Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD under the Penguins Shadow
An anonymous reader sent us an article about
FreeBSD, and
life in Linux's Shadow. Interesting article about
the culture difference between Linux and FreeBSD users.
Its a good one for you FreeBSD fans and you curious
Linux users alike. I wish more BSD stuff came down the pipe
here, but Linux just has the vast majority of the submissions
here too.
Linux's kernel has sooo much hardware support.
In FreeBSD, you had to have a SB16 or nothing.
(Unless things have changed recently) I've
never seen a joystick, quickcam, TVcard, etc
driver as an option.
I do hate the companies can take the code, upgrade
it and then not give anything back.
The license isn't such a big deal to me. I think
programmers are free to choose the license. It's a right you get as the coder. If FreeBSD had the
hardware support of Linux, I'd be all over it.
Nothing's changed. If it had, we'd see Linux beating FreeBSD. I'd like to see that.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
It's nice to see FreeBSD get some good press. If I was asked to choose one free Unix to standardize on, I'd choose FreeBSD.
I'm confused. I thought FreeBSD was based on 386BSD, which is dated June 1992 while Linux was based on Minix which was dated 1987.
386BSD of course was based on bits and peices of Berkeley Net/2, but it wasn't a direct relative of it.
Wouldn't this technically make Linux's kernel older than FreeBSD's? (as far as origins are concerned).
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
Too bad most apps are made kinda linux specific so you need to wait for a port until you can download and compile... the ports system is wonderful though...
Yepp, still don't like the fact that applications doesn't compile because some strange functions that only exists in Linux...
A minor example is that pthreads are linked with -lpthread in Linux and -pthread under FreeBSD...
My current problem is x11amp, it seems that you need OSS to use it. I use the FreeBSD sb driver.
Genreally with linux emulation there is no slowdown (or negligent amounts). Some things have been foudn to run faster under BSD, even though they're linux emulated.
It's not so much of 'emulating', but just understanding the other format and having the libraries ready.
Just pick one you like for the reasons you like it and call it good enough.
FreeBSD's superior stability and speed probably made up for the slowdown due to Linux emulation.
After all, Windows apps run faster in win95/98, but that doesn't stop people from running them in WINE.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
BSD is not centralized. You have a choice of BSDi (commercial), or FreeBSD, NetBSD, or OpenBSD, all of which are Free Software. The advantage here is that you not only have a choice of distributions (as you do with Linux) but of tweaked kernels, since they all use slightly modified kernels (something you can't do with Linux's centralized kernel development).
So it would appear that Linux is actually more centralized than BSD is.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Our web server has been up for 167 days without a reboot. Our EMAIL server has "only" been up for 122 days (somebody kicked the cord loose one day, argh!).
But, of course, that's all just stories. Actually measuring reliability is a difficult task. How do you tell how reliable an OS is? Can't run it in a laboratory setting, it'll never crash there, it's in the real world that systems crash. Yet it's in the real world, doing real work, that it's hardest to monitor enough systems doing enough work to get statistically significant numbers.
-- Eric
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Posted by DonR:
:)
I'm a Solaris and AIX sysadmin and have run Linux and Solaris at home as well. FreeBSD is my main OS now. It "fits" me.
I am a Solaris sysadmin as well. I feel the exact same way as you do. Linux is great and all, but to me, FreeBSD just somehow "feels" more right to me. Funny, this unix thing.
---
Donald Roeber
Posted by DiegoGuy:
I have used FreeBSD in the past, and what impressed me the most was the ports system.
Linux definitely needs something like this.
The way I see it, the people who need quality and speed and stability know where to look for solutions to a server enviroment ( and desktop ). FreeBSD, or OpenBSD Or NetBSD. I don't think BSD needs to be published like linux. We see examples of this "People who know, use it." philosophy on the net, Yahoo.com? ftp.cdrom.com? And Matrix ( i guess that's what the pres said )
erik!umenhofer!firebelly.net
Some of us can't afford nice lines for web serving....And I can't afford to be picky as to what IS my vhost runs. Jeeez.
Read the message you replied to one more time. He didn't say there's only one free BSD, he said there's only one FreeBSD(TM) distribution. AFAIK there is only one FreeBSD, even though there were some people talking about making a Debian distribution of (Free?)BSD.
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
ps -eaf | grep httpd
and get the right output. :->
I've had to work with FreeBSD a bit lately, and while I don't hate it, I can't help but feel that some things about it are just a bit old fashioned. I had just said farewell to the last of the machines running SunOS 4.1.4, at long last, and so FreeBSD makes me feel like SunOS is back, like a zombie, refusing to go to its final resting place peaceably... :-|
It *is* stable, though not terribly moreso than Linux, from what I have observed. I have Linux machines run for months with nary a hiccup on a regular basis. But, heck, you gotta install that new kernel sometime...
From what I can tell from many of the posts here, Free/Open/NetBSD's raison d'etre for some people seems to be opposition to the GPL. I like the GPL just fine myself, so that isn't a drawback to Linux for me.
That's really what it's all about. If you want your code to be free to use in any project, proprietary or otherwise, the BSD license is good for that.
But if you are primarily concerned with your code being *used* by the largest possible number of users, the GPL is the way to go.
I'm 21, and I've been using FreeBSD for 3 and a half years now (I first heard about it at Virginia Tech in 1995).
-lee
Nice article. I run Linux mostly, and I like the Sys V ish stuff. But I also work with a dog-eared SunOS 4.1.4 box that's just a peach in terms of stability. I am planning to try out FreeBSD as soon as I get my taxes paid off (damn the gov't! What tax reform?) and can actually save some money for a spare box. I'd like to have more than one type of system to play with at home as well.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
What the hell...I'm just about finished w/ the minimal install to an old 486. I use Trinux on this puppy, so I'll be able to use both. So far, the ftp install - no cdrom is working fine. I kinda like the partitioning scheme. It's remaking all devices now...so I'll see what all I can find to do with it - it's only a little machine w/ 120megs and 16mb RAM. Hope I have fun!
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Ah, but if someone does swipe GPL code, and we do find out, we either get a new GPL'ed app, or we sue them. It's a different mindset.
:) I just wouldn't want a BSD-style license on an entire operating system.
Personally, I'd be a little offended if I were working on a project and ended up having my code used by a big corporation who out-marketed my product and left me in the dust. That's what the BSD-style licens allows for that I don't like.
(hence, MacOS X. As far as I'm concerned, if Steve Jobs wants a UNIX, he can try to write it himself, but that's not the BSD opinion... It's also why you aren't going to see 'Microsoft Linux')
Meanwhile, if people do contribute code back to a BSD project, that's great. Just because it isn't GPL'ed, doesn't mean it's bad, I'm a big fan of WINE.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
> > I just wouldn't want a BSD-style license on an entire operating system.
:)
... wouldn't want [this]". You can't deny that. If you want it, then I pity you, but that is of course your choice.
> That's because you're a narrow-minded geek. NEXT (and now Apple) did contribute code to the *BSD community. AFAIK
> NeXTStep, SunOS and MacOS X Server have not hurt the various free BSD flavours. They're still alive and kicking.
Thanks, you're pretty polite yourself. If I were narrow-minded, or for that matter, less cordial, I wouldn't reply to this. I am a geek, however, and for you to deny that label as well would be pretty silly by now...
> In a nutshell, I think FreeBSD/OpenBSD actually profit from their liberal license policy.
I never said that they didn't, but I'll be happy to argue it now. Boy, the quality of discussion always goes down when we talk about FreeBSD. Wow, we got a few measly patches so that someone else could port our operating system without contributing back the important changes. I would consider a good contribution from Apple, say, Carbon, or some windowing code, or something to help us in the UNIX "quest for the stupid user interface". But no, they take your code, and release it under a more restrictive license, without any of the higher-level tools, and say that they're 'Open Source' on one hand. On the other hand, they make the rest available for a stiff fee, as a proprietary, closed-source product that's mostly just BSD where all the new features are. And you say "I think [we] actually profit from [this]". How meek you've become.
I also specified that this was my opinion, as in "I
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Thanks for being more polite than the other anonymous coward in this thread, I rarely see a polite response from a *BSD'er who doesn't understand my POV...
:) If you're not afraid of sharing code, why not make it official? Then people might *respect* you (and your code) enough to buy your product. Also, there would be no question of fairness in OSes. Does the webserver give more priority to people using IE? Submit a patch to make it even, and use the new version... :)
If GPL advocates just wanted payment for software, they would make it closed-source, and invalidate their entire philosophy. What they really want is the ability to share the code without losing their other freedoms. Anyone else can also sell the product, or distribute it free. Money doesn't have to be an issue, but one way people can show their support is by buying a product. Again, it's a different philosophy, and it doesn't always apply to all software. I just don't like to see people getting their operating systems stolen.
Actually, though, you have a good point there. I'd be happier if Microsoft *could* steal *BSD, because then maybe that would mean that they could write/sell a better OS for once. It's just that the OS is such a commodity, and such a battleground these days, that I don't see why anyone should help those who only help themselves.
I also don't see why a proprietary software company who also contributes back code shouldn't just use the GPL.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
It is possible to license code under both licenses, especially licensing BSD code as GPL code. Unfortunately, doing it the other way around again defeats the purpose of the GPL.
:)
:)
:)
However, let's make your example theoretical. (I'm sure this has happened before, but being specific in this case only leads to bickering over facts that don't appy to the discussion
Let's say that a device driver foo was originally written under a BSD style license. Some random GPL fanatic comes along, takes this driver, adds to it, and releases *his* driver under a GPL style license. The options the original BSD fanatic has are: (1) continue to hack his own driver. (2) hack the other driver under the GPL.
If this particular BSD fanatic shares anyhow, what does he have to lose by contributing to the GPL'ed driver? If he doesn't... well, we know he has already, because of the BSD style license.
The only reason the 'enforced sharing' clause is there (I know, it sounds like something from the cold war) in the GPL is because at one point in time people *stopped* sharing, and started turning free applications into proprietary ones. I don't want to take sides here, but I'm sure it started somewhere around RMS writing Emacs and other companies adding to it without contributing back. Since they violated an unwritten tradition, (around the BSD-style licenses) the GPL was born.
If people always shared their code, there would be no GPL, and there would be much rejoicing. They don't, so the people who don't want to see their code used by other people without the benefits of the additions to that code use the GPL. Those who are trusting of human nature, or want to improve other people's code without necessarily improving their own use a BSD license.
I guess it comes down to if you want to help others, or if you want everyone to help each other. Therefore, it's a matter of opinion.
Aww man, you run Linux too? So you mean that I *still* haven't had an intelligent conversation with a BSD user?
Actually, I tried a boot disk with FreeBSD on it, and I liked the kernel configuration, that was slick. However, I miss all the friendly options from the GNU utils. And I thought that both the device layout and the way all the system utilities pointed to one big executable were very strange. I like to know how much space ls takes up. I hope this isn't a standard configuration, but rather something done for this boot disk. However, it was odd.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
That same person could very well contribute back the same changes to the *BSD community, however this behavior is allowed by the *BSD licenses, which is what i was saying I didn't like in the first place.
And yes, if you were concerned about someone making a million dollars off of your code, and givving you nothing for it, then you would have licensed it under the GPL, not under a BSD license.
The GPL does force everything to be open when the copyright holders are many and disparate. This is why the linux kernel is safe. And even if Microsoft had rights to all future versions of GCC, they would never have exclusive rights to the current or previous versions, and therefore development would be unchanged. However, I really doubt the FSF would do this. (Over RMS's dead body...)
Anyhow, let's stick to licensing issues here, this is getting silly. There already is nothing to stop Microsoft from stealing all the BSD code they want (except not knowing what good code looks like), and there is something to stop them from stealing GPLed code, given the sanity of the copyright holders.
Therefore, I don't see where this argument is going, if anywhere...
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I'm using Linux on my workstation because Linux had support for the most outlandish hardware. Linux is much more bleeding edge ( suprise) and (in my opinion) has a number of very good devicedrivers (take Donald Beckers line of NIC drivers). If there is a little tweak that will make a device go 5% faster, than it will be used. It does make the Linux kernel a bit less stable. However, if you stay away from 'new' and 'experimental' kernel options, that is usually not a problem.
I use FreeBSD as a server. The kernel is more modular (especially NetBSD/OpenBSD) and the source is easier to understand. FreeBSD is usually more a coherent mass (like the article states). A small example: glibc 2.0.7 implements writev(2) with write(2), while the linux kernel supports writev(2). Not very efficient. However, this is more of a small problem with glibc than a problem with the linux kernel. (Maybe the Hurd kernel doesn't implement writev.)
Mathijs
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.. They are all free and seem pretty similar at first glance.
;)
That's because they are, especially NetBSD and OpenBSD. Most of the source for OpenBSD comes from NetBSD. (OpenBSD is kind of a paranoid version of NetBSD.)
FreeBSD runs on Intel and Alpha CPU's and is probably your first choice if your using a x86
machine.
NetBSD and OpenBSD run on just about any CPU, so if you've got hardware like a SGI Indy or a nice Sun, you want to get one of these.
The difference between NetBSD and OpenBSD is mostly that OpenBSD is more security minded (hope Theo doesn't see this
FreeBSD has a bit better support for x86 hardware than NetBSD/OpenBSD.
In the end, these BSD variants have more similarities than differences. It doesn't really matter which one you choose. It's more a matter of taste, I guess.
If your using x86 hardware, go with FreeBSD. If you're really 'paranoid' (are is that 'sane'?), go with OpenBSD, since it tends to be more secure.
Hope this helps.
Mathijs
And, FreeBSD's level of "Friendliness" and relatively rapid evolution probably wouldn't mix well with the breadth of architectures supported by NetBSD.
I personally use Debian Linux, FreeBSD and OpenBSD, and have never thought "Hmm.. it sure would be better if this were all standardized". That reeks too much of mob rule, force and mediocrity for my tastes.
I've always viewed Linux and FreeBSD as being somewhat equals. Linux is better in some areas (e.g., driver support) and FreeBSD is better in others (e.g., I hear FreeBSD tends to be a bit faster for server-type applications).
That said, I think the main reason I run Linux on all of my computers is because five or six years ago, Linux is what installed easier on my 386. I downloaded both Slackware and FreeBSD. I never could get FreeBSD running right on that hardware, but Linux did, so it stayed. The university I graduated from used FreeBSD on a LOT of lab machines. From my limited usage of them (just for compiling projects and what not), it behaved just like all of the other UNIXes I've used.
I wish the article would have addressed more technical issues. I want to know specifically what FreeBSD does better and what Linux does better. Of course, I'll support anyone's choice of either, I love Linux and I've heard few bad things about FreeBSD!
I'm getting a new second-hand computer this weekend (I'm playing the "how many computers can I fit in an apartment game")... I think I'll stick FreeBSD on there just give it a go.
We run a farm of over 80 FreeBSD servers pumping over 150Mb/s (the cam shows the routers).
And on the age thing... I'm a 38 year old network engineer who runs SuSE on my desktop but work for a 25 year old that runs this FreeBSD farm. Go figure.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
You have to compare FreeBSD more to a Linux distribution, than to just the Linux kernel, although this isn't quite accurate either.
The *BSD developers hack on the kernel, the install system, the package system and a large number of the utilities/programs that are distributed with their system. They also do "ports" of packages that are outside of their control.
Compare this with, say, the Debian GNU/Linux which has 400 developers that can commit changes to their distribution. These 400 developers mostly just do ports, although some work on the install and packaging systems.
The kernel that Debian uses is based off of either the development tree or the release tree of Linux, depending on which the Debian folks thinks is the best thing to do at the time. They also add patches that they think are appropriate and select additional device drivers. The other Linux distributions do similar things with their kernels. So, while there is one central body that controls the FreeBSD kernel, Linus has a lot less direct control about what gets put into the Debian distribution.
To the best of my knowledge, FreeBSD only has one "vi", while Debian has at least three, each of which has a Debian maintainer, and the upstream developers. The Debian user can easily choose whether they want vim or nvi as their editor and the upstream developers have very little control over which they choose, or how the different vi's get packaged by Debian.
While FreeBSD has much more central control than the Linux distributions, I'm not sure that this is really A Bad Thing. It has plusses and minuses.
In the case of the Linux kernel, Linus having a very central control of it has worked well, as has FreeBSD. On the other hand, Debian's freedom to pick and choose which kernel will work best for them frees Linus up from having to worry about the release schedules of the distributions. He, and the rest of the Linux kernel crowd, can worry about developing the kernel, the same goes for the developers of glib, lilo, binutils, etc. It is up to the various distributions to make sure they all work well together.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
...the fact that it requires a primary made it a BITCH for me to find room for it. I ended up installing it on a secondary box because my main box has no spare primary partitions at all. Overall, though, the FreeBSD installation software is pretty good. :-)
BTW, I agree about Jordon Hubbard. Very classy guy from what I've seen online. I know a number of Linux folks who could learn a thing or two from him in terms of how to advocate a given platform.
--
-Rich (OS/2, Linux, Mac, NT, Solaris, FreeBSD, BeOS, and OS2200 user in Bloomington MN)
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
You've said that before... but you've never explained why (anywhere I've seen). Care to enlighten me now?
Ta.
--
I admire their choice of OS for the Matrix, but I'm wondering if they had good reason for their choice? If they were going to choose a flavor of UNIX, why did they choose FreeBSD over other Unices? If it was a matter of the free availability, why did they choose it over Linux?
I would be curious to find out these answers. Does anyone know?
"In true sound..." -Agents of Good Root
From this, it looks like he was only comparing it to Irix. Perhaps Irix and FreeBSD were all he wanted to choose from. I can't imagine Renderman performing better under "Linux emulation" on FreeBSD than natively on Linux. I take it there isn't a FreeBSD port of Renderman (too bad).
"In true sound..." -Agents of Good Root
I would agree with you, but that was before I tried Debian. I've been pretty impressed with the Debian packages system. There are some minor tradeoffs between the two implementations, but they are both very similar in terms of power.
--
Jake
... that there's only one "distribution" of FreeBSD compared to a lot for Linux (RH, SUSE, etc), also FreeBSD is a BSD standard, program written following the BSD rules always compiled fine under FreeBSD. Some years ago i remember at university we installed a network of FreeBSD to have a standard, and also because we could find tons of books about BSD standard and nothing about linux (not true today :o). Anyway i used a lot HPUX from 8 to 10 and it's a mix about all standard...a -morron" :-( :o)
what i regret also about linux is that linux users sometimes are "LiNuX-is-better-than-your-fucking-OS-so-you-are-
let's live in a free os community
i don't want to start a war between FreeBSD and Linux, use what you prefer! you? MacOS, great! you? BeOS, great! etc
--
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
Of course, rather a lot of pre-5.x SunOS (and probably rather a lot of stuff in other UNIXes people might consider to be "BSD") came neither from BSD nor System V, but from the vendor of the OS (the SunOS 4.x VM system and dynamic linking system, for example, were designed and implemented at Sun).
I really wish people would either stop commenting on performance/reliability of Linux vs Freebsd.
Or post some extensive test results to support their claims.. I have yet to see anything that even comes close to this. (Closest I have seen was in the freebsd zine, which compared redhat 5.0 running 2.0.34 to freebsd 2.9?(8?) which showed them both to be about equal.. with freebsd possibly ahead by a nose)
I think it shows that people rely to much on "what they think" based on personal experience.. This is fine in of itself, but when people make generalizations like "freebsd is more stable then linux" or "I have found that freebsd is 20% faster then linux overall" It would be nice to see supporting facts.
I use/have used both for a number of years and I can't in all good conscious say one is faster or more stable over the other.. My personal experience of stability with linux or freebsd is GOING to be different then someone else. I most likely have different hardware and have used different distributions / versions of them both. So for me to make a general statement would be pointless.
If this is so important to some people I would suggest there be a test procedure drawn up on how to test these things.. perferably using a current configuration of each. Having a "expert" from both camps on hand wouldn't be a bad idea either.
-- You can be a geeklord too
The development methods for the two are so radically different that I don't think you can compare the two by the amount of code freezes.
Really, There might be more bugs in a linux kernel releases but there are more drivers, and more features. More people also use the code, and thus bugs becomes more apparent.
As you stated you're "personal" opinion is based on an experince in 1994. I think we both remember the state of linux in 94. Freebsd on the other hand took less time to mature because it was based on an existing code base.
I believe times have changed since then.
Just to give you an idea of the servers we have around here and the uptimes:
15 alphas (osf 4.0) ranging between 4000s, DS20s, and 8400s. (with ranging uptimes of 30 days to a year)
8 linux boxes (all redhat 5.2) (3 are servers with uptimes exceed 150 days, 2 are routers with uptimes exceed a year, rest are workstations)
3 BSDI boxes (uptimes ranging from 30 days to 100 days)
12 suns from sparc20s to ultra enterprise 5000. (varing degrees of uptime)
5 AIX RS6000s (30 days to 6 monhths) (they are new)
misc other servers..
Reguarding uptime it has been my experince that the uptime of all the above operating systems are directly related to the following:
a) hardware used
b) software used
c) strain
Again my opinion is if its important we need someone who is willing to put there money where their mouth is and show some statistics.
If you run linux on a packard bell its not going to get high uptimes. If you buy a server from var research I think the odds are you won't run into situations where you need to reboot often.
-- You can be a geeklord too
I have found FreeBSD's installation tool to be very simple. The first installation I did with it years ago was much easier than my first RedHat installation just months back.
So, I don't think installation effort is much of a claim against FreeBSD at least. I haven't played with other *BSD systems.
scottwimer
-- Beer. It's what's for breakfast.
I think the reason Linux is so much more popular than *BSD is that Linux was free first. If I remember correctly Linux was about 6 months old when the announcement was made that BSD source code was going to be released. Then there were some legal problems between Berkley and AT&T which took a while to resolve. Being first, even by a tiny amount, has tremendous market implications.
Actually, this isn't the case. There were articles about the development of a freely available BSD system in Dr. Dobbs Journal in 1990. Linux wasn't available until late 1991.
Although it's not FreeBSD specific, I highly recommend the 'Unix System Administration Handbook' (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0131510517 /distributednet - This link will help distributed.net out btw). Very good book, a must for any unix admin. (Read a slightly larger review at http://www.distributed.net/research/).
Moo!
dB!
http://www.distributed.net
I am 33 years old, and I love Linux, *BSD holds no interest to me.
Age does not = being conservative the thought is just silly as hell.
I rather like the idea of using GNU tools first, *BSD does not, to my understanding.
Being on Linux-kernel makes me feel like a kernel developer, even though I have never contributed a line of code, but the idea that I could has it charms me.
Systems that are controled social chaos (meaning Linux) tend to be more stable, over the long run then, forced ridgedy (*BSD) are in the long term.
Last Linux gives more choices, if you like infinte control chose Slack, Ease of use chose SUSE, stablity Debian, Or Out and out performance Stampede.
There all fun, slightly chaotic, and the right choice for you.
"Think of it as evolution in action."
I've been told that I'm genetically clue inhibited but...
I have Red Hat pre-6, Debian 2 and Slackware "4" running on various boxen at home and plan on trying to pick up a copy of FreeBSD 3 at Comdex on Monday.
There's so much that's good and so much to learn from all of the work going on that I feel like a kid in the world's biggest candy store (kinda like a Virtual Frye's for software) and when I grow up (I'm 42) I'm gonna be like Linus and Alan and Jordan H., etc.
I guess I just don't get the O/S Holy Wars. I'd ask for an explanation but my flameproof Fruit of the Looms are in the wash right now.
Destined to be clueless for life I guess... (*sigh*)
non-newbies also need a choice too. Please don't turn all OS's into newbie OS's. I think newbie's need an alternative to Windows but that doesn't mean we should dumb down unix -hurting those who love unix the way it is now- just to give newbies that choice.
---
I was wondering, given that FreeBSD is sorta
centrally controlled, could it not be that it
does nor engender the same sense of community?
Do we not feel that Linux is "my" OS regardless
of whether we are developers or consumers. I'd
say that a lot of this is due to the lack of centralization and some of it is due to the license, the GPL, which provides a sense of
protected ownership. The GPL makes us feel that
Linux is OUR intellectual property, it belongs
to all of us. Perhaps knowing that their work
will not be ripped off (read tcp stack) does
motivate some developers.
The lack of centralization makes us feel that we
can all make a difference. Its hard to see a
tightly controlled source base giving people that notion. While a lot of this is just our notions
(surely one can compile KDE for linux without ports, or whatever), our notions and emotions do dictate what we do.
In fact, centralization makes some of us uncomfortable, which is why, for example, some people do not want companies to standardize on RedHat. Finally I do believe that the fanaticism and evangelism, dangerous in its extreme form, is a direct product of this sense of community.
The Inscrutable Gargoyle
The joystick programming is up to the end program to poke at /dev/joy0. As for TV tuners, anything with the bt848 or bt878 chip is supported. I use my Hauppauge WinTVpci card all the time to watch TV!
You can't steal what somebody gives away for free. The UCB/BSD-style license gives the code away for use in whatever way you feel like. Please tell me how this is less free than GPL.
Like I've said a dozen times before, BSD-style licensed code is NOT "ripped off". You can't rip off something that is given away free to be used however the user sees fit. Why do you GPL advocates insist on twisting reality like that?
Ah, more FUD. Perhaps the patch was sloppy or wasn't well bug-tested? Ever think of that? Grow up. The core developers are there to prevent sloppy crap coding from getting into the FreeBSD kernel, and I'm glad they are there.
NetBSD's kernel isn't split along port lines, only architecture specific code. NetBSD/sparc and NetBSD/mac68k, for instance, both are built from the same source tree.
Wow, I see that the old "Linux or nothing" attitude is still rampant in the community. Some of us just don't like the Linux development model. Some of us think that *BSD just has it right in the first place. Why don't you Linux users get off your high horses and bring your talent and expertise to *BSD? Just leave your rabid GPL cheerleaders behind, thank you. :)
Most GNU utilites came about in an attempt to duplicate existing BSD utilities WHICH HAVE EXISTED FOR MUCH LONGER. Who is cloning who?
Nice, resorting to childish architecture attacks? BSD orginially ran on the PDP and VAX series computers, yes, but now it runs on more different types of computers than Linux does, and does a good job of it.
Hi, how is this any different from how FreeBSD works? If you can directly commit, go ahead. If you can't, use send-pr. If you're unwilling to do so, then put out a patch. Nobody will tell you to stop. You can even go one step farther; make your own version of BSD based on FreeBSD's code! Nobody will stop you there, either.
If somebody writes some code themselves, what right do YOU have to it? The BSD-style license gives the code away for free, no strings attached, no morality or ethics imposed.
Wow, you're badly informed. FreeBSD certainly has plenty of hardware support. I have an SB AWE64 which works fine with a joystick connected (I don't use it for anything, but is there as /dev/joy0). Quickcam has been supported for quite some time (qcam driver). I have a Hauppauge WinTV card that is very well supported; even made some MPEG movies using it. As for companies "stealing" code, what business is it of yours? How do you know companies aren't swiping GPL'd code and not telling anyone? Several companies have used FreeBSD code in their products and have even given back code to the project (Whistle, for one). I know rabid GNU cheerleaders tend to pretend that this doesn't happy, but sorry folks, it does. You don't need a license to force people to dump code back into a project.
I'd have to say unless I drasticly change I'm a linux guy. When I program I use sysV changes that are supported by linux. I use the /opt fs for extra software on my system.
I have a FreeBSD 2.2.3 system and I think it is a great stable operating system. I off load work to it and use it to check compatability of code I write. But that is just me.
I do appreciate everything that BSD gave unix, vi, biff, and so on... (I would say etc. but...)
I remember when I had Linux (0.99.x, baby!) running on a 386 w/ 4mb - now that was a sweet setup. I even had it running a MOO, and it was plenty responsive. Now mind you, I did get it to boot and run Win NT, so it may have been some sort of magical box.
Well, running NT was a mistake - I was installing a hard drive from a "top-o-the-line" 486 and booted it by mistake. I have to say I was quite shocked - it was slow as all hell, but I could run Eudora from across the network.
The stability argument holds true because FreeBSD unlike linux has a lot more code freezes and those freezes last for a lot longer timer.
:) one 95 based ACT server.
F /...
I used to use linux a lot but after running into tons of ext2 problems and scsi issues (this was 94 mind you) the servers I was responsible for were migrated over to FreeBSD. I have stayed with FreeBSD every since... I still know linux and still use it in professional situations but if it comes down to what I feel safer *trusting* then FreeBSD gets the nod from me. Of course this is my opinion but it is based on years of experience and for me (and the people who pay me) it seems to suffice.
Just to give you an idea of the servers we have around here and the uptimes:
2 alphas (osf 4.0/3.2) 187 and 207 days uptime.
3 linux boxes (all redhat 5.1/5.2) 14/21/54 days. The 14 and 21 are from hardware upgrades.
2 FreeBSD boxes (3.1/2.2) 26/115 days.
and for comparison
Averages 2-3 days before reboots.
---
Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OS
--- I do not moderate.
I love the BSD style of kernel creation. Maybe thats cuz I use vi for everything but it takes me no time to zoom through and change/comment what needs to be done. On a side note if there isn't anything, it would prolly take 3 minutes to hack a perl script up that would go through the LINT file asking Yes/No/Change style questions.
/usr/src... all I had to was get it outa da kernel and edit. Nice!
F /...
I am really glad that there is now the option to include the configuration file as a string inside the kernel. This actually saved me a ton of time the other day on a system when I had popped out the drive that contained
---
Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OS
--- I do not moderate.
Uh. I am sorry but this is not clearly thought out. The main point that you raise is that "all good features eventually spread to all distros"... uhm no offense but this *does* happen in the BSD camp. It has happened since the initial BSD forks and will continue to happen. This is because the aim of the BSD camps is to have the best distro they can, so of course they implement the best features and lose the worst.
F /...
The GPL has nothing to do with this.
---
Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OS
--- I do not moderate.
This posting is quite full of inaccurate statements. I am assuming you either mean it as total flamebait or your lack of *BSD knownledge is quite high. Luckily for you ignorance is correctable.
F /...
Your posting is exactly what the article was talking about as far as extreme loyalty to operating systems. So full of rhetoric and obvious love for linux it amazes! This is a beautiful example, that I am sure you shrewdly conducted, to aid those out there who didn't understand what all this evangilising was about! Kudus!
---
Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OS
--- I do not moderate.
This is not a flame, but an honest question from someone with very little BSD background (other than legend.)
Why the splits between Net, Open, and Free, and god knows what else BSD? Why do people say "FreeBSD is great because it's one distribution" ignoring the existence of OpenBSD etc?
I just don't understand.
On a totally unrelated note, is there any interest in a Python script that makes automating URL submissions to a variety of web search engines very easy? I've written one recently and I'm wondering if there's any interest.
Email me in private if you like (remove the SPAM-B-GONE.)
If it was a matter of the free availability,why
did they choose it over Linux?
FreeBSD is just as "free" in terms of price, just as easy to download, and arguably freer in terms of license.
Perhaps it was the superior performance?
There was a link on Gartner Group's site (now removed) that described FreeBSD's superior web serving performance.
SunOS 4.X (and earlier) is a direct BSD descendent (given the Bill Joy connection, one might say that Sun was more BSD than BSD). But SunOS 5.X was no closer to BSD than other SysV R4 varients.
There are some old Sun hands out there who still haven't forgiven them for abandoning BSD.
I've been thinking about moving a box that I have set up as a web server/database server/ip masq box over to FreeBSD. Does anyone know if FreeBSD has something similar to ip masq?
This sig is false.
Can someone suggest good (and up to date) literature for FreeBSD? I've had lots of success with Linux, partially because I've had good friends to turn to the few times I've had major problems. I don't know anyone, however, who runs any BSD systems, so some printed help would be good.
This sig is false.
FreeBSD (most x86 optimized)
NetBSD (most portable)
OpenBSD (most secure)
http://www.bsd.org
Romans 10:9-10
Slowdown ?
Where ?
Do you guys even know how Linux emulation works on BSD machines ???
It's just a question of having a kernel with COMPAT_LINUX compiled in. Then processes are tagged from start, and use another set of stubs for system calls.
The `slowdown' is *dwarfed* by the context switches, which is the reason system calls under Unix are a bit slow (and hence, that there are not that many of it). The only inefficiency is *memory* since you need to have another set of dynamic libraries loaded.
I've been checking Linux emulation with such programs as xanim. There is *no measurable slowdown* from the native version.
The only programs that perform slower under BSDs are those that can use svgalib under Linux, but this is bound to change with GGI...
This is plain FUD.
Linux distributions usually have all the shiny knobs, but more often than not, this means more rope to hang yourself.
BSD distributions usually try to keep configuration to the bare possible minimum, and automate everything.
As a recent personal example, I can remember having trouble with redhat's CD which insisted on me having a swap partition, even though that machine didn't NEED any swap (128 Mb).
One other point where BSD is easier is man pages. At least, you have documentation for all commands and system calls. This is more compact than howto, but this means LESS to read.
Depends on which class of newbie you belong to. Newbies who are not afraid of manual pages may have a simpler time with BSDs... and they can still read the BSD 4.4 manuals, printed version.
Well, Linux drivers are highly specialized, to an absurd point sometimes.
Don't forget that the standard drivers are made by OSS, a company who makes a living selling drivers.
Considering their business, having shitloads of drivers to every card in existence makes lots of sense, but you sometimes get absurd results: this is getting so specialized that my laptop's soundcard isn't recognized by *anything* in Free OSS, except as an older SBPro !
Of course, the commercial version of OSS has truckloads more drivers, and recognizes it.
On the other side, OpenBSD generic Windows Sound System driver is not that sophisticated: it doesn't try to check every functionality of that card, it simply picks it up as yet another cs4231 clone.
Yep, you've got it, I've got a sound card with *BETTER* support under OpenBSD than I ever managed to get under Linux... which is why I'm playing quake under OpenBSD + GGI, not Linux.
But code *is* thrown away and rewritten in the BSD world.
The i386 serial driver has been completely rewritten, the ffs code has little in common with the older ufs, there is all the vfs code, and a major effort is going on to completely re-vamp the memory handling system (as known as uvm).
Apart from that, if you think IPv6 or SMP don't count as `major' changes, well, I don't know what will...
It's done for the boot disk, and it's not odd if you stop to think about it.
If you've got 15 different small programs (even if they use shared libraries) some of the code (like the C run time startup) is going to be duplicated in all the binaries.
If you can merge all the binaries together, and choose which chunk of code to run based on argv[0] then you've just saved yourself a bunch of disk space.
Take a look at the FreeBSD manual pages and look for crunchgen for more information.
And yes, this is only done for the boot disk.
N
It's worth pointing out at this point that BSD has binary compatibility with Linux...so if there's a binary available, chances are, it'll work.
-lx
The code's all there...why don't the Linux folks just take it? When something is developed for BSD, its developed for the entire software community.
-lx
NetBSD: Best for overall hardware support across different architectures.
OpenBSD: Emphasis on security-related issues.
FreeBSD: Best overall x86 support, and has the greatest number of ports.
They all work great - I would suggest starting with Free, and move on from there, especially if you're wanting a workstation OS. I tried Open for a while, and it has some great features, but the security features started to burn me out, and the lack of documentation. Haven't honestly tried Net yet
-lx
I've had bad experiences using x11amp with OSS - that was the first time I've seen BSD crash and burn. We're talking "play, play, play, skip, skip, poof! reboot."
-lx
I was the same way. I tried many of the free OS's and even ran Linux for the longest time. Then I tried FreeBSD just for a change... I've never looked back. We run an all FreeBSD shop now.
... Use the one you like.
But it all stems back to people asking "which OS should I use?"
I found this article in one of the FreeBSD advocacy pages.. It explains how to setup NAT and get natd running. A bit of it is dated, so you might want to check out the second link too, which is an ipfw setup page for FreeBSD.
http://www.computerbits.com/ar chive/9708/lan9708.htm
http://www.metronet.com/~pgilley/fre ebsd/ipfw/
If you read the comments in the Linux kernel source for 2.0, a few of the SCSI drivers have been borrowed from FreeBSD, and for the longest time, the IP stack was from NetBSD.
I haven't dug thru Linux kernel code for a while, so I'm not sure if this is true anymore....
It will have one when the question is not NT or Linux, but a question of GNU vs. OpenBSD vs. FreeBSD vs. NetBSD vs. GNU/Linux vs. [insert future OS here].
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
It's also a fair bit harder for a clueless newbie to set up; I don't recommend that a green user go out and install OpenBSD on their PC.
BSD still has a superior kernel in terms of raw forking speed.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
Originally there was BSD/386 (which tended to use X386). BSDi sold commercial copies; when Berkeley's advanced computer lab closed down, FreeBSD formed. It forked into NetBSD and then OpenBSD because of the usual internal strife. So now there are really four major BSD distributions--BSDi, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. I like OpenBSD best myself.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
That said, BSD is going to be with us for a while longer, if only because of the ease with which GNU/Linux binaries can be run on BSD and the ease with which device support can be migrated over (I won't address licencing issues here).
I haven't seen the Matrix movie, but I did hear on Systalk that FreeBSD was central to the production of said movie.
Cheers,
Joshua "Still running OpenBSD on one PC" Rodd
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
I'm courious, what are the advantages of a BSD over a Linux. I understand that BSD is more mature, but what does this actually translate into, all I have hear was faster forking and a faster IP stack. Also,it seems as if Linux has really started closing the gaps in terms of desktop software (as opposed to server)....Word Perfect, KDE, Gnome, stuff like that. How does BSD stand up in this respect.
what sort of effect do you think it will have on BSD that apple is using its kernel as part of Mac OS X?
it's bound to have interesting effects on the whole BSD culture that a bunch of random mac users are suddenly going to have a BSD flavor installed on their machine. Even if they (the mac users) largely aren't aware of it.
I don't know whether Mac OS X will actually be able to run BSD programs normally. I think the bsd kernel is pretty much left alone. But still, that's a relatively large boost in the user base.
Of course, because of Mach, Mklinux and kernel hosting you'll be able to boot a linux kernel off the same microkernel as mac os x, but that will only be if you specifically go and install it. The BSD pieces will be installed for everyone.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
The little BSD devil is a very nice illustration, that should prove attractive to us Mac users. Some of the Penguin art I've seen is a little...ehhh... kinda weak. Artie the Gimp rules though, he could easily carry his own comic strip.
The Mac OS brings to the table the Mac system smileys, and the QuickTime Penguin.
Any other OS Character Mascots out there?>
The music is not in the piano -Clement Mok
That *BSD has not had the same success in the comercial market as Linux has had. I would disagree. *BSD has had subsantialy more success, it's called SUN, HP-UX, Digital Unix, BSDI..... Oh, one problem though, those aren't open source operating systems. That is the main reason *BSD hasn't had the same percieved market presence that Linux does. Once a company gets a hold of the *BSD code, they hack it up, and release their crippled version under a proprietary license, so you never hear of *BSD, instead you hear of SUN, HP, BSDI ....
Linux, on the other hand, will not let this happen. It can't happen because of the GPL. the GPL ensures that Linux will always remain open to the users. *BSD's fatal flaw was that companies could take control of it, and lock up the source. The license is the reason I choose Linux over *BSD. I am assured that Linux will always be Linux. My efforts will remain in the public domain. No one will be able to take that away from me, or any other user. I give respect to *BSD, we have all benefited from it! However, I live by the GPL.
-Master Switch out
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
I switched to OpenBSD about two and a half months ago (from Linux). During these months, the system has hung once, and rebooted "by itself" once. This is very little compared to the weekly or even daily reboots or hangs I have experienced in Linux (2.1.x and 2.2.x).
:). Linux was more or less unusable at loadavg 10-20 or something.
:-)
For example, I accidentally got the loadavg up to over 60, but OpenBSD followed along nicely (sure, there was a 10 second delay between the mouse updates, but so what?
I guess that people who don't do a lot of weird programming that I tend to do, and people who are not permanently connected to the net, don't have a reason to try BSD. But otherwise I really recommend it.
Before I changed to BSD on my main box, I was running BSD on second box (a 486) for half a year. That is really something I recommend (if you have two or more boxes). This is better (in my opinion) than the other common alternatives: 1) not try other OSes out at all, or 2) switch before you know that you'll like it, or 3) some frustration (sometimes) with multiple OSes on the same box.
Anyway, not just the OS should be free, but also the choice! It's good to see that slashdot is not "linuxdot" only
(I haven't had time to try FreeBSD or NetBSD... they are probably good too, as well as Linux)
A. Gavare
natd.
If your only using ppp and are lazy ppp -alais works great too.
I actually make more mistakes in the linux tool, but thats probably because I a more familar with FreeBSD.
A tool for FreeBSD does not exist to my knowledge, but I've often thought about writing one. The only problem is, I'm more proficent at default FreeBSD way.
Maybe I'll add that back to my list of projects.
www.firebelly.n et is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) on Linux
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Like the *BSD's, Linux's kernel's get split on ports, until they can be merged with the main kernel tree.
I hate the FreeBSD central team. Back in the 2.2.6-current days when you needed a patch to run Quake 2 under the Linux emulation (dunno if that's still true) I suggested to them that they should just integrate the patch into their OS.
They basically gave me the finger. You might still be able to find the exchange on the freebsd-current archives if thy go back a year or more.
Sorry, but FreeBSD just doesn't have a real open development model from what I can tell.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
Well, gee, they should have told me that then instead of being all rude to me. Ever think of THAT?
No FUD here, just facts. If it was sloppy crap coding then they could have mentioned that as a reason, or told me that it needed more testing before being integrated into the kernel.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
I'm glad to finnaly see some FreeBSD coverage here on sloashdot!
The reason i use FreeBSD as my main os is simple:
it's very straightforward with it's directory structure and kernel configuration. I've never been too hot for sysV based unix (ie- RH linux) but i do support all and any open source/free os.
Besides from my experience FreeBSd has been rock solid... and can emulate linux on the kernel level... so there is really no need to wait for true port to FreeBSD. It gives me the best of both wolrds.
On a side note kudos to whom ever said we shouldn't start an os war bestween free unix. we are all against the same enemy. microsoft.
FreeBSd has native support for QuickCams. it has for as long as i can recall (2.x)
-kennedy
I think that's an appropriate title for the article. Like typical *BSD fanatics, they are full of themselves and always use inaccurate stereotypes and heresay when talking about Linux.
;-)
/. serves the open source community at large and not just one particular segment thereof. They might be selfish, pompous, stuck-up prats living in a kin-delusional fantasy world, but they're better than Microsoft.
For example, Linux kernel development is not quite as dissimilar as they would have you believe. There _is_ a core group of developers. The difference is, they don't go around sprouting how cool they are because they're core developers of some OS. They just quietly get on with the task at hand. Also, because the group is more informal, others not part of it feel more inclined to contribute as the test is the quality of the code, and not how much you wine & dine the core group.
When talking about flame wars, it's interesting to note that the *BSD crowd are inferring that it never happens to them. Wahahahahahahaha! Lets mention a few famous ones, shall we? NetBSD. OpenBSD - Theo de Raadt in particular. This is how far up themselves FreeBSD folks are, they "banish" people who helped make their OS what it is and refuse to acknowledge their existence like they are some form of lower-intelligence scum.
The whole GNOME vs KDE saga has nothing on the flame fest that causes fractures in the BSD community!
They also say that *BSD users are older and more mature (where did they get those numbers from? Plucked from their tight arseholes again of course like all their other extremely general commentary)
and try to infer that this somehow reflects on they quality of their operating system over that of "late teens and 20s". If you *BSD folks were any further up yourselves, you'd turn inside out!
Age does not necessarily mean maturity, and quality depends a lot on skill. I'm not going to make the bold statement that Linux has more skilled programmers (like the BSD people would say in the reverse) - however applying basic statistics shows that due to the larger group of programmers working on Linux, there is a greater chance that there is more skilled input. Of course, people win lotteries so statistics is wrong sometimes
Finally, there's the age old "BSD outperforms Linux by x times" debate, for which I won't say anything but the fact that the benchmarks speak for themselves. Oh, sure, FreeBSD might have a lower process switching latency on an 16Mhz 386, but who cares (apart from them)? Benchmarks of 15-year-old technology are useless in the real world today.
On a different note, however, I'd like to say that I would enjoy more BSD related stories because
Matt
Really? I actually run MacOS, so who is the person with the post full of inaccurate statements now? If you really think that my analysis of the article is that inaccurate, how come you do not point out any flaws in it? If it is that full, surely you can come up with at least one item that you believe is wrong, and present an argument as to why you believe so backed up with some hard data. All I, and everyone else, can see are two quite general statements with no solid foundations in anything.
I reply to this post because it scores above the threshold - I can only guess that the rest are BSD fanatics screaming blue murder at me for daring to point out flaws in their precious evangelical article. They then wonder why they don't get much press, when they treat critics with an IQ above their uptime, of the little press they do get with such scorn and the typical BSD fanatic's baseless condescending commentary.
If you are not interested in intelligent debate and discussion, then do not bother replying in the first place.
Back to the article, I was interested to read that the film "The Matrix" used BSD systems. It's great to see SFX companies doing wonderful stuff with Unix systems, breaking the traditional NT/Lightwave/3DS mindset that was becoming all too popular earlier this decade.
Matt
Free software will have won when the newbies no longer choose between Windows and Mac, but choose between Linux and FreeBSD.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The article stated that FreeBSD people tend to be in their 30's whereas Linux people tend to be in their teens and 20's.
I'm a 37 year old Linux nerd. (Was a SysV nerd for many years before Linux existed.)
Does this make me immature or progressive?
;-)
That's funny, I have a joystick, quickcam, tvcard, and
a non soundblaster soundcard on my freebsd box.
And a sb64, quickcam, and tv card on my BSDi box.
Granted BSDi hardware support is pretty behind the times,
but saying *BSD* doesn't have good hardware support is nothing but FUD.
- Just because you have to build a kernel doesn't mean it's
not supported.
I know some linux nuts who burn a kernel like it's a daily ritual.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
Linux rocks. I have used it for over four years. But I love FreeBSD, which I started using only a couple of months ago.
Install and setup is not difficult. Adding packages and the Ports system is great and badly needed by Linux.
The user PPP on FreeBSD is not only easy and straightforward it has many capabilities for displaying info on a conection.
ALMOST everything you do on Linux can be done on FreeBSD. Linux does have the most development effort behind it app wise.
So which to use? Try both and see which one "fits" you the best.
I'm a Solaris and AIX sysadmin and have run Linux and Solaris at home as well. FreeBSD is my main OS now. It "fits" me.
Oh and FREE OSes HAVE won. Bill Gates doesn't have to admit defeat for us to claim victory.
"Linux is something for Windows haters, BSD something for Unix lovers" (Heike S., Febr. 98)
At least FreeBSD (I don't have lots of experience with Net or Open) has ports for all of the above. I've tried WordPerfect under FreeBSD's Linux emulation and it works fine - I use LaTeX for most everything so I haven't used it much though. KDE, Gnome and over 2100 other ports are available for install by simply typing "make install" in the port directory. I find it much easier than using RPMs in my experience.
I don't recall him saying that it was faster under FreeBSD although there is some evidence that some software does run faster under emulation than natively on Linux.
You can now use x11amp without OSS on FreeBSD - you need to enable Luigi's sound drivers in the kernel.
There's also a splash screen available from:
splash screens
Free software will have won when the newbies no longer choose between Windows and Mac, but choose between Linux and FreeBSD.
I beg to differ: Free software will have won when the newbies can choose between all of the above, and do choose from among the free.
It seemed mostly like a fluff piece. But I agree with the premise that the *BSD folks haven't done too well in terms of evangelism, and that the rabid Linux advocacy movement is primarily driven by younger folks now.
BSD people rave about the quality and cleanliness of theor chosen flavor. Linux people rave more often about its social aspects.
I wonder just how much of the usage gap is publicity-driven, and just how much of it really is free choice... It's an question for which I can't even begin to posit an answer.
The BSD's used direct 386BSD code and have since integrated later CSRG releases.
Linus used Minix to get the original Linux kernel started but it certainly isn't based on any Minix code.
But come on, what is wrong ?, if you don't correct it how are the truth suppose to get heard of?
I agree with the "Down the toilet" thing because nobody shows any statistics or any benchmarks and yet BSD is said to be better, but I don't beleve it just because someone (especielly the maintainsers of some BSD version) sais so.
Prove me wrong if you can, please do!
De lyckliga slavarna är frihetens bittraste fiender, legalisera!!!
Everybody sais I think this and My Personal Experiense is that but haven't relly anyone got any facts at all?. No benchmarks no Statistics no nothing???. I can't say I agree with any thing you are saying. For example in many post one can read thet Linux people flame BSD because they are inexperienced. What I tend to notice is that its actully the opposite, every BSD article I've read got lost of bad opinions about linux but Never every do I read an article by a linux user that sais so much bad stuff without showing any facts at all.
;)
But hey, maybe linux people are silly fools who just follow the stream because all these post are lame and BSD biased (almoast) and generally looks about the same. So maybe we linux users just follow the BSD streem and continue to say, BSD is better but i use linux cuz its more of a workstation and got a cute penguine instead of that daemon
Is relly BSD so good that everyone that uses it falls in love or are just the average linux user not intressted in BSD because every "fact" about linux and BSD tend to be written by a BSD fan who relly thinks BSD emulates linux faster than linux ever run by itself and goes on like that, maybe saing some other non-existant-fact until he has bored you insane.
/prove me wrong - with facts please!!!
De lyckliga slavarna är frihetens bittraste fiender, legalisera!!!
It sounds fair, still no facts though but if all you are saying are true, none are needed.
;-)
I just hope the next BSD article won't feature the same bad-attitude-against-linux--bsd-people and instead has a more open mind(like your post) so we won't need another one of these discussions
De lyckliga slavarna är frihetens bittraste fiender, legalisera!!!
of course it hasnt been up for years!
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
Yep. natd.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
There's the FreeBSD Handbook, published by Walnut Creek. It's an excellent reference and covers many topics. It's also available at www.freebsd.org/handbook. In addition, there's #freebsd on efnet irc...just be sure that if you ask a question in there, you've first read the handbook section on the subject and any related man pages, or you're likely to be kicked quickly.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
On my desk at home, I have systems running FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux. For quite a while, I was a big fan of Linux, until the day when an employer of mine asked me about FreeBSD. At the time, I knew nothing more than that it existed. So I looked at it. I installed it. I *liked* it. A lot. I loved having unified source distributions for the whole OS (kernel and all standard programs)...made installing patches and upgrading to newer versions much smoother in my opinion. I still like Linux, still think it's a :)
great OS. I'll even concede that for a desktop system it kicks FreeBSD's butt in a lot of ways. But when it comes to making one hell of a server, I'm FreeBSD all the way. Just ask www.yahoo.com and ftp.cdrom.com...they'll tell you why
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
I believe the differences can be analogous to the process of evolution. I'll keep this short and simple (Note: distro = distribution):
********
BSD = code forking.
Reason: Company A develops *BSD distro with proprietary feature X. Company B develops *BSD distro with proprietary feature Y. Companies are not obligated to share source code with each other (i.e. no genes are shared).
Result: Companies continue to develop products that evolve separately. Features begin to vary wildly and eventually they become separate species altogether.
********
GPL = no code forks.
Reason: Company A develops Linux distro with feature X. Company B develops Linux distro with feature Y. Under GPL, both companies must freely share code with each other (i.e. genes are shared).
Result: All the good features (survival genes) eventually spread to all distros, and all the bad features (non-survival genes) eventually die out through atrophy. Although there may be minor genetic differences, all distros are of the same species.
********
Thus, it is fairly simple why GPL products (including but not limited to Linux) will always win out eventually over competing non-GPL products.
This is the simplest explanation I can think of as to why *BSD, although a more mature product, is not growing as fast as Linux.
However, to borrow from Star Trek, we should always strive for Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. That is, we *need* a variety of products so that we are always striving to improve through competition.
-- UOZaphod
"The unicode stuff in the latest version is working fabulously well. My russian mafia friends are ecstatic."
Driver support for this type of hardware is likely to lag on FreeBSD... it is intendended primarily as a server OS after all. If you seriously want to use consumer (not server) peripherals like tuners and joysticks, you are probably better off with Linux.
That said, by all means install FreeBSD and tinker with it. It never hurts to broaden your skills. I run a headless FreeBSD box at home and use Linux to telnet and X into it. You could always pick up an old 486 for next to nothing, or go the dual boot route. Good luck.
BTW, I'll let you in on a secret. One reason I run so many operating systems at home, each on their own hardware? Every system has a win95 partition so I can occasionaly reboot 'em all and host Quake/BattleZone frag fests. :) I currently have 5 systems on the house network... I think I've got parts lying around to make a sixth.
Thad
(hoping I can still claim my *cross platform testing lab* as a tax writeoff) >:)
The Bolachek Journals
Well, at least three of the systems were purchased with Win95 already on them, so those are legal. One system only has a DOS partition (it is too slow to play BattleZone anyway). I'm not sure about the last system. It has a legal copy of NT but I honestly can't remember where the Win95 came from. It was probably purchased with Win95 but that may not be the copy that was reinstalled when I repartitioned and put NT on it.
Yes, it is steep, and that is why I am a big advocate of games for Linux (I'm even writing one of my own).
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
And contrary to some comments I've seen saying otherwise, FreeBSD's install is really slick. Redhat and other Linux distros have only recently caught up to where FreeBSD has been for some time in ease of install. Furthermore, the Ports system rocks! Linux needs something like this.
BTW, Jordan Hubbard seems like a rather nice guy. He provided me some very useful feedback on a project I'm working on. Comparing him to Linus, I'd be hard pressed to say which one is more cool. ;-)
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
all i have to say is freebsd rocks and here is one reason why...
:) )
rup xx.xxxxxx.com
xx.xxxxxx.com 8:45pm up 319 days, 23:34, load average: 0.00 0.00 0.00
the box is rock stable, esp for its age and hardware in it, even survived moving buildings ( carried by hand with ups attached
-cry0gen
PS we used to use linux untill we tried fbsd and we have been in love ever since
why dont we go the other way around?
:/
Doesnt matter anyway, it will never happen
-cry0gen
never had a box that wasnt used all the time?
:)
plus ive never had a linux box go past 100 day uptime w/o rebooting itself
NT wouldnt last that long
-cry0gen
this wasnt meant to be a flame war :)
i like linux as a workstation runs pretty bad ass as one, just saying something about freebsd
shesh
cant say anything w/o starting something
cant all unixes get along?
-cry0gen
When has the code ever stopped being free? XFree86 was ready to proceed without The Open Group when they changed the license. The code you and I were using was still free and open.
The GPL will not save you from code forking. EGCS and GCC make a good example. The GPL does not have a clause saying forks are not allowed.
Well, the original UNIX forking is one example, as is X (display postscript, for example). The cost of the damage caused is difficult to calculate, but the forking has caused little but incompatiblity for programmers and problems for system administrators. As you may be tired of the GPL religion, I'm dearly tired of discovering subtle differences in every UNIX, even tho their heritage has so much in common. If the GPL will do through force what enlightened self interest didnt do for compatibility, then I'll take that.
The GPL does, indeed, not forbid forking of the code, but it does take away a lot of the incentives to fork (IE, making a proprietary version, including a new feature and competing on 'Buy our stuff. We have FOO. They dont.'). Since that leaves only serious technical disagreements as a reasons to fork, it happens more rarely (and never in a proprietary fashion, allowing backports and discouraging incompatibility).
Embrace-and-extend becomes a lot easier when you can just take the code supporting the protocol and add your own stuff, rather than having to reimplement it from scratch.
As regards the conceding of the desktop, there is was a recent interview with Jordan Hubbard at http://www. internetworld.com/print/current/webdev/19990412-fr eebsd.html. I also remember reading similar sentiments on usenet several times. Mr Hubbard and some other fairly outspoken BSD advocates may not represent the BSD community, but in such a case the other developers should speak out too, because this idea appears to be fairly prevalent. I most certainly hope the BSD crowd would join in in the quest for the desktop, because together we'd be stronger.
And, as far as the tightness of control, since it appears people have differing opinions on this, I'd guess it's just a matter of how involved you are and what you mean with 'control' :). 'Linux' probably has a lot more than 150 people 'in control' because the separate packages tend to be maintained by separate and unorganized people. The different packages in themselves have a lot fewer of course (some control the kernel, some glibc, some gcc, etc). And in the end, the distribution creators have control over what happens in the integrated end result. The same is, of course, true of BSD in some fashion, because the BSD distributions include external software too. I guess it's just a matter of opinion in the end :).
Oh, and I forgot to mention, good luck with your free FreeBSD installation. It's a great choice of operating system. I'd definitely try it out at home myself if I hadn't had the chance already at work :).
Well, on the desk next to me...
9:08am up 485 days, 10:17, 12 users, load average: 0.13, 0.05, 0.01
That's linux 2.0.30...
Well, there are no serious technical reasons. Both will experience minor temporary advantages in one direction in some parts of the system at different times. But due to the high exchange between systems I dont think any such difference will last, and most claims in either direction are usually just advocacy.
I've had both keel over at high loads. But I expect any system running at 60 loadavg to keel over eventually, and in any case you have a serious sizing problem (not to mention response time problem) if you have a sustained loadavg around 60.
So in the end it comes down to a few practical, political and personal preference issues.
SysV. I do not maintain just BSD based systems. Since I have to maintain AIX, Solaris and HP-UX which are all more or less SysV style, any time I get to a BSD based system it's an annoyance. This is an annoyance with Linux too, at times, but at least it's a little more SysVish (we can argue the merits about that...).
GPL. Some BSD supporters argue about the extra freedom of the BSD license, but in my opinion, if BSD should make major inroads and raise corporate interest then we'd just get another... SunOS, HP-UX 9, etc. The BSD license is more free than the GPL, but the price of that freedom is proprietarization, code forking and yet another round of incompatible embrace-and-extend corporate wrangling around. No Thank You. We Have Done That Already. BSDI has a tendency to play nice, but the others dont.
A realistic view on the market. BSD appears to be willing to concede the desktop to Windows, and be content with being a very good server platform. While that may be a possibly realistic view, it isnt in my opinion an acceptable one. Because Microsoft will not tolerate either BSD or Linux as a server platform, and they'll do everything they can to make sure that the Windows clients wont work with anything but NT, or that there are major proprietary advantages of using NT. Giving up the client market means, IMO, giving up any chance at existence at all. It wont matter how good you are if Microsoft has total control of the clients. And most of the major advances in Linux have come as far as they have because the people behind them were not realistic.
And finally, for various reasons,I actually prefer the more componentized and anarchistic development of parts of the Linux systems. I'm happy to leave the integration to the distribution makers, but I like the lack of central control.
Yep. And as a system administrator supporting HP-UX, Solaris, AIX, IRIX, BSDI, SCO and some things I forget, and a sometimes cross-platform unix programmer in my free time, I'm finding at times that I'd be happy to sacrifice some of the 'better' for more of the 'same'. It usually just results in having to use 'the worst common denominator' and/or writing dirty kludges anyway.
"...for "gotta have it now" nat on a dynamic IP ppp connection."
The kernel mode natd/pppd combination also does wonderfully well with danymic addresses.
Some Linux users hate that Penguin, too. I figured a much better animal to associate with the OS (based upon it's lineage) would be the platypus.
yes, FreeBSD has IP Masq -- it's called natd. They also have a packet filtering interface called ipfw. The stuff in Linux 2.0.* is quite similar to this with (I think) ipfwadmim.
I used to run FreeBSD at home with a private network using NAT to get out. I liked it a lot and found it very stable and easy to maintain. I switched to Linux so I could run FreeSWAN.
>Hear hear. The last thing we need is this kind of argument.
;o) but most often when I talk to Linux people about it, they flame me groundlessly. Kinda bothersome, especially considering the fact that very few of these people that I've come across (and that's lots *sigh*) have ever used FreeBSD, and certainly not for any length of time or to any depth... This isn't an invitation for lots of people to go "I've used both!! And I still like Linux!!" btw, I'm just quoting my experience in the hope that some fellow sufferers will recognise it. ;o)
True. I'd consider myself a FreeBSD evangelist
Cian
On the basis of a (subjective) recent trawl around the net for info the capabilities of both Linux and FreeBSD over the past few months I would suggest that Linux is walking away with desktop stuff but FreeBSD is still the OS of choice for server end stuff (where hardware is usually more carefully spec'ed and the device support issue disappears). I've used it, or seen it run, for mail, dns, web and ftp servers in a number of places with minimal effort but it has been a bitch to get going as a desktop. Usually a FreeBSD server means a long time UNIX hacker has put it in as a cheap fix and it has stayed on a "ain't broke, don't fix it" basis.
I work for A.N ISP: we were recently used in some Intel ad campaign because at the time we were pretty much using Intel boxes everywhere ( we hid the Suns while they were round :)). Of course we weren't running NT.. Actually way back at the start the 2 machines were running NT, but that didn't last. The company's progression has been Sunos4->NetBSD&BSDi->FreeBSD. Why don't we have any Linux boxes? back when the company was first expanding, Linux simply wasn't good enough. BSD 4.4 based systems are far more mature than Linux: we simply could not have run the systems we did on the Linux of the time. I don't think we've seen parity of performance/maturity until the 2.2 kernels arrived, and now we've got so many BSD systems ( and an increasing number of Solaris systems ) we simply don't want to learn a new OS. I'd imagine many BSD shops wanting to move OS might feel the same.
We have had our share of OS bigotry too.. one character of the UK ISP scene is quite vocal in his opposition to Linux, although he left some time ago. I find this sort of prejudice intolerable, especially in a commercial environment: pick the tool that is going to suit the job best for you, be it Solaris, NT, Linux, *BSD, AIX, whatever. Each of them has their strengths and weaknesses ( in our case, Linux is an outsider, and so gets dropped. If the company had started two years later, maybe BSD systems would be the outsiders ).
GNU tools have made the user interface on free unices pretty much homogenous, so the argument generally comes down to the kernel. Personally I find FreeBSD has a coherence lacking in Linux, which for single-purpose systems is a major plus: for workstation or general purpose use it's a limitation, as FreeBSD lacks most of Linux's bells and whistles. The BSD kernel is also very well-documented, another major plus when you're hacking it.. this isn't to say the Linux kernel's not hackable, it just takes more time if you're not familiar with it.
Performance wise, if you ignore the strange anomaly that is FreeBSD 3.1 ( how many bugs? ) FreeBSD is absolutely solid. Web servers, mail servers, routers, proxy servers, whatever, all have continually proved themselves under extreme loads, which makes a change from the old days of 3am taxi rides to push reset buttons.. This isn't to say Linux can't do the same, however I don't think it'd have coped quite as well a year ago. Today I think the preference comes down to personal choice as much as anything else ( if you factor out support ). We choose FreeBSD because it fits the way we work.. but we can choose.
The future is something else: we've reached scalability limits for Intel-based systems for quite a few services.. our core network uses Cisco routers, and we're going to Solaris/SPARC for a lot of other stuff. Bit of a shame, and a bit of a pain when you're trying to do something different, but it gets us nice big blue Suns to play with at least:)
Oh.. and I'll add that with one exception the technical staff are all under 30.. :) and none of us have beards.