me to install it, or compile it from source by hand.
They have solved the problem of software management on a multi-user system, at least when the source is available. Keep in mind that one of the things that has made NT 4.0 horrible to deal with for a large number of people is this very thing. su is your friend.
Are you an administrator? Oh, well, you can't install this, because it wants to write a registry key HERE and it's not supposed to want to do that. Reboot, become Admin, install, return to being user - maybe software works, maybe it doesn't. (It's not _that_ bad with linux/deb or rpm.)
AFAIK (IANA Debian God) there is no way to get apt-get to install things in an automated way in the user's home directory. Sure, you can get the source there.. But the really cool thing would be if, not running as root, you ran apt-get and it installed everything in your home directory except that which was already on the system!
Ooooo... this is cool. Then, when root tries to install the same thing, maybe it could check the signature of the package the local user has downloaded and install it systemwide if the signature matches the one from the debian repository. <div voice="hick">Hee-HEE! Hawt damn!</div>
Gee, I really don't see what's so hard about most installations on Linux as it is, even without .rpm's or apt-get...
1) untar
2) vi README
3) make test (usually)
4) make config
5) make install
Is that really that hard for joe-user... or will they look at step 2) and panic? "Oh my god, there's instructions... I can't possibly read those and follow them!".
If you don't like soup, stay out of the kitchen.
q:]
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
The ports system is in theory a decently good idea, in practice -- it sucks. The problem centers around the lack of an authoratative download area for several older more obscure programs.
It's great telling it to start and have it make the program you want. But there is nothing more frusterating than telling it to build ghostview and having it run through 20 mirrors before telling you that it can't find the file it's looking for.
The same goes for running an older version of FreeBSD. Want to try to install a program using the ports directories? Be prepared for it to tell you that it can't find the tarball.
Thanks, I'll stick to my SRC rpm's.
A full Linux distro that utilizes a "BSD Ports" like software management system is already available. The Linux distro is called "Gentoo".
One use of a Linux distro like Gentoo would be to add a user-friend-idiot-proof OS installer that plug-n-play auto detects everything about your hardware, from the exact CPU type, MB type, memory type, graphics card, sound, etc... and then keep that system specific info in a local database. After this part of the installation, and for the rest of the life of the system, whenever you install ANY application on your system, the software is automatically optimized and compiled for your specific setup. Applications could be optimized for your CPU-type and the amount of RAM that you have. Maybe even your video card and sound card could be taken into consideration. If you don't have a sound card, any references to sound could be compiled out of the application. If your video card only supports 256 colors, then perhaps, the desired application could automatically be optimized for such a platform.
This would allow application developers to program with a greater assumed knowledge of the end user's system, and it would make it easier for the end user to have a totally tweaked out Linux setup, apps and all! Not to mention the fact that the Gentoo Portage system deals with dependencies automatically, furthur easing end user headaches.
Closed source simply couldn't compete with such a Linux distro because closed source software (Windows for example) is compiled for the average hardware setup, which sacrifices performance for generality, while a Gentoo based Linux Distro could automatically reconfigure itself to tighly fit your exact hardware setup, which keeps generality and great performance.
I am considering doing precisely this. I have started working on a DIY Linux distro a la linuxfromscratch.org only replacing all GNU tools with available alternatives (just to prove it can be done). I have only just begun and am a long way away from having anything remotely usable as I'm just not sure where to find the alternatives...starting with gcc. Anyone?
Hmmm... slashdot seemed to have eaten my first reply so here goes...
/usr/src + buildworld and ports to the power of portage. :)
/usr/src != "in ports"
In gentoo's portage _every_ component of your system is a proper package thats part of portage. Through the use of portage's profile system _you_ can define which specific versions of which packages you want installed and considered to be "core". By editing a couple text files you can create your own profile where you define what is in the distribution. Portage is more then just a package management system, it can be used as a distribution creation system. Of course you don't need to worry about this if you don't, just use our default profile and you won't need to worry about any of this.
With portage you are not tied to any specific version of something considered core. We simply define a default profile that we believe is stable and "supported". The end user can go ahead and install gcc 3.0.x and try to build an entire system with it if he wants, its up to the user.
Once portage stabilizes (we are on 1.0_rc6 right now) distribution releases will be defined by just a few files in a profile directory. In a single portage tree you will have all the files required to build multiple releases of our distribution, the power of the profile system. If you have an existing install and want to upgrade to our current version you just change a single symlink and do a "emerge system" and it will update the packages we defined as being core. Nothing else is changed, etc.
Hope this gives you some idea why I might get a little touchy when someone tries to compare the seperation of
--- polarbear
Demonstrate strong interoperability but still have a choice what OS you want to run (*BSD, Linux, MacOSX, etc).
Increase availability of all kinds of software and toolkits between almost all of the anti-MS players.
Accellerate development for both platforms by encouraging developers to optimize their software for both camps.
:)
Now this is a lot to say for such a rudimentary project (and I'm sure the list could go on), but the ideals are there. Imagine if we had increased/improved interoperability between the KDE and GNOME projects (instead of a lot of bitching about the other "sucking ass"). Say, tools that helped unify the appearance of widgets, code sharing layers, and so on.
So, wordiness aside, unity is good.
Why bother.
First, let me congratulate the dedicated people behind this. Yes well done. You have taken an free OS to port it to another free OS.
But,
*puts on flame proof suit*
What does this change? From what I have heard, the software in FreeBSD is hard to use, lame, feature poor, etc..
What does this change in the world of lets say 99% of desktop users? Yes, I know that people here love Linux, and love seeing application being ported on the platform.
But is this innovative? Or just reinventing the wheel in a brilliant but useless way?
The collective Linux brains should be coding something to convert the Windoze through sheer abundance of feature.
You have heard this before. Make it simple. I am smart. But not everyone is. As much as I love going into Mandrake to do thing, it is all too true. Linux is still an obstacle to productivity for average people.
Does FreeBSD change this? Somehow I don't think so.
Aiming for new features, innovation and simplicity. The architecture of Linux is well capable of handling these.
And yes I am leaving my flame proof suit on..
Taking on space
I've been using GNU/Linux since Linux Version 0.48. Yes, this was around six months after the release of 0.1 and yes, when RMS came it with his "you should rename Linux Lignux" I was as angry, and as vocal, as everyone else.
He has said that his reaction (a natural one, after all at the time he and his project had written almost all of the software we were using, outside of the kernel itself and the X Window System for those few lucky enough to have it working on their hardware at the time) was a mistake, and if he had it to do over again he would have handled it differently.
The FSF's stance on wanting the entire operating system to be called GNU/Linux rather than Linux is that they wish to emphesize the Freedom that the FSF philosophy tries to promote, and that recognition for their (by any measure massive) contribution to Linux, or GNU/Linux if you prefer, is very secondary to that goal.
I have tried to make a habit of refering to the entire collection of software as GNU/Linux not out of some misguided notion of political correctness or to appease RMS as such, but simply as a small courtesy in saying "thanks" to the guys whose software (GNU gcc, file-utils, lib-utils, etc.) and kernel (Linux) has vastly improved the quality of that portion of my life spent in front of a computer and has enabled me to make a very comfortable living. It seems a small request on their part, and the least I can do to give something back.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The whole point of OpenBSD is that is security oriented. Its this way so you know exactly what's changing on the machine. A dependency that is automatically changed might induce security holes, for example. By doing it this way you can investigate and verify that the software is secure before putting it on the system. So what you want is fine on normal linux boxes but for something you are counting on being secure it isn't so hot.
The solution is trivial, ftp the package to your drive, then type pkg_add foo{tab}. All done!
Thanks for the info, I'll have a deeper look at gentoo when I have the time. Might be a nice option if I want to install a linux box, sound pretty customizable, just if it would be possible to install it with XFS it would be perfect for me.
Hmmm, interesting.
What's a poor worm to do?
OT, but why does OpenBSD have command recall and tab completion in ftp and not in sh?
OK, so i've never used ports before, and i'm trying to 'make install' in a few /games directories, and it continually gives this error...
$ make install
Makefile:42: *** missing separator. Stop.
Anyone know what i am doing wrong? is there something i'm missing, or is this not ready for prime-time?
put the what in the where?
Install FreeBSD if that's what you want.
Forget GNU. Forget Linux. Forget BSD. Forget Microsoft.
Just use the system that best fits your needs. This may mean that your pet OS is not a universal fit for someone else.
That's what this is ABOUT!
The OS and the applications are separate entities. This is a port of the applications so they'll compile and run identically, from a common source base, on both BSDs and Linux. This makes them tweakable on Linux or a BSD, and so on.
Once this is fully done you'll be able to have a common environment across the (unix-like) OS spectrum. Pull out the OS and swap in another, and it won't matter. So you'll be able to pick or change the OS to meet your needs for *OS* performance, hackability, or special feature set, without having to switch to a different set of applications just because you changed the platform under them.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Dude, don't waste your time.
Subjet says it all. The Gentoo distro. is not finnished yet but it is inspired buy the BSD ports system. I have it installed on 3 machines so far and it is sweet.
no, not really
DevPlanet.org
Consider it a learning experiment. As long as I learn something, it's not a waste of time. There may be better USES of my time, but that doesn't make it as bad as watching NASCAR.
What I actually use to access the ports in FreeBSD is pib. Pib is a TCL/TK front end to the ports collection. It is point and click for building and installing.
But what makes pib more usefull is the search. (What programs depend on gtk or what versions of gtk are there.) Or if I can't remember what a program is called I can search the descriptions. (Things that use ghostscript.)
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
ftp> get foo "|pkg_add -v -"
The trick is to do pkg_add inside of ftp instead of ftp inside of pkg_add.
Let me correct you slightly. KDE, Gnome, MySQL, etc, are NOT part of the operating system. Neither is gcc, bash or emacs. Think about it, if you replaced bash with tcsh, are you now running a different operating system? Of course not!
An operating system is "software that controls the operation of a computer and directs the processing of programs (as by assigning storage space in memory and controlling input and output functions)." A strict reductionist would consider only the kernel and kernel modules to be the operating system. In reality, we must also include the file system, init process, boot loader, etc. as part of the OS.
What is there of GNU that is absolutely necessary to get a Linux system up and running? Nothing! However, GNU has provided a mass of software that makes using Linux much, much more convenient. Although this software is not the operating system, it does comprise the majority of the standard Unix "operating environment". Since it is not necessary, I cannot consider it part of the operating system.
What RMS does not realize in his crusade to rename LinuxOS, is that Linux is a NEW kind of system. It is the first component operating system and environment. It was created not from scratch, but from existing parts. Some of these parts came from GNU, but not all of them. Just as Home Depot does not get to name your kitchen extension, neither does GNU get to name this new kind of system just because it used some GNU parts.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I agree..
I don't know about the rest of the world, but I don't have the disk space, the processor power, and the time to compile everything that I can currently just get from the Debian archives with apt-get. I can try and trash software relatively thoughtlessly.
I used to play things the build-your-own linux way. I have also used *BSD enough to understand the joy of ports when compared to the build-your-own method.
Perhaps this would be more of an issue once a "bad-guy" makes his way into the Debian Maintainership and gets a package out there that sends everyone's encryption keys off to Osama Bin Ladin Land (the Terrorist Place on Earth ). But then again, do you check every line of source before compiling?
Marques Johansson
If you actually LOOK at what OpenPackages is doing, not only does it work with the BSD's, some of the 190+ linux versions, but also with AIX, HP/UX and other Unix platforms.
OpenPackages is a universal solution. GNU-Darwin is less than universal.
Depends on what you want. To be inclusive or exclusive.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Why bother with Linux at all? BSD was the original and still the best.
...install FreeBSD and find out.
I'm really glad to see this. I'm not l33+ enough (nor am I possessed of the resolve to become so) for some of the FreeBSD fundamentals (making my plug n play pci sound card work, for example--by all accounts not a terribly hard thing to do, but I just don't have the background to understand the instructions I found or the time and patience to learn it. Incidentally, this may be irrelevant by now, as I stopped using FreeBSD a little over a year ago). What I do know is this: the FreeBSD ports collection is the bomb. No joke. As is the installer. I found the installation to be easier than most linux installs (especially the nasty gui ones *coughmandrakecough*).
Here's the thing: you just heard me admit to not having the chops to make a fucking soundcard work. Now, that said, the ports collection is *easy*. That said, it is also *powerful*. Once I wrapped my head around the idea that ports would actually do what it does (i.e. not take up much space, be easy to use, go get the source, compile it for your system, and install it, complete with all dependencies), my non-sound-worthy ass was installing all manner of stuff with ease.
In fact, my exposure to the FreeBSD ports collection was the main reason I found Linux distasteful, and have avoided using it. If I could get something that would figure out my damned sound card by itself and work out of the box (like Linux) with the astonishingly easy and powerful ports system, I would be in non-l33+-but-reasonably-competent-end-user heaven.
Nice things are nicer than nasty ones.
KDE is GNU GPL, Gnome is GNU GPL, Emacs is the main way GNU got started (I believe Stallman wrote much of it himself) as back in the day GNU-Emacs was the first GNU thing to show up on your average commercial UNIX systems. A good portion of the stuff that isn't GNU is GNU GPL licenced, and I would not be suprised if greater than 85% of the code in your average Linux distribution is GNU GPL licenced. However, The GNU GPL nowhere states that the words ``GNU'', ``GPL'', or even ``g'' (i.e., gcc for cc) must appear in the title of the program or system.
With a statement a bit more on topic, I use FreeBSD mostly, and the ports system is one of the best advantages of FreeBSD over Linux. I will be very happy when I can just type cd /usr/ports/databases/postgresql7; make install on a Linux machine and have PostgreSQL installed when I come back. I hope Red Hat picks up the idea, since that seems to be the main Linux distribution I have to deal with.
Best Slashdot comment ever
it doesn't matter that it can be done; it's prohibitively expensive. Please inform me if you find an ISO compliant && free C/C++ compiler --I've looked and can't find one. If you've ever seen the language specs in dead-tree form, this will come as no surprise. the process of design and implementation was so huge and complex that it literally required a team of geniuses for it to be realized. Repeating the FSF's efforts just because RMS gets silly about the color of a doghouse is illogical even by human standards.
If you really want to learn about it, read through the source for GCC & binutils.
relevant quote from a CS professor:
"Let this be your mantra whenever you write software: 'Don't re-invent the wheel. Steal it.'"
but all the support for it's been compiled out of every bit of software on your system? Recompile everything?
Idiot.
Many years ago, I installed Redhat on my Alpha at work. I went on to install some of the basic packages I use daily, but most of them were not available for Alpha in binary form. This is where ports wins big...the same OS on multiple platforms.
I'm a huge NetBSD fan, myself. Go look at how many platforms it runs on and you'll see why this makes sense. As a software developer, I only have to, for the most part, try my application on one system and it's available to all. Sure, I can write something that's big endian specific, or won't run in 64-bit mode, but then each one of those problems can be fixed and portability is restored, in one place.
I've been amazed at how well this has worked out on my multiple NetBSD platforms at home. If it could do the same for multiple operating systems, that would be great for everyone.
Even on a single machine, it gives you a great deal of flexibility. For example, I don't update my pkgsrc and ports trees, I just get them out of AFS on demand from public AFS servers that update them periodically. Now, even if I did have write access to the AFS servers for building, that'd be slow an irresponsible, so I have it build everything in a tmp directory. Don't like where it installs things? Tell it to install third-part packages somewhere else (such as a platform-specific AFS volume). Got a lot of the identical machines? ``make package'' will make a binary package you can install in a platform-specific directory rather than you having to do the same fetches and builds in multiple places.
It's a powerful system, and will hopefully get more people looking at systems other than Linux on a PC. Maybe next time I try Linux on an Alpha, or some other hardware, I won't feel so alienated.
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
How about freedome to call your shit what you want to and not have the FSF try and rename it for you?
If they really want freedom, if they really want to give their shit away, they gotta live with people doing shit with it they don't like.
RMS has his own kernel, Hurd, it he had gotten it out less the 5 years after anouncing it we wouldn't be having this discussion, 'cuz Linux wouldn't have needed to write his kernel to begin with. RMS and the FSF need to just deal ans shut the fuck up.
what kind of linux nazi are you? vi is the last thing I'd use to view a readme. Ever heard of the more command?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Right now the ports tree is not akin to any of the Linux distrobution models.
FreeBSD (as w/ other BSD) has the advantage of having a single distribution, so packages listed in ports can contain distro specific patches. Hence, all the work going into FreeBSD weather it be the Base system or the apps is compounded togeter in a central repository.
Linux is not so lucky. The different linux distibutions all have different file heirarchys (yah, there are "standards" . . but that doesnt mean they're followed). Each distribution also has it's own package distribution method. This is a problem for ports.
On my FreeBSD system, ports allows me to grap the source, add my own optomization and other compile/configure time flags, and have the perfect package. It doesn't just randmly install the stuff, it packages it up first (see pkg-plist file), and then installs it. This is great, because weather you choose to use the binary package, or the port, there's no dependency problems.
If you install the Linux-Ports on your Debian/Redhat/Mandrake system, and install something, and later try to install an official package, your going to have dependency problems. You'll be forced to install the "official" version of the program, and you lose the advantage of ports.
Even if the Linux-Ports stuff was able to detect your distro, build the appropriate type of package, and then install it, you've strayed from the central distro chain. Debian (apt), RedHat (up2date), and Mandrake (I dunno what it's called) have their own centralized package systems, and will detect that your package differs from the latest one on the server. Your ports package gets overwritten, and your screwed again.
Ports would be great for Linux, but I dont think it will happen unless some distro decides to add it to their standard distro . . . Long live FreeBSD.
"All that we see and seem is but a dream within a dream." --Edgar Allen Poe
The use of ports isn't as simple as getting a particular program running on your box.
For FreeBSD the ports tree is a very nice way for maintainers to modify the packages, via patches, to handle differences in the system software. I'm not sure of all of the differences but when making low level system calls surely the Linux/BSD kernels have special requirements. The ports tree allows maintainers to insure that software follows system policies on security etc. as well.
If you just want to download binaries all the time you wouldn't be any more interested in the ports system than you would be in building your own RPMS or DEBs.
Updating software using the ports system is, I think, where it shines. You can keep your ports system up to date using cvs. If a package get's updated you can use a utility called portupgrade to get the new source/patch it/compile it/upgrade it.
You just have to type something like %portupgrade greatprogram.
Since everything is compiled on your system you don't have to deal with dependencies as much. Anybody who has tried installing the latest KDE rpms on a redhat system might appreciate this.
So it's more like an automagic way to build and install the latest rpms/debs/pkg for your computer.
Having said that, it's just a matter of preference.
Meant to write:
My thought was more: if there are alternative tools to the GNU tools, what would it take to make a desktop OS environment devoid of GNU tools...but still using the Linux kernel?
Just call it XFree86PerlMozillaPythontclKDEApacheSambaMySqlopen sshwebminGNU/Linux
Slackware + BSD ports = recompile kernel + compile applications = Best of Both Worlds.
Silly silly. Emacs is GNU - in fact it was the first piece of GNU. Gnome is GNU also. But that's not the point.
The point is that an Operating System is a collection of software that makes a computer usable. There is a minimum level, and it's more than a kernel. You have to have a text editor. You have to have a compiler collection. Without those you can't do anything at all.
RMS and the FSF have been working to make all the crucial components of an OS available for decades. Without that work there wouldn't be any Linux. Don't believe me? Just what do you suppose Thorvalds himself had to have before he started writing the kernel? VIM and GCC. RMS himself wrote GCC. VIM was written by people inspired by his example, who preferred the design of vi, but longed for the freedom of Emacs.
For that matter, BSD in the form we know it today relies on GCC, and quite a bit of other GNU software too. It's probably possible, at this point, to put together a Free system that doesn't use anything GNU. But it would be an inferior system, so no one, not even OBSD (Theo hates RMS and yanks anything GPL out of his base the moment anything half-usable under another license is available,) does. But would it be possible to do that at this point if it weren't for RMS' unflagging uncompromising belief in Free Software, were it not for the tremendous amount of work he has done? I very much doubt it. So yes, I think he does deserve some credit, and yes, I think it's quite accurate to call most linux-based OSes GNU/Linux.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I don't think "not being Microsoft" is a sufficient criteria for the support of the Open Source community.
So the OS is Linux, and the whole could be referred to as the "GNU/Linux Environment", as Kernighan and Pike once referred to the "Unix Programming Environment"...
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Trust nobody with a 6-digit user id
Trust nobody with a with 16-digit user id (binary representation)
-josh
The point is that an Operating System is a collection of software that makes a computer usable. There is a minimum level, and it's more than a kernel. You have to have a text editor. You have to have a compiler collection. Without those you can't do anything at all.
Actually, an operating system does not need a text editor, etc. - spend some time in the embedded world.
-jerdenn
Excuse me, I meant an operating system for a general purpose computer. I did expect that much to be understood. Obviously if you're computer is designed to run a watch or something, things are different. You still have to have a text editor and a compiler on the general purpose computer you use to set the thing up though.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I don't waste time calling it GNU/Linux either, but at least I understand his point. It's not the amoount of software involved, it's the fact that it uses the GPL, and that the FSF was *the* pioneer in enforcing free software (as opposed to open source).
So many people continue to harp on how other software makes a bigger part of any distro that I can only assume that they have blinders on and do not want to admit that he has a point, at least from his point of view. I think they just want to bash RMS and the hell with needing a valid reason.
Infuriate left and right
Actually, for many distros, I would just call it the "GNU Environment", as that's what it is. (and coming from me, that's saying a lot).
You could very accurately describe a Linux distro as "The Linux operating system plus complete GNU environment, XFree86, KDE, GNOME, etc."
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
This one thread probably reflects the state of the OS wars better than any other. Its amazing how similar these battles are in relationship to what is happening with mainstream religions (by religion I mean the organized dogma created by humans who share similar thoughts of spirituality, something entirely different.)
We all know how similar most protestant religions are. Some of the major ones (at least in the US) have recognized this too and have decided to merge (or re-merge, as they may have once been unified in the past) The thought is that perhaps it is not important how each one intreprets some arcane symbolism and which intrepretation is better. What is important is that they both have essentially the same message and the same goal. (Forgive my oversimplication of this, and sorry if I don't even remember what the names of the two religions are that I referred to earlier.)
Likewise with the various flavors of what is essentially Unix. You've all mentioned what your favorite method of software distribution is and have stated why this is so. Perhaps someday you'll see how pointless it is to bicker about the subtle differences and you'll work towards a common goal of reunifying the factions into a cohesive force which will probably be called Unix. Through this process, perhaps you will learn how similar it is and that by only focusing on the differences, you are forgetting your common goal and your original message. Quite frankly, I don't know what your message is, because I am relatively new to this world, having dabbled with these wickedly time consuming things we call computers since appx. 1980. I can say one thing: those working on the UI aspect of *nix seem to have a more clearly stated goal and have more successfully avoided the traps of constant infighting that seems typical of you plumbing guys. You could learn from them.
So, in some ways, these discussions are one way to essentially recognize that what makes you different is actually what makes you similar, and therein lies your power. Just don't lose sight of your common goal, whatever it might be.
More to the point of this discussion, I have probably dabbled with everything that has been discussed here. My most successful experiment as been Gentoo Linux, but that's only because I took the time to actually read the instructions on what to do, and was able to overcome the incredibly stupid mistakes that were made in the documentation that so many have stated isn't rocket science. Rocket science is useless if the rocket you build can't get off the ground. What good is it if you end up putting wheels on it and use it to drive from San Francisco to LA?
Debian's apt-get is fabulous but quite frankly the whole Debian thing reminds me too much of Scientology. No, actually it reminds me more of Amway. Of course apt-get is simple and the only way because that is what you get with Debian. No negativity here. You agreed to the Debian Social Contract, and therefore you must abide by that agreement. There is no other way.
Conectiva Linux has to be the best distribution to co-opt the structured order of Debian with the freewheeling rpm methodology. I think it is closes to realizing that you can have your cake and eat it too. Naturally, if there is a way to override rpm's safeguards, then don't give some poor new user such hell because they forced a package in. Afterall, you gave them the tool to do it by leaving in a back door. Conectiva has probably figured out that human nature is what it is, so help them by giving a bit more order to their "sin." The alternative is frustration on the users part, so why not just realize that to sin IS the norm and people will be people. I think what they have done is said there are more ways to achieve the same thing, and most users don't give a crap about any of them. They just want the end result, no sermon, no dogma, no eternal pain and suffering. Just give them what they want with minimum frustration and be happy that their systems are still stable and functional. Let them have the goddess, just call her Mary and incorporate her into your dogma. Let them have their midwinter rituals and their multiple deities. Just split your one diety into three different ones (God the father, God the son, and God the holy ghost). There is room for all of it, but always remember why you are here and not there. Otherwise, you won't be anywhere pretty quickly.
Sorry, this message has meandered everywhere across the map and often off of it entirely. But, I also want to take a minute to thank each and every one of you. This entire movement, whether you call it the FSF, GNU/Linux, KDE, Gnome, whatever. I am in awe of the energy and talent that has brought you this far in such a short time. No company can possibly ever hope to accomplish this in the same manner. Let it be both a compliement and warning to you that IBM and other biggies have recognized this. Just remember: the devil knows the bible frontwards and backwards.
My hats off to all of you. Keep those flames agoin and keep the fire hot!
Jack Greenwood
San Francisco
Jack Greenwood Southern California Inland Empire Suburban Hell
Way to to Linux. Just one more thign that you've ripped off from FreeBSD... Good job!
Folks, this has nothing to DO with Linux.
(or even GNU/Linux). Darwin is the BSD kernel used by MacOS X.
So, basically, the article says that GNU/Darwin now has a ports tree, modelled after FreeBSD's.
The headline is WRONG.
Who the hell is this RMS guy and what does GNU mean anyways?
I definitely agree, nice to see more propagation of the *nix species :) I have used both apt get and ports/pkg systems, and am satisfied with either, my only complaint is directed at Linux in general, and that is all of the "linux-centric" apps floating around now, hell, I can barely d/load anything it seems anymore without some strange proc or libc.soxxxx or not found error or whatever the case may be....however must about anything else works on most of the unices, it mostly Linux that seems to want to be different. If you think about it, kinda makes linux users sound like MS, eh? At least in the sense of doing things "their way" only. Anyhoo...
about 8 hrs, even on a dual 233Mhz Intel (and same on my pIII400), but I do remember before the great wave of newbies to Linux that users were always screaming "but you don't want precompiled binaries, just get the source d00dz" and even now, almost daily at /. I see "hrrmmmppphffff, harddisk space is a nonissue these days" and the linux users toss that excuse around too...it just seems to me that Linux users keep changing their lines of reasoning to fit the argument, that's all.
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone cares about gnu darwin. GNU/linux, sure, the gnu folks stepped in and made a unix system available under their license. But Darwin? Darwin is a custom unix designed and built by one company for their own usage. What's next? GNU/AIX? GNU/Solaris?
we know, after all, we were doing this long before you wet-behind-the-ears gen-x'ers came along, now isn't it past your bedtime sonny? oh yeah...+5 for that? wow, there's no bias at /. eh?
real tough to "vi Makefile" and comment out the line "broken=" eh? here's a hint, use a # before broken, fool, then you can install it and play with it, and the only broken one I've seen lately (that's even useful) is Mozilla. Remember, Linux lusers used to whine all day about "NEVER install precompiled binaries, heavens no!!! get the source !!! " and now look at you all..tsk tsk hypocrites, well you can keep apt. We don't want you in bsdland, nor your "mob rules" style of programming. Ugghh
In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few. --Suzuki-roshi
:)
So being certain and closed mined makes one an expert? I don't like that quote at all!
Who wants to be an expert? I think what this means is that we should all cultivate the open-mindedness that a beginner brings to a problem, and be prepared to consider concepts that are outside our experience.
I've also heard it expressed as "The more you learn, the less you know."
Maybe it should read In the young mind there are many possibilities. In the elderly mind there are few.
Ageist!
deus does not exist but if he does
so listen up. Ports has nothing to do with "porting" software from one platform to another. The ports collection is basically a package management and browsing system. It's a directory of packages, broken into categories, like ports/games, ports/net, ports/security, and so on. Each package has a makefile. The makefile will download, compile, create and install a binary package for that package and every one of its dependencies. It differs from traditional package managers in that dependencies are not done by package, e.g. kde doesn't look for a package for qt, it looks for the proper version of libqt.so -- think of it like a sort of autoconf. this saves you from the dependency hells other package managers put you through, and if you install a dependency manually, then things still install (and if you screwed up the dependency, well, that's your problem). When it's finished installing, the source tree sticks around (until you do a make clean), so if you need to modify something for your local system, you can go into the source, tweak at will, then make install again.
gentoo uses something very much like ports, though it doesn't use make, but a python utility called emerge instead. i would hope to see it use SCons in the future, and get the best of both worlds -- it might even be enough to get me to switch back to linux (once it stops having a VM bug of the week)
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
It's a bit curious how your original post contains phrases like "which is working towards their 1.0 release" and "Definatly check them out" - implying you are merely a satisifed user of the distro, with no stake in its success.
However, in the above post you slipped and said "we are on 1.0_rc6 right now", which suggests you are a little more involved with the project than you let on to originally.
I have to ask, is it really necessary to fake grass-roots support like that? If your product is any good, it will speak for itself.
So, what's in a name? Whatever we bundle in it.
Money for nothing, pix for free
Sure, but that name wouldn't go over well when the CNN anchor tries to report the news that the "OS formerly known as Linux" has surpassed Windows in installed user base a few years from now, now would it? :-)
Money for nothing, pix for free
No, but it's something to put on the front of the box to make RMS happy. Oh wait, nothing makes RMS happy...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
As a longtime bsd user, I am glad to see the os get a little attention this way. The dependency system is quite nice and easy.
Where do you want to be, What are you doing to get there.
I think the major point here is that without the GNU toolset (just about everything in /bin and /sbin, and a good portion of /lib too), there would be no Linux OS, just a kernel. If someone decides to port the vast quanitity of FreeBSD tools to Linux, then I think that would make a bit more sense.
I have several systems that do not have XFree86, Samba, etc on the machines. All of them carry the basic GNU tools, regardless if they have a compiler or not.
Granted, I think that GNU/Linux would be better treated as a 'formal' name, and not expected to always be referred to as that name. eg, WinME vs Windows Millenium Edition.
Moderate this post up, ok?
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
and just contributing to the thrown-togetherness of the whole linux experience? lovely.
An operating system is "software that controls the operation of a computer and directs the processing of programs (as by assigning storage space in memory and controlling input and output functions)."
Well, you'd have to have your head in an hole to be ignorant of the more common definition of "things that come on the CD with what is formally defined as an operating system". This is the definition that's far more relevant to everyone not writing a computer science textbook.
Even the GNU GPL uses the term "operating system" in this sense (calling a compiler a "major component" of the OS) and that's the legal document that allows the whole thing to be shipped.
Personally, I think the concept of a "distribution" or "operating environment" is marketing claptrap that hinges on an obscure technical point, but is designed to obscure the incompatibilities between different Linux-based OSes. Calling the different OSes themselves "Linux" (as Linus allows) is also a little white lie.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
How come, if we get a [+1 FUNNY] moderator selection, we don't also get a [-1 NOT FUNNY] selection? Seems like a real oversight to me.