FreeBSD: Not Exactly Dead

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Tuesday June 8, 2004 @07:50PM from the the-kind-of-death-we-long-for dept.

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."

14 of 184 comments (clear)

Gentlemen by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-08 19:50 · Score: 4, Funny

Start your trolling
Re:The purpose of this story? by ctr2sprt · 2004-06-08 20:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 Networks by rixstep · 2004-06-08 20:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

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...
I have.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-08 21:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

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!
1. Re:I have.. by n0dez · 2004-06-08 22:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Which packages did you try to install?
  
  Why should I be using a Unix-clone (aka Linux distribution) when there's FreeBSD?
  
  Wrong! Not all apps are being developed for a Linux distro. In fact, Firefox is being developed in Windows and later is ported to other OSes. Apache is being developed in FreeBSD. Most Linux distributions (if not all) are using many stuff from FreeBSD and saying it's a Linux app and not saying where it comes from. Nasty, uh? GNU doesn't have everything so they have to take some userland tools from other OSes (*BSD mostly).
  
  One problem with one Linux distribution? Wrong, gnorw, wrong! The latest version of the Linux kernel has a very annoying bug... it doesn't detect correctly your hd's geometry and messes it up so you can't boot up Windows. So using ANY Linux distro with that kernel will give you problems. Maybe RMS introduced it as he wants everything to be GPL... a monopoly in the open source world! So, like Nas says in his "You can" song, read more learn!
  
  Well, there are FreeBSD developers working on FreeBSD and getting paid for that. John Hubbard, Poul-Henning Kamp, etc.
  
  Linux: more unstable drivers, some stable drivers taken from FreeBSD, fragmented distributions, what it works on Linux distro A might not work on Linux distro B (even using the same package management like RPM!), full of politics, etc.
  
  Virtually none of the FOSS apps are primarily targed on *BSD? Uhmm... once again, read more learn. It seems you don't give a damn about *BSD. It's OK, but please don't talk about something you don't know you. Thanks to BSD Unix and its friendly licence the TCP/IP (and the Internet) was born. Many commands you use on your lovely Linux distro have been taken from FreeBSD, vi was born BSD Unix, Apache was born on FreeBSD, XFree86 was born on FreeBSD, etc. Go get a O'Reilly book about Linux and you'll read... what's a Linux distribution? Linux distribution = Linux kernel + GNU tools + BSD tools.
  Repeat with me... read more learn, you don't have to be gangstas, ...
2. Re:I have.. by Nighttime · 2004-06-09 00:39 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  One problem with one Linux distribution? Wrong, gnorw, wrong! The latest version of the Linux kernel has a very annoying bug... it doesn't detect correctly your hd's geometry and messes it up so you can't boot up Windows. So using ANY Linux distro with that kernel will give you problems. Maybe RMS introduced it as he wants everything to be GPL... a monopoly in the open source world! So, like Nas says in his "You can" song, read more learn!
  
  Actually, it's the Windows installer that writes the incorrect partition table. When the Linux installer comes along it writes out a correct partition table that then prevents Windows from booting. But don't let the facts get in the way of a rant. :)
  
  --
  I've got a fever and the only prescription is more COBOL.
3. Re:I have.. by kjd · 2004-06-09 07:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "Ease of use" (also "user-friendliness") should not be confused with "short learning curve" or "newbie-friendliness". FreeBSD is extremely easy for me to use, as an experienced user, and that is currently FreeBSD's largest target audience. Moreso for OpenBSD, which gets many "too hard to install" and similar complaints. It is easy to install when you know what you're doing. Making it more intuitive to newcomers to Unix-like OSes is not a priority for them, because it is written for and by hackers/professionals, and a very large userbase would overwhelm the small development team anyhow.
  
  Your other two points do seem to be true. Linux in my experience has in general been reliable for a long time, and a wider variety of hardware (especially niche hardware like particular laptop support, etc). It should be noted that although FreeBSD's security team only publically commits to a year's worth of updates, older versions than this are normally updated when they are affected. It is also relatively simple to upgrade FreeBSD. This definitely does not compare with the commitment of support for other commercial Unix OSes (Solaris, AIX, etc) however.
Uptimes by n0dez · 2004-06-08 21:42 · Score: 4, Informative

FreeBSD and BSD/OS are beating any OS. Just visit Sites with longest running systems by average uptime.
1. Re:Uptimes by kayumi · 2004-06-09 03:16 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  That's nothing compared to the downtimes. I have a 200Mhz notebook running FreeBSD 3.5 which I haven't switched on once these last two years. (Most likely because I dropped it and the screen stopped working).
FreeBSD in a nutshell by n0dez · 2004-06-08 22:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:FreeBSD in a nutshell by DashEvil · 2004-06-09 04:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Linux 2.6 does not obliterate FreeBSD.
  
  The last benchmarks I saw (Linux 2.6 vrs. FreeBSD 5.x) proved them to be simular performance wise.
  
  Stop mischaracterizing the parent posters argument. Their argument was that Linux isn't a complete OS, not that Mandrake or Slackware isn't.
  
  Personally, I'm pro FreeBSD, for reasons that are my own. You can cry and whine about it all you want, but if you are to critize my OS choice at least use facts.
  
  --
  -If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
Re:The purpose of this story? by gangien · 2004-06-08 22:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
very funny. by Eivind · 2004-06-08 22:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

But, as a matter of fact, if you read the netcraft report you yourself are linking to, then you see that indeed, FreeBSD is significant in webservers largely because a few large hosting-providers use it.
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.
Re:You know what's *really* dead? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-09 05:31 · Score: 5, Funny

A BSD troll is like a retarded kid with a xylophone.