Slashdot Mirror
BSD For Linux Users
noackjr writes "Matt Fuller posted among his rants a great introduction and explanation of BSD For Linux Users: 'It's been my impression that the BSD communit{y,ies}, in general, understand Linux far better than the Linux communit{y,ies} understand BSD. I have a few theories on why that is, but that's not really relevant. I think a lot of Linux people get turned off BSD because they don't really understand how and why it's put together. Thus, this rant; as a BSD person, I want to try to explain how BSD works in a way that Linux people can absorb.'"
Gentoo.
;) ) and as someone who has tried Linux (most major distros), Solaris, and BSDs (Free and Open), I keep coming back to Gentoo.
;)
Seriously.
I'm sure that the "Gentoo Zealot Translator" will follow this post (or at least another one
Why? Several reasons:
1) The community. It is *fun* to be part of the community. I am on IRC as much as I can be, and I like to help, and the community helps me back.
2) Documentation. It is extensive. Unbelievably so. Even the noobiest of noobs can follow the install documents, and the rest of the documentation just r0x0rs.
3) Portage. It combines the best of apt-get with the concept of Ports, and I have yet to find that something I need isn't in Portage. While I'm sure that not everything for everyone is in there, the vast majority of people will find what they need, and even lots they don't!
4) Ease of use. Some people might see this as a negative; ie, that which is easy can't be (or shouldn't be) good. However, Gentoo can be hard too - the choice is there. You can take advantage of all that they've done to make Virtual Hosting with Apache easier, or you can ignore it and do your own thing.
It all comes down to flexibility and power in your OS. I run minimal Gentoo installs as servers at work, but have a full fledged desktop at home. It makes work easier, and my home machine way more powerful and fun than it would ever be with any other OS, and that's what I'm looking for. It's the best of both worlds.
libertarianswag.com
BSD or linux? Who cares what's running on it... The server screams in pain and agony when it's slashdotted out of existence.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
Perhaps for the same reasons that the Branch Davidians or the Ralieans knew more about the Cathloics than most Cathloics knew about the Branch Davidians or the Ralieans? Maybe Linux is just a much more widespread cult than BSD.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
BSD folk are just annoyed about the quantity of Linux zealots that ignore BSD.
But the GPL is something to get zealous about, the BSD license is hard to get excited about.
It's been my impression that the BSD communit{y,ies}, in general, understand Linux far better than the Linux communit{y,ies} understand BSD.
And my impression is that Ogg communit{y, ies}, in general, understand Mp3 far better than Mp3 communit{y,ies} understand Ogg
*ducks*
Free XBox, PS2
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It should be pointed out that if ever the Slashdot community believes that the editors of Slashdot are immune to pot-stirring tendencies, then this post should serve as proof that sometimes they get bored and message each other: "The servers are slooooowww today. What can we do to get a few hundred angry comments? Oh, I KNOW!!!"
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
I'm a Linux user, but I do consider trying FreeBSD. The only thing that turns me off is people like you.
Only to tell you that you won't get any Linux user to use BSD by telling them "they don't understand it" (as the article does) or by ranting as you do.
(Yes, I know there are Linux zealots, too)
Unix makes easy tasks hard and hard tasks possible. Windows makes easy tasks easy and hard tasks $29.95.
OS X is for... anyone who can afford the hardware?
Condescending is just the right word for the style of this rant.
My favorite snippet:
and make up your own damn mind. That's why you have one.
Oh! That's what that thing is for! Thanks for letting me know.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I, personally, for me, believe (obviously) that my OS choice is right.
That there's a problem, or at least it could be. I don't believe that my OS choice is "right." I believe it works wonderfully for my purposes. I believe your OS choice probably works wonderfully for your purposes. I can tell you're trying to avoid religious arguments on the subject, but you haven't quite dropped the idea that everyone should use one or the other.
That said, I'd far rather hear from someone who thinks they're right and I'm wrong but simply tries to inform me without demanding my commitment than from someone who wants to browbeat me over my choice.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Both communities should remember that development for either tends to benefit both.
A lot of BSD code flows into Linux, and a lot of apps that are made worthwhile (in terms of size of userbase) by Linux are ported to BSD.
Every person using Linux OR BSD is an asset to the free software community, and helping things in the right direction. There is no need to get pissy over small things like licenses or religious wars until only Linux, BSD and other free OSes are left standing and all other non-free systems are long buried.
Beep beep.
"BSD is designed. Linux is grown. Perhaps that's the only succinct way to describe it, and possibly the most correct."
I'm wondering what he's smoking. Of course, if he's in Berkeley maybe he's using more LSD than BSD...
If the SCO lawsuit has done anything positive, it has caused a lot of research into the history of UNIX and its derivatives. And based on the continuous ripoffs between Berkeley and AT&T, BSD definitely didn't start out with a plan. Linux hasn't forked into eight or nine individual large projects, and is still spearheaded by its original creator, who ultimately decides what goes where or delegates the decisions. True he takes input from more and more people, and probably has less direct control than he used to, but the core of what is wanted for the next stable series is usually pretty clear once things are played with.
and other than Slackware, all of the distributions seem to be pretty tight too, not just falling completely where things end up.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Believe me, having a low UID has no correlation whatsoever to having friends in the right place.
I have a theory about this, and I borrow it from the movie "The New Kid." Basically to make a reputation for yourself, you find guy bigger than you in the school and you kick his ass. For BSD, the next biggest kid is Linux. For Linux, it is Windows (no, not OS-X, you get a bad rep for beating the hell out of the big retarded kid. People don't think your tough, just mean). Basically, most Linux evangelists aren't concerned with which UNIX like OS is better, but with freeing those people shackled to a proprietary operating system that hampers their freedom. That is the reason you don't see many Linux users writing articles on why BSD users should switch to Linux.
IANAL... But I play one on
(Yes, I know there are Linux zealots, too)
If you don't want to try FreeBSD because of BSD zealots and then you admit that there are Linux zealots too then using your logic shouldn't you not use Linux either?
I was a linux fan from quite a while back and I decided to try FreeBSD to see the differences.
I installed it without much difficulty and poked around. I liked what I saw. I sorta shrugged my shoulders and said "Looks like a Unix system to me" and continued using Linux.
I was using Redhat for the longest time before RHAT forced me into migrating (Mandrake if you must know). I never really saw a reason to switch from this distro to that distro unless the features were significantly different.
I think it's all what you get used to and prefer. I never understood the BSD/Linux platform wars. To me, we're on the same open source team. As long as I can download the code, I don't see a big problem. If SCO got their wish and asked me for 699$, you can bet I'd be hopping straight over to FreeBSD. All the software I need is there anyhow.
After all, LinuxDistros/BSD aren't so different when they share the same features (KDE, openoffice, etc...)
...or divide and conquer. It's very strange that people seem to need to lash out so violently. From what I've read of the article (pages 1 and 2, since the rest is lost to slashdotting) the article seems to be relatively non-inflammatory.
Of course, this means we need to start attacking him for DARING to even SUGGEST that, yes there are things about BSD that Linux people could stand to understand. I'm personally a contended Gentoo Linux user, and I disagree with the idea in BSD of writing code that anyone can simply use without giving something back. Heck, I wouldn't work for Microsoft for money, I sure as heck won't do it for free! But that sort of brings up the issue that, for the most part, Linux people tend to care more about the political/ethical issues of code that BSDers, who seem to be more down-to-earth realists. Gross generalization - perhaps. Again, just my impression, just as the article is merely the author's impression.
So divide and conquer. Get the free unices to squabble amongst themselves as much as possible, and it's harder for them to threaten more entrenched OSes. Or at least, it seems that way to me. What I'm trying to say is: while the differences between BSD and Linux (and, indeed, between the different BSDs and linux distros) are what make us so strong (nobody likes monoculture), this excessive fighting really is useless. Moreover, I think the people who get all radical about these things tend to hurt the cause more (in terms of broad adoption) than helping. If you feel like preaching to convince people to try your OS - don't. The straightforward, YMMV, choose-what's-best-for-you explanation has helped me convince many people to try free software alternatives. A drop of honey catches more flies than a bucket of gall...
Some do, some don't. Get over it. Personally, I'd like to see more articles of this type. And maybe some more reconciliation between the free unices.
But then, if we didn't have flame wars, I guess it wouldn't be slashdot, eh?
The first page stated that BSD is for those who like Unix and Linux is for those that hate microsoft, and that last statment is not going to win support for Linux.
Take the Wikipedia asking for donations last week, half the posts here at slashdot were, "Why don't they go salvage a few old PIII 600's and cluster them together. Should only cost about two grand". Hell, an worthwhile opensource project needs some help paying the bills and they get ripped apart here. Sorry geeks, but Econ 101: There is no free lunch. It costs someone something somewhere. (Yes I did donate $25. Not much, but all that I could afford at the moment.)
I do use Linux, but mostly I do use some kind of BSD, whether it be Mac OS X, OpenBSD, or FreeBSD.
I see the people trying to either be funny or karma whoring state: Well if he can show me a freeBSD server that can survive a /.ing...and I have to ask, "How many sites are taken down a week by slashdotting running Linux?" Hell I know our little 2.Ghz Xeon box with 1GB of Ram wouldn't survive no matter what OS we had on there, it is Linux btw.
Bottom line...the negativity needs to go out of OSS. Linux cannot have the banner, "Microsoft Sucks! and use us because...Microsoft Sucks!" and hope to really make it into the desktop arena. OSS and Linux needs a banner of, "Hey our system works, has fewer viruses, easy to use, and it will do any thing Windows will do, except play games."
And to the "any thing you can do, I can do for free" dot communist crowd: In order to make Linux viable, its going to need programs written for it like games, quickbooks, quicken, adobe products, that people are willing to spend money on and need before it will truely be accepted main stream.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
I'd like to see a relatively impartial comparison of the relative strengths and weaknesses of Linux and the various BSDs. I hear, for example, that FreeBSD has a more efficient TCP stack than Linux, and you can therefore get better performance with Apache under FreeBSD than under Linux. I have noticed that OpenBSD seems to be more responsive to user input under heavy load than Linux, but I haven't used OpenBSD enough to know if that subjective impression actually bears out consistently.
Dealing with these questions would be far more useful than taking saying
foreach("Amiga", "Mac", "OS/2", "*BSD", "WinXP") {
print "$_ is better than your OS.\n";
}
which is my impression of where these screeds come from.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
If you have to explain why something is useful to someone then you are probably targeting the wrong audience.
Happy Linux, Mac, Windows, etc. Users don't need to be told why BSD will make them happier. Frankly an author has to take a wild guess what bugs me about my Linux and Windows machine. They might get it formated like this but a general "What does BSD do well" FAQ is better. Mr Fuller might not know that some of the things he thinks are wrong in Linux I've hacked around or are in the end non-issues.
Free software is about enabling people. Linux and BSD and whatever can and should all exist because neither is "right". A Linux user can learn how to use BSD. A BSD can learn how to use Linux. How come? Its because both are open systems. The implication with "helpful documents" like this is that there is a right or wrong choice to be made which I believe is an idea rooted in bad faith.
That statements about as true as your average bumper sticker. Never trust anyone who thinks slogans are an accurate picture of the world (except this one).
XML causes global warming.
Software was designed differently back when the network wasn't the hostile environment that it is today.
So right at the top of the page I'm taunted with a message that "This page uses CSS for all styling, like every page should. Your browser doesn't support CSS, so this page will look pretty bland, but you'll still be able to read every word. Tough cookies."
Except that I'm running Galeon. Which supports CSS just fine.
So why should I listen to this guy?
(/.ed now anyway, so I only saw the first page.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
"The only thing that turns me off is people like you."
People with his pretentious attitude make up a sizable portion of the FreeBSD community. That kind of superior attitude comes mainly from walking through a sea of crashing Windows machines and recompile-reboot-repeat Linux machines only to end up at a FreeBSD machine that's more reliable than running water. Now, that's not to say that there's anything wrong with Linux, but its frequent updates to stay on the absolute bleeding edge does cost it a measure of reliability. On the FreeBSD end of things, you've got "running water", but not many of the newer toys. Things like firewire support, new file systems, CD and DVD burner support don't make it into the FreeBSD-STABLE line until long, long after Linux and Windows have had them.
"Only to tell you that you won't get any Linux user to use BSD by telling them "they don't understand it" (as the article does)"
I think a lot of this comes from the fact that the small Linux fanboy group screams so often and so loudly that it often appears to make up the majority of Linux users. When you see someone shouting "0h D00DZ! I ju3t g0t t3h n3w k3rn3l! Fuck1n C00L!" on a forum, followed by a dozen 'me too' posts similarly formatted, you tend to think of the posters as... well... morons. When enough of them shout long and hard enough, one can't help but feel that you'd be talking to a wall trying to get into a reasoned debate about the pros and cons of each OS.
The fact is that SCO isn't Linux's biggest threat. Microsoft isn't it either. The single most dangerous threat to the success of Linux, especially in the workplace, are the legions of fanboys who show up at the most inopportune times and places to rant and rave irrationally, irreverently, and incessantly; spouting off profanity-filled immature propaganda about how Linux equals the second coming of Christ Almighty. As a community, Linux would do well to figure out a way to shut these idiots up so that Linux's fate can be determined by the merits of its code, rather than the character of a small portion of its users.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Uhm, its well known that the *BSD origional code was a direct-line descendant of the origional AT&T code, its documented in umpteen billion places in various *BSD history documents and there are court cases circa 1993 about it. He posted nothing that can harm either community.
See-- "Youre trying to steal my code!!!" they scream, having never written any.
But you're right, they are excited. They have zeal. And in doing so they move from "We support free (as in BSD, not GPL) software" to "You must use GPL, you are NOT FREE to release your code any other way. Anything non-GPL is "non free" and therefore evil!"
Despite the fact that objectively BSD is more Free than Linux-- the GPL imposes an economic cost and restrictions on use that BSD does not.
It is only religious delusion that gets people excited about forcing this ideology on others, and lets them think that more restrictive is more "free".
There are companies out there who sell linux with the sales bullet point "By licensing our version of linux, you free yourself from having to worry about complying with the GPL. Since we release our code under GPL, you don't have to."
Linux is the MS Windows of open source-- the media has been declaring it the victor for half a decade and so it has become a self fullfilling prophecy (just like they did to Apple back when Apple was 3 times the size of Microsoft!)
Microsoft is zealous about controlling their code-- Windows, with copyright.
Linux Zeolots are Zealos about controling their code-- Linux, with the GPL.
BSD, on the other hand, is just free software. No need to be a control freak.
The BSD license shows far more faith in open source than the GPL does. The GPL is a paranoid control freak license from a paranoid control freak!
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
I see a lot of folks in both camps that use both, because both have their strengths and weaknesses.
The folks that will choose one or the other and be biased about it are either:
1) BSD folks that tried out linux in 1994, and still have the impression stuck in their mind. They seem to think that linux hasn't changed at all since then.
2) Linux folks that at some point of their complete n00bness went into a BSD channel in efnet and asked some lame question like "since linux is unix, where can i get the FreeBSD RPMS?" and got flamed so hard that they had to crawl out of a hole in the ground. Therefore, they think that BSD users are all crusty assholes that cling to a "little used" OS that is fading into obscurity like people that try to ride out hurricanes. Hence all the "BSD is dying" bullshit.
And it's really sad. Both have their merits. Both share many of the same goals. I wish they could get along and do great things together.
My $0.02USD + tax.
do() || do_not();
So, let me get this straight.
Apple uses BSD code to make a good operating system and its all sunshine and roses. Good for Apple. I commend them for wanting to make their operating system the best they can for their customers.
Microsoft uses BSD code to make their operating system a little better for their customers and they are the solely driven by greed and power in preservation of their "monopoly". I would think Microsoft has as much right to make their products a little better by using code in the same manner that Apple does without it being deemed an evil use of people's hard work.
Plus, *raises change of subject card* despite what everyone says, even the court system. By the mere fact that alternate operating systems exist, are sold, and are installed; Microsoft does not have a monopoly on the Operating System market. They just have a widely-used product.
--being modded down because I can see reality
"Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the life-long attempt to acquire it." -Albert Einstein
Granted, you have to pay them for their effort, but it is commonly agreed that OS X is worth paying for.
[...]
If you work on BSD code, you could possibly be a contributor to OS X. Certainly there is a sense of pride in this.
However, as in Microsoft's case, your contributions can also be twisted in dark and selfish ways without your knowledge or control.
Ok, so apple takes community code, uses it, arguably, for the bulk of their operating system, and then charges $130 per client per version for it. They don't release any changes. Microsoft takes community code and integrates it into an add-on product that they're now giving away. They don't release any changes. But since Steve Jobs is a lovable druggie and Bill Gates is a scary nerd, Microsoft is dark and selfish and Apple is warm and fuzzy. That makes perfect sense!
I don't quite understand this feeling that Apple is any better than microsoft. Both use fairly sleazy business practices, and I wouldn't expect either Steve nor Bill to take their foot off your head to keep you from drowning.
...no really, I did read it. Honest.
Although the writer does have a few good points, he also has some rather large gaps in his knowledge. He really only knows the FreeBSD system, but seems to assume the other BSDs do things exactly the same. Some of his arguments would apply to NetBSD and OpenBSD, but not all of them.
His personal bias really shows through in the writing, almost bordering on making it a flame or troll against Linux, even though he mentions over and over that this is not the intent.
I'd love to see the same article written by someone with less personal bias, and more actual knowledge of Linux and the BSDs.
Now, I like that quip, not because it's some sort of absolute revealed truth, but because it gives a very good feel for some of the differences. The BSDs, in general, are very much more like traditional Unices than Linux
Yep. No argument there. If someone wants an authentic 1980's feel to their system, by *all means* use BSD. It's just that authenticity to traditional UNIX is not of high priority to most folks -- it's getting things done that is. That's why bash, gcc, and other utilities traditionally associated with Linux systems seem to be installed even on "real" UNIX systems nowadays.
i saw this article yesterday posted on:
freebsdaddicts.org and the first thought that came to mind was, "boy I hope this doesn't get slashdotted, because the linux crowd will have another BSD flame-fest." its not as bad as i thought it would be. the guy who wrote the article was really not judgemental at all, he made points to say "not saying one is better, they are just different." so cut him some slack..
home of the original cupholder
This is the one thing that I have never quite understood and have always heard people in the BSD camps complain about.
I always hear complaints of how fractured the linux community is because of the umpteen different linux distributions. Now I have used about 5 different linux distributions over the years and I have to say that I have been able to sit down at everyone that I have tried and felt pretty much at home. The base operating system is always made from the same packages. I have yet to see a mainstream distribution that didn't use glibc, util-linux and the like. The only major difference you see between the distributions is the package managment.
On the other hand I currently use both Open and FreeBSD and while mostly similar I would have to say that there was a greater difference in the core OS between them then between different linux distributions. For example the disk partitioning program. Also since they use seperate kernels it can result in other incompatabilities. I know in the past filesystems were not quite compatible, or all features were not supported, such as UFS2 and soft updates.
Also when he talks about the installation from ports being snazy for install because they find dependancies and install them for you I am suprised he doesn't bring up any of the linux tools that do the exact same thing such as apt or emerge. He mentions the distributions that they are a part of so I think he knows about them. It is possible that he thinks that linux users know about them and therefore doesn't have to.
Exactly. If Microsoft takes a copy of your BSD licensed code, compiles it, presses it onto a CD, drops it into a shiny box (so shiny!) and sells it for $100...
What is stopping anybody else from doing the same thing? What is stopping anybody else from doing the same thing but only charging $90? Or $110 but including a nice manual? Absolutely nothing.
People who use the "Microsoft will use my code in a product" argument against the BSD license forget that the original code will still be available for free. Whatever the marketplace can accept paying for Microsoft's additions to otherwise freely available software then that is what Microsoft's additions are worth, regardless of how insignificant those additions are.
Serve Gonk.
I'm quite happy for anyone to use the code I have released under BSD licenses. I'd love it if Microsoft included a port of OpenSSH with their operating system, just as I am happy that they are releasing some POSIXy tools (mostly based on BSD licensed code).
/bin/sh).
This has already happened - Sun's Solaris 9 SSH is based on portable OpenSSH. I'm happy that Solaris is a little less braindamaged out of the box these days (though I wish they would get a modern
Would I care if Microsoft were to make a few $$$ of my work? Not at all - I have lost nothing by their gain. The original, free code would still be out there for people to improve and every additional line of 3rd-party free code that these proprietary software companies have to track puts them closer to that pain threshold where they decide it is easier to contribute their changes back to the community than maintain their own forked version.
Back when I started out with linux(less than 5 years ago!) there wasn't any considerable anomosity between linux/bsd. The only change that might have caused this is that linux has become simpler and more graphical in nature, and has increased in popularity. So is it that BSD users are jealous, or is it that more idiots can now work linux? Probably a combination of both judging by the mud being slung by both sides. Maybe the bsd based OSX release has created some tensions for both sides too.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
The comment at the top, in css class "ahem". Saying that my browser doesn't support css. What actually happened is your server couldn't serve the css page. With pretentions like these are you suprised people don't care about the facts of BSD?
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
1. Linux, not BSD is run like an anarchy. The kernel is done by one group, Gnu, the utils, libs and applications are another, they're not even vaguely in sync with one another and like a sloppy carpenter they're leaving it to the plasterers and painters (Distributions) to make it look good.
2. pass (aside from noting a Goodwin)
3. Small companies obviously vary, I've had both extraordinary good luck with some(most) and less good luck with others. That's called a market, caveat emptor. Particularly smaller software firms I've worked with have been extraordinarily good at listenting to customer requirements and actually responding.
4. Shared Source ... ahh now that's an important license type. Didn't want to contrast Public Domain, Artistic, MIT ...?
5. As with (1) you've reversed it. The BSD's in fact operate considerably more slowly than Linux in developement pace, however they do so with far better coordination of the various parts. Kernel, Libc, utilities are released together, and probably benefit from the faact that the whole assemblage is tested.
I have *nothing* against any of these systems, some I use, some I don't. Linux works, BSD works and I'm fluent in the advantages and disadvantages of each and can make educated decisions about which is appropriate to a given task.
You've also demonstrated that you don't understand crap about governments. The world has many flavors of democracies, the Linux, BSD, Gnu, Perl communities are all vibrant forms of demorcracies in action (as, by the way are commercial / proprietary vendor - customer environments.)
It's as simple as that. Let me guess you use Debian? or is it Windows?
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
I don't really get the schism between FreeBSD and Linux. I use both. The servers I have full control over usually get loaded with FreeBSD. The reasons for this are simple; I haven't found a Linux distribution with the ease of system upgrade and general maintenance that FreeBSD has. The ports system isn't perfect but using cvsup to get update patches for the core OS is simply wonderful. Combine this with the reputation for stability and it's a winning combination. A combination that makes me comfortable to upgrade the complete server remotely without worrying too much about the upgrade failing.
Gentoo is somewhat similar but they aren't aiming for ultra stability and they don't have a long term reputation like FreeBSD.
Debian is great for upgrades but the glacier pace of upgrades to the stable release is unacceptable.
Slackware is wonderful (I'm back to using it for my desktop OS) but upgrading the OS isn't as nice as FreeBSD. Third party tools like swaret are slick but not time tested.
I would love to have a tidy distributation of Linux and a small core of tools released in the same way as FreeBSD with a similar "make world" upgrade process.
It really is about freedom. Either you have it, or you don't... and beer has nothing to do with it.
The problem is that Microsoft acts in ways that negatively impact the life of OSS folks (such as promoting .doc lockin). If you help Microsoft, you are helping someone who uses spare resources to repeatedly kick in you in the nuts.
May we never see th
All of the /etc/rc* scripts are written in pdksh, but root's shell is tcsh.
/etc/profile, which is unfathomable to me.
I've not used OpenBSD in a while, but last time I did, it didn't come with tcsh. root's shell was csh. If this is a problem for you, it's because you're doing something wrong (i.e. logging in as root).
There is no
I am incredibly annoyed by some of the customization that is coming with recent Linux systems I've used. For example, I signed up for a web host that has craploads of completions that create a behavior I'm completely not used to and is not useful to me. I sometimes have a need to rename a file to a variation of itself where I type `mv fi[tab] fi[tab]^H2' or something...except on this system, the second parameter of mv completes to a directory only, so I can't rename it, or grab more than one file at a time, or anything else like that with completions. Let me customize my own shell.
OpenBSD does not have methods to easily start/stop services (i.e. redhat "service network restart") for reasons of nostalgia. FreeBSD is somewhat more forward-thinking in this.
I think FreeBSD is using NetBSD's implementation of the individual rc scripts in a directory with built-in dependencies. The scripts themselves are far more simple than classic SysV scripts and can do a lot more. Not to mention the dependencies are done correctly so you don't end up with fifteen S99 scripts like I've always seen.
And let's not even get started on Mac OS X.
Why not?
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
"...and recompile-reboot-repeat Linux machines only to end up at a FreeBSD machine that's more reliable than running water. Now, that's not to say that there's anything wrong with Linux, but its frequent updates to stay on the absolute bleeding edge does cost it a measure of reliability."
This phenomenon is more of a function of the particular user/ admin than the platform as a whole. I have a good number of Linux servers and desktops under my control and the ones that matter have been "as reliable as running water" because I chose to keep them off the bleeding edge for the stability it would deliver. The desktop ones that I monkey with all the time have been less so, but even so, in nearly every instance it's been because I screwed something up, not because of any flaw in the software.
As an aside, I have tried working with FreeBSD in the past because of it's reputation for superior security and reliability. I got it running as a basic firewall for a medium-large network, but it never got out of the testing phase because after an unspecified amount of time less than 8 hours it would run out of memory, fail closed, and have to be rebooted to restore service. Now this same machine is acting as a firewall, webcache proxy, and network monitor under linux and has had no unscheduled downtime. This isn't to say anything against FreeBSD, but to underscore the point that the reliability of any given system is often largely a function of the person running it. I obviously didn't know BSD well enough to make that system reliable, but with Linux, it has been a rock.
"The single most dangerous threat to the success of Linux, especially in the workplace, are the legions of fanboys who show up at the most inopportune times and places to rant and rave irrationally, irreverently, and incessantly"
I couldn't agree more. I was involved in some Oregon state senate hearings about an Open Source bill. The majority of the pro-open source camp got together before hand and we hashed out a cohesive well-formed argument about the merits of OSS, Linux, and what the bill proposed with each of us having a particular section to cover. Unbeknownst to us, there was a small "legion of fanboys" who managed to sneak onto the podium between a set of our presenters and really weakened our argument with their poorly thought-out ranting. Not only that, but they consumed all of the remaining argument time so that we were unable to bring up a good number of the points we had planned to make. That hurt us doubly when the opponents later brought up the points we were planning to address. For people who were "on our side" they did us more harm than any of the actual opposition did that day.
...and call this flamebait, though i don't mean it as such.
....are the new hordes of OSX users that go around trumpeting "I AM A BSD POWERUSER" or "I HAVE A HIGH-END UNIX SERVER" "MY APPLE HAS PROTECTED MEMORY, PREEMPTIVE MULTITASKING AND UNIX, WHICH IS SOMETHING YOUR STUPID WINTEL PEECEE WILL NEVER HAVE" that have never seen the inside of a terminal window, init script or log file. Essentially lifelong Mac nuts.
What i think is a *real* issue for the BSD folks to consider if they are being misunderstood..
(and i mean this as informative, not scathing)
In other words, the BSD community just inherited a whole new legion of zealots, who will have the side effect of causing people (who probably also aren't very knowledgeable) to associate "BSD" with bad flamewars, etc. The difference is that some of these folks don't have a clue, and they spout a lot of dumb rhetoric.
Sure, there are zealots in *any* camp, and there are kind, knowledgeable, helpful folks in every camp too. I'm not saying that all OSX users are zealots, or clueless, or that all BSD users are assholes, or anything. Good and bad in all.
do() || do_not();
I use linux instead of *BSD for what I'll admit are pretty much subjective reasons - I spent a lot of time learning the various quirks, and FreeBSD just never fit right in my brain.
However, I think we're losing sight of the real fundamental dichotomy here, which, for lack of a better phrase, I'll call the 'Vendor/Community' spectrum. As it stands, Microsoft has power because they control the protocols that their users can access. Through 'embrace&extend', they try to ensure that you simply cannot interoperate with any other operating systems.
Apple would act this way if they could, I'm sure, but since they do not have the market share that MS does, they can't afford to have OS X be an island of its own. It's in their best interests to be a team player. For now.
These are the Large Evil Vendor and Small Brown-Nosing Vendor models, respectively.
Linux, *BSD, etc, all the (to whatever extent) open-source OSes are aware that they are part of a community. As such, it is the users, not business interests, that drive development. While there is value to a Vendor in lock-in, there is never value to a user in adding gratuitous incompatibilities. If Windows boxes can't talk nicely to Unix boxes, Bill Gates wins. If Linux boxes can't talk to OpenBSD boxes, nobody wins, and Linus and Theo will both want to figure out why, and fix it.
Of course, there's a lot of software out there that won't compile on anything but Linux...Sometimes, that means you need to pick up a 2x4 and go find the author, because they've put in something gratuitously imcompatible through...laziness.
:-)
What kind of jerk *is* this guy?
Yeah, I think I'll "go after the Mozilla authors with a 2x4" because they've failed to provide native support for my sixth mouse button. Christ. What happened to "I want something done, so instead of making someone that *already* gave me a bunch of software for free miserable, I'll write a patch and contribute it so that others can enjoy"?
But it works surprisingly often. I won't go into details, and it's not exactly "emulation", but often a Linux binary can just be picked up and run on a BSD system (at least between i386 systems).
This is not compelling -- it makes BSD look like a Linux that works sometimes.
BSD has always considered it more important to let the advanced user do more, than to let the novice do more.
And what exactly is *that* supposed to mean? Linux shortchanges the advanced user? Give me a break.
"BSD users are a bunch of elitist self-centered rude snobs."
Yup. And proud of it.
Given the previous statement, I'm inclined to agree.
It's possible that BSD, due to its more technical and engineering background, ends up with elitism being more prevalent than in other communities.
Surrrreee...Linux is primarily produced by a bunch of fine-arts majors who don't really go in for technical things, you know?
With Linux, you've got the linux-kernel mailing list, which is practically all developers. And just kernel developers and maintainers. The make and cron and locate and tar developers and maintainers have their own lists off somewhere else. There are very well segregated gathering areas like mailing lists, newsgroups, and web forums, for admins, for programmers, and for end-users.
This is because most folks don't even have time to keep up with the flood of kernel development, much less everything else included. Breaking this up is a *good* thing.
May we never see th
"That would resonate a little more with me if it actually resembled my experience with Linux."
I tried to be clear that I in no way intended to disparage Linux. The culture simply tends to be one of always going for the latest 'n greatest stuff. This means getting the latest kernel as soon as it's released, then compiling and running it. Certainly not everyone does this with Linux, but it does seem to be the mainstream view so far as I can tell. That's not to say Linux people are sitting there every day recompiling their kernel. I haven't done any research into the exact frequency of kernel releases from Linusland, but my general feeling from friends that run Linux is that every month or two it's off to the races with doing this or that which requires some fairly substantial work.
The difference that I generally see between that and FreeBSD is that many FreeBSD users just want everything to work as expected - like running water. No one expects anything fancy to happen with their running water. What they do expect is that they can go to the faucet at any time, day or night, turn it on, and get water. To continue the analogy, the mainstream Linux folks seem to enjoy disassembling all the pipes every so often so they can be re-run. They can get all sorts of different flavors and colors of water, but occassionally a couple pipes come loose and need to be hammered back into place. That's not to say that either line of thought is better or worse, merely that the lines of thinking tend to be different.
I'm a minimalist by nature. I don't want to have to jump through hoops to get something going. That doesn't mean I wont sit there and tinker with something if I want to; I just don't like ever having to tinker with it to get it going. In terms of what I use, it's a mix of FreeBSD and Windows 2000, mostly. I'll toy with other things (inluding Linux) now and then, but the combination of FreeBSD and Windows 2000 meets all my needs for reliability and feature-richness at home and work. That's not to say it's for everyone, but it works very well for me.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
If errata are issued against the OpenBSD's Base Operating System, it is source only - you must recompile. There is no automatic update agent.
As a debian-user-trying-out-OpenBSD, I found this quite odd.
OpenBSD is supposed to be about security. Yet, to keep a system up to date, the official way is to have a ports try, sync it with cvs, and rebuild it. To update the base operating system, you need the source and to apply the patches manually (as far as I can tell from the FAQ). All of a sudden, your lean & mean OpenBSD machine needs all the tools to compile an OS.
Shouldn't an OS that strives for security have tools to make upgrades as easy as possible? Don't get me wrong -- in most cases, OpenBSD does great for security -- but for updates, Debian has them beat hands down.
Perhaps I'm not a member of the OpenBSD's project target group, but I would really prefer commands that would make pre-compiled updated packages quick and easy to find and install.
Or they use your code in order to create something that's compatible with your code, but your code is incompatible with.
Or they simply save resources on developing that code, and can put more resources into the Doc format lockin.
I'd rather OSS contributions were forced open so all could enjoy them. Those who want to create closed software can suffer from the same code duplication and inefficiencies that everyone else suffers of, due to the closed-software practices.
The reason noone cares about BSD is because for 90% of us, anything we can do with one we can do with the other. So all other things being equal we go with the one that has more mindshare/software/hardware/support.
That's my reasoning, and I'll bet it's the majority opinion if you were to poll average linux users.
Sigs are awesome huh?
"Microsoft will bury it, just like they buried UNIX back in the 1990's when they called UNIX 'forked' and 'confusing' and offered Microsoft as a 'stable target'."
Microsoft edged *nix out of the low-end server market in the 1990s because companies were able to take any half-wit drunken dumbshit off the street and have him trained (sort of like a monkey) as an admin inside of a few weeks. The resulting drop in reliability from moving to Microsoft products wasn't substantial enough, and didn't kill off enough mission ultra-critical servers to justify moving back to the more expensive *nix solutions.
The fact that you could toss NT onto a hand-built off-the-shelf machine also made a big difference. Instead of moving back to the more expensive, but far more reliable *nix solutions, they simply segmented server functions such that isolated Windows failures didn't cause major problems. With promises of (relatively) cheap upgrades, much better reliability, and far more features on the horizon, Microsoft kept many companies with them by dragging the proverbial carrot along. The simple fact is that Microsoft did a much better job marketing the OS that the *nix vendors did.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Dude, check the date on that. FreeBSD 2.x vs. Solaris 7 vs. (some linux that might well have been kernel 2.0 and libc5)? I know '99 isn't that long ago in our time sense, but that's two, three, or more whole OS revisions since that article was published.
I've admin'd *BSD (free and open), Solaris, and Linux in corporate environments (as well as a bewildering array of freenixen at home). All the systems have advantages, all of them have disadvantages. Personally, I run debian by choice when I can get away with it because *BSD, Solaris, and most Linuxen just piss me off in various ways, but I still use BSD where it makes sense. Running around trumpeting this or that OS as being the end all and be all of existence for everyone just shows that you're a greenhorn.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
I don't think it's because linux users don't understand BSD, I think it's because the loudest voices for BSD, like this guy, come off as arrogant elitists which is a terrible way to recruit.
I'll say the same thing to you, that I say to my Mac friends when they say, "It Just Works!". My response: "Yeah. UNTIL IT DOESN'T!!" Can you fix it then? With Mac, probably not (been there). With *BSD, probably yes (Haven't been there yet). But still, that's a really goddamned annoying thing to say. It really marks you as a newbie. *NOTHING* "Just Works" all the time, no matter how the developers try to make it so. Please don't say that to people who know better.
The sky is clearing.
FreeBSD Java(TM) Project
BSD is. Linux is. If you look at the fundamentalities, they are different. If you look at the practicalities, BSD users use GNU tools and Linux users use BSD tools. That they are seperate is good because we have choice. It's like competition in the workplace, because we're all on the same team. I run BSD's and Linux's including Gentoo which is right in the middle.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
I am speaking from the point of view of a Linux user.
The crux of what the gentleman has written about BSD and Linux's main difference seems to be stability vs. adaptability. There is one small point that is crucial to Linux's adoption over that of BSD. It's a point that I think the author knows, but did not focus on when he wrote his articles. If you have hardware, odds are Linux will get on it FIRST before BSD by a factor of months to years. And why is this.. because demand is met by Linux first. BSD values correctness or cleanliness over getting it to simply work. I admire that, but that's about it.
This is how technology works.. just like anything else. First come, first serve. The saturation point is reached sooner to whomever is first. If I'm hungry, I want something to eat. I don't care if it's a 5 course meal shipped from Paris, or a madcow burger from McDonald's. I'm fucking hungry- NOW! Anyhow, that's one lame example. Now to continue..
Linux is not as stable as BSD. Everyone knows this. Netcraft has documented it for web servers. Experience shows us this for ssh, ftp, and the like. But that doesn't matter- if this package isn't available, or this feature isn't available, or this hardware isn't available. If you cannot adapt rapidly to a changing environment, then you are left behind.
It is said that "intelligence", by definition, is the ability to adapt. Evolution is messy. The fact that most people have an appendix sitting there waiting to get infected and burst is tribute to how adaptation isn't clean and neat and orderly. Nature IS this. Scientific progress is no different.
I would like it to be different, but we aren't that smart. We have no foresight as human beings. We are bumbling idiots pretending to be aware. Achievement for us is gained by learning from failure- not by innately knowing what is right or wrong. This is how we got to where we are now.
I have great respect for BSD and it's users. Although, they seem to be upset by the lack of attention paid to them for some reason. That's a subjective observation on my part. Either way, I don't care if their feelings are hurt. This is reality. Linux works and does what I need it to. When BSD does the same, then I'm all over it. Until then, keep on doing your thing. BSD serves a great niche. I hope they survive. And I wish them the best. We will see if "adaptability" or "correctness" survives in time. Until then, I want to say I admire both camps.
Take care.
Thor
I miss the days when UIDs here weren't displayed like some sort of 'status symbol' after one's name.
Yes, been around here much earlier than when that change happened. I think it happened because of the old 'Bruce Perens fake' trolls that were happening for a time.
"Mae Ling Mak, naked and petrified, by the way..."
---
Yes, I know about the AT&T agreement. But my point is to a desktop user the differences are invisable. You would really have to look under the hood a bit to tell what you are running. So I don't think that the real issue lies here. On the server side of things, there is no doubt that BSD has been doing it longer and for a good while was doing it better than Linux. But the Open Source explosion we are seeing is centered around Linux and the GPL'ed applications, not BSD. I believe (as does Linus) that Open Development in the less structured (bazaar) method of Linux is superior to the structured (cathedral) methods of BSD. As a result Linux has done the real grabbing of market share in the enterprise. This is not because BSD is bad. BSD is very good and Linux owes a huge debt. But Linux is better. SCO's original claims centered on the idea that it could not have come so far so fast without stealing. What they failed to understand was the incredible power of its development model. I for one am glad that BSD exists and have used it for many purposes. Without the flexability of its license Apple would probably never have ventured into the Open Source waters. But I am much more grateful for Linux. For my servers, I will use Linux, because it now surpasses any of the BSD's for enterprise systems. I don't think we will see Microsoft sweating over TCO comparisons with BSD for a while.
After reading that I feel almost ashamed. But really the author and all those that think like that should feel shame. I like FreeBSD for it's licence and it's legacy. Maybe FreeBSD now is as the author discribes but there never would have been a FreeBSD without the origional BSD hackers fixing things and sharing patches. Not all the patches and programs origionated at Berkley. What the school did was organize a distribution amist all the chaos. In reality it was the first hacker rebirth of an OS. They took a flakey prototype and make something useful of it.
The only real part the author got right was the anology in comparing BSD/Linux to PC/Unix users. Mainframe verses PC; Client/Server verses decentralized P2P. But there is no reason it has to be that way. And in fact it can't because FreeBSD is just a fragmented in it's pieces as linux, many like him just won't admit it.
I like BSD for it's licence. I dislike Linux for it's licence. There is some truth to FreeBSD being a stronger distribution (which is another reason I like it) but it's still a distribution all the same as any Linux distribution. His statements to the contrary just don't stand up. Both sides pick and patch from what's useful.
FreeBSD is a distribution built around a core set of tools with relatively tight quality control. It is more focused that many Linux Distros. FreeBSD is also controled democraticly among the elite where Linux people have no problems forking code and competing against one another, with users and distributors judging the winners and hence is more democract.
The FreeBSD ruling class may have a bug up their ass about somethings but I'm still free to fork code. But it turns out it's not worth it. If you have good reasoning on your side and enough patience people learn, or else they die while you persist. In gerneral BSD is more about patience, who has it, and who doesn't.