Slashdot Mirror
Why FreeBSD
An anonymous reader writes "The FreeBSD operating system is the unknown giant among free operating systems. Starting out from the 386BSD project, it is an extremely fast UNIX-like operating system mostly for the Intel chip and its clones. In many ways, FreeBSD has always been the operating system that GNU/Linux-based operating systems should have been. It runs on out-of-date Intel machines and 64-bit AMD chips, and it serves terabytes of files a day on some of the largest file servers on earth."
Linux and BSD based operating systems provide many of the same services, and pretty much work the same way. I think that you can't go wrong with either of them. I see no need to pit them against each other, as they both provide freedom and excellence to the user.
IIRC, there was just enough controversy over the sealed agreement in the Berkely vs. AT&T kerfuffle that developers were a teensy bit nervous about working on BSD. By the time that was all properly dealt with, Linux was already gaining speed, and had the additional advantage of riding the back of a wave of MS hatred.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
But all the new and fun stuff comes out for Linux. If you're looking for something close to the style of FreeBSD, but with the new and freshness of Linux, try Gentoo.
It's only true flame bait when you don't quote the whole thing.
In many ways, FreeBSD has always been the operating system that GNU/Linux®-based operating systems should have been
The key phrase is "In many ways". It's not a definite and there are many who would agree with that statement.
No, FreeBSD runs THIS.
I think those days are over...
The PC-BSD project makes it a snap to install a functioning FreeBSD system. DistroWatch mentions a very nice step-by-step guide to installation process but really, you don't even need that if you are already handy at installing various GNU/Linux distros. (Although the guide does go into some custom configuration things that are useful/interesting.)
The torrent for PC-BSD is ready to roll, give it a try. Now there are no more excuses ;-)
The reason you'll see just as many BSD fanatics as Linux nuts is for just the same reason: the license.
*BSD is a stable, secure OS with a proprietary-friendly, open source license. Linux is a stable, secure OS with a proprietary-hostile, open source license.
90% of the actual software that runs on the two is exactly the same. However, each has its own kernel and basic libraries.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Mach, not FreeBSD, is the "guts" of Mac OS X. The code borrowed from FreeBSD is mostly userspace code.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I have been fairly cautious about 5.x. We maintain a customized install image for our servers, and I've waited until march this year to switch to 5.x. I would say that everything from 5.2 and higher is stable for all normal purposes. I have a 64bit Sparc running on 5.2-RC2 and its uptime is 347 days. It handles 3-4 Mbit/s of web traffic with no problem and I never had to look at it after the initial install. All our other machines are running 5.x as well. But under extreme load, 5.x still has some lingering locking problems. We have a small number of loaded managed servers for a porn hoster which are stuck on 4.x because of strange lockups when huge amounts of processes are created. So far we haven't had any luck in getting rid of this problem. We are not seeing it on any other machines fortunately.
( ^_^)/
"Sorry, but when you said "use" there I guess you really meant "close". Which is really more like "prevent others from using". Which is exactly what I was saying to begin with."
This is the major deceptive argument made by some GPL fans. Software licensed under BSD remains free forever and ever. The fact that people are allowed to modify it without distributing the modifications in no way makes the orginal code "closed".
We can debate the merits of GPL vs. BSD, but let's keep it honest.
that would be portupgrade, my friend..
The GPL, however, does take away freedom from anyone: If I modify GPL software, I am no longer allowed to own it and do with it what I see fit.
Because you ummm... NEVER OWNED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? You don't own the GPL software. Just because the combined work contains some of your work too, doesn't mean you get to own the whole kaboodle. You can do whatever you want with your diffs. Just don't pretend that you have any right whatsoever to distribute your work with my work except on the terms I allow.
A stupid license shouldn't remove their ownership and control over what they create.
Funny, the BSD license is the best way to lose control over what you create. Someone like Microsoft can take all your "hard work", modify it slightly and sell it back to you. A big part of what OS X is worth is what BSD is worth. But the BSD developers all have to pay full price to use their own work. Granted, not the best of examples since Apple has contributed a lot, but you get the general idea.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"The OpenBSD project does not make the ISO images used to master the official CDs available for download. The reason is simply that we would like you to buy the CD sets, helping fund ongoing OpenBSD development. The official OpenBSD CD-ROM layout is copyright Theo de Raadt. Theo does not permit people to redistribute images of the official OpenBSD CDs. As an incentive for people to buy the CD set, some extras are included in the package as well (artwork, stickers etc).
Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes someone else from downloading OpenBSD and making their own CD. If for some reason you want to download a CD image, try searching the mailing list archives for possible sources. Of course, any OpenBSD ISO images available on the Internet either violate Theo de Raadt's copyright or are not official images. The source of an unofficial image may or may not be trustworthy; it is up to you to determine this for yourself.
We suggest that people who want to download OpenBSD for free use the FTP install option. For those that need a bootable CD for their system, bootdisk ISO images (named cd36.iso) are available for a number of platforms which will then permit the rest of the system to be installed via FTP. These ISO images are only a few megabytes in size, and contain just the installation tools, not the actual file sets."
So they do not provide isos for free, they prefer to have you buy a set of boxed cds to fund their effots. Yeah, I can see it... Bad, evil people trying to make some sort of money for a project.
They then say you can download from unofficial sources as you will. Gosh. They must be mad as well as evil...
They even propose to build a full system from an ftp using just a floppy or a cdrom . My head start spinning. This people REFUSE to give you an iso, but helps you 3 ways to get their sofware.(3.4 - Downloading via FTP, HTTP or AFS...)
So, I agree, BSD is made by Bad, Evil, Mind Spinning people that actually help you get their software. In multiple forms... but they won't provide you poor soul with an ISO, you'll have to use your bleeding fingers into 20 seconds of googling to get it...
Madmen, all...
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
And if you want a portable BSD, don't overlook NetBSD, arguably the most portable and ported modern high-performance operating system in existence.
you had me at #!
"The question I have is that if FreeBSD is so much better, and the GPL is so onerous to business, why do so many companies use embedded Linux?"
Clearly the GPL's not that big a problem for businesses...otherwise they wouldn't use it. They might not like to, but in the end it's worth it...and really the LGPL is no more restrictive to their business model than the BSD license.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
If they came with a full set of graphical administration tools then it wouldn't be necessary to go to a command line at all.
Systems like SuSE do come with a full set of graphical adminstration tools; it isn't necessary to go to the command line to administer them, ever.
And something like Webmin runs on any UNIX system and gives you a far more comprehensive and consistent administration interface to a larger set of subsystems than Windows tools.
Of course, many end-users find command line administration actually easier.
With the comments about poor usability and friendliness as compared against windows and linux sure to abound, I have to put in my $0.02.
.
FreeBSD has taken some huge steps toward a more user/newbie friendly experience in recent times. I'm posting this from my significant others' PC, which is running PC-BSD, based on 5.4 RELEASE.
The funny thing is, she prefered PC-BSD over any of the linux flavors I've had her try (including Mandriva/Mandrake, Debian, Mepis, Knoppix, etc.) and even over windows.
She tells me she likes PC-BSD because it "feels" more stable and predictable to her, and after doing a windows install last nite (for games and the occasional MSOffice/OO.org compatibility/formatting hiccups), I gotta say the PC-BSD install (the installer is a nice graphical installer, with nearly everything being fine if one just accepts the defaults) is much faster with far less pickiness, and of course, only one reboot..at the end, into the new fully-installed and functioning system.
Windows failed to detect or set up the very vanilla Linksys NIC, and required significant (for a newbie) setup after the install to get a working internet connection. PC-BSD "just worked" in regards to the NIC, and most everything else, including sound.
PC-BSD also has a package system for software management, using ".pbi" pre-built packages as well as the FreeBSD "ports" system. The ".pbi" packages available are somewhat limited still, but does include some standouts, such as the java installer, which automates the java installation, which has been an issue for me with the various FreeBSD desktops I've tried.
OO.org 2.0 beta is also included, running in KDE 3.4.0. Guess I've rambled enough, just wanted to get the word out on PC-BSD for the FreeBSD-squeamish. You can check it out for yourself at http://www.pcbsd.org/
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
A lot of the FreeBSD plusses you listed also apply to Gentoo Linux.
:)
Both are decent operating systems.
If you are not poking around at the kernel level, the next difference is the init system. OpenBSD uses a pure BSD init system, which is nice and simple. FreeBSD and NetBSD use rcNG, which allows individual init scripts to specify services they provide and services they depend on, allowing a more parallel init process. GNU systems usually use the abomination known as System 5 init. Just to confuse matters, OS X now uses Launchd and Solaris uses SMF, both of which are more flexible at the expense of being more complicated.
Finally, you get the ports system. These are basically BSD Makefiles that define how to apply BSD-specific patches to code and install it. They are integrated with a package system which installs compiled versions. On NetBSD and OpenBSD, installing from binary is standard (on OpenBSD, building the port first builds the package and then installs it, not sure about NetBSD), while on FreeBSD building the package installs the port, builds the package and then uninstalls the port. All of these systems do automatic dependency resolution and fetching.
I generally find BSD systems to be cleaner and less full of cruft than GNU systems, and to have a better security model (check out the reasons why GNU su doesn't restrict use to members of the wheel group some time). Generally, it's a matter of personal taste. If you can't tell the difference then just stick with whatever you are most familiar with.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Testing. The FreeBSD CVS has three branches. -CURRENT is what the kernel developers use. -STABLE is the stuff that they are happy to say works without problems. -RELEASE is a fixed point in -STABLE where only bug-fixes can be added (no new features). Linux has the branch that Linus runs which contains all of the newest and shiniest features, and then a huge number of other branches that people who want production systems use. When Linus makes a change, it may break a custom patch in the Red Hat or SuSE branch (for example), and this will have to be fixed by someone other than the person who broke it.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
900 days? I really hope you've been keeping up with the FreeBSD errata. Uptime is nothing to be proud of - downtime is. If your system is compromised because you didn't apply a security update then this costs a whole lot more than the two minutes of scheduled downtime required for a reboot.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Personally, I'd say that 5.3 was the first of the 5.x branch that was actually production-ready, and 5.4 is even better. However, the 5.x branch is still a bit of a disappointment compared to 4.x, which was an absolute gem in terms of stability and scalability. Thankfully, it looks like 6.x is shaping up nicely and a great effort is being made to avoid making the mistakes that were made in the 5.x branch (namely cramming in too many big new features without sufficient testing).
For my money (or lack thereof, teehee), if the FreeBSD kernel performs about as well as the Linux 2.6 kernel, then I'd choose FreeBSD hands down, merely because I prefer the FreeBSD Way. It's the oldest argument in the FreeBSD vs. Linux game: I like the consistency, the elegance, the ease of keeping third-party software updated via the ports system, and the knowledge that the project is in the hands of good, intelligent, trustworthy people. I don't mind Linux at all; in fact, I really like Gentoo. But it doesn't give me the same warm fuzzy feeling of stability, security, and elegance that FreeBSD does.