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."
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?
Note to BSD folks: It's Linux, not GNU/Linux.
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".
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?
I am sick and tired of the GNU/Linux / Linux arguement.
;-)
Call it whatever you want, just don't call it Microsoft/Linux.
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
"Its basically ports++ that forms the core of the distro (aka its not just for "third party packages")."
:)
/usr/src && make -j8 buildworld
:)
Please, read the FreeBSD handbook
cd
I installed FreeBSD 4.3 on my box when it was released, I CVSuped the latest source code last week and now my box reads:
ainhoa# uname -srn
FreeBSD ainhoa.energyhq.org 4.4-STABLE
Yep, FreeBSD is cool
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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!
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.
You can do the same under FreeBSD as well. There are prebuilt binary "packages" that are essentially identical to Slackware tarballs.
What is great about ports is that you get all of the benefits of building from scratch, with the convenience of automatic builds, dependency checking, etc.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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.
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.
Richard Stallman pointed ou that since Linus Torvalds used some GNU programs in developing his OS this could be acknowledged by calling the new OS GNU/Linux. Nothing wrong with that!
Yup, and Symantec writes a lot of their software in Microsoft Visual C++, but we don't call it Microsoft / Norton AntiVirus, do we?
-jerdenn
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
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
I think Gentoo and LFS Linux are the only distros where you have to build everything from scratch. Everybody else has prebuilt packages. Even Slackware. I mean, nobody wants to go out and spend their entire three day holiday weekend *installing* the system! So you use packages instead.
I've built FreeBSD up from scratch from the base OS to XFree86 to KDE and all of their dependencies. Even on mostly autopilot, it took a three day weekend. Now I take a different tack. I install everything I want from a package, then recompile them in the background later, so at least I have a system I can *use* in the meantime.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Not as automated, no. If you want to take a stab at FreeBSD Ports, I'd recommend FreeBSD. However, if you currently use Linux as a workstation OS, I wouldn't recommend it.
It's wonderful for stable systems. It runs a number of large-scale websites. The very organizational structure is in place and has a goal of producing a stable, secure OS. Not supporting 10,000 different processors, not throwing the newest shit in the kernel. It's kinda like having Debian Stable as the base.
OTOH, Ports is kinda like Debian Sid. It's amazing how up-to-date a lot of the software is in the Ports tree. And the neato thing about ports (IMHO) is that, in many cases, aside from the patches that are applied, sources are downloaded from either the main software distribution site or a mirror, rarely from a centralized archive (as is the case with Debian and many other Linux distributions.)
One thing I had terrible luck with, aside from the fact that 3D DRI support is next to nonexistent, was soundcard support. Trying to play MP3s in XMMS was painful. It was for that reason that I switched to using Debian Sid with a patched kernel (for ext3 support.)
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
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.
Most desktop PCs and workstation have relatively static hardware configurations. Even gamers, who change their systems more frequently than others, keep roughly the same hardware for at least 6 months.
So yes, if you change your hardware configuration on a daily or even weekly basis, such a distro wouldn't fit your needs, but if you are the typical desktop/workstation user, then having your system re-optimize itself whenever you change the hardware, would be a tolerable cost for improved day to day performance. Tolerable because it is very infrequent yet yeilds long-term gains.
In addition, it wouldn't take much to have the system compile to a certain optimization level. High levels compile the code to exactly fit only the current hardware configuration, while low optimization levels compile towards a more general hardware configuration set, to which your current configuration belongs. That way you can optimize towards maybe just your CPU type and RAM capacity, if you frequently swap out sound cards and video cards (or whatever), and when you keep an entirely static setup, you have the optimizer spend an entire night tweaking the software for your system.
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
Perhaps anonymous pricks like you had actually contributed code yourself then you might compehend why people take offence at the FSF claiming credit for their work. That is what calling it GNU/Linux is tantamount to.