GNOME 2.5.0 Available For FreeBSD

Dan writes "FreeBSD's Joe Marcus Clarke announces that GNOME 2.5.0 desktop, the "Obviously you're not a golfer" release, is now available for FreeBSD. You can check out this release from the MarcusCom CVS repository. Be sure to get the latest copy of the "marcusmerge" script while you're there to help with the upgrade. Thanks to FreeBSD GNOME users, there is also a man page to go with this script. NOTE: this is a developers release, and bugs will exist. If you're not into bug-hunting, you should probably steer clear until 2.6.0 is released."

Comments

"Obviously, You're not a Golfer"

[Aphexian]

A Big Lebowski reference?

I feel so hip...

Re:"Obviously, You're not a Golfer"

[joey shabadu]

This release will drop your bowling ball on your bathroom tile and then piss on your fucking rug !
He pissed on my fucking rug.
He pissed on your fucking rug.
That rug really brought the room together dude.
Shut the fuck up Donny.

Re:"Obviously, You're not a Golfer"

[Aphexian]

Hi Joey.

Shut the fuck up.

Are you guys coming or what?

[grilo]

I'm extremely happy in watching Marcus and the whole FreeBSD-Gnome team doing such a good job in bringing a full-blown, easy to build (can't beat the ports collection) gnome desktop into the OS.

I wonder if they have any plans to bring Ximian Desktop or Dropline or something like that into the ports collection... I think it could be interesting.

Nevertheless, I'm still considering the gnome 2.5 changes, but I'll probably leap towards testing it and do some reporting from my side, since I'm not much of a coder! :)

P.S.- Do these people think they're funny or something? This whole "BSD is dying" crap from linsux/winblows fanboys, is getting on my nerve...

fuckin wankers

We might aswell take off the BSD section, with this kind of feeback all the time, it's plain useless.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if they have any plans to bring Ximian Desktop

Given the past POV of Miguel de Icaza was to code in such a way to avoid FreeBSD compatiblity in addition to his past rabid pro-GPL stance, only the removal of his influance and placement of people who show that Open Source is not JUST GNU/Linux.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

FreeBSD is better than GNU/Linux. Just on the licence alone. Having a settlement with USL means no SCO lawsuit.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooooh, "Linsux". How marvellously witty of you to use such a term.

Face it, man -- while FreeBSD is a great OS, there are no compelling reasons to use it over Linux. You get more x86 hardware and software support in Linux, it's just as stable (if not more so) with solid distros such as Debian and Slackware, it's faster (as reports have shown), it scales much better and it has heaps of commercial support.

And, best of all, its userbase isn't composed entirely of bitter, weird counter-culture losers who've no social graces and can't deal with newcomers.

Hah. You're killing BSD (well, not NetBSD which is superb :-) )

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Real FreeBSD users don't use GNOME, you luser.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is the lack of a lawsuit because as you state "steal my good work" you know that GNU/Linux features no good work, but instead is all crap code?

Which is why more companies are adopting Linux than BSD solutions, right?

No, the reason why more compagnies are adopting Linux than BSD solutions is because IBM and co. have made "Linux" the new buzzword for management. (something HAD to replace 'proactive' right?). Now I'm not saying Linux is crap...(I'm typing this on a Gentoo box), but *BSD are awesome, and the reason linux is getting more attention is basically politics

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

linux is getting more attention is basically politics

I'll add 2 factors:

1) The ignornant/lazy calling 'everything' "Linux". Want to not run a windows file server? How often instead of hearing "Use SAMBA with LDAP" you hear "Use Linux"?

2) During the heyday of "Linux Pimp'n" (When money was pouring out of inverstors pockets) you had many companies with their PR departments sending out press releases. This created a situation where the 'bosses' (and others) were able to say "I keep hearing about this 'Linux' thing". When you have the millions that poured into RedHat, VA Research, Caldera, TurboLinux, SuSE and the many others, some of that money went to PR departments and the PR departments obviously did their job.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[timmarhy]

Face it, there are plenty of companies out there with an intrest in keeping *BSD rolling becuase it has been/is such a wealth of inovative code (network stack anyone).
Freebsd is NOT slower the any linux distro out there to pimps. far quicker then many bloated distro's.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[00420]

While I certainly don't agree with you that Linux sucks, I definately agree that the posts in the BSD section usually do.

I personally don't get it. With how anti-MS most Linux users are (me being one of them), I don't understand why any of them would want to attack any [free] MS competitor. (Especially if they try to use the monoculture is bad argument against MS)

Oh well, F-them. As somebody mentioned in a post from another BSD article a couple of weeks ago, you just have to bump up your threshold in the BSD section.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I switched to BSD from Linux and found a system that has better package management, boots up heaps faster and is easier to manage than any Linux distro.

The only thing that comes close to BSD's package system is Debian's apt-get, and its still not there.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

But you don't mention which distro.

Slackware 9.1's boot is within a few seconds of FreeBSD 4.8's, and that's without tuning.

As for package management, if you like BSD style Ports then you have Gentoo as an option.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

>P.S.- Do these people think they're funny or something? This whole "BSD is dying" crap from linsux/winblows fanboys, is getting on my nerve...

You had a point, but couldn't resist blowing it on a troll. Too bad.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't state Linux is more stable than FreeBSD (or even faster... at least not the network stack).

There are lots of reasons to choose Linux over *BSD (like, in Linux no one gushes that "GNOME 2.5 now available").

There are lots of times where it doesn't matter which free (gratis) UNIX you choose.

I've seen enough of the benchmarks to be convinced that FreeBSD whoops Linux in the network benchmarks, and overall FreeBSD has an advantage when it comes to system security (not to imply Linux is as insecure as Windows or anything!)

Disclaimer - I only use FreeBSD in a "lab" setting, where I occasionally test commercial code (that was intended for Linux/GNOME actually). I'm not trying to bash FreeBSD at all, and I'll be the first to admit I don't have extensive FreeBSD experience.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

FreeBSD has no advantage when it comes to security.

If a hole in Debian is found, one "apt-get update" and you're sorted.

If a hole in FreeBSD is found, you have to:

1) Make sure you have the development toolset installed (already a potential security problem)

2) Enter a few CVS commands to get the fixed source

3) Wait as the relevant components are recompiled

4) Install them in the right places

See? Much more hasslesome.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[naelurec]

I like FreeBSD as well. Perhaps it was simply due to the fact I moved to it from Red Hat and fell in love with the ports/packages system.

As far as the "BSD is dying" crap .. yah, it is really annoying. I use other sources for BSD news that are a bit more umm.. grown-up.

Needless to say, it seems like FreeBSD if anything is growing, not dying. With the very logical and well laid out file system, ports system, ipfw firewall and relatively easy upgrade process (make buildworld, make installworld, portupgrade) there is a lot to like about FreeBSD. Oh did I mention the kernel level security levels, jails and other tightly integrated security related tools? And to top it off, all of it is truly free -- no GPL limiting your distribution. What is there not to like again? :)

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[tarius8105]

You get more x86 hardware and software support in Linux, it's just as stable (if not more so) with solid distros such as Debian and Slackware, it's faster (as reports have shown), it scales much better and it has heaps of commercial support.

Lets take apart your statement by piece. It is not as stable, I've proven this...Linux can not handle multiple compiles at once, hence its not really meant as a server OS, atleast not yet.

As for the drivers issue, big deal, BSD isnt meant for desktop, its meant for doing work, I dont need my nVidia card to be supported to do email and crap.

Linux is the buzz word, because people think its "free", its not free, you make any changes to it, you lose out. BSD is truely free in the respects you can redistribute it in binary form and charge for it. Free means to do with as you wish, the only stipulation in the BSD License is the copyright headers have to stay intact.

The compelling reason to use FreeBSD over Linux is that it is faster, it crashes far less, you can handle more, and you can do whatever you want to the source code without having to make it available to everyone in the world, with the exception of the copyright headers, which to me is true freedom.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[tarius8105]

1) Make sure you have the development toolset installed (already a potential security problem)

If it is a "potential" security problem, then all you need to do is build the kernel or application in a sandbox environment and copy the kernel out.

2) Enter a few CVS commands to get the fixed source

Not for me. All I have to do is run cvsup with my sup file and I get the sources right away. Then all I have to do is rebuild the kernel, which is very simple too, or I can rebuild the components themselves quickly.

3) Wait as the relevant components are recompiled

Which wont take as long.

4) Install them in the right places

Done for you by the make install :).

If a hole in Debian is found, one "apt-get update" and you're sorted.

You arent fetching sources, you're fetching compiled binaries. The beauty of FreeBSD is you can optimize your system. When you download a binary package, the binary maybe optimized for a certain processor, or not optimized at all. If you build it from sources on your system based on your make.conf you can optimize it.

Another thing is this. Its not the FreeBSD teams concern whether or not you implement a security fix, they're concerned with giving you the noose to hang yourself if the exploit is used. So if you have a security exploit that was exploited, then you didnt patch your system...

Final Note: You looked at FreeBSD as a Desktop environment for a user, it is not a desktop environment, it is a server platform.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[pyros]

Linux can not handle multiple compiles at once, hence its not really meant as a server OS

Unless you intentionally left 'build' out of that sentence before 'server' this is a stupid statement. Since when is it a good idea to have a compiler on your server? Even if you did specifically mean build server, in most cases that just means running remote shells to do the compiling (like rsh or ssh) and not some spiffy server app that receives build requests from a build client (yes I know there are distributed build systems like Rational's clearmake, but that's not the norm). Besides all that it can handle multiple compiles. I have a build host which runs at least 9 builds at the same time every day, works just fine. The applications being built are used by major oil companies for geophysical mapping and surveying, so they're not exactly trivial, either.

As for the drivers issue, big deal, BSD isnt meant for desktop, its meant for doing work, I dont need my nVidia card to be supported to do email and crap.

Some people do need the latest nVidia cards to be supported, so if FreeBSD doesn't support it, it's not a viable solution. People doing graphical modeling software in the oil industry need good 3d hardware support. I work for such a company (subsidiary of Haliburton), and we are getting pressure from Shell to support Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0 (we already wupport 2.1, but they want to upgrade).

Different licenses fill different needs. With the BSD license I am not free to ensure that people benefiting from my work return anything to the community.

To say that either system is always faster or more stable or more secure is pure nonsense. anyone can misconfigure a system and make it perform like shit. Anyone can tweak a system and make it scream. Developers of different projects have different goals, so they get different results.

Once you learn that different people have different needs, and different tools must be used to maximize efficiency, you might realise that it's pointless to bicker about which OSS platfrom is superior. They are all simultaneously superior and inferior to one another.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[pyros]

You arent fetching sources, you're fetching compiled binaries. The beauty of FreeBSD is you can optimize your system

The APT system supports source repositories. The official Debian archives offer the source to every package, so it is entirely possible to install the base system with the installer, and then use nothing but locally built packages using apt/dpkg.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow tarius, I was expecting something a bit more informed than that. Some of the stuff you've said is purely anecdotal and unprobable; other lines are just lies. Let's see:

"Linux can not handle multiple compiles at once"

What? Are you blinded by zealotry here or something? I've been running Linux (and BSD) boxes for eight years -- I have never, _ever_ had one of my Debian or Slackware boxes crash. (I'm specific about the distros because Mandrake et al. are bug-ridden). Multiple compiles? As a developer I do that all the time. Sheesh, man...

"hence its not really meant as a server OS"

Erm, so Google, Amazon and thousands of other large-scale server deployments don't count, then? Please, get in the real world here.

"and you can do whatever you want to the source code without having to make it available to everyone in the world"

This is incorrect, and no offence but it makes you look stupid. Let's try to understand, OK? The GPL doesn't mandate anything like that.

I can make any modifications I want to a GPLed program without having "make it available to everyone in the world". I can hack it, put my name all over it, change it to what I want; it's only if I _distribute_ it that I need to also release the source. You see?

Better than watching some company take my enhancements and use them for their own gain.

"it is faster, it crashes far less"

Proof? Any stats? Of course not; you're blinded by your own zealotry. Linux is just as reliable - why do you think IBM uses it on their mainframes? Why do millions of companies depend on it? I've never had a Linux box crash, and I know loads of others who would say the same, so stop with the vague allegations. "Crashes far less" indeed. Absolutely unproven.

"you can handle more"

Can FreeBSD competently handle more than one CPU? Linux can. You lose!

Basically, there's nothing concrete in your post, just meandering diatribe with no facts behind it. In the real world, among experienced users, it's accepted that good Linux distros are just as fast and stable as FreeBSD, and offer greater benefits, so you'll have to live with it. Does it really bother you that an OS might be better than your beloved FreeBSD?

I know you can't come back with some real facts.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"all you need to do is build the kernel or application in a sandbox environment and copy the kernel out"

Erm, doesn't really answer the question. Still not as quick as one single "apt-get" command is it?

"Not for me. All I have to do is run cvsup with my sup file and I get the source......."

Again, nowhere near as quick as apt-get. Hey, I'm no Debian zealot by any means, but when there's a nasty exploit in the wild and I need to patch lots of boxes quickly, Debian's system is much quicker and far more elegant than FreeBSD's. And that matters to a helluva lot of people, evidently...

Finally, Apt-Fu gives you Ports functionality on Debian. Check it out.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[tarius8105]

Unless you intentionally left 'build' out of that sentence before 'server' this is a stupid statement. Since when is it a good idea to have a compiler on your server? Even if you did specifically mean build server, in most cases that just means running remote shells to do the compiling (like rsh or ssh) and not some spiffy server app that receives build requests from a build client (yes I know there are distributed build systems like Rational's clearmake, but that's not the norm). Besides all that it can handle multiple compiles. I have a build host which runs at least 9 builds at the same time every day, works just fine. The applications being built are used by major oil companies for geophysical mapping and surveying, so they're not exactly trivial, either.

You would have a point if we're talking about a production webserver. Infact its proven that Linux isnt good for multitasking between applications. In the 2.4 kernel watch a DVD while doing compiles, in 2.6 (which isnt even released yet) will have a proper scheduler.

Some people do need the latest nVidia cards to be supported, so if FreeBSD doesn't support it, it's not a viable solution. People doing graphical modeling software in the oil industry need good 3d hardware support. I work for such a company (subsidiary of Haliburton), and we are getting pressure from Shell to support Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0 (we already wupport 2.1, but they want to upgrade).

Workstation, desktop, samething in my mind. The only difference is a desktop is in my mind a home user, and workstation is a corporate user. If you read my original paragraph, FreeBSD is meant to be a work horse, not a graphics workstation.

To say that either system is always faster or more stable or more secure is pure nonsense. anyone can misconfigure a system and make it perform like shit. Anyone can tweak a system and make it scream. Developers of different projects have different goals, so they get different results.

You're absolutely right about system security. The question is which one is more secure out of the box? Red Hat Linux? If you think so, then you're dead wrong. FreeBSD asks you if you want to enable a higher kernel security mode after setup. If you go with extreme, only way on the box is through the console. Linux allows users to su to root without being in the wheel group, which is also a security risk. I'm not going to point out the security hazzards with Linux and FreeBSD, I just wanted to give a point of view. Ultimately the only way to make a computer truely secure is to not plug in the power.

Different licenses fill different needs. With the BSD license I am not free to ensure that people benefiting from my work return anything to the community.

You're wrong, with the BSD License you are free, with the exception of removing existing headers, to do whatever you want. You want to release code that is open source or close sourced? Well you have that option with the BSD License. That is the reason its more free then the GPL cause you can do whatever you want, with the exception of removing headers. GPL makes it law that you have to release your source code that uses any GPL licensed code. Thus you're not free to close source it.

I dont know maybe you're one of those people who caught into the "Linux" phase of life. I dont see how you can view the GPL as being free when it literally pushes you to do things. The only free part of the GPL is the cost ownership of it. You dont have to pay a dime to use it.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The APT system supports source repositories. The official Debian archives offer the source to every package, so it is entirely possible to install the base system with the installer, and then use nothing but locally built packages using apt/dpkg.

Yeah but the question is can you pass application specific build parameters? I dont mean the stuff you would dump into your make.conf and such. I'm talking about going into like in FreeBSD to: /usr/ports/databases/mysql323-server

Then typing

make -DBUILD_STATIC=yes

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[tarius8105]

This is incorrect, and no offence but it makes you look stupid. Let's try to understand, OK? The GPL doesn't mandate anything like that.

I can make any modifications I want to a GPLed program without having "make it available to everyone in the world". I can hack it, put my name all over it, change it to what I want; it's only if I _distribute_ it that I need to also release the source. You see?

Better than watching some company take my enhancements and use them for their own gain.

I like the last part of your comment there. It proves the point I made. You can never be free if you are told what you can and can not do. The only stipulation in the BSD license that maybe a concern is the keeping headers intact. However your personal bias to what a corporation can't do with your source code is no place for an arguement when you're trying to prove the other person wrong.

Can FreeBSD competently handle more than one CPU? Linux can. You lose!

I lost? how did I lose? Sure it has SMP, but even then, I betcha a one cpu FreeBSD box can handle more requests then a dual cpu linux box.

Basically, there's nothing concrete in your post, just meandering diatribe with no facts behind it. In the real world, among experienced users, it's accepted that good Linux distros are just as fast and stable as FreeBSD, and offer greater benefits, so you'll have to live with it. Does it really bother you that an OS might be better than your beloved FreeBSD?

Linux doesnt offer greater benefits, read some benchmarks before you make opinionated statements. I know of only one other operating system that was a superior multiuser OS on x86 platform, it was called OS/2. You see I want an OS that can get the job done. Just because I didnt jump on the bandwagon like you, doesnt mean Linux is superior, it makes you look like a comformist. So if you can prove to me that Linux is superior to FreeBSD in the server market, then I'll start believing you. Oh and to wrap up, "there's nothing concrete in your post" (sorry it applies to you).

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[tarius8105]

Erm, doesn't really answer the question. Still not as quick as one single "apt-get" command is it?

Depends on what you're trying to get. Prebuilt Kernel? Maybe good for that if you're happy with the default one. As for packages, FreeBSD has something similar to apt-get.

[root@revan /usr/ports/www/lynx] pkg_add -r lynx
Fetching ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packa ges-5.1-release/Latest/lynx.tbz... Done.

Thats all I have to do for a package that is listed in ports. The only benefit apt-get has over this is that you can do a dist-upgrade.

Again, nowhere near as quick as apt-get. Hey, I'm no Debian zealot by any means, but when there's a nasty exploit in the wild and I need to patch lots of boxes quickly, Debian's system is much quicker and far more elegant than FreeBSD's. And that matters to a helluva lot of people, evidently...

The pkg_add command is just as quick as apt-get in most ways. To update the kernel, when you have a custom configuration, you cant really rely on apt-get, atleast from personal use I cant. However, with cvsup, the best part of it is if there is only one file has been updated, thats all you download. Then you run two commands. The compile may take 10 minutes or so. Then after it finishes compiling, assuming all your servers in the server farm are the same, all you have to do is SCP the new kernel to each machine...which you could write a perl script to do it. First time writing the perl script may take a while, but if you plan it ahead before an update, and keep it modular so the server list is like a plain text file then the whole process can be as seemless. We've done something similar at where I work. When UNIX first went out. System Administrators needed to write their own shell scripts to automate stuff. I would consider updating all boxes a tedious task even if you had to run one command on each. If you need to update each box with a package, you could write a perl script that would go on each box and run apt-get to update the package. Have the perl script accept for a parameter the package name. The only issue is this, with ssh, the first time you connect you'll need to accept the host key, after that, it wont be any trouble.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[pyros]

Threading - Why would I watch a DVD on a dev machine or server? You said Linux was a bad server because it can't do multiple compiles. I said I have no trouble doing concurrent builds, so you tell me to watch a DVD and compile software. Now you're mixing desktop and server usage to say FreeBSD is a better server. I don't deny the latency issues you bring up, but I do take issue with the examples you use to illustrate your point.

Hardware support - You said, and I quote, "BSD isnt meant for desktop, its meant for doing work, I dont need my nVidia card to be supported to do email and crap." I gave an example of where some people need 3d hardware support for "doing work." You respond with FreeBSD is meant to be a work horse, not a graphics workstation. I'm sure you didn't mean to minimize egineers in the oil industry, but you kinda did. Is compiling software magically more computationally difficult than running geological simulations and plotting fault lines and stuff like that? People doing real work need 3d hardware support and FreeBSD doesn't offer it. The developers have different goals, and the users have different needs.

Security - different design goals, different needs, yadda yadda.

License - You totally missed my point. The GPL allows me different freedoms as a publisher than the BSD license. The BSD license offers me more freedoms as a consumer than the GPL. But who cares? That's why we have more than one OSS license to choose from.

In case I haven't made it clear yet, my impression of your statements is that you don't accept the fact that some people need things FreeBSD doesn't offer, just like some people need things that Linux doesn't offer. I'm not saying that Linux is better, I'm just trying to say that FreeBSD isn't better either.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[pyros]

Yeah but the question is can you pass application specific build parameters

I can't say for certain, but I would have to assume so. If dpkg is anything like rpm it has a simple config file to set such parameters. I know you can pass options on the command line when building rpms though.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can never be free if you are told what you can and can not do."

Erm, and? We need to have some rules -- you BSDers like to talk about "total freedom" but it's naive. If we all had total freedom, I could come round to your house, kill you and get away with it.

Instead, it's important that we have rules. Sure, the BSD license is more permissive than the GPL, but the GPL _enforces_ freedom which is a good thing for everyone. Go look at Sourceforge and Freshmeat; by far the vast majority of developers prefer the GPL. Live with it.

"I betcha a one cpu FreeBSD box can handle more requests then a dual cpu linux box."

Oh dear. What are you smoking? While we both know that the above is ludicrously nonsensical, let's think about it. Joe Q User runs Linux, and has been hearing about FreeBSD. He decides to install it, and finds that your comments like the above (and "can't handle multiple compiles" (and "crashes far more often")) are entirely incorrect and irrational. So he gets a very negative impression of the BSD community, and sticks with Linux.

I've seen this happen. Quite a lot. Yes, Brett Glass, I'm talking about you.

"Just because I didnt jump on the bandwagon like you"

Hah. Let's get some things straight, eh kiddo? I've been running UNIX systems while you were probably still suckling on your mother's teat. I've deployed FreeBSD desktops and servers; I've even made modifications to the kernel. I know a lot about FreeBSD, so don't give me the "bandwagon" tripe. You look silly.

"So if you can prove to me that Linux is superior to FreeBSD in the server market, then I'll start believing you."

Blimey, where do I start?

How about long-term support -- a crucial aspect in corporate servers. Now, FreeBSD releases are supported by the security team for a measly 12 months. Let's contrast this with RHEL, which is supported for 5 years, and consequently is much easier to target applications against.

Sure, upgrading FreeBSD isn't too difficult, but you end up with a slightly different system every 12 months and that becomes a money and time wasting chore in companies.

On the totally free side, Debian supports its releases for at least two years; much better than FreeBSD, and again more attractive to corporate deployments, and "apt-get" is simply much faster, simpler and more elegant than messing around with CVS and co.

So there's one very solid reason, and if you think outside your little PC and into real world servers, it's enormously important, and one of the reasons why Linux is being more widely adopted.

Another reason: much better SMP. Becoming increasingly significant as multi-proc servers are put into place.

Another reason: certification for large server apps such as Oracle. Don't underestimate this.

Another reason: wider support options. FreeBSD doesn't come close.

Another reason: broader and more mature x86 hardware support. Not totally important, but a bonus all the same.

Is that enough? Sorry, but solid, modern Linux distros pretty much obliterate FreeBSD when it comes to the server, as can be seen above. Hey, FreeBSD is still a pretty good server OS, but Linux has it beat in all the crucial areas.

It's interesting that I haven't said anything negative about FreeBSD -- only that Linux is superior in the real world -- and yet you BSD zealots always go on the offensive straight away. That's sad, it looks bad on the community, and it's a syndrome you need to sort out.

Just about every Linux user I know respects the BSD flavours and their ability. Conversely, all BSD fans have a rabid hatred of Linux, and this is indicative of insecurity; you know that Linux offers more material benefits, but you don't want your l33t counter-culture OS to look bad.

Just try to have an open mind, eh? Your bitter and nonsensical statements about Linux's stability will only turn away potential users to BSD. And you've had enough of that recently -

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, pkg_add is good, but that's only for external packages. debian doesn't differentiate between base and extras, and so any part can be updated with apt-get.

with bsd, if its part of the base system and not the ports, you still have to go through the whole cvsup stuff. though like you say you can automate much of it with perl scripts, its still not as qukck and easy as apt-get as the oirignal poster said

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Xabraxas]

You're absolutely right about system security. The question is which one is more secure out of the box? Red Hat Linux? If you think so, then you're dead wrong. FreeBSD asks you if you want to enable a higher kernel security mode after setup. If you go with extreme, only way on the box is through the console. Linux allows users to su to root without being in the wheel group, which is also a security risk. I'm not going to point out the security hazzards with Linux and FreeBSD, I just wanted to give a point of view. Ultimately the only way to make a computer truely secure is to not plug in the power.

One distribution does not cover them all. Gentoo does not allow you to su unless you are in the wheel group. There are also many security options you can configure. I'll take my hardened-sources (selinux + other seurity related patches and programs) box over your FreeBSD one anyday.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[tarius8105]

yeah, pkg_add is good, but that's only for external packages. debian doesn't differentiate between base and extras, and so any part can be updated with apt-get.

Yeah someone was working on a project called FreeBSD update which would be a binary update for the base install. with bsd, if its part of the base system and not the ports, you still have to go through the whole cvsup stuff. though like you say you can automate much of it with perl scripts, its still not as qukck and easy as apt-get as the oirignal poster said

It really all depends on what you're updating. As I said, if it were just the kernel, then you could easily distribute it out. As for other things it might be a little tedious.

Re:Are you guys coming or what?

[Empty Threats]

If you have the money for a "graphics workstation", you have the money to pay for a closed source X server with decent GL drivers. It's that simple. http://www.xig.com/Pages/ProductsMasterPage.html is a good place to start. X drivers for FireGL, at least. Who would do work on dangerously unstable nVidia drivers, anyway?