Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD 5.0 Developer Preview #2
noackjr writes "'The FreeBSD Project is proud to announce the availability of the second Developer Preview snapshot of FreeBSD 5.0 (5.0-DP2). This
snapshot, intended for widespread testing purposes, is the latest milestone towards the eventual release of FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE, currently scheduled for mid-December 2002.' See the announcement, early adopter's guide, and the release notes."
I have been running FreeBSD for a number of years now (ever since the 2.x days), and find it great. One thing I've noticed, is that there are no mentions of any graphical displays and applications included in the default install/release notes (i.e. KDE/GNOME support, office applications, etc.). Does anyone know why this is?
Yet here you are, sampling the koolaid like the sap you are, putting the kidies in their place like some kind of venerable rutting stag who is pissed that the younger ones get all the young females and you're left with the withered old ones that can't escape your feeble approach.
Maybe you should hang out on some windows support board where you can talk about how every worthwhile program ever made can be run under DOS ??
It's an installer that doesn't get in your way. The partitioning/labelling is pretty easy (and has reasonable auto-defaults). And finishing up after (enabling ssh, nfs et al) is a doddle.
I don't see why FreeBSD needs graphical cruft in it's installer. The simple ncurses based one lets me install a fully working FreeBSD base system + ports tree in under 30 minutes. If I want something extra after that, pkg_add -r isn't far away.
I mean, come on... It's an installation, not something you have to work in for more than 8 hours. Yeah sure, GUI installers look nice, but what's the USE?
Here's a reason you might not hear from anyone else. FreeBSD is fast. It can make an old 486 seem like a Pentium 233MMX and a 733MHz PIII seem like a 3GHz P4. I'm serious, man. This has been my personal experience. Stop griping and try it. The installer isn't half as bad as the Debian installer and just about anything that can run on Linux can be recompiled for FreeBSD. Give it a shot.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Oh BS. The processor can only execute instructions so fast. Especially with the newer processors, instruction execution speed is also depedent on ordering.
I'm not saying freebsd isn't a fast OS, but it can't do the impossible. Yes I realise you're exaggerating to an extent, but you're over exaggerating here.
Lets see some benchmarks too.
Just because Linux is gaining share doesn't necessarily mean that BSD is losing. It does mean that UNIX is gaining though. :)
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
You do raise a good point in some ways--Linux has a lot of corporate backing and is very "loud" and attention grabbing. In the meanwhile, the server room is running bsd ;)
Don't forget that when you say development for linux is outpacing bsd what does that mean? The servers apps most people run has nothing to do with the OS. Samba, Bind, Netatalk, Squid, Apache, IP NAT+firewall etc, ssh, ftp, sendmail and variants of these programs--these are what most people run, and these have absolutely no connection to linux.
I have tried Gentoo, but I'm back to Slackware. I used to use FreeBSD (for 5 years) but had to switch to Linux because of vmware (current versions alas do not run under FreeBSD).
/usr/src, to be installed/updated by syncing the source and then execute 'make world' in /usr/src.
For me as an old FreeBSD user, Slackware feels much much more "at home". Yes, Gentoo has ports (I prefer FreeBSD's though) but a big drawback is that, in contrast to FreeBSD, the whole base system is also made up of ports.
In FreeBSD the 'core' system is the same everywhere, not maintained by ports but having all source code in
Gentoo, with its web of port dependencies and infinite number of configurations, is unstable because of this. Also a small change often requires recompilation and reinstallation of 'everything'. Just read the Gentoo boards/mailing lists to see how often some configuration (combination of ports) breaks.
FreeBSD ports also break occasionally, but at least the don't affect the base system.
Apart from that, Slackware is like FreeBSD w.r.t. simplicity for file layouts, rc startup files etc. Gentoo feels more like other Linuces. This is a matter of taste and of what you're used to. I am convinced that most FreeBSD users prefer Slackware if they have to use a Linux distribution.
1. It's true, most applications for Linux can be run under FreeBSD.
2. It's a matter of personal choice to run one or the other on a desktop workstation. I run Linux because it's just more fun. Better 3D games support, newer drivers for everything and much more rapid development full of new ideas, little bits of GNU humor or cleverness all over the place and a lot of variety. It feels right. Of course, a lot of FreeBSD users would say that 3D gaming is for gamer weenies, newer drivers equal more unstable drivers, GNU humor and cleverness are really just lack of professionalism and variety is really the same thing as inconsistency. It's all a matter of personal taste if it's your personal system.
For non-personal systems, I'd say it's more a matter of whatever your vendor is pushing. In more and more cases these days, that will be Linux, but there are still some large firms that are outfitting people with *BSD.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I know BSD is a more thought of as a server OS, but I've heard plently of BSD users claim its makes a fine desktop as well. If that's every going to happen they definitely need to start working on making it more user friendly.
What do you mean, "if that's ever going to happen"? It already has! It's my desktop system right now! It may not be the desktop system for your grandma, but then again, I'm not your grandma.
And FreeBSD *IS* user friendly. Do not mistake pretty pictures for usability. The FreeBSD installer is straight forward and sensible. The documentation is complete and thorough. Configuration is simple. The only drawback is that it expects you to educate yourself on system administration. But actually, that's a Good Thing(tm).
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
If the application you want to run is one of the 5000 applications in the "FreeBSD ports collection",
:)
Minor nit, but its closer to 8,000 ports
That being said, expect Linux to have better support for the latest and greatest hardware. (And expect Windows to have even better hardware support than Linux!) But I'm happy since the recent release of FreeBSD drivers for my NVidia card.
I've had the exact opposite experience with FreeBSD. Linux's USB stack is still an infant, as is its FireWire an bluetooth stack. Heck its IP and VM is still infantile too. The problem with linux is that nothing ever seems to get finished. EXT2 still has huge performance problems and they throw EXT3 on top of that, and do EXT3 in such a cheap way (basically implimenting a bawrite() as a syncronous bwrite() to a sequential file) that it just makes all of EXT2s problems that much worse. FreeBSD may not work with 100% of the things that linux does, but what it works on (and it works on 99% of it), it works 100%. I cannout count how many linux users are always having hardware issues or whatever and a FreeBSD install instantly fixes those hardware issues. Or how about the I just got this card, but the driver isn't in linux yet, but this guy has a patch... but the patch is to 2 versions ago. but this other guy has this patch that updates it to the new version, but its incompatible with my network card... but this guy has a patch.... please, this is support?
Its funny to watch all the genttoo people oohh and awwwwh over all the things portage does... When FreeBSD has been there for >8 years. Its old hat.
Yes, ports is older, and has some rough spots. Its also mature and has a good deal of stability. gentoo is infantile, and they are already having trouble keeping up with changes; Look at the massive number of updates each day in freebsd, via freshports. Gentoo doesn't even come close, and they want to scale this up to something the size of the FreeBSD ports system with 4-5 times the number of applications? As for the rough spots, FreeBSD is adressing each of them, and in truely creative and powerful ways. They already checksum each file as it is installed (autogenerating the CONTENTS file), and refuse in the future to modify, delete, etc files that have been modified, therefore protecting you from customizations or packages that overwrote files). In my experience gentoo only handles A overwrites B in the specific case where it is told ahead of time by the port maintainer that this is true, and how to handle it. That's nice when you're at the size you are now; and FreeBSD could certainly do the same but it doesn't scale at the level FreeBSD operates on, and therefore they are coming up with new ways, automatic ways of handling it. I've also seen the gentoo system screw up royally and delete files its not supposed to because it didn't understand that something else had installed a package (or a different version of a package), and wind up trashing all the custom work the user did. This is very unlikely given the way the FreeBSD ports system works... by assuming if key files are there (regardless if the user chose to use package management) that the requirements are fulfilled. Then if the prereqs were installed through package management it will register the dependancies. This gives users and administrators the best of both worlds. Using ports when it gives them what they need, and letting the admin/user do it themselves when it doesn't. Give gentoo's limitations they really need this.
One of the reasons I choose Linux over BSD is the rate at which Linux development takes place.
Well, a new kernel every couple of weeks is fine if you're running Linux on a PC in your bedroom, but in the real world, it takes time to deploy software. It has to be tested, downtime scheduled, documentation updated, staff trained, etc. The big advantage of FreeBSD (and Debian for that matter) is that it gets much more thoroughly tested before it's declared "STABLE". Although it may lag behind the cutting edge a little, that's a far, far happier place to be if you are relying on your systems to run your business. Not only that, but there is one FreeBSD, maintained in a consistent way by a single organization. If you are writing or deploying software that requires certain versions of certain things to be in certain places, then you have to only support a subset of the possible Linux distributions, or choose something like FreeBSD which is far more consistent. FreeBSD does not need to make compromises for portability to other platforms (like NetBSD and Linux), it is wholly developed for x86.
In short, my position is that Linux is better if you want to experiment, FreeBSD is better if you want to run crucial applications or infrastructure.
What's this animosity against text-mode installs? They work. What makes you think that the FreeBSD sysinstall scares away "lusers"? Because it hasn't got a crash-prone fluffy GUI which is a pain in the butt to recover from when it falls on it's ass?
FreeBSD's text mode installation is perfectly okay for that odd half an hour (depending on hardware and network speeds of course) of installing the base system.
Let's have a close look at the costs involved when running a Linux system.
An important factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.
According to Linux advocates, an alternative to EXT2FS would be ReiserFS. Unfortunately, ReiserFS is still in beta stage. This means it is not intended for production use (although according to many Linux advocates this shouldn't be a problem, which makes me wonder how (little) valuable they find your data).
The other proposed 'solution', EXT3FS, is nothing more than an ugly hack to put journaling into the file system. All the drawbacks of the ancient EXT2FS file system remain in EXT3FS, for the sake of 'forward- and backward compatibility'. This is interesting, considering that the DOS heritage in the Windows 9x/ME series was considered a very bad thing by the Linux community, even though it provided what could be called one of the best examples of compatibility, ever. When it's about Linux, compatibility constraints don't seem to be that much of a problem for Linux advocates.
Back to Linux' cost. Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".
The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc.
It's not. FreeBSD is for computer geeks and IT professionals, not the ordinary fool that would fall for BillG's latest marketing troll. User friendly means the user gets to do what the user want in the way the user expects, and a GUI does not really help, since it might behave in unexpected ways on unexpected hardware.
I must admit I haven't done many installations by the latest and greatest GUI installers, but I tried both SuSE 6.3 and Progeny some time ago, and none of them worked on the specific hardware, so I had to use text mode installers. My point isn't that GUI's are inherently wrong for installing, but that an installer has to be robust.
The FreeBSD installer isn't very good, but it's not because it's text mode. Cramming the same thing into a GUI would suck even worse - the user wouldn't know where to click.