Slashdot Mirror
Interview With The FreeBSD Core Team
Gentu writes "OSNews features an ultra interesting and in-depth interview with three members of FreeBSD's Core team (Wes Peters, Greg Lehey and M. Warner Losh) and also a major FreeBSD developer (Scott Long). They discuss issues from the Java port to corporate backing, the Linux competition, the 5.x branch and how it stacks up against the other Unices, UFS2, the possible XFree86 fork, SCO and its Unix IP situation, even... re-unification of the BSDs."
Go calculate something
Talk about 'last words'!
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Uhm, FreeBSD does have a unified API. As there is only one FreeBSD, there can only be one API (well, they can include multiple, and you have your choice, but they will always be there). OSS isn't even a part of Linux. That's a part of Enlightenment. And there is no video display code in either FreeBSD's or Linux's kernel. You don't actually know what you are talking about, do you?
It is, the interview was really a seance
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
OSS is part of enlightenment?
Since when?
What a surprise-- a well-written, usefull, and interesting article by Eugenia. Have pigs indeed spouted wings?
Here's a good analysis of the various BSDs from last september. It gives a great background on the BSDs and it'll help explain why the BSDs should be re-united (or not.)
Why do I h8 apple?
With BSD, or most any other Unix system including Linux distributions, you get a time-tested and proven base upon which all the system's services rest. You get a well-understood system upon which hundreds of thousands of people have built upon, and millions of people have hands-on experience using. You get not only an operating system, but a thoroughly proven model for maintainability, ease of administration, and security.
Windows 2003 Server is a new and unproven offering from a company whose past successes in marketing have been dwarfed in the public eye by the harms due to their failings (see, e.g., Nimda, SQL Sapphire Worm). Nobody has years or even months of experience on Windows 2003 Server, and its frequently accurate technical documentation cannot match the depth of understanding which Unix professionals bring with their platform.
You could choose Windows 2003 Server, and your staff might be able to make it work for you. But what will you do in two years? BSD, Linux, and the rest of the Unix heritage will still be going strong -- but if history is any guide to the future, Microsoft will be running ads touting Windows 2005 Server, a new and equally unproven platform, and telling you that 2003 Server is a piece of unstable trash. What kind of a future is that for your business?
linux has cute geeks too.
http://150.101.112.216/temp/geektwins.jpg
No, Microsoft wins hands down your back pocket, searching for your wallet.
Windows 2003 hasn't even been widely deployed yet and every MS product whore is proclaiming it the Holy Grail of IT. Get real, Windows (just the operating system) has a shameful security and reliability record compared to FreeBSD (the operating system and included applications.)
And last time I checked, Windows includes no support whatsoever. You're left to forge around for answers on the Internet, just like with *BSD and Linux. If you want Fortune 500 support, you have to pay for it.
Unfortunately, *BSD runs best on single-processor desktop systems.
- Linux has several thousand different distributions, each one with a different file structure, configuration, UI and way of doing things.
- Linux is a religion, where most of its adherents border on zealotry and refuse to accept that there might be alternatives to their blessed hack.
FreeBSD is a great OS, if you get to know it. There's a lot of documentation available, and I thought I'd just share with you my experiences with FreeBSD.
Which version to install.
4.x or 5.0? 4.x is the stable series and 5.x is in development. It suffers of what's been called a chicken and egg problem described here. Think of 5.x as Linux 2.5 series. 5.1 when released(scheduled for release in june)to will be the start of the new stable branch. If you want stability choose 4.x. Bleeding edge? 5.0.
You can download the ISO's from here:
You generally only need to download the first ISO
Installation:
The installer is text based, but dont let it scare you off. The partition layout is a little different than what you may be used to but it's all described in the FreeBSD handbook here
The installation will leave you off with a pretty basic system and you're ready to install:
Ports
Ports is a very powerfull way of installing new programs and manage installed programs. You almost never run into dependency hell. A very powerfull tool to help manage ports is portupgrade. A short introduction is available here and to ports in general here
Documentation.
FreeBSD requires some time to get to know but the FreeBSD Handbook, provides a great introduction to FreeBSD. Sites also worth a visit is Freshports.org to keep you updated about new ports, and BSD dev center
If you give FreeBSD an honest try it will pay off. Most of the applications avalible for Linux also compiles on FreeBSD, and in general I find it more easy to find documentation, thus making it more easy to maintain.
...or, in reading through this, does Greg 'groggy' Lehey come off as a bit of a prick?
Please excuse my ignorance, but why would I choose FreeBSD over OpenBSD? OpenBSD is more stable and secure. Why take the extreme step of using a *BSD distro if you're not goning to with the most secure one. If you value ease of use, why not go with some advanced flavor of Linux or even *GASP* the latest version of Win2K Server.
Linux-emulation is included in FreeBSD, so why do You need to argue about that?
Is OSS free? The BSD-kernel does not have any GPLed code except for some drivers which come from Linux (e.g. ext2fs). There is sound support in FreeBSD and in my opinion, it works nicely.
What do You mean by "proper video display"? Video output is done by applications and not by the kernel directly.
Where BSD needs to copy Linux is in the packaging systems. First, you need so many different ways to package a program that half of every development team is devoted just to making all the variations. Then, you need a dumb public who only recognizes one of those systems, as a hint here they should choose the one with the worst dependency techniques of the group. Once this is complete a group of people who are completly unreleated to any section of the development of BSD have to get together to make a BSD-SB. This group should continue the tradition of choosing the worst variants of how things are done and make them the new standard. Finally a small group of hard core BSDers need to get together to create a new distirbution which will not be BSD-SB compliant, but will be based on a cool idea for software distribution that they saw implemented in Gentoo. Then the circle of popular unix clones will be complete.
Note to the people with no sense of humor: don't read this comment.
Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.
What the HELL are you talking about?
Heck, even jdk1.4 is in the ports, and even native!
They're porting FreeBSD to Java? Wow, that's impressive. What OS do they run the JVM on?
The FreeBSD Core Team is dying ;-).
-- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
What do You mean by "proper video display"? Video output is done by applications and not by the kernel directly.
Linux has kernel video drivers, part of something known as the Linux Framebuffer. This is a much better and safer design than the old way of letting applications access the video "DOS-style".
http://www.osnews.com/printer.php?news_id=3415
Surely you mean "useful" with only one "l" and spRouted (not spouted) wings. English is Eugenia's second language, she seems to be doing well enough to get her point across.
Unless English is your second language too, I'd say people in glasses houses ought not throw stones.
freeBSD vs. Linux - Which has better games ? also, how much does the non-free bsd cost, and where can i get it ?
Methinks he's thinking of esd.
Which is, for the record, available in FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and mauve ports.
But to put a useful spin on this, (to the original author of this thread) OSS is available for "BSD." You may note the red daemon on the main page of that web site and stand in shock, awe, or a mixture thereof.
Of course, that's irrelevent, as ALSA is pretty much the defacto sound standard on Linux now. (Check the developmental kernels) But still, is it not nifty?
http://saveie6.com/
Well said!
:).
I'm not a huge proponent of the BSDs, but even I'd rather be running one of them rather than Windows. I've had the discussion with a BSD-zealot friend of mine whether Linux or BSD is better, and all we could come up with is that both are much better than Windows
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Java works fine, I've been using 1.3.1 native (not linux) on FreeBSD for a while.
Eh, just proved my point above...
I wish I could find this webpage again. (Google's not responding and I'm too busy to wait.) Anyhow, some guy had a great quote which IMHO accurately summed things up as far as free operating systems go. Went something like (in random order)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
If you really need Java on really free OS, which protects your installation/update efforts then you go for Gentoo and you get the best features from the best systems: free (both in beer and in speach), Portage (superior to FreeBSD's ports), Java (the most stable, the fastest VM, the least deps problems, Ant support in Portage, etc etc).
Less is more !
This interview is dying :)
Less is more !
You should have mentioned there was a "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" plot spoiler in that article. (sigh)
Advantages? Simple: Cost, reliability, ease of maintenance. Saying you get "nothing" almost makes me think this is a troll, but oh well, I'll bite...
;)
FreeBSD is free. All that software in the ports tree is free. Together, you can accomplish just about anything you might want to with a server. And the software cose for supporting 10,000 users is the same as 10 users: $0.
I've paid MS's outragous per-incident support costs, and I'm not overly impressed. There's two problems with this model: first of all, it's obviously more expensive. But additionally, even though most camps have the "free" option of what is out there on the 'net, knowledge that was only obtained after shelling out lots of money isn't eagerly shared. While with FreeBSD, the support is typically free to begin with, so answers on the 'net are abundant and new answers freely given. Even though Windows might be more popular than FreeBSD, I find it easier to get the answers I need to my technical FreeBSD questions than Windows. And without spending a penny.
Put that into your TCO pipe and smoke it
(On a side note, if you're so corporate that your PHBs can't sleep without knowing they can pay for support, there ARE companies that will take your cash for FreeBSD support. But I've never found it necessary to use them.)
The Debian guys are porting NetBSD (for x86 and alpha) and FreeBSD (for x86) for use with their existing Deiban system. Since both these are in their early stages the pages contain not much detailed information.
Any comments or enlightening information would be great.
A couple of more specific questions:
Thank you.
GrimReality
2003-04-28 21:01:19 UTC (2003-04-28 17:01:19 EDT)
Not for everything. Windows beats Unix if you want to run Photoshop. :) I was talking specifically about server systems, where reliability and understandability of the system is crucial. I think the Unix edge is not merely the Unix architecture, but also the history and deep understanding which Unix professionals bring. It just isn't possible for a culture to have that kind of deep understanding of a system that has just been released -- no matter how featureful it may be.
To be snarky about it: On Unix systems, novices know they have no idea what is going on, and experts know that they know what is going on. On Windows systems, novices think they know what is going on, and experts know that they do not know what is going on. That may make Windows experts more Socratic ("Socrates is wisest, because he knows that he knows nothing") -- but I would not want my enterprise database dependent upon Socrates.
Yup. And what did you have to do to get it running?
The problem lies in that you have to download manually a bunch of files and patches, put them in certain places, and then it will install.
Oh well, I don't user java for much anyways.
Enjoy!
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
does Greg 'groggy' Lehey come off as a bit of a prick?
I've had many interactions with groggy, and he has been nothing but very professional and helpful.
I have friends who have installed it.... I refuse to put it on my box due to Java's nasty licensing
X works through the /dev/io and /dev/mem devices which allow priveleged applications to talk directly to the corresponding busses.
:) And XFree86 lives up to this, unfortunately.
/dev/io and /dev/mem just to play a song, do you? We have drivers for a reason. One nice thing about the Linux Framebuffer is that you can change the permission of your video with chmod.
Close enough. To me, "DOS-Style" means "App-can-take-your-system-down-Style."
The linux framebuffer is a kernel land driver, but it's not needed.
Of course it is not needed, it is just a better design. You don't think xmms should access
... huge make install nightmare.
/usr/ports/java/jdk13. /usr/ports/distfiles. /usr/ports/distfiles.
Huh?
Steps for native JAVA on FreeBSD:
1) cd
2) Execute make.
3) Download patch file from URL make provided into
4) Execute make.
5) Download source from URL make provided into
6) Execute 'make install'.
It is a little troublesome but still quite easy.
Have you skipped the linux bootstrap install, or does it do that for you automatically now?
I skipped it; I forgot it was there.
:(
At the present time, I am fighting with RH9 to get the IBM JDK to run without core dumping.
Ugh, ignorance is not bliss. Any version of Unix going to be better than any version of Windows for a server application no matter how many commericals they make telling you otherwise.
For the millionth time... for two similarly powered boxes, Unix will outperform Windows up, down, left, right, sideways, forwards, and backwards. Test it yourself and see the light. Many Unix's are free and run on the same hardware as your Windows box. The proof is in the pudding that Windows is an inferior server OS for everything but corporate desktops.
I recommend OSX :-/
MacOS X runs Photoshop. I suppose you could take the literal route and claim that MacOS X isn't Unix(tm), but the context was a comparison between Linux, *BSD and Windows.
And no, I don't take seriously claims that Windows Photoshop is better than OS X Photoshop, and yes, I've tried both.
:)
BTW, I needed to set LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 due to the new threading model in RH9.
Inviting trolls with strawmen? PEBSAC (Problem exists between slashdot and chair).
The ocean parts and the meteors come down
Laid out in amber, baby.
Thank you so much for making my point. I appreciate it.
so now when your driver crashes, it completely hoses the kernel. i don't see that as improvement.
This OS is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-OPERATING SYSTEM!!
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
That's why it's the only thing I haven't updated from my RH8 workstation and laptop. The server hasn't told me that it needs an upgrade so I haven't bothered it.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
Back when I used to be called the Sun God (SunOS sysadmin 1989-1993), BSD/386 hadn't yet split, and Linux was in its infancy. A few years later, it was about time I get Unix onto my various Intel systems.
The question was, Linux or FreeBSD?
Today, the answer is a resounding both (FreeBSD runs perimeter firewall and fileservers, Linux runs my desktops), but back then, FreeBSD was the obvious answer.
Why? Because it was the most like good old SunOS 4.1 you could get on an Intel chip. That's a good thing? Fuck yeah! Before Sun abandoned beloved Berkeley Unix for the nightmare that was, is, and will forever be System-V, they had an OS on a platform of choice. Not just choice, but prime (and I don't mean Pr1me, either, god help us).
SunOS gave us a shockingly stable platform on the Motorola 68030 and SPARC chips. It provided some of the most stable TCP/IP around at the time. C-News (remember C-news?) rocked on it. C-News didn't have a prayer an the new-fangled AIX that we got to evaluate.
Graphics? Fuck yes. I/O bandwidth? Fuck yes. xbattle at 1am after closing the terminal room? Fuck yes.
And even then, it had lightweight processes, secure RPC, a super-clean dev interface, and other experimental features that we take for granted today.
Solaris arrived shortly on the seen, I changed jobs, and SunOS is just a memory for most of us grizzled Sun Gods now. But you can still see a lot of SunOS in FreeBSD. I even remember when the -a option appeared in ifconfig on SunOS. It appeared in FreeBSD very shortly, too.
Once the sources are downloaded -- and it is Sun's stupidity, that requires you to click-through the license before downloading, it is as simple as:
To install on multiple machines, you can follow up with After which, it only a matter of on each of your systems...BTW, I'm using the 1.4.1 -- it is certainly quite stable.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Umm, that could be said of any driver. Video isn't inherently less stable than other hardware. I've used audio and network drivers that crash on me. Should we move them into userspace? Get real.
:P
Just try not to write drivers that crash, ok?
My Win 2K servers aren't ever rebooted. One has an uptime of at least a year. Generic Win Pro machines doing FTP work have never dumped on me and run for seasons. My Slack 8 ssh/sftp/NFS server (a broken AST P133 with defective riser board) only goes down for equipment moves, the longest uptime so far at two months. My FreeBSD NFS/Samba server on a suspect Abit board never burps. It must be you.
It may not be important to you if you're running your "server" from your parents basement, but for most businesses, uptime is crucial. Company time lost because the server is down or updating means money down the drain.
Take a look at the records for server uptime on netcraft.com and note the number of computers running FreeBSD vs. the ones running Windows.
Now think about this: with a Windows server, you can't have both good uptime and security. Trust me on this one: if you run a Windows server connected to the internet, you will need to patch it approximately once a week(that is, unless you want to get h4x0r3d). Each patch you install will require a reboot. Now its true BSD/Linux/Unix servers require patching as well(albeit far less frequently). However, unless it's a kernel patch(generally security flaws are found in userland services like email, web, etc), you don't have to reboot.
And how secure can a system possibly be when you have to reboot it because of a bug in something totally unrelated to the kernel? The whole thing smells of bad system design from the ground up.
Another thing: SERVERS DON'T NEED GUI's! How is a GUI going to make your firewall or web server or email server better? Answer: it isn't. It will only consume more resources, taking away from the job a server needs to do. Then again, judging from the question you posed, perhaps the GUI is necessary. Good thing, because on a Windows server, you can't turn it off.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
This is such an important point! It's so easy to get tempted into playing feature-chase, especially when just about all IT-centric publications push this aspect in every publication, every ad, and every "news brief"^h^h^h^hpress release.
But advanced features are often worse than useless: not only do we have problems with bugs and leaky abstractions, but we have a whole army of professionsals to re-train, in the vain hope that THIS time, it will be different.
Notice that Microsoft's biggest problem these days is that it sold Windows NT/98 too well. Yes, that combination was technically inferior, but it was fairly simple, and once the bugs were worked out (3-4 years later...) IT departments finally got a hanlde on it. So, do they want to give up this comfort zone for a new slew of untested systems, and then aNOTHER new slew right after that? Heck no!!
This is exactly where FreeBSD has greater strength than any other OS, period. There are no sudden jumps in features, users don't have to re-learn everything 3 years later, and in fact FreeBSD 2.x, 3.x, and 4.x machines can easily be handled together, sharing almost identical configuration scripts, filesystem layout, etc...
(Notice that the parent comment in this thread looks like it was written by a Microsoft marketing executive? Hmm.... nah, it couldn't be.)
On Unix systems, novices know they have no idea what is going on, and experts know that they know what is going on. On Windows systems, novices think they know what is going on, and experts know that they do not know what is going on.
True, true, how true. Have you ever seen a Unix user mess up the system by thinking they were smarter than the sysadmin? I sure haven't. But I've seen plenty of Windows systems messed up, and entire networks taken down, because most Windows users think they know everything.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The first is a unified API.
What is not unified about the FreeBSD "API"? Actually, FreeBSD's libc is more unified than Linux's glibc, simply because it adheres closer to the standards.
Another thing BSD is missing is a proper video display.
Huh? Do you even know what you are talking about? Of course not! FreeBSD uses XFree86-4.3 just like Linux does.
The video display code in the Linux kernel is far better than BSD's.
What video display code are you talking about? The only video code in the Linux kernel is DRI, and guess what? FreeBSD has it too!
The last thing BSD lacks is name recognition - everyone's heard of Linux.
But more people have heard of Unix than have heard of Linux. And BSD is a real Unix while Linux is not. Or look at Mac OSX, which has more users than Linux while still being a genuine BSD.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Linux runs on lots of things that can't
run NetBSD. Problem is, the Linux world
counts ports by CPU arch, while NetBSD
inflates their numbers by counting more
or less by how many distinct boot disks
are needed.
Off the top of my head: Linux supports
the S/390 (32-bit) and zSeries (64-bit)
mainframes. Linux supports the Power-based
AS/400 and newer. Linux can handle several
types of CPU without an MMU, including
ColdFire and the original 68000. NetBSD
doesn't run on any of that.
On 680x0, Linux is really there, with lots
of sub-arch "ports". (Mac, Amiga, Atari...)
Lots of NetBSD ports involve running the
OS in 32-bit mode on 64-bit hardware. Ouch.
I have used framebuffer already. It is not great. It actually IS like programming low-level. And btw, don't forget about libsvga and other libs which offer a real API to graphics without X.
Except my two applications for X, I wonder how many others there are. I think this is not much. Don't forget that You cannot rely on the fact that framebuffer is compiled-in on other machines. It is still marked as experimental and people will not use it eventually.
My applications for linux fb, of course not X!
I much prefer the typical BSD ports install senario...
/usr/ports/net/gaim ;-)
cd
make install clean
Then I go away for a while, then come back to see that GNOME and KDE have been entirely downloaded and installed, and it's just finally starting to compile GAIM...
Posted by an OpenBSD-er
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Linux sucks far worse than BSD.
Just ask Google:
BSD sucks 28,400 results.
Linux sucks 228,000 results.
It is quite clear that the users have spoken: Linux Sucks! Long Live BSD!
If I recall, didn't Adobe recently express their opinion that Windows was the preferred platform for Photoshop?
-phish
Oh, I don't know. Photoshop works fine under Linux.
10 years of Wine finally paid off. I think you can get Wine to work in FreeBSD, including Crossover Office, as well - using lxrun
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
i like that it has a kernal, not a kernel. this could be a big advantage and it's a totally new concept.
in the comments for the story, I noticed that wes peters replied to someone's comments and spent some time talking about rcNG, here is what he said:
/usr/loca/etc/rc.d ? anyone know? all the userland scripts I've got in /usr/local/etc/rc.d are the old style, not the new style.
The booting sequence that seems to puzzle you is new to FreeBSD as well. It is a port of the NetBSD boot system, designed by Luke Mewburn. It is known as 'rcNG' in FreeBSD, and has quite a few desirable features. The main attribute of interest is that it allows subsystem or application designers to drop in a startup script that will be automatically sequenced with the rest of the system boot. Say, for instance, you've written an application that relies on both PostgreSQL and Apache to be started before your application can be started. In the Linux SysV-type startup, the system administrator would have to look through the startup scripts and give the application startup a sequence number that occurs lexically after both the Apache and PostgreSQL startups. With rcNG, the script itself reports that it depends on Apache and PostgreSQL, and the system starts and stops it in the correct order. The rcNG project is also a great example of code sharing between these two development teams, who have goals that in some ways differ greatly.
I far as I am aware, the rcNG stuff, while great, only applies to base startup scripts doesn't it? does it also support user applications in
anyone know anything about this?
dave
On Unix systems, novices know they have no idea what is going on, and experts know that they know what is going on. On Windows systems, novices think they know what is going on, and experts know that they do not know what is going on.
I'm stealing that quote ! Did you just come up with this one or you got it from someone else ? I'd like to give proper attribution when I'll use that quote.
:wq
At the bottom of this page
Thanks! As far as I know, the phrasing is original, but it's not a new idea.
And their reasons for doing so were quite handily rebutted by a number of different people / websites. Which is why I wrote what I did at the end of my comment.
And is still have /usr/local/linux-sun-jdk... as my java path in konqueror as native java is unable to play even simple online games without glitches. Sometimes it works though.