FreeBSD 5.1 Review and BSD Roundup

securitas writes "Both eWEEK's review of FreeBSD 5.1 and ExtremeTech's BSD overview and roundup (single page) will be of interest to BSDers and anyone else who wants to explore their open source OS options. The review of FreeBSD 5.1 says it lacks the stability of v4.8 but adds features that some may find useful (for example, more processor architectures are supported) so it shouldn't be considered for critical deployments yet. And the BSD round-up speaks for itself."

Comments

FreeBSD should support more NICs than ARCHes

[mnmn]

Part of the reason why Linux is in a better market position than FreeBSD is the range of hardware supported by Linux. For instance FreeBSD supports only two ATM cards and no Tokenring cards, while people have done fancy things using Linux with both networks.

Re:FreeBSD should support more NICs than ARCHes

[jo42]

Is that why most, if not all of the Linux WiFi drivers originally started off being pinched from FreeBSD?

Re:FreeBSD should support more NICs than ARCHes

[pingbak]

Tell me that this is the only reason you can't/won't use *BSD... if it is, it's pretty weak.

ATM just sucks. Yes. Yes it does. I worked on ATM, I worked on various ATM deployments. It sucks. I have the scars to proove it.

TokenRing, which is a neat graduate network course topic, is largely irrelevant, even it's cheap.

Can't you think of a better reason to **not** use BSD?

Flash 'n' Trash

[SavoWood]

I started reading the article, and found the summation of why I prefer BSD.

...the BSDs have always been the choice of system administrators who cared more about integrity, security, and reliability, than sizzle and flash.

Re:I tried it, I liked it

[AndroidCat]

I did have some problems with older hardware, but that was the "install out of the box and see what happens" pass rather than the "pot of heavy-duty coffee and read the docs carefully" pass. Time for coffee, I guess. :^)

What's with the old article?

[kenfrid]

The article that's linked to over at extremetech is an extremely good read, but its dated Sept 26, 2002. Does it take Slashdot that long to pick up on BSD-related news?

Re:One thing in the ET article...

[gatesh8r]

Has GPLed software been sold? Yes. Haven't you purchased a Linux distro before? The FSF even sells their GPLed software! (Order link)

Is it viable??? Ask a company like Red Hat; they're in the black because of GPLed software and related services (one could argue that they are two completely different ways of getting revenue, but service contracts and software go hand and hand in the corperate world). GPLed software in the mainstream is just starting to become established; it's too early to say if it's a dead-end or not. Companies are gun-shy to change any of their methods in a conservative move to their stockholders.

FreeBSD = top quality

[koinu]

I am using FreeBSD stable since over a year now on my Intel-PC. I noticed I have everything I need here.

The best is, my PC is a regular desktop PC. I can watch DVDs and TV, listen to Oggs, burn CDs, chat and now I am writing this comment. :)

I have uninstalled Debian. I don't need it, because FreeBSD has got the best Linux emulation in the world. I can even play regular 3D-accelerated games with top frame rates.

I don't understand why people are bitching about FreeBSD. It is easy and even trivial to use. You can install it in many different ways. Experts mostly use minimal installs or even the floppy install.

You can choose between packages or ports, whatever you wish. There are 9000 software ports and they compile without problems. A simple 'make install' in the proper directory is enough to fetch dependencies and install the package. Most of them are pre-configured in a a way which is appropriate for many users. Before and after installation you will get further hints what to do and how to use a port.

The manpages are good. You get examples and a centralized configuration file. I don't need to mention the possibilities if you want to use FreeBSD as a firewall. And the VM is top quality! Heavy load is no problem. You can still listen to your MP3 or watch an AVI while dd'ing a harddisk.

FreeBSD is my favorite OS.

Re:FreeBSD = top quality

[donweel]

I used Mandrake for years, multibooting with win98. Then I upgraded to XP and there was no way I could get the latest Mandrake to work with XP. I switched to FreeBsd and it worked with no sweat. Weeks of screwing around and lost data, I never looked back at Linux. Another thing, I had the cable guy over to install internet, he screwed around for about an hour or more with XP to get it working, actualy he pulled the plug on my Linksys router, so he actualy didn't. After he left I plugged the router back in hit reset, booted Bsd, ran sysinstall got broadband in about 5 minutes.

But the license is the key...

[emil]

While I recently abandoned RedHat for OpenBSD, I am uncomfortable in the knowledge that Microsoft could continue to incorporate BSD code into their Windows variants, and that I am helping this process by purchasing OpenBSD CDs. While I love the reduction in traffic on the OpenBSD errata channel (vs. RedHat), I do not wish to see the Microsoft monopoly continue, and the only thing that will stop it is the GPL.

While I realize that I could simply attach the GPL to every piece of source code in the BSD CVS tree and redistibute it, my actions would not in reality hamper any corporate acquisitions of BSD code.

Ideally, I would like to see the hacker community free to use the BSD license, while I would like to force the corporate community to abide by the GPL in every piece of software they produce (as will someday occur when Microsoft is finally defeated by "viral" GPL code).

I haven't always felt this way, but US corporations are abusive in many ways, and I would like to see them be more forcibly restrained. A judge instantaneously applying the GPL to all Microsoft software would be a real joy.

what do you expect? It's written by Brett Glass

[ksheff]

He's been harping on the "you can't sell GPL software" point for years even though it's not true. Linux people may also take issue with the quote that it was based on Minix. He's about as much of a pro-BSD, anti-Linux, anti-GPL person as you can get. Notice while he said that many systems are dependent on BSD code, he neglects also note that BSD relies on some GNU code as well.

Re:X problems

[gr]

1) I had a very common system (Inspiron 8000 which sold millions). I couldn't find a 5.0 configuration file which allowed me to use X (Nvidia driver incompatable). Even in the mid 1990s I could always get Linux X to run 640x480 on a machine.

What has the operating system to do with the XFree86 driver for your laptop? It's exactly the same code under FreeBSD as it is under Linux, provided you're using the same version of X.

Is your problem really which version of XF86 ships with FreeBSD 5?

2) Slight errors in syntax when using ports results in ports trying to compile everything. Good system which needs a better safety.

Without a bit more specification, I can't speak to that particularly well, especially since I'm speaking mostly from NetBSD pkgsrc experience, but if ports is still what it was the last time I looked, it's pretty similar to pkgsrc, and is essentially just a bunch of Makefiles. If you don't want to build things, don't use the source version. On NetBSD, that means "instead of doing a make in pkgsrc/<utility type>/<package name>, do pkg_add <package name>". I have to assume that the FreeBSD ports commands are functionally similar since they're approaching the same problem the same way...

3) The configuration system doesn't allow for small changes easily (like getting rid of an IP).

Again, without a bit more detail, I can't comprehend how this was a problem. Is it a complaint against (POSIX standard, where Linux's is not) ifconfig(8) syntax? Is it a complaint against /etc/ifconfig.* files (whoops, maybe that's NetBSD-specific... though /etc/ifconfig.* matches the functionality of Solaris's /etc/hostname.*)? Or is it a complaint about removing some non-standard addition to a configuration file on a specific system?

Linux now has: autohardware detection,

... if you're using Red Hat.

good drivers,

Oh, that must be why the BroadCom Tigon3 gigabit Ethernet chipsets in my Dell PowerEdge 2650s work so well. (The choices are: use BroadCom's closed-source bcm5700 driver, which is stable but runs at about one fifth the actual throughput you'd expect out of a gigabit ethernet connection, and, for bonus points, pads packets with random bits of kernel memory rather than 0s as it should; or use the community supported tg3 driver, which has really great performance, but will randomly, when under load for more than 24 hours, start passing only one in about one hundred packets.)

sample configs for virtually every system,

Aside from being a virtual impossibility, I doubt Linux provides much in the way of sample config files for, say, a Shark DNard. Or did you mean software system, not computer system?

lots and lots and lots of documentation.

... which is held to no particular standard and, especially on the web, varies from quite good to wrong-headed to flat out wrong, distinctions the beginner has no hope of making ("Gee, this guy's web page is pretty, his advice must be right!").

How is BSD "friendlier"?

Let's have a look at the comment to which your little flamefest here is intended to reply, shall we?

I have found FreeBSD more friendly than any of the so-called friendly linuxes out there.

I don't see any overall value judgement that any operating system is friendlier than any other there. It seems pretty clear that that is a personal opinion. That's what "I have found" means. Sheesh.