Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD: Not Exactly Dead
quantumice writes "It would seem that despite being dead and there only being six of us who use it, FreeBSD has clocked up nearly 2.5 million active sites according to Netcraft. So by my estimates that must mean that I and each of my 5 friends run 416 667 sites. That might explain my high bandwidth usage."
Start your trolling
This story is posted because BSD doesn't generate a lot of exciting news. Well, that's not true: there's lots of exciting news for people who care about BSD. But none of the editors care much about BSD. They like Linux and MacOS X, and talking trash about MS and SCO. This means that they have trouble identifying the stories that actual, honest-to-God BSD users find interesting. But they still feel they ought to give us something, since after all BSD has an entire section on Slashdot. And I guess they are trying to encourage Open Source Brotherhood, not realizing that most BSD users would prefer not to be associated with most Linux users.
pair have been using it all along. They've got well over 100,000 domains running. They're but one company.
Oh yeah - Apple's another...
does this mean that domain hijackers/squatters use openbsd? They sure could use the security anyways..
what a pointless story!
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
is to be able to moderate an entire story as a troll.
all you are, is all you are, i'm so sorry for you.
Interestingly enough, stories that would seem to be obvious troll fodder don't seem to attract all that much troll interest.
Go figure.
1 machine that runs Mac OSX (a Powerbook)
1 machine that runs Windows 2000 (games machine)
1 machine that runs FreeBSD (workhorse server)
1 machine that runs BeOS 5 (old machine, not seriously used)
I consider all of the above to be "best of breed" operating systems. Linux absolutely blows because of the fragmented userbase. I have a hard time caring about it because of the thousand different distributions all doing things differently.
FreeBSD beats the crap out of Linux for:
* Ease of use - extremely well documented, everything is logically organised
* Reliability - they.. shock.. *test* before they release! (unlike Fedora's GRUB which nuked my drive when I tried it)
* Compatibility - the ports tree is fantastic, plus it runs Linux executables
In short: FreeBSD is great. If you've ever become frustrated with Linux, give it a try. I guarantee you'll love it!
Have you submitted interesting BSD stories and had them rejected?
- Rule of BSD Club: Don't talk about BSD
- Rule of BSD Club: Don't talk about BSD
- if this is your first night with BSD, you have to code
The rules of Linux Club:Bah... The reason BSD Club has those rules is because the members are dying, so they are unable to talk anymore and the new recruits are the only ones that aren't suffering from horrible diseases that prevent them from coding. The new recruits have to pick up the slack.
Since when has the BSD crowd enjoyed posting flamebait? Hehe. Aren't you breaking your rules?
Oh, and Linux is SO COOL! SCO SUCKS. Microsft.. *checks his notes* sucks! Is that still the stance, or are we hating someone else now?
All in jest though. I want to have some BSD installs, but I am quite lacking in hardware. Perhaps one of the dying folks would leave me a spare box in their will?
That's scary.
FreeBSD and BSD/OS are beating any OS. Just visit Sites with longest running systems by average uptime.
It's a complete OS.
It's not a clone.
Everything runs faster.
It doesn't mess up with your MBR.
It does not come with a particular browser pre-installed.
It's always fun to run FreeBSD.
And I guess they are trying to encourage Open Source Brotherhood, not realizing that most BSD users would prefer not to be associated with most Linux users.
Really? that's why every linux convention thing I've been too, has had a BSD booth. Or almost all conversations with BSD users seem to involve Linux in some way. Please. A win for BSD is a win for Linux and vice versa. Soon as linux takes over the desktop BSD will win converts.
I believe the grandparent was trying to be funny, playing with the knowledge that there is indeed a "hip" factor in GNU/Linux zealotry and large corporation bashing
You could just get a cheap harddrive with at least 5GB on it, install *BSD and dual boot.
Suggestion: Freesbie , you don't even have to install to try it out
Moderators: Don't agree? pray tell why.
Quoting the article; The reason for this is FreeBSD's deployment with the operators of shared hosting systems, where tens and even hundreds of thousands of sites are collectively administered as part of a single system.
Yahoo alone hosts something like a quarter million sites.
Perhaps this also explains the low media-profile to some degree ? 10000 companies running 25 sites each are likely to collectively generate a lot more buzz than a single site running a quarter million sites.
I call karma whore
I can't find the original source though... pity...
groklaw, wired and slashdot. The holy trinity of work based time wasting.
Yeah, I know the grandparents intentions. Just had the urge to poke fun at him. Also, I wouldn't call SCO a large corporation. Hehe
I have Freesbie already and have played around with it a bit. I want an install, but I also want a BeOS install. I have a spare 133, and my other computer that I have full access to has all IDEs used along with stuffed 10 gig hard drives.
I'm thinking about just getting a 200 gig Seagate, and partitioning it up rather gratuituously with Gentoo and 3 flavors of BSD. I also need a router, which the 133 might turn into, but it would be fun to possibly play with BeOS on it... I need to find another old box and just have 2 of them.
Sorry for rambling. About to head to bed. Have been working on changing the way I use my computer again for the millionth time. Started using Mutt and ratpoison today from Fluxbox and Thunderbird.
That's scary.
Not all OSes can have those uptimes. BTW, what you're saying about the uptime thing I guess it was resolved in the Linux kernel 2.6.x series.
I love the way I can build the whole system from source, but I am wanting to try out Linux kernel. Is there a similar Linux system for free? Thanx.
This is funny because it is an adaptation of an hilarious Monty Python sketch in which the John Cleese character is trying to return a dead parrot to the pet shop. If you've ever seen it before then you probably sprayed Coke through your nose when reading this.
Now back on-topic, this story is a re-run, it comes up again every few months and is exactly the same. What we all need are bots to repost our old comments whenever "Netcraft" and "BSD" appear in the same story summary.
And, BSD rules. (ruleZ! -- ? or that too linuxey?)
From user 5 of 6.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
This is all rather dependant on the accuracy of Netcraft. Although most of the FreeBSD systems I maintain are identified correctly by Netcraft, there are several that always come back as unknown. Netcraft OS detections seems to be reasonable, but not perfect. Their webserver detection is as accurate as it can be, but uptime checks seem to be even less perfect.
Nothing but the finest in meaningless drivel
Personally, for a server I love a boring OS. Thats why I use FreeBSD on all my servers at home (Solaris at work, bleh!) For the desktop where I want eye-candy OS X all the way. Once I get in the terminal it is so much like FreeBSD I can really get things done.
I just got an ipod and it is the sweetest gadget I have ever owned and the way and the integration with my ibook is amazing. If you haven't tried it and you like music do what ever it takes to get an apple laptop and and an ipod. I was waiting for the color screen but I decided to get started with a 15gig and give it to my wife when I get a color one. I am having a lot of fun with it and if I had known I would have bought one sooner. I can't wait to get my hands on one of those airport express dealies.
one of your friends ;-) ..
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
A BSD troll is like a retarded kid with a xylophone.
Your name contains coward, something I am too! *whimpers*
That's scary.
From their FAQ:
;)
Additionally HP-UX, Linux, NetApp NetCache, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle back to zero after 497 days, exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at that precise point. Thus it is not possible to see a HP-UX, Linux or Solaris system with an uptime measurement above 497 days.
The *BSDs is very neat, and will probably be my OS of choice on my next computer (selling my mac and either getting a laptop or desktop PC), but lets not get carried away
-Tezkah, user 7 of 7!?
I thought it was funny.
It's a joke. Lighten up. Sheesh...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
You see BSD booths at Linux cons because there aren't a whole lot of BSD cons. Linux is the media's baby right now, so it's what gets all the press and all the buzz. The BSD people are merely trying to get peoples attention to the fact that they are doing kool things too.
As for the original statement, yes it is true that most BSD users (pick any of the BSDs) prefer not to be associated with Linux and avoid Linux users. Don't take my word for it, read the archives for any of the BSD mailing lists.
The reason Linux gets the buzz is because Linux users and developers are extremely loud and abrasive. Meanwhile, BSD developers keep their heads down and plod along, not caring to "evangelize" and not making outrageous comments to the press and analysts.
Your last comment about "a win for..." is exactly the difference between Linux and BSD. Linux is trying to "win" something (so far as I can tell, it's putting Microsoft out of business and pissing on the ashes). BSD developers are just trying to develop stable and secure operating systems (full OSs mind you, not just kernels) that can be used in production environments. BSD is not trying to "win" anything.
Someone is WRONG on the Internet!
When you've done a proper study:
- investigate the use cases and # of use of different OS's in various market segments;
- investigate trends/decline/fall over the past couple of years, etc;
Otherwise, this is all just wanking around based upon individual data points that are interesting in themselves, but are absolutely useless in conveying a broader picture.
Is that you don't have to deal with all that GPL bullshit.
BSD = Capitalism friendly
oh, and bsd isn't trying to be a mainstream desktop os. that's the reason i'm switching (my desktop, ironically) to freebsd tommorrow after exams let out :)
Nono.. There must be 7 because I use it too and I don't know any of you other 6 guys (or gals if there are any, but then this is slashdot and if even the Linux users can't get any, how on earth are dead FreeBSD users supposed to get any).
home
I have seen the sketch, and I agree, it's funny as hell.
This however, did not make me laugh.
As for bots posting to *BSD stories !? Grow up goddamnit.
http://lainos.sourceforge.net/index.php
A new OS inspired by Serial Experiments Lain built ontop of BSD...Interesting
Creative Demolition
tell me, what's the matter, have you been abused by bsd unix fan when you where young ? you failed your studies at Berkeley ? you've never been able to fully install a bsd system and you feel frustrated ? everything ? I don't wan't to upset you eh, but.. how to say that... more and more companies are switching to bsd... that's also a fact, and your recurrent pathetic posts won't change anything about it. I've been working on 3 differents rather large ISPs, thay all switched from Solaris to FreeBSD. C'mon, go buy a bsd book, you'll need it when your CEO will ask you to try out this fabulous FreeBSD 5.3 everyone is talking about on meetings. Smile :)
Yes, this is TOTALLY off topic.. but the one thing that keeps a linux machine around my house is vmware GSX server ( current ) and Crossover Linux ( no, stock wine wont do the trick )
If there was a way to run them under the linux ABI for FBSD, that would be one less linux machine for the stats..
Any one with pointers?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Its what is supported at the office, and what we have licenses for. + we use ESX server alongside GSX.
Soooo. not much choice in my case, regardless of the other options.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
As for the original statement, yes it is true that most BSD users (pick any of the BSDs) prefer not to be associated with Linux and avoid Linux users. Don't take my word for it, read the archives for any of the BSD mailing lists.
Right. This certainly represents their users. If you get them out of the enviroment where BSD is god, then they become much more humbled and realistic about BSD and Linux and Windows and everything.
Your last comment about "a win for..." is exactly the difference between Linux and BSD. Linux is trying to "win" something (so far as I can tell, it's putting Microsoft out of business and pissing on the ashes).
What/ linux isn't trying to win anything. Redhat is. Suse is. Mandrake is. Linux is pretty much doing what you claim BSD developers are doing.
If you haven't tried it and you like music do what ever it takes to get an apple laptop and and an ipod.
Or get something cheaper, that works seemlessly with any OS that has a java virtual machine, and plays more music formats. Like the Rio Karma. Well, unless you don't want to go against the trends and all. It's so unhip looking.
from march 24, 04 ... http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=101573&cid =8656078
it's not that old, and it's an AC post... i'd bet that's taken from somewhere else, though google turned up nothing.
VDR has not been portet yet, therefore a number of zero pvrs run on bsd yet, therefore it must be dead or at least smelling
...because it's obscure as f*ck. (Almost as far out there in left field as BeOS, except it *is* a unix). I once bought an old Sparcstation5 that had NetBSD loaded on it and it was about the same as FreeBSD or OpenBSD, just subtle differences. I reformatted the disk after playing around with NetBSD until I was completely bored with it and tried other operating systems: OpenBSD/Sparc, Linux/Sparc and both Solaris 7 and Solaris 8 on the little box (110MHz) and after compiling gcc with gcc itself under each o/s, quickly came to the conclusion that Sun's older Solaris 7 was the snappiest performer on this low-power machine.
If you're gonna run an x86 based piece of hardware, just do yourself a favor and stick with FreeBSD. Not only is it legendary stable, it's also the most refined and snappiest performing *BSD of then all on x86 platform. I just now replaced an old dual PentiumPro 200MHz FreeBSD Compaq Proliant that ran for nearly two years without a reboot, serving a 2GB website with Apache 1.3.x over the internet. Never got hacked either. Funny thing it, it was replaced with a dual 1.4GHz Xeon Proliant running Win2003 with IIS6 (not my choice) and the new box cannot keep up with the workload the old one easily handled. LoL!
Guess what? I use FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, and OSX. Not on the same machine, of course. Each useful for something, and really, that's what software is for. Engineers choose the best tool for the job. Only idiots choose a tool based on how cool they think it is, and I find frequently that those who brag most about what OS they use do so not because they have a good reason for using it, but in fact because they don't. Bragging results from their idological reasons for using their chosen software; had they real reasons, they would understand that others have real reasons for using other software.
Point: I use Mac OSX on my laptop. Why? Because it has desktop software I want to use and it functions smoothly and reliably. When time means something, graphical one-click installers are kinda nice, and because the hardware--Powerbooks are sweet--isn't as well supported in other OSes. I use Linux on my desktop. Why? Because I like the software available, I know my way around it, and I find myself more productive in it. I also code for Linux, so it's important I have a machine that runs what I write. I run FreeBSD on my server. Why? Because it runs faster and more reliably on the old hardware I have, and generally requires fewer software patches than Linux. I used to run OpenBSD on that machine, in fact, but found the performance hit wasn't worth it. However, I chose OpenBSD for embedded access-point use, because of the few patches needed--upgrading software on a 25MB diskonmodule is a bitch--and the excellent VPN impelementation.
So you can see, there are reasons for using each OS in it's own environment. Tell me differently.
Reproducing bugs? If it hits FreeBSD-CURRENT, other people can checkout and build whole system, exactly like it was by the date I provide. Try to do the same thing with your Linux OS ;)
Building packages? Yes, that can take a lof of time, except using pkgsrc/Ports I can build any versions I want, and they stay consistent with the rest of the packaging system. Packaging system does everything for me, downloads, checks checksums, applies patches, builds. Even inexperienced user can try this, just by changing version number in Makefile (which is a plain text file, in most cases easy to read and understand). Unless you're using Gentoo, I don't think you can do that that easily with your Linux OS - either you have to do some more complicated tasks, or you end up installing packages by hand - not to mention, that's more time-consuming, than building from Ports/pkgsrc, you end up with having files not maintained by the packaging system.
Have fun! :)
NetBSD team is obsessed with portability, and that's a very good thing. Each part of the OS tends to be most portable and clean. Basically, NetBSD package collection, which I personally use on FreeBSD and Linux is much cleaner, than FreeBSD Ports or Gentoo Portage (and it is portable, you should see that already). NetBSD is missing, for example, tcsh in the base install, which sometimes will make people say it's obscure, but well. Even if you don't use NetBSD and you do use FreeBSD or OpenBSD, chances are that you're still using large parts of work done by NetBSD team (you do use rc.d scripts in your FreeBSD 5.x, do you? what about USB devices? :). Having a closer look at NetBSD is definetley a good lesson, even if that's not going to be your "number one" OS.
i'm one of those kids in high school who's a developer and wants a developer's os, not a mainstream, easy-to-use, fragmented, bloated os. besides, the microkernel is more stable.
dangit... oh well. thanks for the pointers.
i just hope linux stays away from what mandrake has become (slow).
The main thing about BSD is that it doesn't seem to be very much fun (in a way that is what the article says too).
Partly, that's a reflection of simple numbers - there are more of us Linux hackers out there. partly it's accessibility (read the posts here where people boast of how difficult it is to install the thing). Partly it's a different culture - I can get away with writing some not very good Linux drivers for odd boxes because other people will improve them - people welcome the work because it's a start and don't carp that it's poor engineering.
I use *BSD a bit and I am not interested in any sort of religious warfare, but BSD is just too *serious* for a weekend hacker like me.
Actually, we all host our sites on your box. So does CI Host. Thanks!
- - - Non Caffeine Drink or Drink Error
FreeBSD can install its own MBR. It just doesn't, by default.
Linux can install its own MBR. Most distros do, by default.
As far as the browser bit, so what? I can set up a Slackware Linux system with no browser, and it's still completely functional, in that it doesn't crash, and everything that is installed runs correctly.
FreeBSD is a pretty good OS as far as unix variants goes. It's reliability is well known, the linux compatibility is nice and if you don't touch it at all after you install the OS, everything works pretty well. The problem is that Linux gets all the press, Windows owns the market and OS X has FreeBSD underneath and a GUI that kicks it's butt to hell and back (and any X based interface for that matter).
I've always been a BSD fan when it comes to my Unix flavors and I just started working for a company that bases it's products off FreeBSD. So I have a FreeBSD workstation set up in my cube, like pretty much everyone else. I decided to install Mozilla on my pretty much stock as a rock 4.9 system. Dependencies made me upgrade a few things and next thing I know, Nautilus crashes on launch. I fuss with it, start reinstalling new versions of every library known to man that's remotely related and after a week, I gave up and installed 4.10. Had it working great until I added KDE into the mix, now, once again, Nautilus crashes on launch, but for another reason. Some lib got upgraded and broke all the linkage.
My current plan is to install distros only, no packages and then just do ports manually using make install. It was still compiling crap when I left work today, but I've written off experimenting with KDE and I'm just going to stick with Gnome as I prefer it anyways.
As long as you don't try to upgrade anything, FreeBSD is rock solid, powerful and pretty straightforward for a unix system. But you'll be damned to hell if you want to install Apache 2.0 or upgrade something. You don't see this issues with Windows or OS X. And while I've run into rpm hell on Linux (I do source only now), I don't recall having such problems on a Linux box. Then again, I'd never use Linux as a workstation unless I HAD to...
Kind of sad that FreeBSD is slowly dying, I think it's better than Linux. But it's probably too late to shift the winds of change, so we'll be stuck wtih the oddities of Linux forevermore, at least for that Unix like alternative to windows on Intel platforms.