Slashdot Mirror
Is FreeBSD really 'The Other Linux'
Why2K writes "This article provides some interesting comments on the differences between FreeBSD and Linux, and the reasons why Linux is more popular. " Its sorta an outsider fluff piece, but its a nice summary. Talks broadly about the technical differences in the code,
the sociologies, and of course, the fact that BSD has a cooler mascot ;)
iso? Please support the FreeBSD or NetBSD projects and buy the cd's.
> Haven't heard about that supposed outburst Browse the Net- or FreeBSD mailing lists and learn why *both* projects have to block subnets under control of Theo... > IMO, they've made an OS superior to NetBSD. But that's just *your* opinion :-).
The only instance remotely like what you describe was the FreeBSD upgrade from 2.x to 3.x, and this was fairly analogous to the linux 2.0.x to 2.2.x upgrade, in which most people simply reinstalled.
Also, linux software is rife with library dependencies - I can't understand how you could be ignorant of this and claim to be an experienced linux user.
It's funny up to a point. Seeing FreeBSD bigots flame away, saying how much superior their kernel, development system, method of distribution, networking, (insert issue here) is than Linux' implementation of the same feature, or Linux bigots saying how FreeBSD is dead, that it can't, won't, hasn't, will never go anywhere, that it doesn't support hardware, (insert isssue here) - It sort of grinds on you.
Why people feel the need to make their system the best is obvious. Why, in the process, they have to put down, flame, or actively disrupt other systems and their development is beyond me, though. I'm sure FreeBSD is great. I'm sure BeOS is fast and it scales pretty well. What people fail to realise is that every single person on earth thinks differently. That's why there's such diversity.
I've come across this sort of mentality before - in children. For children, it's hard to comprehend that there are a lot of other possiblities other than the one that they can come up with between their two ears. They'll become devoted to a rock band, or a television show, or perhaps something a little more extreme, and suddenly everything else in the world isn't an option anymore, and anyone who chooses it is not only misguided, but stupid - and they must be put on the right path, or they'll surely perish.
FreeBSD is developed in a different manner than Linux, and BeOS is developed in yet another way. Each has their own goals and methods. Each is better at some things than other systems are. You know the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none." - It applies.
The simple fact is that systems have been chugging along quite nicely, doing what they're doing, and lots of people like it they way it is. Sure, you might be disappointed in the rapid changes of Linux' kernel - but a lot of people like it that way. You might be mad that BSD doesn't christen new versions often enough for you, but a whole whack of people don't even want the option of updating often.
If everyone could try, not to understand, but just to live and let live, I'm sure that flames would go down, the signal to noise ratio would go up, and fewer rants like this would have to be written. (I may just have to write something substantial next time)
Your insane then. OpenBSD supports almost every type of processor ever thought of. And these guys that write the drivers write stuff for the most obscure of devices for the most obscurest of hardware. Linux is pretty mainstream in comparison...
I've found that, when Linux people become frustrated by their darling going mainstream, they will probably make a shift, but I've yet to see this be a shift from Linux to some other OS. Once you've really had a taste of Linux, little else compares.
Instead, those who switched over to RedHat, which seems to be the mainstream distro of choice, will later migrate to one of the other, less 'visible' distributions. Some do this for technical reasons, such as moving to Mandrake for the pentium optimizations, or to Debian for the tighter quality and security control. Others do it for sake of being different.
Another avenue of which I personally am guilty, is playing with Linux on different architectures. I currently am running Linux on my AMD K62 and an old 486, a sparc IPC, a borrowed ultrasparc, a Mac Performa (PPC), trying hard to get it working on my Vax and my two HP Apollos, and priming up for an install next weekend on my Mac Quadra 660AV (an m68040 box). Nothing gives a dedicated geek that feeling of individuality like the look on the faces of people who see a big pile of seemingly unrelated computer "junk" all working together seamlessly =)
There's so much going on with Linux, ports to different architectures, different distros to try out and compare, and new development always on the horizon, that no geek should feel compelled to switch, just to have something different to do.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
Actually, one of the reasons Linus Torvalds picked the penguin is because he'd been attacked by one. Tux may be plump, but think of what he might be hiding under all that "blubber."
"Beastie" (pronouneced "Beece-Dee"?) is just too damn cute. That's probably a hollow plastic trident there.
But, to get away from the "my mascot can beat up your mascot" thing, shouldn't it be "Either of our mascots can smash through windows?"
Suddenly, I feel like Rodney King.
...and Zip-drive and Ethernetcard. :-)
BTW: Can linux "merge" the input from (say) an PS/2 mouse and some USB pointing device?
Um, Linux runs on about 18 of those. Ho-hum.
FUD from yet another Anonymous Wanker: .. yadda yadda yadda ..
> FreeBSD has lost...
I can't speculate too much on FreeBSD growth except to say that a threefold increase in users is probably what has happened in the last year.
A simple indicator, channel logs on #freebsd on efnet available at:
http://www.emsphone.com/stats/freebsd.html
The yearly graph shows over a threefold increase in the people coming onto to IRC to talk about and ask questions about FreeBSD.
CDrom sales are up according to friends at WC.
Anonymous Coward, the name fits you too well, for someone who may stating facts I'm suprised you aren't inclined to back it up by revealing your identity.
The future may belong to Linux, but I'm sure you won't be welcome there.
--
- Alfred Perlstein - Programmer and Administrator, Wintelcom.
Not to mention insulting the intelligence of all slashdot users. If he actually had an argument he wouldn't be saying things like "Denial, its not just a river in Egypt..." or "jumping down someone's throat with a flamethrower and foul language". I also remember someone posting these exact words the last time. The guy probably went and copied and pasted that paragraph he was so proud of last time (after remembering to logout).
what were they about? I've hung out with Theo before, and he seems to be an ok guy, although he does have a bit of a temper sometimes...something I guess I can accept from someone who's contributed so much to a free OS.
-lx
astmatix uname -a /bin/* | grep dynamic | wc /bin/* | grep static | wc /sbin/* | grep dynamic | wc /sbin/* | grep static | wc
/bin and /sbin mostly statically linked to me (well, sbin does, by a small margin). Of course this isn't a stock install of Solaris, but somehow I doubt that /bin and /sbin are all that different from the stock ones....
/sbin/* | grep executable | grep -v dynamic | wc /sbin/* | grep executable | grep dynamic | wc /bin/* | grep executable | grep -v dynamic | wc /bin/* | grep executable | grep dynamic | wc
/bin and /sbin, so real Unix wins, but /bin and /sbin obviously aren't mostly dynamically linked in either of the two Unices I had available. OTOH, many people don't agree that static binaries are a good idea even for essential stuff.
/etc/rc* /etc/rc1.d/ /etc/rc3.d/ /etc/rc5.d/ /etc/rcS.d/ /etc/rc2.d/ /etc/rc4.d/ /etc/rc6.d/
/etc, though Red Hat Linux (and probably others, as well) doesn't.
:)
SunOS astmatix.ida.liu.se 5.7 Generic_106541-03 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-4
astmatix file
355 3907 30022
astmatix file
1 11 82
astmatix file
8 88 703
astmatix file
10 110 846
Sure doesn't look like Solaris has
Let's try Digital UNIX 4.0, shall we?
lien2[~]> uname -a
OSF1 lien2.mai.liu.se V4.0 878 alpha
lien2[~]> file
15 210 1498
lien2[~]> file
71 1137 8552
lien2[~]> file
16 224 1578
lien2[~]> file
284 4565 33880
Dynamically linked binaries dominate here, too.
OK, admittedly my Debian GNU/Linux only has a total of 4 statically linked binaries in
As for rc?.d dirs:
isildur@o191 ~
$ uname -a
Linux o191 2.2.10 #5 Sat Jun 19 14:06:48 CEST 1999 i586 unknown
isildur@o191 ~
$ ls -d
/etc/rc.boot/
/etc/rc0.d/
At least Debian GNU/Linux keeps the rc.d dirs in
I don't really understand why I bothered with this, I just felt like it.
I know of no professor with commit rights to the Linux kernel, could you elaborate please?
In contrast the FreeBSD project has at least one professor, Alan Cox (at Rice University). No, he's not the Linux kern developer Alan Cox, but a different Alan Cox.
However both camps (FreeBSD and Linux) have people in acadamia in active development, why do you feel the need to mis-inform people?
Also, could you please explain how you managed to put "SGI" and "great minds" in the same sentance?
--
- Alfred Perlstein - Programmer and Administrator, Wintelcom.
do a little fact checking pal.
Check out: http://www.freebsd.org/ports/
Jordan and a few others slaved to ensure that there were upgrade kits for those wishing to do an upgrade without a reinstall.
There are "kits" for 2.2.x -> 3.x available.
--
- Alfred Perlstein - Programmer and Administrator, Wintelcom.
Because Linux is a modern Unix. Modern Unixes use package systems. You don't want to have to re-download all of /bin and /sbin every time a single library they were linked against needs to be upgraded.
Do people here not realize *why* /bin and /sbin should be statically linked? Ie. for recovering a system when /usr goes south. I wish people would learn a little more about the history of Unix.
Personally I'm keeping FreeBSD as an alternative in the case that Linux should get too "windows-like". Linux is getting very exposed in being called the windows enemy, and this can lead to two possibilities: 1) it wins, and windows dies and disappears (which I consider the most possible); 2) it loses and in this case it will be more likely the one to disappear. I don't think that this big interest about it could continue if it becomes an average alternative os. But, many think that Linux to win his battle should become a GUI oriented OS, keeping a unix core, but reducing the importance of shell, text configuration files, etc. Which I completely disapprove. That's why BSD is good, it's more old fashioned (well I don't consider this fashion to be old :) like my favourite linux distribution, Slackware, is. They both come from Walnut Creek at the end.
Um, fuckwit, by what leap of logic is telling Iranians that they have to use Windows because of their national laws (which they can't change; it is a totalitarian regime) forbidding demonic iconography "a comment about religion"?
You're as asinine as the people who insist that Linus should remove all offensive words from the comments in the Linux source.
You make the erroneous assumption that support for more CPUs/platforms equals support for more hardware. Not all hardware is the CPU. I think the original poster was stating that Linux supports more of the latest wizbang gadgets available for x86. This certainly appears to be the case when trying to find drivers for the latest hardware. Furthermore, Linux is quite useful on at least 6 of the archs you listed: x86, mips, alpha, powerpc, sparc, and 68k. Those are just the ones I've worked with. That said, does anyone know where to get iso images of Free/NetBSD for Alpha. I'd like to give one of these a shot on a spare Multia.
*Ouch*. Could someone borrow the sysadmin a clue?
I used BSD in 1994 and it was great. Had a few friends (who gave it to mt) they never had problems. It is a worthy addition
The Lunatick, Carpe Corpus!
BSD Licence promotes fragmentation by allowing changes to be made without these changes being released back to the "open changes pool", this will cause multiple groups to have their own little *BSD.
Any development done on a BSD licenced program is then open to the world to take, as long as they specify "Parts taken from X by X" in the credits. This makes it so that if a company improves a BSD licenced program and then refuses to release their changes, their version will always be superior in featureset then the free and open version.
Hey, I could grab FreeBSD, call it "Seldnix" and release it under the GPL. As long as I "Duplicated the above notice, the two conditions, and the disclaimer" the FreeBSD people could, at worst, make loud rude noises in my direction. However neat it would be to have a *nix named after me, it'd piss people off, and the fact that I could release it under the MS-Windows EULA as easily as the GPL makes that capacity a Bad Thing(TM).
Microsoft sole the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack, made it crufty, and put it in NT5. Does this *help* society, or hurt it?
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Note that I said Linux Logo, as in the little penguin(s) you see on boot-up. The first one on IA/32 had a beer mug. The first one on Sparc had a wine glass. I forget about other platforms.
They were all removed because of concerns about people wanting to use Linux in countries where such iconography is offensive and sometimes even illegal.
If *BSD cared about a user base, they'd pick a less-offensive logo. As it stands, they obviously don't care.
Hey, aren't Irix, Ultrix, and (in a way) NeXTSTEP BSDs, too.
As far as I am concerned, FreeBSD has more solid (if scant) drivers than Linux. Example, I tried unsuccessfully for many hours to get Linux to recognize my NE2000 compatible PCI card, including building a new kernal FTPed down. I finally gave up and had a full FreeBSD install downloaded installed, and working in two hours (including X and KDE). I was so impressed!
FreeBSD seems to run Linux binaries just as well as Linux, while the whole OS seems more responsive overall. I don't get the lag I got with Linux. The documentation has been very good, and sometimes my old Linux book helps me with my BSD questions (they are two of the same in many respects).
The FreeBSD FTP install was impressive, I got it right the first time. It was also a very clean install, I did not get the junk Linux gives me in my directories.
I doubt I will try out Linux again within a year or two, maybe never. FreeBSD has impressed me to the point where I have canned my Red Hat 6 CDs.
BTW, I do not like the cartoonish FreeBSD logo. It in no way is representative of FreeBSD. The clumsy, fat Penguin is, however, a great representative of Linux.
P.S. Please moderate this up, I always get stuck with a 1. Thanks.
--EC
--My URL is soon to be.
EverCode
I fail to see why people continue to compare FreeBSD to Linux. It is like comparing apples to oranges.
The advantages I see being campaigned by the FreeBSD community tends to sounds something like this: (correct me if I left something out)
1) Less people are allowed to modify FreeBSD (both userland and kernel land). And thus it is more stable.
2) Less people are allowed to modify FreeBSD (both userland and kernel land). And thus it is more secure.
3) The FreeBSD group controls both userland and kernel land and thus they are able to support a superior change control management scheme.
4) FreeBSD has superior developers. (over linux) since everyone knows linux developers are a bunch of rebels hacking elaborate "fixes" rather then implementing sound designs. (Resulting in unmanageabke code)
5) FreeBSD was based on source code provided by the LORD himself *BSDlite* and thus FreeBSD is UNIX which makes it superior.
I will attempt to rebuttal each point stated above.
1) Less people are allowed to modify FreeBSD resulting in less people looking at source code. Resulting in fewer new features and new design (possibly better) concepts from being implmented in a timely manner. The fact that adding new code tends to create a possibility of it being unstable merely creates an opportunity for a better CVS like solution to be created (case in point:BitMover)
2) Less people are allowed to modify FreeBSD and thus less people look at the code, resulting in less bugs being discovered. Having a smaller user base also has the advantage of being less satisfying to "crack". I wouldn't brag to my supervisor saying I found this bug in FreeBSD. I could brag saying I found a bug in linux.
3) This is one of the most interesting arguements because it seems to be the one that has the LEAST effect on the success of Linux/Gnu. However it seems to be the one that is campaigned most by the FreeBSD community (at least the vocal part of it).
I see this as flawed thinking, the very reason why the GNU/LINUX model works is because it follows (IMHO) the model of creating that has the most longevity. I would call this a Natrual process of creating. I say that because I see the GNU/Linux process the same way I see nature. It evolves based on the energies put into it. Now this is true for all things in my opinion however it is my experince that when you attempt to "control" evolution (or nature) it has undesireable results. (fragmentation, stagnation, death, corruption ect..).
4) For the most part core FreeBSD developers and core Linux developers are of the same breed. This arguement is silly. Research the names in the Linux CREDITS list and this whole theory gets blown out of the water.
5) FreeBSD was based on the efforts of many before them. A very solid well designed system. Linux was created with these same good designs in mind. But it was created with the BAD designs in mind too. Linux is not UNIX, nor has it had the luxury of it's 40 year old code base and thus it has taken a number of years for it to mature to the point of most UNIX's. It has just recently (last year or two) reached a point where it can claim as such. If you put this in perspective, you will see that Linux is growing at a rate that is truly amazing.
The Linux/GNU process (in it's entirety) is so radically differnt then other development processes that judging it based on standard methodologies leaves you in the position of supporting an arguement that holds no water (i.e. the position/arguements you hold against something has no noticeable effect on it (leaving you always saying (just wait, it will "REAL SOON now")).
-- You can be a geeklord too
At least for NetBSD, wich I know better.
I personally really dislike the run to html, texinfo, sgml or some own documentation system (as E or KDE has) as well.
This makes the documentation of a Unix system more and more confusing and you have to consult multiple "help" systems (like man, info, kdehelp etc.) and search them all seperately. I really want "man for everything" back!
Developers: Write manpages or add make targets to generate manpages from your sgml files etc.
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
I want to try BSD, but I have run into problems with support for my hardware. It seems that linux has a wider hardware support base than BSD.
But I do like the fact that there is a flavor of BSD that has undergone a line by line security audit.
-----Transmission Complete----- If you want to email me...Don't
I myself have found the mailing list archives more useful than the often vague handbook :). There is sure to be someone with a similar problem over the 4 or so years the archives go back -- and many replies. It's also nice to have the ability to gauge user input on a certain product on the mailing lists. Before testing rate limiting and queue software on FreeBSD, I just looked at some very long threads discussing which was better.
Either way, the quality of the work done by developers in the BSD field is undeniable. It is *not* an OS for newbies, and most people will tell you exactly that, if you bother to ask around.
For OpenBSD, for example, there is a wealth of information on the web (the manpages are online, there is an extensive FAQ, and the mailing list archives are all on or linked to from openbsd.org), and I understand completely why sometimes some clueless person comes and asks how to mount a floppy disk or how to compile a kernel without making a conscious effort and research on their own, and gets a 'less-than-pleasing' answer from a BSD user or developer.
The *BSD people use their time to work on a project, not to 'hold people's hands'. If you have a problem with that, stick with linux.
Besides, shouldn't you be worrying about which linux distro should you run next week? Will it be RedHat, Debian, Suse, Mandrake, Slakware, kha0s, etc, etc? Oh, and keep patching those pesky holes... sucks to run a box that seems like it's made out of swiss cheese.....
Check http://www.openbsd.org if you want something more robust and secure, sir.
titanic $ cd /sbin
titanic $ file * | grep 'statically linked' | wc -l
9
But effectively, you're right; a Solaris system is often not usable/recoverable if you separate / and /usr. I find this rather annoying, myself, since in my experience /usr gets trashed a lot more than root. (And also, it's a lot `cheaper' in terms of disk space and time to keep a bootable backup (/altroot) on another disk if it's 64 MB right than a gig or more.)
It's certainly not far more common among Unix systems. This is not the case. On BSD systems, only the a partition needs to be below 1024 cylinders, not the entire DOS partition holding the BSD partitions.cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
Haven't seen anyone rip on it, it runs some of the largest sites in the world! What a great OS!
And mailbombing is not childish?
Please ask the administrators of Free- and NetBSD list- and webservers why they have to block some networks under control of Theo...
I'd give FreeBSD a good overview and there's a good chance I might even change to it, *if* they bothered with some decent console support.
As it is, I'm stuck with 80x50 and eleven VCs. (Yes, I compiled with VM86 and VESA, and yes, I do actually use that many VCs.) The console, I'm told, doesn't have graphics support either.
When and if they get console support up to the level Linux's console support is at, I'll check it out again.
First off, you're looking at this from the POV of a GPL fan. The FreeBSD team want's *everyone* (you, me, M$, the dog) to use their code. The more , the merrier. BSD people already know that if you release code openly, there's really no way you can truly control it. eg. How do you know portions of the Linux kernel isn't already in use in a commercial OS without seeing the source? No type of copyright (despite the interesting twist on words, the GPL is still a copyright) will stop an unscrupulous individual from doing what they want with your code. Next, you seem to worry about what might happen to the code. My questions is, does it matter? The original is still there. If the proprietary additions are something people are willing to pay for, they why shouldn't a company charge for it. Now I'm talking about the additions. They would have to be fairly compelling to make an educated consumer forego a completely free and well supported alternative. So, obviously a trivial repackacking ain't going to work. So if you sink millions in R&D to make additions (saving millions more because you don't have to write the guts), then why shouldn't you try to recoup the investment? So people wind up paying for an extended featureset. Big deal. If you don't need the feature set, you can go with the free version. If there's one thing in the bloated version that is really useful, somebody will duplicate it. Or you can duplicate it yourself. Calling it Seldnix ;) in the process. Big deal. Hey if MS takes BSD and rolls their own Win32 brand from it, it'll make my job easier. For one, it'll be an OS that end users understand and it won't crash as much. On the otherhand, after seeing what M$ did to the TCP stack, maybe it's not such a great idea.
Let's involve one of the principals, ok?
You'll know who:
Maybe it's 'cos I'm Canadian, but I like that idea (emphasis added, just in case you were wondering). Sounds like they're both cool.
eh? like the giant influx of newbies is capable of finding exploits. I'm not saying that it isn't true, but there will definitely be less holes in a unified system. Just look at all the root exploits in all versions of redhat. They threw 6.0 out even before a stable kernel version was available. I doubt they had time to do a security audit. Oh yeah, and look on freebsd.com and view the number of possible non application holes. Very small.
That is disturbing!!
I hope they don't enlarge the breasts on Tux.
Seriously, BSD is a really cool system, fast, stable and in some ways even elegant. But the turnaround times, back then, were HORRIBLE! That's about the time I migrated, once and for all, to Linux. Linux was behind, then, but was gaining ground. BSD was playing the hare, and sleeping away it's huge lead.
These days, it seems to take less than an eon before the next BSD updates come out, which is a huge improvement, but as I see it, it's still not got the pace it could - or should - have. I've been tempted to put a partition aside for one of the *BSD systems, but I'm holding off to see if it'll be overtaken by Linux on the few advantages it has left. If it is, what's the point? On the other hand, if it makes real progress, I want to have a copy to play with.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Are we not men?
... we must repeat ...
We are DEVO.
Yet somehow we survive, even those people in Kansas (btw evolution _should_ be taught there, but as a theory rather than fact; double standards in science are not productive).
Wondered why my apartment's so warm. Must be those 2 FreeBSD boxes over here. Still, long live the Daemon(s) even if i have to keep the AC on all the time.
Cheers to you, i'm off to another Bloody Mary...
Oh, come on now... Cooler mascot??? How can a daemon be cooler than a penguin??? Logic clearly dictates FreeBSD's mascot is hotter.
(8-DCS)
But that's incompatible in a different way. Nothing there says that you can't take BSD'd stuff, slap the GPL on it (remember, you can do anything you want with it), and put it with the GPL'd stuff (except with that advertising clause, I guess; don't know about that). What you said just means that you can't take GPL'd stuff and put it in a BSD program. And aren't you using "commercial" incorrectly? I don't think you're allowed to make proprietary yet non-commercial products out of GPL'd code. As long as you intend to distribute it, it matters.
301th post!
Xah
xah@best.com
http://www.best.com/~xah/PageTwo_dir/more.html
I have read just about 100 or so comments on why BSD is better than Linux. They say it is more secure, stable, etc. But it seems that nobody has any concrete examples of why this may be so. Like FreeBSD uses this technology while Linux uses that technology which makes FreeBSD better. Or look at lines xxx in Linux code which makes it unstable.
I have used both Linux and FreeBSD and to tell you the honest truth I don't see that much of a difference. Many programs designed for linux has been ported for FreeBSD and I when I finished configuring FreeBSD I found myself with the same environment as Linux. It was actually quite funny. But because I was so used to configuring Linux, I went back to Slackware where it was more comfortable for me.
The morale of the story is when we complain about Linux vs. FreeBSD we are mainly blowing steam. At least for the workstation usage it is relatively the same. If FreeBSD is more stable than Linux then that is fine. I have not noticed the difference. If Linux is so bad then I want to see concrete examples of why that is so. In my experience the badly written programs that crash in Linux still crash in BSD when ported. Linux is plainly more friendly and has more programs for it (But IMNSHO most programs that only run in Linux and not *nix are badly written). On the other hand, FreeBSD's compile on demand ports collection is just tooo sweet!
The only thing that leaves me itching to go back to BSD is those damn script kiddies and the greed factor is getting just a little to high for my taste.
Just use whats best for you.
actually, if you've ever looked at the efnet irc crowd, they're all running eggdrop bots and on shell servers mostly on bsd's. I'm sure they're being attacked and have users trying to buffer overflow to get root at all times of the day. I'm sorry, but linux just isn't up to being secure enough. Yes, it may partially be security through obscurity -- but it DOES work (this coming from someone who does know when users break into his system -- because my box will e-mail me if any files in certain directories are changed and/or there is someone with uid 0 that shouldnt be). You try actually keeping a secure and working system with 5k shell users on linux and find out (not to mention previous problems with linux scaling). Of course, if you're only worried about remote exploits, it's fairly easy to relegate the average user to one or two well known ports -- so you'll only have to worry about say http and telnet. Oh yeah, and also, in case you didn't notice, OpenBSD did get an extreme security audit -- and much of the security problems they find are fixed in the other BSD's since they share a lot of code. So it is not necessarily security through obscurity. However, as in all cases, a clueless admin can always f***up a good thing.
And here's the story.
Having tried both freebsd and linux (ok, rh), I can honestly say that I use freebsd because the organization of nearly everything is much cleaner.
True, as Linus said, FreeBSD community has been much less evangelical than he about their cause, which creates a perception that they are less open than perhaps they actually are. But as my competence grows, I feel less and less that this is a drawback. It draws less noise - from mailing lists to actual development and chaos in system updates. It certainly results in fewer mailing lists a good admin would track for security-related updates
From installation to software management, I find that *BSD is more "unix-ey" - features that are frustrating at first become the things that you appreciate as you gain knowledge.
And yes, it takes none to post, but the lower standard of admission for linux users is why RedHat IPO'd. The only thing that bothers me is the rustling sound of many of FreeBSD-using admins trying to explain to their pointy-haired bosses why they aren't using linux...
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
> What I want to know is why there isn't a ton of
/stability/ of the BSD camps in that they don't keep splitting off every time someone has a new idea they want to implement.
> distributions of *BSDs all over the place. The
> BSD license is more permissive than GPL, so
> what's the problem?
Good point. Linux fans like to flame *BSD for being "fragmented", while ignoring the fact that there are only 3 largely co-operating BSDs, compared to over 20 largely co-operating Linux distributions.
Personally, I think it's because people are quite satisfied with what they get with at least one of the three BSDs, so see no need to go and create their own MyBSD to do things their way. Contrary to what we see posted a lot on Slashdot, this indicates
I think the way the three BSDs direct themselves has got the spectrum of "interests" fairly well-covered: security, portability, general-purpose (for want of a better term). Most users fit quite comfortably into these categories, so do their development work for there. And of course, many of the changes are cross-pollinated between the three species
You got it all wrong. His original question was very specific about BSD ports for VAX machines (remember DEC?).
how is installing X and KDE easier in FreeBSD than Linux??
Very easy to use installation/configuration tools, most of them operated from the menu driven program sysinstall. It takes care of dependencies etc when you install or uninstall packages or parts of the distribution, but ofcourse you can also choose to do all this by hand.
In the case of installing X and KDE: after installing the operating system you can select configure from the menu, then Xfree86. There you can pick an X configuration tool (XF86Setup, xf86config, XF98Setup, XDesktop), to configure your installation of XFree86. After that's done, theres a choice of KDE, Gnome (+ afterstep by defaul iirc), Afterstep, Windowmaker or Enlightenment. Or cancel, so you can pick any of about 30 other windows managers from the ports collection. Selecting one will cause it to be automatically installed from the selected media (FTP, Passive FTP, CD-ROM, HDD or whatever), and configured.
Great is also the ports collection; a tree of directories of thousands of packages ported to FreeBSD (which you can also partially install or remove if you like, in my case, since I don't speak japanese, russian, vietnamese, chinese etc i removed a large part of it, and dont update those parts). You install or update a port by cd-ing to the directory of that port and typing make install.
Contrary to configuration of windows you do have a choice: you don't need to use the fool-proof tools for configuration/installation, you can also do that by hand.
In the software marketplace, marketshare is extremely important. No one can afford to pay developers for a product that only sells a few copies. One of the reasons Freebsd failed is because of its shrinking marketshare. According to IDC figures for the past 3 years, only Linux and NT have gained marketshare. The rest have slipped farther back.
With such keen competition for software developers, it only makes sense to spend your resources on what will guarantee a return. This business is cut throat. And there is not enough market for Freebsd to justify the costs of development. That is the real nail in Freebsd's coffin.
Which only proves that such matters are subjective. I've tried Debian several times, but personally I hate it. Way too many packages, with a way too nifty package system, dependencies etc. Way too many maintainers that are too dedicated, thus tweaking and patching their "baby" package(s) to death. It's the most horrible dist I've seen. I'd rather use Redhat, even better like Slackware (which I'm currently using) and FreeBSD is the ultimate. Though, since I need vmware alas I can not run it at the moment. Soon I will, when the vmware kernel modules have been ported over; then vmware can run in the Linux emulation.
NetBSD (bleh)??? Are you an idiot? OpenBSD is a direct decendant of NetBSD, Theo De Raadt split it off in 1995. Picking on NetBSD is picking on OpenBSD.
Hey, I could grab FreeBSD, call it "Seldnix" and release it under the GPL. As long as I "Duplicated the above notice, the two conditions, and the disclaimer" the FreeBSD people could, at worst, make loud rude noises in my direction.
Actually, you couldn't. The GPL will not let you use BSD-licensed code.
Well, my point with it being harmful was mainly dealing with if infact something supernatural is going on. That is mostly dealing with the soul, not physical harm. I'm not honestly sure what it does, or how it works, so I guess I don't know. I can only say that I personally would consider it harmful to myself if I were to practice it for whatever reason. About the thing with the relationship with god, yeah, I know how it goes. A lot of issues that have to be dealt with, and some of them require changes in the way you think. I still haven't completely given up on the idea of "god", but in the scientific community, it's not the easiest thing to do. There are a lot of questions out there, and it seems like every day you have to be ready to accept that what you currently believe might not be right. Though at the same time, "popular" science has certainly been proven wrong in the past.. Ah well, as long as people keep open minds...
Not even an intelligent assault, "descintegrating"? Making up words now or just to stupid to find a real insulting word?
BSD has to have the best mascot, the penguin is stupid, the MS flag is too neutral to inspire anything, Red Hats red hat is just unoriginal and boring.
The picture used to represent the FBSD daemon is clearly the Christian interpretation of demons, not from the Greco-Roman Daimon. The Christian demon is described as a spirit with no body which has a nasty habit of posessing other people's bodies. They aren't even top dog in Christian mythology, they are inferior to archangels.
The Greek daimon was not exactly something I'd want as a mascot anyway. A daimon is a supernatural being of the lowest order, inferior to other supernatural beings. It sits at a level between the gods and man.
There are earlier definitions of demons being called daimones or "divine powers". Later however daimones began to refer more towards the spirits of the dead (Roman) and to the above daimon. They also refer to spirits which each person is assigned to watch over.
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
> BSD Licence promotes fragmentation by allowing
:-)
> changes to be made without these changes being
> released back to the "open changes pool",
> this will cause multiple groups to have their
> own little *BSD.
I see. This must be why 3 BSD distributions is "more fragmented" than 20 Linux distributions.
Mathematics in your world must be based on some interesting axioms
What I wanted out of switching to BSD is a more secure machine, so I decided to look into OpenBSD. The unsupported hardware I was talking about was multiprocessor i386 support in OpenBSD.
(It really sucks not to be able to use the added processing power of a second CPU).
I did not look into the other BSD's, cause the only reason I was looking at BSD as an alternative was security.
-----Transmission Complete----- If you want to email me...Don't
Funny, 4 different linux distributions have recognized my NE2000 PCI card with their default installers.
while the whole OS seems more responsive overall
Care to elaborate?
I did not get the junk Linux gives me in my directories.
You're assuming that Red Hat is Linux. Including all the packages which RedHat installs.
I admin both Linux and FreeBSD boxes, and they're both very nice operating systems. It's people like you who give FreeBSD negative look. Why not *ask* people for help before spitting flames at linux?
FreeBSD is great, but with people like this advocating it.. No wonder it gets bad PR.
...
Bitchslapped? Give Rob a bitchslap from bitchslapped.com.
I haven't heard much from the OpenBSD goup after the "leader" spazed out and started sending naughty emails to the other core members of the NetBSD group. Nothing like watching an infantile outburst by a programer.
Cool, you should run the "uptime" client on that box to submit stats.
:)
http://uptime.hexon.cx/
I'd like to encourage everyone who has a long-lived box to participate in the project.
Currently the BSDs are doing very very well in the stats. Go team!
BECAUSE that by definition is what Unix does. Maybe you should buy a copy of the Lions book and take a look at the Version 6 source.
Geez, do most Linux users really not know anything about the history of Unix?
The reason I think FreeBSD gets more pr is that it is quite a bit easier to use. I don't think many people care about running on different architectures all that much, honestly. Which is not to say that netbsd hasn't done some awesome stuff...
-lx
Female penguins don't have breasts.
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
I think you meant: The #1 Reason Linux is better than BSD is that it is protected by the GPL.
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
The REAL, UNDISPUTABLE difference is:
The BSD Licence
over the GPL.
And that is the *ONLY* difference you will have people agree on.
Everything else can be changed in code. So if GNU/Linux has X today, BSD can have it 1-2 months out. And if BSD has Y today, GNU/Linux can have it 1-2 months out. So unless you live and breath both projects, you are likely to insert both feet in your mouth.
(and it matters to companines that have Intellectual property they wish to protect.)
Is a man. hmmmm.
matt
I've read over the GPL several times and can't find any reason why the BSD license is incompatible with the GPL.
The GPL states the BSD requirements in it (copyright notice) and the only clause that comes close to saying BSD is incompatible with GPL is the sublicensing restrictions clause, but it clearly is not incompatible with the BSD license if you read it carefully.
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
You can stop arguing which is better, since I will kill both and you geeks are no match for me ! MU-HAHAHAHAHA
Ok, so that was a bad example. The point still holds though. Most FreeBSD programs have up-to-date manpages, while most Linux programs seem to be following gcc's lead in abandoning their man pages in favor of other types of documentation.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
_anyone_ can contribute to freebsd. I dunno where this myth started.
/usr/src and everything is clean (recompile everything with make buildworld ; make installworld too!) as FreeBSD is an OS, not just a kernel :P
The core team is just a group of people who have the final say on what goes in. _JUST_ like Linus.
plus its easier to make changes to both userland and kernel, as they come together in
-bugg
Your measuring linux's direct writing to audio output vs BeOS's media api which does a lot of stuff linux currently cant. If anything it can play two streams of audio at the same time. Linux still has a long way to go, and Linus hasnt expressed any interest in pushing Linux in that direction anyway.
I assume you're just trolling, but i'll respond anyway. All those linux distributions have the same kernel, and most of the same userspace. The filesystem layouts are very similar. The differences between the BSDs are much bigger than the difference between say, redhat and debian.
libc issues aren't. On my glibc2.1 based system, I can run glibc2.1, glibc2.0 and libc5 apps. Hell, I can even run OLD a.out binaries.
Your comments like "what could be simpler"
a few posts above, or flaming people as
"idiots" here, show that you are a snob
and a rather intolerant at that. Do you
hope to attract people with flames like
that?
For some reason I get the impression that Linux has tons more security problems than FreeBSD. For FreeBSD it's like "been there fixed that 10 years ago". Especially for the IP stack. I'm not asking for all the Linux distro stuff to be 100% solid, coz I'll just remove those that aren't. But I can't remove the Linux IP stack easily without removing Linux! Sometimes I wish that Linux would just rip off the FreeBSD IP stack! I mean don't the Linux IP stack people find it embarassing to have the same network security flaws as Windows 9X over and over again? I'd rather not have to go install a single FreeBSD server just so that I can run a firewall without having to kernel patch it every month or so. Heh Linux = Win95 (supports wide range of hardware, which is real cool but has danger of featuritis) and FreeBSD= NT (stabler, and a tad more secure)..
> shrinking marketplace... yadda.. yadda..
:)
I wonder what you think the benifit of your slander is and I can't understand where you got "FreeBSD failed"
First off, Applixware is in its final testing stages for a native FreeBSD port.
At least two major database companies are planning on native FreeBSD ports, or maybe FreeBSD friendly Linux ports of thier enterprise software.
Xig continues to support FreeBSD's 3.x and 4.x lines with version 5 of their software, it is unfortunate that they got burned on the CDE issue but who really wants CDE?
As long as ISVs are coding for Linux there will be people running those applications via the linux-activator in FreeBSD.
The FreeBSD project is currently in contact with many ISVs with the goal of creating FreeBSD-friendly linux apps. This allows a "code once, compile twice" system where everyone wins.
As far as the shrinking market share is objective, there is a larger market now than ever. One percent of 10,000,000 is larger than two percent of 1,000,000.
Oh, and besideds that, I think you are talking out of your rear-end, but that's just me.
It's easy to post under Anonymous Coward, if the shoe fits, wear it.
--
- Alfred Perlstein - Programmer and Administrator, Wintelcom.
If you would have selected "ports" in the freebsd install you would have got bash (the superior shell).
...
Bitchslapped? Give Rob a bitchslap from bitchslapped.com.
> > I tried unsuccessfully for many hours to get Linux to recognize my NE2000 compatible PCI card
:-).
> Funny, 4 different linux distributions have recognized my NE2000 PCI card with their default
> installers.
Both statements are probably correct, since "NE2000" is no "certified" standard, i.e. that *you* get *your* card to work doesn't mean that *anybody* may get *his* card to work with linux (without code modification).
I personally had a lot of "fun" with NE2000 cards, most of it with Windows of course. It's really strange that Windows has so much troubles though every NIC producer sells them with "special" Windows drivers for his card. With *BSD it's just a matter of ifconfig - a good way to show someone that his hardware and our network is ok, just his windows is broken BTW
I live in Boston, and has seen this idiotic gasbag Hiawatha Bray write a lot of trash in her time.
I'd suggest people not believe what she says, whatever it is, because she has NO CREDIBILITY because of her lies and distortions. The fact that she is somehow allowed to write on technical topics doesn't change that.
Personally, I like Linux over FreeBSD, but I can't imagine what kind of distortions of reality she had to go through to make Jordan Hubbard say what he has appeared to say in this article.
And here is the link if you want to track real multi-platform OS : http://www.netbsd.org/Releases/current.html
That's really cool and all but... ...whether it's Linux or *BSD or whatever, it will be a bustling place of ideas and not quite the "thieves market" (don't misunderstand my meaning...I'm just referring to sense of community) that it may have seemed in the past. Wasn't the point of open source of any kind supposed to be that people would actually use/reuse software...if it's to be succesful then won't some of those user have to be non-programmers and more casual users?
I think the real issue about mascots is how the average person is going to see it...unfortunately to most people the "original" meaning will never have the importance of the percieved meaning.
As long as our little "bazaar" keeps growing the less informed masses will tend to overshadow the individuals "in the know"
The point is that *somebody* in the core looks at the patches and says yay or nay. Just like BSD.
There's no difference.
Since all of the the programs required to make Linux do it are OSS. Just need to recompile and possible make some kernel specific modifications.
-- "Well, Hello, Mr. Fancy-pants. I've got news for you pal, you ain't in control but two things right now, Jack and s
Tokin' mascot. I get the feeling that he's staring straight into Zen, or maybe a tasty fish.
+&x
I agree that EROS has a very interesting design. There are a number of things that I would look at tweaking, but the core concepts are elegant enough that I think it should be given a hard look by OS architects.
Another interesting, although still experimental, approach for making Linux more secure is the LOMAC project.
You could make a cheesy fighting game with the Linux penguin vs. the FreeBSD daemon. The daemon's special move would be a syslog attack. :P
*-emufreak-*
www.kontek.net/pp
I don't think thast 400 and 900 are reasonable uptimes. If your Linux or Solaris box was up this long someone would just DoS it or crack it ..
The GPL is a joke. It has been violated many times (I know because the company I work for has done it). It is indefensible.
How? I can't think of any way of harming somebody with a board except for hitting them on the head with it. If other people believe that it is evil, that still doesn't mean somebody can be harmed with it.
Even if your not doing anything supernatural when using it, your then fooling yourself to put your trust into the supposed abilities of an inanimate object...
If you're trusting a piece of wood to tell you things, then you are a few clowns short of a circus IMHO, and deserve everything you get.
I tend to just think it's counter productive and hurts your relationship with God.
Nah, my relationship with God broke down because of a lack of communication, you know? He never called, visited, you know, you miss the little things...
But seriously, daemon != demon. Anyone using the logo as an argument against the OS is taking the piss. If a government refuses to let their population use an operating system for that reason (I doubt it's that big a deal, although I've never visited any countries other people mentioned,) then the government is *way* too oppressive for it's own good and will probably end up being overthrown anyway.
What I want to know is why there isn't a ton of distributions of *BSDs all over the place. The BSD license is more permissive than GPL, so what's the problem?
Not sure if you'll read this or not but I use FreeBSD and I love it. Thanks to you guys for all the hard work.
> OpenBSD is probably the most secure version of BSD out there.
Reading bugtraq I can only say "wrong".
In case you did not notice, RedHat is funding a security audit of their distribution. As a result there are many announcements of security holes - but this is a side-effect of improving security.
OpenBSD did this a while ago you say? Sure. But read those announcements because if you are using the same applications that the Linux folks are, then you are vulnerable. Security holes are things that tend to build up over time.
In fact security is a constant problem with the *nix organization. If you want to see a fundamental design which can lead to far more security than either OpenBSD or Linux, take a look at EROS.
(Solution to root-exploits, get rid of the possibility!)
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Then BSD isn't your only problem. You'll have to try to run your Linux box without any daemons. Have fun going without inetd.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The only big difference between Linux and FreeBSD is the licensing. The FreeBSD license is considered more "friendly" by some.
On the other hand, I have not been happy with the treatment of security issues in BSD. Someone can post an exploit on bugtraq and it can be days before you get a patch to stop it from the mailing lists (after sorting through several broken patches that don't work). Unacceptable on a production server.
Also, the BSD people are not known for their friendliness but I believe this is changing.
That's because, by definition, UID 0 is root. Some other UID may be called "root," and UID 0 may have a different name, but the UID 0 is still the superuser with all the "root" privilages. Read up on your UNIX specs.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
That's 11, isn't it? :)
Why? You're blaming an OS for what's obviously your ignorance. That'd be like me saying "FreeBSD sucks 'cause ipchains doesn't work on it, so I had to format and reinstall Linux."
/usr/doc/.
I'd also be curious as to how you formatted and installed FreeBSD remotely, like you claim.
BTW, docs for RH, including the manuals, are in
Methinks your CD-ROM was essentially dead anyway
I figured that. I just thought it was rather funny. Hmm, I guess you should have seen it.
Okay, idiots.
Think for approximately two seconds before you assume you're right. Think, people. Think!
UID 0 is superuser on Unix, true. It is *not* necessarily root. You should, and on real Unixen you safely can, be able to rename UID 0, say, bofh, and have root be a non-privileged, non-uid 0 user.
There's a reason FreeBSD has an suser() call. Maybe one day they'll actually finish implementing it.
A quick rebuttal! :-)
:-)
;-)
>10) FreeBSD is faster
Not on my hardware that it doesn't support.
>9) FreeBSD is more secure
1 problem on Bugtraq for my current Slackware Linux server VS several for FreeBSD (OpenBSD is cool, though. I think the philosophy, and fact it is based in my home town just rule).
>8) FreeBSD has better networking
Better at what networking now? TCP/IP, Apple Talk, IPv6, firewalling, etc, etc? Opinions don't count as objectivity...
>7) FreeBSD has a better written kernel
Which is, of course, an opinion statement.
>6) FreeBSD runs more major Web Sites
And can continue to do so, away from my hardware.
>5) FreeBSD is more efficient
At making zealots who hurt the freesoftware movement. You aren't all bad, but the post this in reply to is.
>4) FreeBSD is free from such useless efforts as WINE and Gnome.
Cool, I wrote an emulator for SNES! Since that one guy said an emulator for Windows functionality was useless, I won't port this there, either. No software is not good software.
As for GNOME, why on earth wouldn't you want a cool GUI to work in? GIMP for console doesn't work too well, budski.
>3) FreeBSD is more stable
Opinion statement #3. My Slackware Linux server is as stable as the power company will let it be. This is why I am buying a UPS
>2) FreeBSD is BSD based
Humans are carbon based. There are a lot of asshole humans. Go figure.
>1) FreeBSD has not been contaimated by the billionaires at the cathedral RedHat.
Er, Slackware Linux is not RedHat. If you're crazy to avoid Linux because of RedHat, I guess I should be crazy and avoid *BSD because of a certain ravening FreeBSD user.
You are REALLY funny, though. Thanks for reminding me that I should be kind, and courtious to all computer users, regardless of their "sacreligous" operating system choices. I might still be a bit curt to Mac users, though
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Once linux has mainstreamed and everybody is using it, geeks won't feel so special anymore. I think alot of people jumped ship off of Microsoft simply because they wanted to differentiate themselves from everybody else. At the time, linux was the obvious choice. Now that linux has mainstreamed, geeks need a new toy that appeals to just geeks.
The answer, it would seem, comes in the form of a small stuffed devil with a pitchfork.
--
> Hell, I can even run OLD a.out binaries.
Same for NetBSD. NetBSD 1.4-current even can run code from versions back to 0.9 and BSD 4.3.
For reference, here are the NetBSD emulation and compatibility options available for NetBSD/i386:
# Compatibility options
options COMPAT_NOMID # compatibility with 386BSD, BSDI, NetBSD 0.8,
options COMPAT_09 # NetBSD 0.9,
options COMPAT_10 # NetBSD 1.0,
options COMPAT_11 # NetBSD 1.1,
options COMPAT_12 # NetBSD 1.2,
options COMPAT_13 # NetBSD 1.3,
options COMPAT_14 # NetBSD 1.4,
options COMPAT_43 # and 4.3BSD
options COMPAT_386BSD_MBRPART # recognize old partition ID
options COMPAT_SVR4 # binary compatibility with SVR4
options COMPAT_IBCS2 # binary compatibility with SCO and ISC
options COMPAT_LINUX # binary compatibility with Linux
options COMPAT_FREEBSD # binary compatibility with FreeBSD
options COMPAT_AOUT # binary compat for NetBSD a.out binaries
While they went to great lengths to say that one of the differences was how code was added to the base, they didn't really say why that matters that much.
:)
Before, when I did a lot of custom drivers for Linux, I was continually annoyed with kernel interfaces changing, and code that was 'current' a week ago, suddenly becoming legacy.
With FreeBSD, I've had amazing longevity with my code. Not because they're slow to change, but because, in my opinion, (flame proof clothes ready) it was designed 'right' the first time.
The works of people like Kirk McKusick and David Greenman are quite possibly some of the best designs I've ever seen. Even if you don't plan on using FreeBSD, I think all developers should at least take a look at how it works, and I promise you'll learn a thing or two.
I also hold 'good design' as the reasons for why I've had systems with 400+ day uptimes, that were sometimes under nearly constant attack and/or intrusion attempts.
Finally, the BSD license. My 'day job' is designing an embedded product, which is using FreeBSD for it's OS. Why? The license. Many companies are hesitant, or even contractually prohibited, from giving out changes made to the system, which the GPL rather insists on. The BSD license is very open, which I think may become more important in the near future.
Go download a boot floppy, or buy a CD from Walnut Creek or even Cheap Bytes and give it a try. Even if you don't end up keeping it, if you're a hacker, you'll learn something.
People wonder why FreeBSD hasn't "taken off" like Linux has. This kind of bullshit is the reason why.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Anyone thinking FreeBSD (in particular) doesn't "release" often enough... well, just doesn't get it. FreeBSD's releases are just points at which it goes into cds.
If you want to know at which pace FreeBSD progresses, send a message to majordomo@freebsd.org subscribing to cvs-all.
(8-DCS)
and just like before it was the musings of a no-nothing. just to let you know:
1. SGI is going out of business. Their support is inconsequential.
2. Oracle only cares about destroying Microsoft and will pervert, warp, and shit on linux as they see fit.
3. Sybase, Informix. Hahah. Right. Thats about as meaningful as Atari supporting linux.
4. Corel. See above. Surely you jest. See their previous foray into Java.
5. Compaq. Ask former DEC employees about their commitment to unix.
6. IBM. See "OS/2".
None of the companies you have described are betting the kitchen sink on linux. Most of them support multiple OS's and will continue to. Most linux users see someone like IBM doing a couple of linux ports and think all of a sudden that the big companies have gotten spiritual and are gushing over GNU and ESR. Forget it - its a business decision and they aren't going to drop their proprietary software (which actually pays their bills) just to get on the GNU bandwagon.
I run the i386 version of OpenBSD and I'm happy with it, the security is the balls (go home kiddies), I won't presume to speak for NetBSD (bleh), or FreeBSD though. The install was smooth, and most linux software is easy enough to port in the event that it doesn't run straight off. I suppose some flamebait is in order...the BSD daemon is obviously so much cooler than chubby water fowl.
PRAY FOR MOJO
Run both under SMP load. Solaris works well like that, BSDi doesn't.
God was offended by it! He cast us from paradise for one teeny tiny bite from an apple.
What does marketshare and sales have to do with open source projects? Most of the good work is done for free anyway. Proggies get an itch, so they scratch it. Marketspeak's got nothin to do with it.
If marketshare is your yardstick, you're probably using Microsoft......
I think the choice of mascots is actually a fairly good indicator of the basic difference between Linux and xxxBSD.
The BSD mascot is an in-joke, a play on the ubiquitous (sp?) demons in a UNIX system. For those who already are familiar with unix-like systems this is fairly obvious and somewhat amusing. By contrast, outsiders are likely to see the mascot in its original setting, as a mythological demon/devil. Insiders get it, outsiders are pushed away.
Tux the Penguin, on the other hand, needs no inside knowledge to appreciate, but is as accessible a symbol for the neophyte as for long-time users. It's not an in-joke.
This is of course a lot of symbolic baggage to overload these poor mascots with, but in a small way I do think this reflects a part of the culture of the respective systems.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
see subject
Chuck likes fried penguin.
What the moderators need is an easy way to zero out the idiots, instead of moderating them.
How about a button for them that replaces all text with "0"s? I suppose just deleting them would muck up the display order of comments.
Yeah, but Linux doesn't keep its man pages updated (try doing a "man gcc" to see what they have to say about it). FreeBSD does. What good does RTFM do if the FM is out of date?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
FreeBSD is the most stable kernel on the planet!
The distro and environment are not that great, which is why I use slackware & Linux 2.0.3x to
run a major internet operation.
However-- check out this uptime for a BUSY FreeBSD box we have (we even moved it when we changed offices, kept it connected to its UPS in the car!)
% uptime
10:43AM up 871 days, 1:07, 1 user, load averages: 0.31, 0.30, 0.31
No you cannot because the GPL permits no further restrictions upon redistribution than those explicitly listed in the GPL. The advertising clause is considered a further restriction.
that the FreeBSD team was smart for registering FreeBSD.com/net/org. None of this dropping $1 million for linux.com. And now linux.org is up in the air.
But seriously, FreeBSD is a very smart OS. When something goes wrong in FreeBSD.. you can be sure that it's your fault. I can't always say that with linux.
They're both great operating systems.
...
Bitchslapped? Give Rob a bitchslap from bitchslapped.com.
This is real bitch with using FreeBSD. There is such an ugly spider web of dependencies, everything is cross-coupled in mysterious ways. It violates some of the basic axioms of engineering complex systems: loose coupling and information hiding.
Even though I use FreeBSD, I think one of Linux's strengths is its modular nature. It is much easier to drop a software package into Linux and make it work. Under FreeBSD, software tends to break when moved between release versions. The only way to hope to get a consistent FreeBSD system is to rebuild everything (make world).
/usr/ports/misc/screen
:)
Basing your choice of OS on cosole support...
Oh let's not even go there.
--
- Alfred Perlstein - Programmer and Administrator, Wintelcom.
Yes, it is an old article which appeared in the Boston Globe on August 12th. Check out: Out of Linux limelight, devil gets its due By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff, 08/12/99 http://web1.boston.com/technology/packages/opensou rce/linux_limelight.shtml
NetBSD is blue, OpenBSD is red and FreeBSD is green. Oh, sorry, I mixed it up: OpenBSD is blue, NetBSD is green and FreeBSD is red. Hmmm, no - I'm not sure, I'm so confused now... Ok, another try: FreeBSD is "free", OpenBSD is "open" (doesn't sound that good for a security orientated OS, does it :-)?) and NetBSD is "net"...?!?
You forgot the #1 reason why BSD is better than Linux: It doesn't suffer from the lethal GPL virus.
Glass is usually looked at as fragile. Whats up with a flying window? Also glass can be a very painfull thing when broken. You can see right through glass, like what many security experts say when talking about windows ~security. This mirrors (no pun intended) how windows works in my experience. It is an accurate choice for a mascot.
Dear lord, no!
;-)
:-)
I had Slackwaree 3.6 on my system here.
How did I upgrade?
Simple, I went to kernelnotes.org, read "the wonderful world of 2.2," and checked what software upgrades would be required. Except for some shell utils (which were rather old, but upgraded easily), my Slackware system had software that was either up to date, or past the min requirements. Installed the new kernel in one day (and I was a lot less experienced with Linux than I am now).
I'm assuming a FreeBSD upgrade should be the same. The kernel should be modular enough you can just drop in a new one.
I'd love to use OpenBSD here sometime on an internal machine to learn about BSDes in general, and OpenBSD specifically, but Linux is my love. I develop for it, and enjoy it.
The GNU Hurd, of course, is another thing I'd love to play with and learn about, and I hope that the way some of you BSD people seem to turn into ravening flamers whenever an [opposing BSD camp | Linux] is mentioned, doesn't also affect that line of development.
We're all friends here. I like Unixen systems, you like Unixen systens. BSD is based on Berkely hacker code, Linux is based on Finnish hacker code, and GNU Hurd is based on that crazy Mach thing that Steve Jobs is somehow associated with
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
5. The BSD license. A matter of personal taste, of course, but I believe free software should be free.
This is *so* true. As much Free Software Open Source = Linux FuFu I hear, the *one* thing I *never* hear the Linux Yelling and Shouting Contingent bring up is the fact that you cannot truly do *anything* you want with the code.
Now, as usual, whenever I post here, some retarded 12-17 year-old child will notice my email address and go off on an Apple Sux/Evil Pigs rant...that's fine.
But as a Linux, Irix, MacOS, and BSD user (daily) I have to say this:
In *my* opinion and years and years of experience, the BSD's and the evil 'closed' OS's all have definate advantages over Linux *at this time* and for simple reasons(...altho' I will admit that Microsoft is at the bottom of the quality barrel in said group...):
They don't *have* to be altruistic.
I find it very personally disturbing that the vocal proponents of all of this seem to feel the only legit way to make money and feed your family at any of this is to write needlessly bad and incomplete software, and sell 'docs' or 'support' for them. If the job was done right, that would not be needed.
Then there is the 'well if ou don't like it, fix it BS' I hear all the time. Now, what incentive is there for anyone to do this? If I find a piece of totally fucked up shitty-assed GPL'd 'free' (ha!) software, invest 6 months into bringing it up to snuff and making it into a quality, professional product, my reward is what again? The adoration of a rag-tag bunch of raggedly kids?
So...who feeds me?
And this is again why *I* like the BSD way: YOU are *free* to decide what you give and what you keep. You, not some faceless bunch of cretins who care not if you live or die, gets to say "Here guys," or "I think someone might think that my version is worth mortgage payments...if not, let 'em use the crap that I built it from."
As much as I like Linux (and I *do* like Linux. If I didn't, I wouldn't use it at work, and it damned sure wouldn't be taking up space on my home computer...) the lack of personal ownership issues seems to produce a large amount of software that is unfinished, unstable, unpolished...just un. Time after weary, drag assed time, someone starts a thing and doesn't finish it...they really have no practical, real-world tradable reason to do so.
And whats worse, if someone DOES come up with something, from scratch, with no GPL code, that does a whiz-bang job (VMware comes to mind) they are torn to pieces for not giving it away. I actually feel bad for these groups. They solve the problems and Linx folks WALK AWAY IN DROVES, opting instead for unfinished, largely unusable free Grade-A Reject CRAP. (I said it. I'm sorry, someone needs some *honest* Linux Advocacy here.)
But yet these same people will line up and kiss Carmack's ass for a freakin' GAME port. A GAME.
Oracle is doing the 8i thing for Linux, and folks are all like 'Aww screw dat...Postgresql is free!' as if 'free Postgresql' is even in the same *class* as 8i!
I mean honestly, the best Linux has to offer in terms of what's *excellent* are the gnu toolchain and Apache...and these ain't strictly Liux...now are they? Hmmm.
We are lucky we get anything better than shit for Linux. Don't mean to hurt folks feelings, but c'mon folks. Look around. Cruise thru Freshmeat and LinuxApps on a daily basis like I do and tell me that it ain't dismal.
But you won't.
So the inferior, drag-assed Lowest-Common-Denominator cycle continues, ad nausem.
But you get the source code...that makes it all better.
Heh.
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as using bzip for a smaller kernel image. Please get your facts straight before bashing Linux.
Sosumi. just kidding. DONT!
in Red Hat 6.0 the rc.d dirs are under the /etc dir. I thought that all of the linux distibutions have standardized under the FHS. I could of swore that, but I still don't know how that compares to real *NX's. Anyway there really isn't that much to argue about. I am sure that all the the OS differences are there for various reasons. So far, Liunx seems more desktop friendly in some of it's assumptions. While the BSD's seem to sound better in some larger operations. So instead of flaming, the communities should just focus on developing better software. Isn't it the desire to make better OS (not just a "my OS can beat up yours" type mentality) that is driving development of both. Seriously, ego have very little purpose in doing anything. (especially w/ software development).
If you are brand new to UNIX, Linux is a lot easier to understand then FreeBSD. *BSD can be rather hard to understand if you have never used Unix and alot geeks over look this, of course a lot of geeks pride them self on how complex something is and find is being like mircosft to make something "easy to use". Linux is growing becuase to a x M$ windows user it's a lot easier to use. Of course how "easy" something is matters totaly on what you know.
Would you put a FreeBSD or Linux box in front of a M$ windows junkie?
I run FreeBSD and OpenBSD on my servers and I love it, but I wouldn't give it to my newbie friend.
MarNuke
Mr Donkey wrote:
What I wanted out of switching to BSD is a more secure machine, so I decided to look into OpenBSD. The unsupported hardware I was talking about was multiprocessor i386 support in OpenBSD. (It really sucks not to be able to use the added processing power of a second CPU). I did not look into the other BSD's, cause the only reason I was looking at BSD as an alternative was security.
Although OpenBSD's undergone (and is undergowing) that much-lauded line-by-line security audit, all three others (Net, Free, and BSD/OS) benefit from the code kicked back into the base by that process.
FreeBSD, though it's perhaps a little less paranoically secure in a standard install, does perfectly good SMP and can easily be made even more secure than the standard OpenBSD install.
Want proof? Go look at the FreeBSD Symmetric MultiProcessor Kernel, and this archive of the de-bsd-chat mailing list in which FreeBSD 3.1's SMP is described as outperforming that of SuSE 6.0's.
Do you have a
The content of this list is strictly technical. Those who are asking trivial questions and are running -CURRENT usually get a response that suggests they run -STABLE until they are more versed in FreeBSD to handle -CURRENT and the problems that come with it.
On the other hand, -questions is a forum in which questions about things both complicated and trivial are welcome. If necessary, a thread is Cc'd to the -hackers mailing list or some other mailing list that applies. Rarely are there insults and degrading remarks made about users on the -current mailing list. Are you even subscribed to it? I am, and I don't see that.
It is THIS kind of bullshit and FUD that keeps people from using FreeBSD.
I, for one, am sick and tired of it.
But why keep its UPS connected in the car if it's not going to be netwroked/serving?
...
Bitchslapped? Give Rob a bitchslap from bitchslapped.com.
*sigh*
People still can't seperate Religion from technology?
And also, might I suggest reading up on the word Daemon [note: NOT devil], which comes from Greek Daimon and which was perverted by christians to mean evil/dark?
I'll take the daemon, symbol as it is.
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
please don't assume all linux users are the kind of people who don't know about *nix and who don't know the difference between a username and a UID. There are some people who aren't knowledgeable, and it's likely due to the fact that Linux is getting so darned easy to use, but it doesn't mean Linux doesn't have just as many knowledgable users as FreeBSD.
FreeBSD waybsd.ops.tvol.net 3.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 3.2-RELEASE #3
Linux waylinux.ops.tvol.net 2.0.38
(my two main desktops)
First, thank you for not writing a blatant flame/troll. Another thank you for letting me exploit my reference books on Software Design to share this post with you :-) (I'll be drawing from "The C++ Programming Language, third Editior" 1997, Bjarne Stroustrup)
;-)
You say things were "done right the first time." That may very well be true, but the thing I've found has always been best in terms of software development is openness. Share ideas, share content, think think think, and then do it all over. The design, implementation, and organization of software is a very critical factor as to how well the program is, or how it will be perceived.
I think Linus has struck a good balance with the way Linux is currently managed. Overall design and structure are the two major ways a program can go bad. If the overall design is lacking, you get corner cutting ("we'll just ship this one, and fix the problem in the next release"). If the structure is overempahised, you get a situations where programs are delayed by constant program reorganizations ("but this new structure is much better than the old one; people will want to wait for it.").
From what I have read here, which is by no means definitive, some BSD users think the progress is too slow, and that to get the benefits, they must run the current tree. That is bad. BSD is a bit too much on structure for my taste.
Microsoft, of course (must mock them), seems to have *both* problems, at the same time. How so? The various subsystems (like input, video output, etc) seem to have been "done enough to ship, we'll fix the problems later," whereas with things like the NT kernel change over, etc, it seems to be a "time to redo this and that and this," but this is mainly because it wasn't done right the first time, and they've been just bolting new things on to an inadaquate base.
Linux, of course, has struck a nice balance (MY OPINION, NOT NECCESARILY YOURS). Each stable tree doesn't change things too too much (as is proper), ie: 2.0.0 kernel and 2.0.38 kernel run same programs (or should), unless overwise stopped by a bug. The development series is where people get to throw around ideas, and hack things up. This is a good way to get development, but it is tempered by the fact that improvements go to maintainers, go to the overall sub-tree maintainer, go to someone like Alan Cox, and then hit Linus, who can just read the diff, see how it works in with his unifiying vision of the kernel, and provide feedback.
Good design of any software involves the flow of ideas back and forth between the design and implementation. Companies like Microsoft seem to use the "waterfall" implementation, where the designers make rigid specs to send to the mere "coders," who must then slot their code into the well defined slots. However, their slots are changed over time, and the programmers can't really give feedback back to the designers without a lot of hassle. Eventually, they just start over and let the old project slam into the ground, stopped by its own uselessness and cruft. They are actively trying to ditch the Win9x kernel because of this (yay), and use the NT kernel (starting to accumulate cruft). They also have WinCE (new stuff is usually OK, but I don't trust MS anymore).
FreeBSD is good software. It runs stable servers, and seems to be doing well for itself. But I like the design process of Linux, and I really like reading the Alan Cox diaries
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
So much for symbolism. Yawn.
Maybe post numbers should start at 13 or something to get rid of this stupid people with their stupid first post crap that is never even the first post!
Oh, I'll just filter them out. bye
That's what I thought before I moved to america. I still understand why people use "devil", "blue devil", "devil ray", etc, to name a sports team, most of these "evil" names are for small time teams, so food for thought for you.
CY
"Who's your favorite mascot?" Could make a good poll. Although, would an ugly, descintegrating, flying window really count as a mascot?
Here's an example of why the GPL and BSD are not "compatible" (please note that both are "Open Source"):
;-)
BSD source code can be taken by anyone and used in a commercial product. The commercial product may be "Closed" or non-free software. All the "manufacturer" of the proprietary, commercial code has to do is acknowledge that his product is based off of code that was BSD licensed. This would be 100% legal (and fair) according to the terms in the BSD License (This is called
"forking").
GPL source code on the other hand cannot be used in a commercial product unless the entire product is also GPL'd (note commercial != proprietary). The GPL thus prevents forking by someone other than the copyright owner (no license can prevent that.) This attribute of the GPL has also been called "viral." I've even some call the GPL non-free because it restricts the freedom of the developer/authors.
It really doesn't matter, because people will use the license they want to use and won't use anything else. Licenses in the "free" software world are a lot like editors -- everyone has their favorite and they defend them like religions.
CY
Is FreeBSD trademarked? By who? What about the other *BSD's? I dont want to see the same Linux senario happening when FreeBSD gets more accepted.
--
I've been waiting for an opportunity to say this, even though it's a bit off topic: Solaris ruined my CD-ROM player! I ordered one of those (almost) free for non commercial use copies, and during the install from CD, i could hear the head slamming back and forth. I distinctly recall wondering if that was normal. I guess it wasn't. duh!
But seriously, why is solaris a helluva lot better? I'm not saying that it isn't, I'd really like to know.
How is this a troll? Why isn't the parent article, then, also marked as a troll?
>Most probably this will generate a thread of (but MY system has been up for XXX days). Well "that don't impress me much" unless it's > 5 years.
:-)
Well, what can I say.
IIRC, 5 years ago Linux was 1.2.0-ishly new. Maybe 1.0 was still the stable tree. Eitherway, you'd be NUTS to run that. Once we have a super-good kernel (2.2 is coolio, 2.4 will be very nice for this. Perahps 3.0 will be The One for this), then we can stick it in a corner running a super important job forever...
The problem is that in 5 years, much much much has happened. While it may be cool to be able to upgrade stuff modularly, you do have to change the kernel. Even if we manage to make the entire networking/IP stack modular to the point where we can upgrade it while it's on, it'd probably be a gross hack. You do have to replace/upgrade the root filesystem disk *sometime*
Besides, I like using redundant clusters. Who needs uptime if you can put 5 systems on the project? You should check out the Shuttle's cluster design.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
No, that's what they see most of when they use *Office*.
If we're looking for a "most seen" thing, then we should use the program crash dialog, or perhaps a nice BlueScreenOfDeath...
:-) Nice to see another Saskatonian, though.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
or perhaps whoever posts first should automatically get a little "this user was the first to post on this topic" marking, or something along these lines. Maybe people would feel less inclined to post only to be first... maybe not... =)
In case you didn't know, Daemon was the word for "Angel" in the old testament (yes, obscure thing for an atheist to know).
:-)
;-)
Daemons, thusly, are beignly cool software that communicates between the supreme kernel, and the unworthy user
Since [Chuck]Beastie] is a Daemon, he needs a halo.
Man, penguins make things simpler. "They eat fish and don't mind cold"
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The Upgrade Kits don't upgrade the system, they upgrade the Ports mechanism that FreeBSD uses to install 3rd party software from source. There is a make file (bsd.port.mk) that is
If you keep your system current anyway via CVS, you don't need them-but if you keep your ports current (so you can install the latest software anytime), you need the kits.
If you want to upgrade your system, you can still do so without a reinstall like Alfred said. I just wanted to keep things straight.
See you at FreeBSDCon! (www.freebsdcon.com)
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Notice: All drawings and images in this set of web-pages are Copyright by Marshall Kirk McKusick, except as otherwise specified herein.
So you have to get this guy's permission.
I like the licenses usually associated with Linux distros.
We do not claim that less people can touch FreeBSD sources thus, ergo, etc, etc. We claim *more* people can touch FreeBSD source than can touch Linux.
It's just that we have a method, a source control system and a philosophy of work that results in a superior source code, on average.
Linux does have more features, because it has more people developing for it (but *not* more people who can change the source code), and has some pretty good stuff because it has some pretty good developers.
(8-DCS)
Aside from the system design, one thing that really impresses me with FreeBSD is its spectacular documentation. Nearly every aspect of the OS is documented in manpages or in The Complete FreeBSD book.
You're a habitual bullshitter who comes in here slinging bullshit that is supposed to make me think your opinion is more credible.
OKAY, well if your an old-time with age n, my age is n+1. If your IQ is i, my IQ is i+1. If you have contributed m lines of code to linux and/or freebsd, i have contributed m+1
Now since I am even more credible than you now (by definition), I say you are full of shit.
> 'm an old timer. I know all about bsd etc. I had pimples when I first learned it during univirsity.
:-) is never "a knowledgable man".
I doubt this is a typo. You just have never been to a university.
> So don't kid me. BSD has its chance and failed.
By any ordinary meaning of the word, bsd has been
> a failure.
Sorry, this is so completly wrong. If you are an "old timer" you should know about the history of unix and all the stuff BSD has invented (virtual memory, TCP/IP sockets, job control)...
> Just one man's opinion, a knowledgable man.
An AC (like you and me
> Use what you want.
This is the only sentence in your rant worth the bits.
> You do your cause more harm than good by misrepresenting the facts.
Wich facts?
Sorry, I think it's best for you to leave civilization and go back into your forrest, troll!
It's not a DEVIL OR DEMON! it's a freaking daemon for the 1283738974th time.
'm not saying "make world" is the best thing out there, but it sure is more straight forward
.deb of course :) work for you then more power to
than the hassle that I endured with that Redhat box.
Draw your own conclusions. If RPMs or
you. I'm sticking with what works for me.
Admin incompetence is hardly RH's fault, now is it?
RedHat does too much guessing and tend generally to be a real mess. Try Debian (I would recommend others if I used something besides Debian, Slackware and a RedHat derivative).
If you don't see much difference between Linux, BSD, and Solaris, then I don't know where you're looking... If you're just talking about the command set, then you're right, they are basically the same (with some minor differences in command syntax), but the OS itself is subject to quite a bit of variation among vendors.
Is the halo not specific to OpenBSD, being that it is the 'security audited, hacker tested' side of the BSD family tree?
Is the copyright notice "as it is in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 section c" identical to the two clauses of the small BSD license (I assume you are excluding the BSD licenses with the claim-credit clauses)? If they are not ipsis literis identical, then they are not the same.
(8-DCS)
Now, there are many complicated reasons for this, but what I am trying to say is that the number of people who have a big problem with the GPL is relatively small. Most would be developers who wish to use others' work in their own proprietary work.
You may define freedom as including the ability to restrict the freedom of others, but not everyone does.
I use software that is GPLd, BSDd, X11d, and proprietary. I even am currently maintaining a program that has a (ugh) non-commercial-distribution license. But, I prefer the GPL, whereever suitable, because it discourages forking, and keeps software free. And quite a number of people seem to think they can make money from GPLd software, regardless of the views of a few rabid proprietary developer advocates.
I guess my view would agree with Linus'. If you didn't write the software, you have no right to bitch about the license.
But what it really boils down to is this: the user/customer will, in the end, determine what licensing schemes are successful. If the user prefers GPLd software, that is how things will tend to be licensed in the future. All the pissing and moaning in the world isn't going to change that reality.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
one of the reasons i would rather have bsd than linux is that then i wouldn't be confined by the gpl. I suggest giving people freedom and then letting them decide how to use it.
> Why? You're blaming an OS for what's obviously your ignorance. That'd be like me saying "FreeBSD sucks 'cause
> ipchains doesn't work on it, so I had to format and reinstall Linux."
Ok, I suck as an RedHat admin, can you please detail the proper way to do such an upgrade?
I'd like to know for future reference.
--
- Alfred Perlstein - Programmer and Administrator, Wintelcom.
I was referring to debian. I know redhat takes only one. Go fud yourself.
-lx
Sorry for the ambiguity of my question.
The days of the VAX are of course long gone. The thread was about the PC-based *BSDs, and I was trying to ask about the improvements available in the likes of FreeBSD relative to the old BSD4.x that used to run on Vaxen.
I hope that's a bit clearer.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Well, I have no experience with debian's packaging, but the snag I have with RPMs is that there's no option to automatically fetch and install dependencies...although I may be wrong. I haven't used rpm all that extensively, in fact...um, I ususally use GnoRPM. :)
-lx
> Heh. The difference is the *BSD crowd points you to other websites instead of answering your question
> first.
No, the difference is (if there is any) that there are some people that don't like to repeat everything over and over and others love it.
> Therefore, Linux is more popular.
Therefore Linux users like to waste their time and our bandwidth.
> Apparently it's a *BSD style ego-clash, in the same tradition as forking the main source tree.
*sigh*. Oh, no the forking rant again.. I'm tired.
Linux distros, Red Hat kernel patches, blah, blah, blah...
> Some people don't even care if the mascot is a penguin, much less if he's called "Tux".
Most *BSD users don't care at all about the daemon. BSD is a family of operating systems and no religion. I hope someday Linux users like you will lern the same about Linux and let others use what they want and *STOP FUDDDING AROUND!*.
For us UNIX hackers on Digital machines from 1975 to 1985, BSD had much of the excitement of Linux. There was a hacker community, most university based, that made significant OS advances in user interfaces, virtual & networks machines (at least compared to IBM iron). Bill Joy was (and still is) a Software god. Probably the main difference is that PC wasn't powerful enough to make UNIX a "personal" OS yet and AT&T had some regulation of UNIX. Linux broke that final barrier.
Well, I'm not THAT rabid about it, I just like BSD licensing better on a philosophical basis. :) Both systems have their advantages, but I think BSD has more.
-lx
I had a strange feeling when I read this article. I'd seen it before. It was originally published during or just after LinuxWorld. Does anyone have a link to the original URL it was published at?
Stop spreading misinformation about FreeBSD!
:)
Wine and Gnome work fine on it
The BSD license is more open, but is also quite broken. Other than obvious things like the advertising clause, if BSD ever went mainstream, MS could proprietize it. Even hire off the best BSD developers c(who have no commitment to free software).
Friend of mine a few weeks ago when it was really hot. He was running Linux on a box with 256 M of RAM, and with / on a RAID 1 system. On a very hot day.
His system began acting very strangely. Strangely as in, "ls" would work on a particular directory, but "ls -lt" would not. After some playing around he realized that he was not hearing his drives and he had some *ahem* interesting looking errors in his logs.
Well he found out that RAID 1 does you no good when your disks are next to each other and both overheat at once! So he has no hard drives and is only running because Linux caches stuff for you.
Hmmm...
Well first step is to bring over a fan.
The second step is to check that the "mount" command still works, and to mount a CD-ROM with all utilities working. That gives him access to known working copies of basic utilities that he needs.
The third step is to take one (non-functioning) drive offline.
The fourth is to bring it back online.
Then he takes the other drive offline and voila! He now has a working RAID system. 1 drive and it works. Well as you can guess, Linux cheers and immediately starts flushing to disk everything that have been stored up for a while.
Then he brings up the other disk, synchs them, and breathes a sigh of relief.
So, when was the last time that you lost your root filesystem and recovered without a reboot?
:-)
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
because it is a PITA to start up a machine again, wouldn't it be really convenient to leave the machine on, and not have to worry about turning it back on once you get wherever you have to go
-----Transmission Complete----- If you want to email me...Don't
Posted by Synsthe:
Oh come now, stop being silly.
Tarot Cards, Ouija Boards, and Halloween? You're joking, right? Tarot cards is a form of divination, a method (tool, prop, etc) of unlocking the sub conscious mind and using what knowledge you have stored there.
Ouija Boards are made by Parker Brothers. Nuff said.
Halloween has many originations, in many cultures. In places such as Mexico, it was celebrated as the night of the dead, the night when the viel between this world and the next was thinnest, when people could celebrate their ancestors and loved ones. Nothing evil about that. In the Pagan religion, it is Samhain, one of the many holidays; but of course, with your original statement you probably think Pagans are evil too.
Oh.. this is also off topic. =)
--
Mark Waterous (mark@projectlinux.org)
This is a different issue, if you are unable to discern that, then you obviously need to grow up. Let me use an example you can understand. Let's say in culture xyz its perfectly ok for 40 yr old strangers to rape 3 yr old girls. I live in culture xyz and I use this as logo for my product. Now, an American would probably find this logo disgusting and reprehensible, and most probably wouldn't even give my product a look over. Hopefully that helps.
The license issue will be of *decreaing* importance, as companies grow used to the GPL.
As far as sound latencies go on the MacOS, I was doing Psychophysical research a few years ago, and it was absolutely critical that we could sync the onset of stimulus display on one machine with the emision of a sampled sound from another machine (both 68040's).
We networked the two machines together. The visual machine blitted an image to the screen synced to the refresh and sent a signal to the audio machine.
To check to see if they were synced (and the stimulus timing was correct), we used a third machine running SoundEdit to a) record the tone off the auditory machine, and b) record another tone at a seperate frequency that was gated by an electric eye that was triggered by the presentation of the visual machine.
To make a long story short, the machines were in sync. The latency was inconsequential: less than 1 msec. What does that mean? That means that it took less than 1 msec for the visual Mac to send a signal through the serial port to the auditory Mac and for the auditory mac to interpret the signal and play the AIFF resource.
That is, your 5msec latency for the Mac is full of shit. It's much less than that. However, I will admit that we first tried the Mac's built-in tones generators. The latency was long and unpredictable (I think it ranged from 50-150 msec). However, sampled sounds worked just fine.
Here's that exact clause:
Note how it says you may not impose further restrictions on the rights granted. The copyright notice does *NOT* impose upon the rights as it is in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 section c.
As far as I can tell, it is perfectly legal to include BSD licensed code in a GPL program. This is a big loss to *BSD folks because Linux kernel types can integrate their code but the reverse can not happen unless you segregate it or switch the entire kernel source over to GPL.
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
Bah fuckin' humbug. I ran Linux for 2 years.. now I run FreeBSD. Unix is gonna be confusing for any point & click luser... regardless of what flavor of unix it is.
Until some kind of systems management suite for X comes out (don't try to convince me that redhat's control panel is the slightest bit usable), linux/FreeBSD systems administration should be left to the geeks.
Hey, I could grab FreeBSD, call it "Seldnix" and release it under the GPL. You can't re-license code you didn't write, that's the purpose of having a license.
From the file Documentation/initrd.txt:
z Image+initrd-1.3.71.patch.gz b zImage+initrd-1.3.71.patch.gz
The bzImage+initrd patch (bzImage is an extension to load kernels directly
above 1 MB, which allows kernels sizes of up to approximately 2 MB) can be
found at
ftp://lrcftp.epfl.ch/pub/people/almesber/lilo/b
and
ftp://elserv.ffm.fgan.de/pub/linux/loadlin-1.6/
there is or was an option for "make bzImage"
--
- Alfred Perlstein - Programmer and Administrator, Wintelcom.
You call slackware a good distro? They're insanely dated, lack upgradeability, are poorly organized, and generally show being a one-man operation. FreeBSD creams its ass, but if you want a real ditro, try Debian.
Can you name 10 GPL'd pieces of enduser software that are vastly superior (help, I'll settle for superior) in Quality, Execution and Stability/Support than 'proprietary' nearest equivilants?
Not 'One Bright Day'...today.
TIA,
-K
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
...compared to most commercial Unix systems.
Mostly this is a function of the general hardware junk most people tend to use in their Linux machines. Most commercial Unix systems only use hardware they have tested. So, it's fscking expensive but stable.
But also (this is an opionion) it's about the quality of the OS (kernel + drivers). I think some benchmarking company (DH Brown) said something like "the stability of Linux systems are legendary on the net but we didn't find any studies to back this up".
Most probably this will generate a thread of (but MY system has been up for XXX days). Well "that don't impress me much" unless it's > 5 years.
crash.
> Admin incompetence is hardly RH's fault, now is it?
:)
It was the first time I'd used RH. I had no docs handy and just got a lot of sarcasm on #redhat and ignored on #linux. I did get the box back up and working totally remotely and I was eventually able to fix the problem entirely...
*shrug*
--
- Alfred Perlstein - Programmer and Administrator, Wintelcom.
FreeBSD has some decent hackers working on it, but certainly not the best minds in acadamia. As best as I can tell, on the MIT end, no profs work on it (I could be wrong, but certainly none of the good profs). It's mostly a few weenies from the IS dept. Especially with the acquisition of companies like SGI, Linux has some incredible minds working on it. The average level may be lower, but Linux has as many good people as BSD. It also has hoards of other people writing drivers, etc. putting it well ahead.
Microsoft do not use the `FreeBSD TCP/IP' stack. Even if they did, using freely-available code is not `stealing' unless the licence is violated.
If Microsoft were using the BSD TCP/IP code without crediting the authors, they would be violating the BSD licence. In that case, it would have been just as easy to use any GPL-licensed code, in violation of the licence (note the legal standing of the GPL is much more questionable than that of the BSD licence).
I liked BSD4.* back in the days of the good ol' Vax machines, and I'd quite like to delve back into that scene.
I presume though that the BSD heart in Free/Open/NetBSD has evolved since those days. Does any *BSD follower have a list of major improvements made over the years that they'd like to share with us here?
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
What about the advertising clause, requiring that the authors be credited in any advertisement for the product.
Isn't that a further restriction?
No more trolling than the person I responded to was.
Sure, Linux is just a kernel, but the kernel isn't what applications see - they see a complete operating system environment.
I know from personal experience that binaries (especially packages) from Suse, Redhat, debian, et al will not all run interchangably - they expect different things in different places, with different library versions, etc.
Sure, there are quite a few differences between the three BSDs. I claim there are as many, if not more, differences between the linux distributions.
This raises important points. I have seen a lot of people getting excited about the recent spate of companies announcing "support" for Linux in some form.
:-)
In much of this, I think an important point has been missed:
These companies are not supporting linux (e.g., SGI releasing XFS) for the good of mankind - they're doing it to try and increase their market position, bring down Microsoft in their market niche, to make money off of the trend, or to prop up a failing company (arguably the tactic of SGI).
To continue with SGI as an example - they haven't exactly been doing great in recent years by most measures. What we are seeing now from them is quite plausibly just the action of "throwing a few trinkets" to the crowd for the benefit of allying themselves with the media spotlight, and thereby, hopefully, hitching themselves to the Linux bandwagon and saving their skins by winning the hearts of the drooling linux masses (not a flame, all "popular" movements have these kinds of people). They seem to have been fairly successful so far without even a working XFS port.
Open Source Software has become an important buzzword - in order to appear "modern" these companies must make token gestures to support "the movement".
I seriously have my doubts about their long-term commitments to open-source: the struggle right now is to bring down Microsoft's near-complete dominance of the computer industry, and when/if that is achieved, we'll suddenly see each of these companies positioning themselves for the nice vacant spot at the top of the food-chain.
The moral: take what you can from the big companies, but never turn your back on them
There haven't been many flames/trolls this time. There's been alot of debate, information, misinformation (and followups that correct them), etc.
It is not flame to state opinions (no matter how strong) or list facts.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
>By any ordinary meaning of the word, bsd has been a failure.
Eh?
BSD has given birth to:
SUN
Sendmail
BIND
and others. And Apple is going to try riding the BSD wave in Mac OS X.
Failure? In what way? Looks like it has been successful. Perhaps if you compare to Micro$oft.
Please get your facts straight.
You now use the procedures suser() and suser_xxx()
to determine super-user type credentials:
/*
* Test whether the specified credentials imply "super-user"
* privilege; if so, and we have accounting info, set the flag
* indicating use of super-powers.
* Returns 0 or error.
*/
int
suser(p)
The FreeBSD package commands:
/stand/sysinstall (during or post-install) to install additional, *pre-compiled* software.
pkg_add, pkg_info, pkg_delete and pkg_create
These are the same commands used by
A FreeBSD package is essentially a port, that someone else built for you. You can even make your own packages from a port-for easy distribution-using the make package target for a port.
FYI and anyone who may get the wrong impression from your post:
(From the pkg_add man page)
Pkg_add is fairly simple. It extracts each package's "packing list" into
a special staging directory, parses it, and then runs through the follow-
ing sequence to fully extract the contents:
1. Check if the package is already recorded as installed. If so, ter-
minate installation.
2. Scan all the package dependencies (from @pkgdep directives, see
pkg_create(1)) and make sure each one is met. If not, try and find
the missing dependencies' packages and auto-install them; if they
can't be found the installation is terminated.
(Note: Can't be found on your installation media, be it CD or FTP, etc.)
There's more but you can look it (or any man page) up at http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi
Additionally, once you install a port, it is registered as a package and the pkg commands work on it.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
If you don't like daemons, go and kill all processeses on your system that are daemons (like inetd, portmap, mountd, httpd, innd, ircd, bind...) and look what you have left!
I found that .iso when doing ls on the server. Try if you can download :-) there are no files in the same directory or site regarding the .iso, so good luck with trying this iso image
Upon boot type 'h' for help (when prompted to press enter). If this doesn't work right away on your Multia, give the iso a try on another architecture, that might tell more on what you use to boot on Alpha.
http://www.no.netbsd.org/Ports/alpha/ btw I'm not a NetBSD developer, I only use NetBSD port-i386 & port-macppc.
The latest release of NetBSD had a rewrite of the VM subsystem, which I'm pretty sure that Theo will migrate to the OpenBSD tree.
And the cam'ified scsi subsystem rocks for those servers that do a lot of disk i/o (props to slackware users for setting file transfer records on ftp.cdrom.com).
Remember... let a thousand flowers bloom.
Cross-pollination is a good thing when egos don't collide. When they do... well you have to pray that no institution exists which can crush all of the flowers back in to the ground.
its only a pain if you didn't set it up correctly the first time.
$.02
-bugg
It's apples and oranges. The 5ms means 'less than 5 msec even during the highest load' (remember, Linux is a multiuser system), while your ~1msec number is 'under no load'. Linux has much less than 1msec latency when under no load, but this isnt the point, really.
Dangerous? What're you talking about???
Chuck may look more friendly than mean, but Tux just sits there looking vegitative. Seriously, take a good look at Tux. He just sort of sits there, staring off into space.
There is no question that Chuck could kick Tux's ass.
Tux is a large flightless bird who is totally unarmed. Even if he had a weapon he has no hands in which to hold it.
Chuck is a supernatural creature. He has horns on his head, which presumably are very sharp. As if that weren't enough, Chuck is armed with a pitchfork. In some drawings the pitchfork even has magical energy at the prongs, and in still others Chuck has wings with which he can fly.
I'd bet my money on Chuck. First round, total slaughter.
err..microsit has already done it. cat your win95 drive and grep for "Regents of California". you'll find that microshit has a lot of bsd code in there, altho not the BSD stack. M$ doesnt need to credit the authors if releasing a binary only.
Don't make it about the [few] people.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
gee, moderation is bad. The guy who moderated this down must be on drugs.
I am for a system where comments cannot be moderated down to -1. It seems to be abused far too much.
In fact, i don't even use moderation because of how bad it is!
It's refreshing to see another opensource OS get some attention. I initially dowloaded MkLinux for my machine, then moved to LinuxPPC. But I initially wished that my Power Macintosh could run FreeBSD because of all the great things I heard about it. (NO, I don't want your added opinions; I'm in this for the experience, not the politics.) :-) I just can't understand why people get so attached to these tools. Ten years ago, most of you would have chewed out Linux, had it existed, in favor of Windows. As for me, I use what works for me, dream about what doesn't, and enjoy the ride. (Perhaps the main problem with Linux is the mouths of *some* it's users.) It's just electricity. Does any one person know two systems so completely that s/he can proclaim, with educated proof, that any of them is undoubtedly better than the other? And can anyone define "better" or "best" to such a degree that no one can dispute it? We all have criteria for what suits us, and nothing suits completely. I'm done...completely. :-o :-) (Now, I just need to find buyer for my left kidney so I can afford to buy Mac OS X Server.)
Heh. The difference is the *BSD crowd points you to other websites instead of answering your question first. Therefore, Linux is more popular.
:)
No, really, think about this before replying to it. I just spent an hour trying to figure out why the hell some people call the "BSD Daemon" Beastie, and others call him Chuck, while his creator is very careful not to name him.
Apparently it's a *BSD style ego-clash, in the same tradition as forking the main source tree. Under Linux, we don't care. Some people don't even care if the mascot is a penguin, much less if he's called "Tux".
...and if you ask me to elaborate, I won't refer you to a web page.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Whats the diffrences between Freebsd, Openbsd and Netbsd?
I use FreeBSD because it's BSD, and that's what I've been using since 1983. If FreeBSD became more like Linux (aiming to be a better Windows, for example), there would be less choice, and no-one would be better off.
Diversity is good. Operating systems are not washing powders. If you want Linux, you know where to find it.
Jordan is right about the PR war, as far as he goes. However, in the BSD world, it's FreeBSD that is getting the PR; those of us working on NetBSD are even more obscure, despite the fact that NetBSD runs on a lot more platforms (i.e. CPUs/systems other than Intel) than just about anything.
The reality is that it's hard to get hackers to do marketing because they're not really good at it (and most of them know it), and the people who are good at it are either insufferable, or attempt to control the engineering side and thus have to be jettisoned.
Where does one find good marketing people who know their purpose and their place?
If even half his comments are true, he has a decent point.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
If I were to contribute to an open source OS, I'd choose BSD over Linux any day of the week. Linux is primitive, and I'm not just referring to the technology. Linux seems to attract a user base that's, well, primitive and unrefined.
You can usually tell if a technology is superior by looking at its supporters. If it has mass market appeal, it's probably worthless. The fact that Linux is gaining mainstream acceptance seems to indicate that it's crappy enough to appeal to the masses.
Most of us stop believing in the boogieman as soon as we are old enough to open the closet door and look for ourselves, some merely graduate to bigger, badder boogiemen...
======
"Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
I'm an old timer. I know all about bsd etc. I had pimples when I first learned it during univirsity. So don't kid me. BSD has its chance and failed. By any ordinary meaning of the word, bsd has been a failure. It is foolish to think that somehow it will pull itself out of the ashes. Just one man's opinion, a knowledgable man. Use what you want. I don't care. But don't lie to me with pipe your pipe dreams. You do your cause more harm than good by misrepresenting the facts.
As a person who uses both Mandrake 6.0 and FreeBSD 3.1, they are both kick ass. Without them, I would be running 98 on my laptop and NT on my desktop and I would be a sad person.
That said, Linux is a huge boon to BSD because:
1. Linux makes people aware of BSD. I first heard about BSD here at slashdot. Linux enlarges the PC Unix user base.
2. BSD benifits from development of all of the Linux oriented applictions. I have not had any trouble running any Linux apps on BSD.
3. Linux inspires innovation and provides competition, forcing BSD to provide what its users want.
In the end, if you like to tinker and contribute, Linux is a good choice. If you just want to to work and not worry about it, Free BSD might be a better choice.
Or, do like I do, use them both.
And if you aren't then ever think that maybe Linux is not so pure itself. As I remember, a lot of stuff in Linux if very BSDish.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Unless you are really into the arcane mintue of your system, aren't all Unixes basically the same? I mean I have tried Linux, Solaris, and Bsd, and none of them seem that much difference in them. So BSD stays up 819 days compared to Linux's 400 days and Solaris's 900 days. I don't see a point beyond a month or two. Besides, I think the real cool stuff is going to happen beyond straight Unix. Things like QNX look interesting in terms of media performance. NT is still kicking Unix's ass in media performance on the same hardware, and new designs like BeOS and revamped old designes like MacOSX have much more going for them. The Unix design is too entrenched in super heavy duty server stuff to be much of an effect beyond server applications. After the media hype dies down, something new will be winning, not BSD, not Linux.
I've been a christian all my life, and while some of your examples I do agree with, (The usage of Ouija Boards in particular) I think you've missed the point a bit when it comes to the mascot. As someone else pointed out earlier, it's an inside joke having to do with processes running on the system. A picture, or a word, or even an Ouija board in and of itself can not be evil. They are inanimate objects. We as humans like to put labels on things based on a connection with an evil action, but in and of itself, and object is just that, an object. Now, that object may be used in an evil way, and the resulting action would therefor be evil, But I think that it's a far stretch to say that the FreeBSD mascot is being used in any evil way. Rather, it's used in a constructive, and humourous fashion. One thing that we as christians need to remember, is that pride is a trap that is much easier to fall into, than say, accepting the cartoon mascot the happens to resemble a characture of what we as humans often jokingly refer to satan as.
Woe is me, for in my religion, not just devils, but also penguins, flying windows, half-eaten apples and big blue letters are all harbingers of EVIL! I wail and gnash my teeth! I can't use a computer at all! They've all got the devil in them!
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Many geeks as they get to OS-choice stage of their existance will indeed go with the non-mainstreamed choice. However, note that geeks who have settled into an OS tend to be VERY resistant to what is to some degree starting over. I am not saying ALL geeks, just many. Just look at most posts in any this vs. that thread and note the attitudes. Editors. GUIs. Toolkits. Also, note past OSes and their almost irrational followers, very notably the Amiga.
If you feel you must compare the daemon to devil, then may I suggest you bug Linus and his flock of sheep to change all references of daemon in the Linux kernel to paenguin? Surely such an `evil' reference must annoy you as well?
e .html
Also, look at: http://www.freebsdzine.org/199905/features/beasti
Thanks.
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
That's no pitchfork, that's a trident!
If FreeBSD documentation is primarily in the form of man pages and hence is indeed kept reasonably up to date then this is a very big selling point for FreeBSD (and the other *BSDs too?), as far as I am concerned.
The gradual dropping of man pages as primary tech info source in favour of the "info" and HTML formats has made rapid and uniform access to concise technical information a very hit or miss affair in Linux, compared to the near 100% man page coverage of some years ago. Having to rely on format converters is nowhere near as good.
If *BSD hasn't suffered that fate, I see it appearing somewhere around here in the near future.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Thanks troll, folks like you make me want to switch to FreeBSD more and more each day.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
The mascott is a daemon or demon, at least nominally. A demon is supposedly an evil form that resides in humans and animals according to the bible. There is no mention of kinship between Satan and the demons, although both are detestable. I have to say that the mascott looks more like the Satan's dragon mentioned in the Revelations than a demon. The text describes it as completely red with several horns on its head and a long tail at the back.
> Why do you listen to Kirk? He owns the daemon trademark.
:-(.
Well, I really like *BSD, because everyting is free (free beer and free speach) in contrast to a typical Linux distribution.
Everything except the logo
This will make press coverage and marketing very difficult: Recently I got some (snail) mail advertising SMC ethernet cards with the fat and stupid looking Linux penguin on it. I thought: Would they use the daemon if they want to show that there are drivers for this card available? Probably not because of the restrictions from McKusick (needs contacting him etc.).
Free the Daemon! And call him CHUCK!
You are only half right, IMHO, at best.
"The BSD license is more open, but is also quite broken. Other than obvious things like the advertising clause, if BSD ever went mainstream, MS could proprietize it."
BSD-licensed code is potentially more vulerable to becoming permanently proprietary, because there is nothing in the license that forces the users of BSD-licensed code to keep their copy of the code open. If development ceased on a BSD-licensed project and it was orphaned, then someone who could obtain all the copies of the code and keep it hidden from the public, whereas an orphaned GPL project is still legally protected (we hope, anyway) from becoming proprietary. In essence, the freedom of BSD-licensed code is dependent on the commitment of the maintainers to keep it free. In practice this means that so long as the maintainers of the free *BSDs are still doing their thing, the free *BSDs will still remain free. Can MS use their code? Sure. Does that mean that the *BSD code can become proprietary? Only if the *BSD coders abandon the code.
"Even hire off the best BSD developers c(who have no commitment to free software)"
I suspect that if they had no commitment to free software, then they wouldn't even bother contributing to FreeBSD, and/or other *BSDs. You can only hire someone away if they consent, and I suspect that many BSD developers would be suspicious if MS offered to hire them. Wouldn't you be suspicious?
Wish the logo was a little bigger/clearer on /., the sneakers aren't very obvious.
I remember when the little guy got the sneakers...i beleive they represent the update to the fast file system...
There sure is a female BSD Daemon. Names emily.
Below is the link of how she was actually 'formed'.
http://www.intrastar.net/~karen/daemon/
(Link found on www.freebsdrocks.com).
Rod Taylor
Quit simply put; if you can't separate your emotional crutch from your day job, we'll be much happier if you sod off and bother some other OS vendor. There's more than enough work to be done without having to waste time dealing with damaged goods like yourself.
The reason it got moderated down, probably has to do with the fact that's its flamebait, and the comments listed are near pure FUD. Near pure FUD because there are some partial facts in it, used out of context and misquoted.
Rod Taylor
it has a buggy source.routing IP module. I am a big supporter of Linux in my company (it's a huge enterprise) but I felt quite ashamed when the team has found out this bug. Cisco routers and FreeBSD didn't have it. I started to prefere FreeBSD, and will try OpenBSD soon.
Yes.
Get away from me, you henchman of Satan!
BSD will never be adopted in Iran as long as Chuck is the logo.
Good, they can use Windows.
The symbols of Christianity and Islam look like daggers and other hand weapons. Should we infer that their followers are bloodthirsty murderers?
They are...... Just look at history
If I believed in faries and elves you would laugh. But if I wanted you to do the same you would be pissed. I am! Fsck em!
Whereas many computer geeks might not believe in all that fairy tale religion twaddle, a lot of people do, particularly in small town (or should I say, small mind) America. Having the wrong symbol represent your product can hurt you in the marketplace. You want to avoid swastikas, pentagrams, devils, etc---basically any sort of powerful symbol with deeply rooted negative cultural connotations.
;)
Then again, it doesn't seem to hurt Dirt Devil vaccum cleaners.
Of the BSD's, FreeBSD does get more press.
I mean, when was the last time you heard of BSDI?
But all is not sunshine, happy bunnies, and roses in the Linux camp. At some point the distro of the week, the RedHat IPO/Money, and a bloody GLP lawsuit will rock Linux to its roots. If the in-fighting over my distro is better than yours doesn't mortally wound GNU/Linux first.
To further complicate matters, Kansas will ban BSD because of satanic daemons running on the machines, and Micro$oft will shoot itself in the feet over windows 2000.
All will be confusion....
No matter what...we *ALL* live in interesting times.
And if you aren't then ever think that maybe Linux is not so pure itself. As I remember, a lot of
stuff in Linux if very BSDish.
Actually, he raises an interesting point (though I suspect he was a troll).
Remember the first version of Tux, the Linux Logo? He had a mug of virtual beer in his hand. Remember why he was changed to be beer-less? People pointed out the offensiveness of such a logo to people forbidden alcohol by their religion (Muslims being the prominent example).
BSD will never be adopted in Iran as long as Chuck is the logo.
Eeek.
As applied to software, daemons and demons are autonomous processes performing a background role, and inferring anything else from a logo/mascot is stupidity in the extreme.
The symbols of Christianity and Islam look like daggers and other hand weapons. Should we infer that their followers are bloodthirsty murderers? Let's not be silly, please.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
What is the deal with the Halo?
I heard somewhere there was a female counterpart to Chu-- er, Beastie... could anyone confirm? Are there pics anywhere?
(Dangit, I'd really like to be able to say of my FreeBSD box, "She runs solid as a rock!")
iSKUNK!
If I painted a cow red and tied a rope to its rear you'd condemn it?
Heh. Keep your religion out of your tech. teminology.
Suppose a new category, say, "First Post," were added. Any post so moderated would instantly get a score of -10 and would be stricken from even being displayed.
It could even be set up so that moderators wouldn't lose any points by moderating first posts, but I suppose that, in order to avoid abuse, such a scheme should require, perhaps, three moderators to agree.
Anyway, just an idea.
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
Please explain. How exactly is a Ouiji board a tool of the devil?
(Could someone please remove the "informative" from the previous comment?!?)
:-). Other's may think: "$149 for an upgrade from Windows2003 to Windows3000? Hmm, I heard this BSD stuff in Windows3000 is free, let's try that first..."
There seems to be a big missunderstanding of the concepts of the *BSD licence and (say) GPL. The *BSD licence doesn't try to limit the use of it's use and thus it's not "broken". Basically it is: If someone wants to use the code for something proprietary LET HIM DO SO! This has helped building the internet since 4.2BSD was the first OS with an TCP/IP stack and thus was/is used as a kind of reference code for implementing routers etc.
I often hear the nonsense about "evil company X" grabbing the source and "taking over". This is so absurd! If X takes the sources this will not change the situation of the codebase, developers will go on etc. Look at MAC OS X-Server, they use some kernel-stuff from FreeBSD and the userland from NetBSD.
Do you really thing any NetBSD developer thinks: "Dammit! Apple "owns" our ls.c now. We should remove ls from our tree and start something new or give up". Of course not. Why should they think so about the complete project then?!?
And in fact: I really thing the whole apple stuff will help the *BSDs as BSDI is helping them. E.g.: Rarely anybody will switch from his runnning *BSD system to MAC OS X, but much more will come to *BSD because they heard that MAC OS X is based on it.
I picture of a funny example of the "takeover" scenario floats through my mind:
Microsoft takes BSD to make Windows3000. Microsoft makes changes (removes the UFS stuff to get "drive letters etc) and releases it: Of course it's buggy since always when Micrsoft changes something, they introduce billions of new bugs.
Because of the advertisement clause users now that Windows3000 is BSD based. "Hey, this bloody stuff crashes so often on me. Let's try the original, maybe it's more fun" - et voila': More *BSD users
In short: BSD code has been used by companies for decades now, some contributing back (like BSDI) and others not, and it helped BSD much more than it harmed it. Other examples that "free licences" work are XFree86 and Apache.
Ok. this was not the "whole truth" but some important parts of it (IMHO).
Hehehe, perhaps Tux and Carl Sagan share something in common. You know that Tux is a token mascot with a nice pot belly and a stone cold expression.:-)
Uh... You do realize the apple-with-a-bite-out-of-it _is_ a religious reference... Think Tree of Knowledge and all that.
Never heard of anyone being offended by it, but I'm sure some people are. Just about anything you can thing of offends someone.
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
I'm confused about your claim of information hiding, the BSD rc system is quite simple and easy to use.
.deb of course :) work for you then more power to you. I'm sticking with what works for me.
example:
--
Admin's log, colocation date 02/15/99: Old redhat 5.2 box experiancing synflood problems.
Download new linux kernel sources.
Compile, kernel to big for gzip, fight with bzip for smaller kernel image.
Compile and install.
Fight with Lilo.
Reboot.
Forgot to add routing... oops
Recompile and install.
Reboot.
Routing is enabled but Redhat's init system calls Linuxconf to probe the kernel for features, the call to get routing info has changed, box won't boot as Linuxconf brings up curses interface during boot and hangs until key pressed and then doesn't init the routing table.
Attempt to install new init RPMs, init RPMs require some other subsystems to be upgraded first.
Attempt to upgrade those systems via RPM, they in turn require more RPM.
Box is now down 2+ hours.
Get extremely irritated and manaully hack the init system.
Problem almost solved.
Install FreeBSD next day.
Problem finally solved.
End of admin's log 02/15/99.
--
I'm not saying "make world" is the best thing out there, but it sure is more straight forward than the hassle that I endured with that Redhat box.
Draw your own conclusions. If RPMs or
--
- Alfred Perlstein - Programmer and Administrator, Wintelcom.
If you want to follow a faster track I suggest you try out FreeBSD-current. Many more features are available at the expense of the thorough testing the the -stable branch provides.
m l
Here's a link that describes -current:
http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/cutting-edge.ht
Also, it should be noted that "-current" is not for newbies or people that aren't used to helping themselves or even providing fixes to problems that they encounter.
One of the benifits of developing applications for FreeBSD is the long term binary compatibility offered, it is almost unheard of to see a change go into FreeBSD-stable that would break current applications that are programmed correctly.
This gives ISVs the advantage of not having to worry about binary compatibility between minor (and usually major) versions of FreeBSD.
I also don't see why one would _want_ thier OS to change under thier feet almost daily, it sounds more like a punishment than a good thing imo.
-
- Alfred Perlstein - Programmer and Administrator, Wintelcom.
No, some normal disks can withstand 50G shocks while running, or 100G shocks not running - at least if my memory serves me correctly.
It doesn't have to be, which was my point. The board itself is an inanimate object, but the way that people use them can be harmful. I'm not going to profess that I'm an expert in the realm of the supernatural, it's not something I am really intersted in. However, if you are using it to call or talk to spirits, or the devil himself, I think your openning yourself up to things (self-induced or not) that are dangerous, and most likely evil in nature. It's not something to be taken lightly. Even if your not doing anything supernatural when using it, your then fooling yourself to put your trust into the supposed abilities of an inanimate object, which in my opinion isn't that much different than calling apon an idol for favor. Take it for what you will, some will say it's a harmless action, some will say you'll burn in hell. I tend to just think it's counter productive and hurts your relationship with God.