Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Migrating from Linux to FreeBSD

Posted by timothy on from the two-nice-destinations dept.

Eugenia writes: "OSNews published a guide that could help users migrate from Linux to FreeBSD by spotting the main differences between the two popular systems. Interesting read & relevant to the recent FreeBSD 4.5 release a few days ago."

81 comments

  1. Next in series by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    How to migrate from FreeBSD back to Linux

  2. FreeBSD Has Some Merits by trg83 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unlike certain Linux distributions, the FreeBSD package system seems to work great, even on packages that are on an FTP site somewhere else.

    1. Re:FreeBSD Has Some Merits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Like some, not all.

      If I developed a FreeBSD distribution that sucked, would you like it (FreeBSD) any less than you do now?

    2. Re:FreeBSD Has Some Merits by TaliesinWI · · Score: 1

      Some of the small but annoying problems I've been bitten with is whenever I'm running a slightly older version of FreeBSD and the ports system wants to go grab a version of a particular package that isn't on the FTP site anymore, because there's a newer version that's come out in the meantime.

      What's that, you say? Just CVSup the ports collection and everything will be OK? What if I / the customer needs it working NOW and don't really have time to CVSup or even manually drop in the particular port and all the new dependencies I need for that port to compile? Well, I could have the source handy and compile it from scratch, and I'm certainly not afraid of doing that, but then I've got a system that's part ports-maintained and part manually maintained, so until I have time to go back and make it right, anyone else who comes along will not be in the loop as to what's where, and why.

      What's the point of using automated tools when one has to do so many backflips to get around then when they're trying to be Smarter or More Correct than the situation dictates?

      And I haven't even touched on upgrading the complete OS. I am aware of _no way_ to do a complete system upgrade under any of the Free/Net/Open BSDs without visiting the box and taking it down to single user mode to "make world" the whole thing.
      (If I am wrong or out of date about this, I will humbly accept correction.)

      Now, as someone who's been on the Net since 1992 and has been playing with UNIX for about that long, I respect the whole "life is better when you compile from source on your own box" philosophy. You don't have to worry about the guy who built a binary package being a maniac or using bleeding edge versions of libraries or other utilities Just Because, etc. On the other hand, kernel compiles back then were more like kernel LINKS because your vendor didn't give you much access to the source code, so you'd recompile mainly to change something now considered silly like number of simultaneous VTYs or other system-wide settings that everyone now is used to with either sysctls or some other mechanism. But as far as system upgrades go, instead of wandering into the server room at my theoretical company on a Friday afternoon, reminding everyone within earshot on my way there that I had sent out a systemwide memo a week ago saying I was going to be upgrading the system today, walking over to the server, starting the download, bringing down the box, et al (thereby putting out the few hundred people who rely on the box but should have scheduled their day around its downtime anyway), I'm pissing off thousands of users at my theoretical ISP who access the box 24/7 and affecting thousands of other users who are attempting to surf to my customer's web sites, send them mail, etc.

      Now, take the same situation with, say, Debian or RedHat. I want to upgrade a package? apt-get or rpm it. That particular program will be down for precisely the amount of time it takes the package manager to replace the appropriate files, which would be a minute or two, TOPS. Want to make my own modifications but still have the package be touchable/upgradeable by the package management system (AKA "The Best of Both Worlds"?) In Debian, it's apt-get source "package name"...I know RedHat has source RPMS but I've forgotten the procedure for RPMing them right now. :) Compile the package with modifications, install as above. Same amount of downtime.
      Kernel upgrade? Either do it thru the particular package manager or get the source yourself, compile while the box is running, install, notify users the box will be back in less than five minutes, and you've bought yourself time to reboot the box onto the new kernel and even to regress back to the old kernel if you need to.

      Now, I completely understand that there have been stability issues (cough) in the more recent Linux kernels that the BSDs do not have. Without getting into the whole chicken/egg thing of "well, don't upgrade the minute a new kernel comes out!" and "but how are we supposed to KNOW if there are any more bugs if people DON'T upgrade?" But a little user education solves this. For example, several of my boxes are on 2.2.19, and they've been running fine for many moons now. I'm anxious to move up to 2.4, and in some cases have, but IMHO we're beginning to get to the point (at least on the server end) where there aren't too many new features going in that people NEED. Not that they're not useful, but we got along just fine without them. Pre-emptable kernels, kernelspace SMP (as opposed to just userspace) and n(0) schedulers are nice, but I wasn't lusting after them in 2.2. So just following the discussion lists will clue you in if, in general, the new kernels are right for you.

      And I will go on record as saying that I WANT a Debian BSD so I can have the same admin tools I have grown to love but I have the oppotunity to play with the BSD kernels without having to put up with all the other differences moving to a BSD distro would make me live with.

      I don't knock people who choose to use ANY operating system, unless they made their choices based on FUD or other stupidity. But if someone who could use any (or a least a wide choice of) OS he wants to has chosen a particular one, chances are good he has his own valid reasons and trying to convert him away "because the other one is better" is specious at best. The best OS for someone is one that does what the user wants it to, at the speed the user wants it to, at the price the user can afford.

    3. Re:FreeBSD Has Some Merits by Baki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You write a lot but don't seem to be well informed on FreeBSD:

      If you can fetch the package from an FTP server, you can also cvsup to make sure your ports tree is up-to-date (it just takes a few minutes). The ports tree doesn't need to be very up-to-date b.t.w., since tar-balls that vanished from the sites are kept for a long time on ftp.freebsd.org, which is used as a fall-back. If you don't want to bother with net-access, then just install packages (the binary form of a port) and use the ports that are delivered on CD-ROM with an official FreeBSD set.

      make world (I've been doing it regularly for years) has never taking down your box during the process. It uses 2 steps by the way, which you can execute separate if you wish: make buildworld builds everything (in /usr/obj), then make installworld to copy /usr/obj to the system itself, which is a quick process. Even during this step your system remains up and running. A reboot is advisable afterwards but not absolutely necessary (running processes shall still use the old libraries of course).

      Upgrading a Linux box (which often comes down to a reinstall) takes much much more time. Upgrading FreeBSD is a routine operation which takes only 1-2 minutes of operator intervention, then takes some hours to complete (compiling) during which your box keeps running. No physical accesss is needed (it remains in multi-user mode and this has always been the case).

      You can say much about cons and pros about FreeBSD w.r.t. Linux, but there is absolutely no doubt possible on which one has the superior package management (ports) and system-update system, ease of system administration etc.

      At home I run my "production server" on FreeBSD because really, I'm too lazy for Linux.

      For those times that I'm not lazy and want to try some neat cool new stuff, I run Linux, Slackware of course. Because if/when I'm not lazy, I want to do everything myself and only deal with the source. I hate being bitten by incompatible packages, vague conflicts between unknown shared libraries etc. The only way to avoid is to recompile from source, and use statically linked software if no source is available (such as commercial software like Opera).

    4. Re:FreeBSD Has Some Merits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't have time to update via CVS than why would you be using ports at all and not packages?

      :)

    5. Re:FreeBSD Has Some Merits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point about port synchronization is a good one and a problem I encounter alot, but this bit is just plain stupid:

      And I haven't even touched on upgrading the complete OS. I am aware of _no way_ to do a complete system upgrade under any of the Free/Net/Open BSDs without visiting the box and taking it down to single user mode to "make world" the whole thing.
      (If I am wrong or out of date about this, I will humbly accept correction.)

      Never attempt to upgrade an Unix-like system in multiuser mode. If you want to upgrade a few userland commands, it normally suffices to cd /usr/src/usr.bin/command/ and make install. If you don't know how to build, use /stand/sysinstall.

    6. Re:FreeBSD Has Some Merits by TaliesinWI · · Score: 1

      Well, that really depends on what you mean by "upgrade a system" in that the philosophies about what constitutes the OS versus the "packages" or "ports" or "applications" or whatever. I completely agree, I would never attempt to upgrade basic system tools on a BSD, or Slackware Linux, or any other Unix/Unix-ish system I've encountered, without being in single user mode at the console. But in distros like Debian, for example, virtually EVERYTHING is a package, and the package management tools don't rely on anything but themselves to upgrade other packages. Hell, apt can even upgrade _itself_ on Debian. It would take almost deliberate effort to bork something during an automated install,
      and it's something that I would imagine happening about as often enough as a disk failure when I'm upgrading a Slackware install in single user mode. :)

      All I'm trying to get at with the point I rather long-windedly made in my previous post is that when someone changes Linux distros or from Linux to a BSD or back, it's not just an OS change, it's a philosophy shift, and at that point, there's no "better" or "worse", just what various people prefer. Trying to convert someone to another philosophy because _you_ prefer yours is akin to asking someone who is committed to their religion to switch to yours simply because it is different. This is not the same as suggesting someone look at alternatives that they might not have been aware of before - for example, someone bitching about a particular shortcoming of a UNIX-like OS not being aware that there is another one out there that addresses that problem.

      I always tell my coworkers who come to me wanting to learn Linux/UNIX to try all of the "base" distributions they can get their hands on, even if it means setting up multi-boot partitions, so they can play around with the various ways the different distributions handle the same ideas. And yes, this includes the free BSDs, not just Linux. And every one of them have jumped in slightly different ways depending on what they're using the boxes for and what they're willing to put up with. And they're all happy and productive, which in the end, is what we're all after anyway.

    7. Re:FreeBSD Has Some Merits by gsutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      I am aware of _no way_ to do a complete system upgrade under any of the Free/Net/Open BSDs without visiting the box and taking it down to single user mode to "make world" the whole thing.

      No single-user mode necessary:

      # cvsup cvsupfile.src
      # cd /usr/src
      # make buildworld
      # make buildkernel
      # make installkernel
      # make installworld
      # mergemaster
      # reboot

      Now, take the same situation with, say, Debian or RedHat. I want to upgrade a package? apt-get or rpm it. That particular program will be down for precisely the amount of time it takes the package manager to replace the appropriate files, which would be a minute or two, TOPS.

      # pkg_add -r packagename

      or, better yet,

      # pkg_add -r portupgrade
      # pkg_update packagename

      ...which will handle all dependencies as well. Portupgrade is an awesome package!

      HTH.

    8. Re:FreeBSD Has Some Merits by trg83 · · Score: 1

      Well, let's pick one. Package maintenance with Mandrake using Software Update, or whatever their buzzword is, blows. I have had no success applying any upgrades to Mandrake completely over an FTP connection. FreeBSD doesn't install nearly so much software in a default installation, but the default features are useful rather than bloatware.

  3. Followed by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    How to forget the whole Unix thing and migrate back to Windows.

    1. Re:Followed by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      followed by how to get off the damn computer and get a life. (for dummiesTM)

    2. Re:Followed by by josepha48 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      How about how to Migrate away from that whole PC thing to Mac OS X.

      On another note though. After reading this article it really does not tell you anything and it has a few flaws.

      1) I believe that the latest rpm system DOES detect libraries on your system like QT even if they have not been installed through rpm. It does this by running ldd or ldconfig or something. Also if you know you have it on your system you can use the --nodeps to install it. You can also get the source rpm and install that which you can then edit the spec of. Also the newest rpm can handle some tar.gz files if they are built with rpm in mind with the --tarbuild command (I think this is it).

      2) Keeping your system 'up to date' Redhat has an update program, ximian has an update program, and I believe Mandrake has an update program. And they even mention that debian has apt-get. What about a better article of moving from rpm to apt-get / deselect. Or even why BSD is really better than deselect. Also they fail to mention why you want your system up to date. Do you really want the latest kernel if it is untested on a production system?

      3) They fail to mention any real advanatges of why should one want to go from Linux, which they clasify as the 'kernel', to FreeBSD, which they classify as the system, or any other BSD. Like weather it has better SMP or support for hardware. Package management is not a good argument. If that were the case I think windows installer is better. It allows more options than rpm -Uvh or make && make install and it is menu driven.

      4) While the mention the linux compatiblity layer, they fail to point out a list of all the programs that run just on Linux and which ones ARE compatible. I know some software that we use where I work would probably not work on FreeBSD.

      This article is a start I think, but they really need to do a series of articles that describe this rather than a 2 pager.

      rpm is also a open source program that if one wanted they could probably install it under FreeBSD and get it to work.

      Does FreeBSD have a journaling file system? If so how many? How do they compare to ext3 or JFS?

      Does it support all the same audio hardware that Linux does? If not what does it lack or what does it support more of? (Video is done mostly through XFree so both are about equal in that respect).

      --

      Only 'flamers' flame!

    3. Re:Followed by by DrSkwid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Package management is not a good argument. If that were the case I think windows installer is better.

      When I go to windows.update does it upgrade all the 3rd party software I've installed ?

      For instance, I cvsup on a daily cron and once a week run portupgrade. It upgrades ALL the software I install via the ports tree such as KDE, Opera, Mozilla. I'd be impressed if windows update upgraded my mozilla for me but as we know, it doesn't.

      I tried Mandrake for a week or so and found the Mandrake RPM updater a pain to use, not least of which was the fact that I had to point and click things. I'm not really knocking Mandrake, Penguins for Courses n that but portupgrade is a vast improvement.

      As for audio cards, well here's the list

      I do realise that your critique is directed at the article & not FreeBSD :)

      One of FBSD's advantages is it's centralised nature. You can contribute & use as you see fit but there is one definitive point of contact which does make a difference when it comes to finding answers to questions.

      Linux is in the light and I like the GPL and the politics that goes with it. I don't think I would ever seriously tell anyone to migrate from Linux to FreeBSD but if you are a bit of a geek you'll try them all anyway!

      If you want me to evangelise I'll reply plan9 :)

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    4. Re:Followed by by WasterDave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also they fail to mention why you want your system up to date

      Security and stability fixes, primarily.

      Do you really want the latest kernel if it is untested on a production system?

      Ahhh, solved. FreeBSD has branches, -STABLE for code that has been tested, and -CURRENT for code that hasn't. By updating along the -STABLE track you can be sure of no nasty surprises. (5.0-CURRENT is having lots of nasty surprises, right now).

      They fail to mention any real advanatges of why should one want to go from Linux, which they clasify as the 'kernel', to FreeBSD,

      FreeBSD is distributed as an entire OS - there is no "distribution" concept, it arrives and works. The advantage is in the reduced amount of fragmentation, and ultimately a reduction in the time it takes to get anything working.

      While the mention the linux compatiblity layer, they fail to point out a list of all the programs that run just on Linux and which ones ARE compatible

      It'd be a big list! But, yes, some highlights would've been good. A good example would be Oracle, which aparrently can be made to run under Linux emulation, but it's a bit of a fight. Probably easier to just use Linux :)

      rpm is also a open source program that if one wanted they could probably install it under FreeBSD and get it to work.

      You certainly could, and in fact the Linux emulation layer does include a bunch of symlinks to make the FreeBSD file system look distinctly like a Linux one. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the ports and packages systems.

      Does FreeBSD have a journaling file system?

      Kind of, it has a system called soft updates. To cut a long story short it runs the advantages of a journaling file system without the journal. There is only one of them.

      (Video is done mostly through XFree so both are about equal in that respect).

      Yes and no. It's only recently that FreeBSD has started to ship with XFree4.x.x (due to deeply conservative release engineering). Also FreeBSD does not have access to closed source video drivers, i.e. closed source nVidia drivers. Linux is ahead in video, but then so is Windows.

      Dave

      --
      I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
    5. Re:Followed by by Arandir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believe that the latest rpm system DOES detect libraries on your system like QT even if they have not been installed through rpm.

      RPM has been able to do this for quite a while. The capabilities of RPM is not the problem, the idiots who write the RPM specs are the problem.

      Do you really want the latest kernel if it is untested on a production system?

      Under FreeBSD, the latest kernel in -STABLE has been tested on production systems.

      Package management is not a good argument. If that were the case I think windows installer is better.

      The Windows installer (or rather, the numerous Windows installers) has one good feature. You typically get to choose between full, minimal and custom installs. Other than that, FreeBSD ports, Debian apt-get and RPM urpmi are vastly superior. Most Windows installers can't handle dependencies very well (if at all) so the typical solution is to bundle all the dependencies with the package. The user ends up with dll hell and duplicate libraries scattered across the system. Neither are they any good at updating. The only reliable way of upgrading to uninstall the old then install the new.

      they fail to point out a list of all the programs that run just on Linux and which ones ARE compatible.

      I've never had a problem with the Linux layer. I've been able to run everything from Loki games to StarOffice under it. Where you will have a problem is with programs that depend on Linux kernel-only features, software dependent on drivers only written for Linux, and trying to link FreeBSD applications to Linux libraries.

      Of course, I wasn't expecting them to do an exhaustive search of all 10,000+ packages available for SuSE just to find the 100 that won't work, and the 10 inside that list that you might actually want to use. So I'll give you the only one I have ever found: the Flash plugin. Actually the flash plugin works, but since it is a linux library, you can't link it at runtime to a FreeBSD application. So it won't work under a natively built Konqueror or Mozilla. But it *will* work under a Linux Konqueror or Mozilla running under FreeBSD.

      rpm is also a open source program that if one wanted they could probably install it under FreeBSD and get it to work.

      Yup. Been there, done that. An awful lot of software is shipped ONLY in RPM format. Even the source code. So when you go to ports to install such software, ports will see that it needs RPM and go install that first.

      Does FreeBSD have a journaling file system? If so how many? How do they compare to ext3 or JFS?

      This is the debate that will never end because no one can ever win. People smarter than both you and I have weighed in on both sides of the issue. In my opinion, I think transaction atomicity at the filesystem level is simply not needed for the vast majority of users. For them softupdates might be a better solution. One thing I do know though, if you need the kind of stability that only a jfs can provide, then you also want the stability of the 2.0 Linux kernel, which doesn't provide it.

      Does it support all the same audio hardware that Linux does?

      This was addressed in the article. There are more users using Linux than FreeBSD, consequently there is a larger pool of developers working on last weeks latest and greatest hardware. Linux will always have better hardware support so long as it has a larger user base. In the same way, Windows has better hardware support than Linux.

      In practical terms, if your hardware is newer than six months old, Linux may be your only option for a free software OS. Otherwise FreeBSD will be just fine.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    6. Re:Followed by by sirket · · Score: 3, Informative

      Reasons for running FreeBSD:

      1. It is a single entity. I do not need to worry which version of libc works with which kernel

      2. FreeBSD is consistent. I do not need to worry about where a particular FreeBSD system has installed an application.

      3. FreeBSD's ports tree is an excellent utility for managing my system

      4. Stability. FreeBSD is stable as can be.

      5. Performance. FreeBSD has always be an excellent system when it comes to performance, and it does so without making the sacrafices in stability that Linux traditionally made. (Async file systems anyone?)

      Does FreeBSD have a journaled file system? No. FreeBSD has SoftUpdates. Why? Because it gets you everything you want from journaling without the overhead.

      How many journaled file systems does it have? One. Why on earth would you need more than 1? Softupdates isn't even seperate from the standard file system. As of 4.5 Softupdates are enabled on file systems by default. The wonderful thing about softupdates, though, is that you can turn them on an off when you want to.

      The Windows installer is better? Perhaps you had better stop sitting in front of the radiation that your monitor emits. The last time I checked the Windows installer screwed up about half the time. I also do not see a global menu from which I can tell Windows to install any one of thousands of useful utilities all by typing one command. More importantly Windows sure as hell won't go out and get the software for me!

      apt-get is a pretty nice piece of software. It is the first time the Linux folks have released something comparable to the ports tree and I am glad to see it out there.

      Also, rpm does compile and install under FreeBSD.

      Finally, FreeBSD has always doen an amazing job of running Linux applications when required so I just do not see an advantadge to using Linux.

      -sirket

    7. Re:Followed by by xA40D · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, couldn't have said it better myself. Except to add that FreeBSD does have rpm support - check the ports.

      One thing I don't like about FreeBSD is the lack of an intuative patching mechanism - I prefer to run the RELEASE branch on servers, with upgrades only to fix one or two identified issues. A make world is a bit excessive, but it is just so easy.

      One more thing - File systems. Have you noticed both camps see the number of file systems supported as an advantage?

      --
      Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
    8. Re:Followed by by josepha48 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Wow there are so many replys to my initla post I thought I'd address them all.

      I was referring to the article NOT FreeBSD. The article makes little or no mention of all the things that people have pointed out that are better reasons for switching to FreeBSD.

      1) yes they say FreeBSD is all in one as opposd to Linux distros, but they don't mention why that is really bad. Maybe it would help if they mentioned that the different distros are not always binary compatible with each other and the libc issue and that the different kernels mean you may have to upgrade some programs and recompile programs when upgrading kernels.

      As far as the windows installer goes I was referring to it as an installer. RPM, gnorpm are not real installers. Neither is make install. The plusses in windows installer are that it lets you choose full, custom, or small install usually, and also lets YOU the user decise what directory to put stuff in and more often than not if they got it right then you can uninstall stuff too by just a click. Nice easey to use GUI that lets YOU in easier. No it is not an upgrade utiltiy nor does it clain to be. Windows update is just that WINDOWS. Windows add on programs that you install are not part of windows. But if you get XP part of windows update will update internet exploiter.

      "Where you will have a problem is with programs that depend on Linux kernel-only features, software dependent on drivers only written for Linux, and trying to link FreeBSD applications to Linux libraries".. installer and updater are two completely differnet entities. Thus this was not what I was talking about .. learn to read..

      "Where you will have a problem is with programs that depend on Linux kernel-only features, software dependent on drivers only written for Linux, and trying to link FreeBSD applications to Linux libraries".. yes I and I work with such software. Which even running under linux can be tricky. You need this version of this distribution.. blah blah..

      What they fail to mention is that FreeBSD is actually already a branch that is part of NetBSD, OpenBSD and all the rest of the BSD's. Oh and don't forget that Mac OS X is a splinter off of FreeBSd. FreeBSD came from BSD and now has become only one. They are also different schools of thought. At some point Linux distros will die and there will be only one or two. Currently there are many yes, but only a few of them are acutally big time players, like RedHat, mandrake, SuSe, debian and Slackware. yes others exist but any polls show these as the top 5 most used.

      Lastly the first comment I made was basically why should anyone migrate from one OS to anther. People will test them and if they like one better than another they will use it. Persoanlly I think they all kind byte and that there is yet to be a real "killer OS". Mac OS X is looking good, but it only runs on Mac hardware. (exlude darwin as I want the WHOLE OS GUI and all).

      --

      Only 'flamers' flame!

    9. Re:Followed by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      As far as XFree is concerned:

      I remember runnning XFree4.x.x several years ago
      on FreeBSD. It is entirely possible that this
      came from ports(I honestly don't remember) but it
      has been there for a while even if it wasn't part
      of the base system.

      As far as nVidia Xfree drivers are concerned:

      This was actually one of the reasons that I
      switched my desktop OS from FreeBSD to Linux
      a while ago. The only other reason being Java
      support. However, the nVidia situation was only a
      problem since I needed to be able to do hardware
      accelerated GL. If you don't need this, then the
      drivers provided by Xfree86 work fine under FreeBSD.
      If you do need this then it will most
      likely be available in the not so distant future.
      I would expect it to be in FreeBSD 5.0. You can
      track the work being done and try the latest drivers
      by checking out this link.

    10. Re:Followed by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRT FreeBSD 4.3, XFree 4 was in the ports, but when you selected it from the installer, it gave you some ominous security warning. I chose it anyway, and for some reason I still ended up with 3.3.

      I got the impression really quickly that XFree 4 and FBSD didn't really mix well. Has that changed with 4.5?

    11. Re:Followed by by Metrol · · Score: 2

      1) I believe that the latest rpm system DOES detect libraries on your system like QT even if they have not been installed through rpm. It does this by running ldd or ldconfig or something. Also if you know you have it on your system you can use the --nodeps to install it. You can also get the source rpm and install that which you can then edit the spec of. Also the newest rpm can handle some tar.gz files if they are built with rpm in mind with the --tarbuild command (I think this is it).

      Of course RPM's can detect when something isn't there. Can it actually do something about it? I recall when I was using RedHat I ran into a dependancy problem where some ".so" file couldn't be found. Hours of hunting turned up no answers. The RPM just kept reminding me that I didn't have it.

      In contrast, I've never had this problem on FreeBSD, after what I'm guessing must be at least over a hundred different installation performed with the ports system. This whole process has even gotten significantly smarter with the "portupgrade" routines.

      Even if RPM could detect and install dependencies, it would still pale in comparison to the ports system. There's no real QA for RPM's as they are put together by anyone. To get a port added to FreeBSD a user submits proposed changes to a maintainer to commit to the CVS repository. It actually gets looked at and tried out for the specific platform it's going on prior to everyone getting it. After all that if it still has problems, there's a single place to go to inform folks that there's a problem.

      The whole concept of installing applications involves a hiearchy of people who have demonstrated profiency in doing so correctly. There is simply no equivalent to it in the Linux world.

      As for comparing it to a Windows installer, the PHP port is an outstanding example of what is possible. Upon starting it's "make install" the user is provided a screen to check off which features he/she wants, dynamically creates the proper config line, then insures all the needed dependancies are there, installs them if needed, then completes the PHP compile. It really is a beautiful thing to watch in motion.

      Installing applications is a HUGE difference between FreeBSD and the rest of the crowd. It's power, stability, and versatility are too often overly simplified by comparing to lesser capable systems.

      --
      The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
    12. Re:Followed by by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does updating Mozilla update these other plugins?

      maybe you can't read

      portsupgrade upgrades EVERYTHING YOU'VE INSTALLED

      oh yeah, btw where can I download Internet Explorer for FreebSD?

      You just don't like a winner
      oh, here we go, you're getting irrational now

      spout your filthy leftist dogma at anyone who's willing to listen.

      er, this is a FreeBSD thread

      You, sir, are worse than Hitler.
      leftist and Nazi, I'm doing pretty well esp. as I despise both camps despite being lumped in with the left for my anti-capitalist views (except for my pension plan & healthcare of course!)

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    13. Re:Followed by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do all you comments suck...I mean, all the other trolls around here at least try. Yours are always ass kissing other trolls, or putting down OS software, which is old-fucking-hat...really...don't waste your time here. You suck...

    14. Re:Followed by by ScumBiker · · Score: 2

      Playing with the trolls again, eh, DrSkwid? :) Thanx for the info about portsupgrade, I need to start reading the release notes. I run 3 FreeBSD servers myself, so this will be handy.

      --
      --- Think of it as evolution in action ---
    15. Re:Followed by by sirket · · Score: 2

      As far as the windows installer goes I was referring to it as an installer. RPM, gnorpm are not real installers. Neither is make install. The plusses in windows installer are that it lets you choose full, custom, or small install usually, and also lets YOU the user decise what directory to put stuff in and more often than not if they got it right then you can uninstall stuff too by just a click. Nice easey to use GUI that lets YOU in easier. No it is not an upgrade utiltiy nor does it clain to be. Windows update is just that WINDOWS. Windows add on programs that you install are not part of windows. But if you get XP part of windows update will update internet exploiter.

      First, the whole point of a package management system to is put software _where it belongs_ Not wherever you feel like putting it.

      Second, the make commands let you choose a myriad of options by just setting the appropriate flag instead of just clicking. make "no_x11=true" install is not very complicated.

      What they fail to mention is that FreeBSD is actually already a branch that is part of NetBSD, OpenBSD and all the rest of the BSD's.

      I have no idea why everyone keeps saying this. The different BSD's are _different operating systems_! Unlike the Linux distributions which are trying to be the same system! The funny part about this statement is that despite being different operating systems, the BSD's are more binary compatible with each other than the different Linux distributions are. NetBSD will continue to do wild hardware development including being the first OS to support things like USB. FreeBSD will continue to work on stability, scalability and speed. OpenBSD (As long as Theo doesn't get hit by a bus) will continue to concentrate on security.

      -sirket

    16. Re:Followed by by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Playing with the trolls again, eh, DrSkwid?

      well sometimes it's fun

      portsupgrade is cool though & it saved my life when I did rm -rf /usr/local/lib/* by accident!!

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    17. Re:Followed by by josepha48 · · Score: 2
      "the whole point of a package management system to is put software _where it belongs_"

      No the whole purpose of package management is to keep track of what you have installed on your system not to put it in a particular place. This allows one to upgrade packages or remove packages.

      As far as the BSD being different Operatins sytems, yes that is true, but they all share some code. They DO exchange code between them. And that is kernel code that I am talking about as well as system code. If you look where they all derived from they all came from the same BSD base and they are all just branches of the same tree. Try looking at the history of UNIX and you will see why people say this.

      --

      Only 'flamers' flame!

    18. Re:Followed by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I recall when I was using RedHat I ran into a dependancy problem where some ".so" file couldn't be found."

      I've never had any dependency problems with debian. And the debian archive is far more comprehensive than the FreeBSD ports system.

      Just today I had to install libtool myself from scratch on my FreeBSD box because the port still hasn't been updated. My Debian testing box has had it for a while now.

    19. Re:Followed by by fyonn · · Score: 1

      well, if what you need to uprade is part of the base, but not part of the kernel, then cd ito that directory and "make ; make install". ie for userland tools and stuff.

      ie if ping is discovered to have a major security bug then you can cvsup to the latest stable cd into /usr/src/sbin/ping and make install. if the problem is for something that interacts with the kernel (ie ps, top) then you'd be advised to make world to keep everything in sync but alot of the userland tools can be done individually if you're careful.

      I'd recommend that you try and keep up to date in general, ie don't keep doing this on a 4.0 release bx as more and more of your stuff will get out of date :)

      dave

    20. Re:Followed by by einhverfr · · Score: 2


      For instance, I cvsup on a daily cron and once a week run portupgrade. It upgrades ALL the software I install via the ports tree such as KDE, Opera, Mozilla. I'd be impressed if windows update upgraded my mozilla for me but as we know, it doesn't.

      I am sure they would upgrade it if they could-- right up to IE 6.0! ;)

      OK, OK, so this is off-topic, but it was too tempting...

      Anyway, I can see people choosing FreeBSD over Linux and vice versa. FreeBSD may be more stable than Linux but that cannot be proven at this point, and Linux hass more hardware support and many more features.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    21. Re:Followed by by geekopus · · Score: 1

      The main thing that I saw was that FBSD 4.x would run X4.x, but it didn't install it if you selected the "canned" X workstation distribution. What you have to do is complete install and then install from packages.

      Oh, and if you make any ports that require X, it will build X3.x for you, but I don't think that will wipe out your existing X installation.

    22. Re:Followed by by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 2

      I personally don't like the FreeBSD installer. I run FreeBSD at home, and I cringe whenever I need to do a full re-install. I install minimum, then install xfree4 port, and everything else via ports. I prefer the OpenBSD install method, but it is nice to specify which ports to install during the install process.

    23. Re:Followed by by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 1

      DAMMIT!!! I hate it when I post and forget to take off the auto +1 bonus.

  4. A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why isn't this on the front page?

  5. Bad article -- frankly not worth the /. link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article spends waaaay to much time talking about the licensing differences. When we want to migrate from one OS to another, reading the licesnsing is probably near the bottom of our lists. We want to know what the OS does, and if it'll perform well in our situation.

    No mention of the different CPU types that BSD runs on, how many drivers are available (just that the authors look down their noses at the "flashy new features" that new hardware offers, migrating user accounts, does CRON or anything have to be dealt with, etc. A little bit of information on the different directory structure.

    His main bitch seems to be that the default install of FreeBSD is small, and the default install of SuSE isn't.

    This thing reads like it was written by a C.S. major for a 200 level English course. /. is not the intended audience.

    1. Re:Bad article -- frankly not worth the /. link by Arandir · · Score: 1

      This thing reads like it was written by a C.S. major for a 200 level English course. /. is not the intended audience.

      Well, it *was* written for OSNews :-)

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    2. Re:Bad article -- frankly not worth the /. link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it's too far over the head of an average /. reader. Give them some credit at least.

    3. Re:Bad article -- frankly not worth the /. link by aunchaki · · Score: 1

      It didn't get into what is the main day-to-day difference for me: the SysV vs. BSD startup/init configurations.

    4. Re:Bad article -- frankly not worth the /. link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how do you explain the availability of more commercial code for Linux than BSD? Oh wait, that's why you got modded down....

    5. Re:Bad article -- frankly not worth the /. link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You edit init scripts every day?

  6. License Differences by ulmanms · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...the GPL requires any changes to the source code to be made public and be licensed under the GPL...

    Small things like this are what contribute to the FUD about the GPL. Say it with me - you only have to release your changes if you distribute them. It's these misinterpretations that allow MSFT to claim that using Linux will 'infect' your company.

    For reference, it's here in the GPL.

    1. Re:License Differences by Thatman311 · · Score: 1

      And if you don't distribute the software you created or modified how would you make money off of that software? That is the virus type nature of the GPL that Microsoft speaks to.

      --
      Silly Rabbit...Sig's are for kids.
    2. Re:License Differences by minus9 · · Score: 1

      Not every company is in the business of selling computer software. The market would be rather overcrowded if that were the case.

    3. Re:License Differences by Arandir · · Score: 2

      But it's those companies that are in the business of selling computer software that are leery of the GPL. Your banks, grocers and auto manufacturers could care less.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    4. Re:License Differences by Enry · · Score: 2

      Tivo and Akamai are two great examples of making money while living with in the GPL. They both sell a service, while using GPL software to power their services. In the case of Tivo, they do release some kernel patches and whatnot, but everything else is closed-source. Akamai has made a lot of changes to the Linux kernel to speed up the TCP code, but since they're not distributing the kernel, there's no need for them to distribute the source code.

    5. Re:License Differences by unclefucknut · · Score: 1
      Inhouse software is great for development. Can you say "compiler backends"?

      I've been hired by companies which are typically closed source companies, but still have used GPL'd stuff inhouse for development. And most of the time, the inhouse developers are good persons, and distribute the changes back to the community, eventhough they are not obligated. Pretty much BSD spirit.

  7. few things left out by Partisan01 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think a couple points need to be made. I'm a avid linux user, OpenBSD user and FreeBSD user. I also have a win98 box laying around. But I think when migrating to BSD most linux users don't realize that the GNU utils arn't there anymore. This is a big thing, same with the bash shell. Another point to be made is that for webserving FreeBSD is about as fast as you can get. If you want high loads and need to serve up lots of info FreeBSD is the answer.


    Nate Tobik

    --
    ahh, the egg in the basket..
    1. Re:few things left out by RinkSpringer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uhrm, you can just install Bash by going to /usr/ports/shells/bash and make install. Same goes for most other utilities.

    2. Re:few things left out by Metrol · · Score: 3, Informative

      But I think when migrating to BSD most linux users don't realize that the GNU utils arn't there anymore.

      Ahh, you mean like this tiny sampling of GNU applications?

      This is a big thing, same with the bash shell.

      Are you referring to, like, bash?? Perhaps you didn't know how to properly install it?

      You say you've actually used FreeBSD???

      --
      The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
    3. Re:few things left out by corrosiv · · Score: 1


      You're talking about ports, while the author was talking about the core OS. AFAIK there is some GNU in the core OS, but most GNU code running in FreeBSD is installed from ports.

      My $0.02 (Canadian)

      Steve

    4. Re:few things left out by Arandir · · Score: 1

      bash isn't in the "core" OS of Linux either. All but one Linux distro has allowed me to deselect it. Now getting rid of fileutils and binutils may be rather difficult, but most of the GNU stuff is entirely optional.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    5. Re:few things left out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bash is also included as a package on your CD.

    6. Re:few things left out by Metrol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're talking about ports, while the author was talking about the core OS.

      Of course I'm talking about the port installs. The reason I replied was that the original post had a VERY misleading statement about bash and GNU utilities being unavailable in FreeBSD. It would be way too easy to assume you couldn't even get these things to run had they no experience with FreeBSD.

      If core OS means that you can install these things initially when you install the OS, then FreeBSD does that as well! Just like a Linux distro install you can select packages to be added along with the rest of the OS.

      As a Linux distro is really not much more than the kernel and selected packages I could just as easily state that GNU utilities aren't a "part" of any of those either. Certainly they aren't a part of Linux, as Linux only includes a kernel if we wanted to get all kinds of nit picky.

      --
      The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
    7. Re:few things left out by The+FooMiester · · Score: 1

      NOTE: I use netBSD, but the packages system is based off of the freebsd ports system.

      (taken from the DESCR file from /usr/pkgsrc/sysutils/sh-utils)

      These are the GNU shell utilities. Most of these programs have significant advantages over their Unix counterparts, such as greater speed, additional options, and fewera rbitrary limits.

      --
      The previous has been a secret message to my comrades.
  8. Get ready to be a cheerleader or maybe jeerleader by teambpsi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First up, I'm not a purist -- not by any stretch of the imagination -- i tend to migrate to a "best fit solution"

    I develop FreeBSD based embedded server apps for clients -- but until recently I had to use Linux in order to get support for my commercialware programmers editor (slickedit) -- took over two years of sending "nastygrams" or rather good natured pokes to get them to make an honest port instead of trying to get it work under the emulator.

    Oracle would be great on freebsd, but that seems unlikely for awhile.

    Coldfusion would be awesome on freebsd -- but considering Macromedias arcane licensing policy even when it comes to the Solaris version (jeezus I spent less money on my SparcEngine ATX motherboard then I did on my last Intel supermonster -- do they care? no they think their server is worth $5000 for the privilege to run on sparc -vs- the reasonable windows/linux server pricing they have)

    The fact is, unless you can live with all the portable "free" stuff, get used to either being a cheerleader or a jeerleader when dealing with commercialware vendors.

    Yeah, like its that friggn difficult for them to recompile on freebsd ;)

    --

    Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
  9. Re:Get ready to be a cheerleader or maybe jeerlead by Arandir · · Score: 2

    Yeah, like its that friggn difficult for them to recompile on freebsd ;)

    Recompiling is a snap. Any commercial Unix program can be ported to FreeBSD in about a day. The developers at these companies know this. But that not the roadblock. The management at these companies don't want to support another platform. Simple. They don't want to write another help script for the techsupport crew. They'll have to invest in people who know FreeBSD inside and out so that when a customer calls with a tough support question they can handle it.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  10. the support card by teambpsi · · Score: 2

    this is the exact sort of thing that was the argument against linux early on

    and the sort of thing that you could either "download without support" at a reduced price etc

    but seriously, for most application level issues, the fundamental differences between the two is almost non-existent.

    if anything it gets their developers to write autoconf scripts, and helps to reduce the number of things that are "taken for granted"

    --

    Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
  11. unlike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your mother, who's slow, but also fast. She likes eating shit, too. Last night, I took a big steaming dump on her face. Before you could say, "Cleveland Steamer," she started munching on it like it was a warm chocolate burrito. I tell you, that bitch sure is slutty.

  12. Re:you stupid fucking linux bigots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're one to talk about being belligerent! But it seems that's the BSD way...

  13. Re:Get ready to be a cheerleader or maybe jeerlead by elbles · · Score: 1

    "Yeah, like its that friggn difficult for them to recompile on freebsd ;)"

    Well, the recompiling might not be difficult. ;-) You have to remember that not all commercial code is as "clean" as many open-source projects are, mainly because they simply don't target anywhere near the number of platforms. I can't think of any commercial products of the top of my head (Oracle maybe?), but I do know *MANY* of them include enhancements (read: hacks) to get them to run on different platforms, like Linux, or Solaris. Sure, they're all UNIX, so to speak, but there remains differences between the two, and it is those differences that commercial vendors are worried about; it's never just a simple recompile, though it would be nice. And the cost of doing a port The Right Way is prohibitive, especially for more "exotic" operating systems like FreeBSD. From a commercial point of view, Linux is growing at a faster pace than FreeBSD, and *THAT'S* what companies care about. We aren't in the dot-com mode of spending anymore; money has to be allocated towards those areas where companies will make the most money, because that is their job. Sorry for the rant . . . this just hit upon something I've been thinking of lately. :-)

  14. Re:The FreeBSD community by Ded+Bob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have heard that #FreeBSD is not the place to ask about installing FreeBSD. The best place would be #FreeBSDHelp. They tend to be more helpful. :)

  15. Re:you stupid fucking linux bigots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I totally fucking trolled you, you stupid shitbag!!! You fucking fell for it!!! You are the most unbelivable fool ever.

  16. Fucking shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My $0.02 (Canadian)

    Riiiiight

  17. Re:the article forgot to mention by unclefucknut · · Score: 1
    at least all BSD's I've used (Net, Free, Open, BSD/OS) sucks LESS than any Linux distribution I've used (Debian, Redhat, Mandrake, SuSE, Caldera, the-photoshop-copycat-canadian-company-whose-name- I-cant-remember).

    Have you even compared any BSD against a Linux distribution, or are just another clueless script kiddie that just cannot get the scripts to work in a BSD environment?

  18. The acronym right, for 1st time ever? by Jayson · · Score: 1

    For the first time that I can remember somebody acrtually god the meaning of the acronym correct: Berkeley Software Distribution. Who told the secret?

  19. Migrating from Linux to FreeBSD by freebsddude · · Score: 1

    The article has been written with good intentions. As a sys admin/developer, I am personally more concerned about the immediate job, i.e. the issue of migration. It would be helpful to have a precise/specific checklist of things to worry about DURING the migration. Following which, a relative comparison (tabular, fairly specific) would be very helpful.

    This is what I am talking about:

    Unix Guide

    Hopefully this should help others.
    Best Wishes!!