Slashdot Mirror
Clearing up FreeBSD confusion
Anonymous Coward writes "Daemon News has published an article that attempts to clear up misconceptions about FreeBSD. The article is primarily aimed at Slashdot readers based on the comments made in postings. " Well written, informative, and makes things much more clear.
Why wait until you are informed to voice your opinion? That's not the Slashdot Way!
When I get home from school, I use Linux.
Mommy says it doesnt crash. *ROFL*
My mommy also says that FreeBSD is evil and
satanist who are against gods like Mister Stallman use it. *LOL*
I also learned in school today that the US constitution
was written on a Beowulf cluster. *WOW*
I soiled my drawers when i saw that my machine
has 1200 BogoMIPS.
I have to go now and give my father a bath, im not
a sicko! he is really sick.
Later!
Ordway Boriak
--
Electronic Warfare Before the First Strike
__________Constitutional Issues,___________
and Total Domination by Rings of Electronic
_______Gangs in the Information Age._______
-=@ *LOL* @=-=@ Ordway Boriak @=-=@ freetapes@EFnet @=-=@ *ROFLMAO* @=-
A well thought out reply, thank you.
It's an operating system folks, not the end of life as we know it...!
I'm a Freebie Newbie, but. . .
There exists a complete package management system for FreeBSD, at last stat. It's called pkg_add (and friends). It's similar to SunOS pkgadd, I believe. It's time for me to tinker with my freebie system at home again :o)
Oh yes... Linux can stand to benefit from FreeBSD's advancements (/usr/ports completely ROCKS, End Of File.)
(apologies if there're multiple copies of this post; the connection seems to be a bit dodgy)
--
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
Assuming for the moment that the ideology of the licenses doesn't concern you, let me say what I think the difference is to users such as yourself, and you can decide what you want to do. I will start out with very general statements which are not always true but which (I think) tend to get the idea across:
*BSD (any free variant) just gives you the basic tools, and expects you to get the system into the state you want it by the tried-and-true method of download-compile-install-run. For someone who really wants to understand the Un*x way of doing things, I think that this is the best way to go, because it will force you to get into the nitty-gritty of system administration. I started with NetBSD (because way back when, Linux didn't run on my old Macintoshes), and I have not regretted it. Nothing sysadmin-wise daunts me anymore.
Most Linux distributions try to come with everything preconfigured; instead of BSD's question, "which window manager do you want to download, compile, and run? The most basic one is all I have for starters, but you can do whatever you want", for example, Linux's statement is more along the lines of "I have 15 window managers right here, I already have one configured for you, and you are welcome to do whatever you want with them."
These days, thanks to *BSD's package system, it is very easy to download and run software; it takes longer than just getting the binary RPM's and DEB's, but it's often more likely to work because you're compiling it for _your_ system. But RPM's nearly always work for most of us, too. And the opposite is true, as well: Slackware (from what I recall, it's been awhile since I used it) has more of the "do-it-yourself" approach, similar to what I have identified as a BSD thing.
So, I guess the big difference is, FreeBSD comes in a simple, fast configuration, and you add things as you want them. Most Linux distro's default to big, bloated configurations, but you can pare those down as much as you want, and replace all the packages with things you compiled if you like.
Or perhaps you just want all the bells and whistles preconfigured, in which case Linux is probably what you want.
I don't know if you're a new Unix user or not, but if you are and you want to really learn the nitty-gritty stuff, I personally recommend starting with FreeBSD, get comfortable with configuring, compiling, etc., and then switch if you decide you want to switch. Then you'll know both ways of doing it. People who start with "user-friendly" Linux distro's sometimes never get past the user-friendly part (I've seen it happen, anyway).
Hope this helps. People, feel free to add or correct as needed. This is just my view.
Charlie (NetBSD user, 4 years; LinuxPPC/x86/Alpha user, 2 years)
But why would you, if you were the author of free software, want to permit someone to take your software which you have contributed to the community, and make a proprietary product out of it? I'm not saying they shouldn't make money out if it--but I'd prefer that if someone were going to improve or use something I had contributed, that they should be required to return their changes to the community.
Wil
--
Internet Meta-Resources:
Wil
wiki
"But many are simply curious about why a new user
;)
:)
would choose Linux over FreeBSD, despite FreeBSD's technical superiority."
Technical superiority.... ?
How? Because you have a more mature TCP/IP stack?
How does one define "Technical Superiority" without resorting to marketing-type hyperbole?
If you want to say "*BSD has been around longer, evolved from an existing, tested code base, has had more time to have its more traditional components tweaked, and is more tightly controlled" then please say that.
But don't say "Technically superior".
I remember checking out the *BSD platforms about a year ago and I could find *no* real SMP support to speak of. It was "in the works" as it went, and when I tried it (a dev. snapshot was all I could find...) I was greeted by a locked up box.
On the other hand I've been running Linux on that same box (updated processors recently) for well over a year and while the SMP performance has certainly improved recently, I've never had stability problems.
(And your claims for server support are rather thin if you can't support something that has been in mainstream use for years in other OS's... even under the dread NT
So which one is superior? Neither. *BSD is often more stable because of stricter controls on accepted code and a longer period of time to stabilize. Linux encourages innovation and new features (whiz-bang or otherwise) and often provides support for a broader range of hardware than other UN*X/*BSD OS's. (Notice I don't say "Superior Support" ?
The bottom line (as has been put often enough before..) is that both are excellent OS's (though both still have lots of things that can be improved). While loud-mouth advocacy may help sell cars and M$ products, I've always believed that those of us who run real Operating Systems should be mature enough not to fall into that trap. Have I been misled..?
One thing the Linux development model does do a lot better is capture more people in writing code - which is very important to keep up with new hardware support. I'd love to try FreeBSD, or better yet, OpenBSD, to create a bulletproof server, but I'm running Linux because it's the only option that supports my hardware. It's pretty bulletproof, or at least a lot more bullet resistant than a fragile NT server, but the emphasis in Linux has never been as much about security as it has been to expand the capabilities of the system as quickly as possible.
Ultimately, BSD systems may prove to be more secure, but developers seem to have a harder time keeping up with support. BSD development has not scaled with the growth of the industry. Perhaps it is happy with this niche status.
As you said, BSD developers need to audit the whole system, and Linux development is only centrally audited by a few individuals (Linus, Cox). This is a far more daunting task for a lot fewer individuals.
*Every* new and upcoming "thing" has it's crowd of people who associate themselves with it for their own amusement or identity crutch and make loud rude noises. If a BSD were the one making the headlines they would have exactly the same problem with this that Linux does now.
Please, before we see slams against the "Linux community" could we at least define who we're talking about? The clueless advocates? The slashdot readership? Everyone who has booted Linux? Those who actually contribute to Linux development?
The Linux community, however you define it, is under a lot of pressure right now. Microsoft has them on the radar screen, a lot of controversy surrounds the increasing commercialization, and a lot of development work needs to be completed to really bring the OS to the desktop and enterprise. When you tug on someone's sleeve and say "Please try BSD -- its better!" you probably *will* get your head bit off. Maybe suggesting some good ideas like the ports collection that the BSDs have implemented that Linux might look at would be more helpful.
Suppose for a moment that BSD *is* better. As you know, "good enough" often wins over "better" due to extraneous market forces or historical accident. Linux is the vanguard of a move by Unix-like OSen to recapture a workable market share across all aspects of computing. Arguing we should switch the focus to BSD is very bad strategy just now. I'm sure Gates is ROTFL over the Linux/BSD holy wars. He's also taking notes.
Jim
This assumes BSD development is at a standstill. Untrue. Why is it always said "Linux will soon have the upper hand over {FreeBSD, Solaris, NT, AIX, etc}!"? Do these people assume that all other operating systems no longer engage in active research and development? Please.
Ahhhh, I get it now. I was just having a stupid attack. No, by "define the problem away" I meant that they were trying to change the definition of fragmentation by claiming that it's not fragmentation if the goals of the project are incompatible.
Sorry, but "fragmentation with a reason" is still "fragmentation" with a reason.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
it's about an order of magnitude more expensive in time and labor to fix something after it has been committed than before.
Perhaps in a closed-source model, but I think that with GPLd source, releasing a beta or even alpha quality program will help defray the development cost as this can get the code inspected and improved by several orders of magnitude more people.
I usually treat free software as beta or alpha until I've played with it enough myself (or heard from others) to convince myself otherwise. This is not a slam. If the authors of this software had waited until the code was production quality, they would most likely have had a smaller team and it would have taken much longer to do. As someone (sorry for forgetting who) recently said right here on slashdot: releasing the source at the end isn't as good as having the source open the whole time.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
There is no hope for you. From one comes four -- that's fragmentation.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
You may have had the FreeBSD box with the default mount options. The default options force sync file creation and deletes requiring blocking IO for every file created or deleted. While this is slower it is safer than completely async mounts.
Softupdates (introduced a year ago) solve this problem by forcing safe ordering to meta-data operations (directory manipulation) while keeping it mostly async, if it's possible you may want to check out freebsd again and enable the option.
Of course my recomendation is: use what works best for you.
--
- Alfred Perlstein - Programmer and Administrator, Wintelcom.
Yes, they put extra patches in, but they *re*-put extra patches in. Every kernel release starts from something Linus releases, not something Redhat releases.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Actually a pointer is an integer, ie just a memory address. Granted it is probably not the integer you are looking for, but I felt like being a butt head.
So far I haven't had any such need...
Oops, sorry, nobody said "even-handed". BTW: Linux users don't hate Microsoft. They hate proprietary software.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Any particular reason this is moderated as insightful?
Perhaps people view the Linux community as childish because they behave childishly? The zealotry, bashing, and singlemindedness (bordering on bloodymindedness) is all well and good and nice at summer camp, but out here in the real world where people hold jobs and run businesses, the 17 year old "go Raiders!" attitude gets a little bit boring. Want to be taken seriously? Behave seriously. I'm not saying the article was unbiased or even an example of that. But if every time a company does something the linux community deems unacceptable they get a deluge of rude, crude, and probably misspelled email... well, what do you expect?
If you argue that that doesn't count because they were rewritten from scratch to work on Intel processors and therefore they are different, then wasn't each *BSD ported separately? (unlike Linux)
Depending on where you place the bar, you can call *BSD and Linux the same OS, or you can see that each distribution is a completely different OS. But no matter where you draw the line, be consistant across the board.
ufdraco
er, the ports system can never be bad when all you have to do is edit /usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile, then cvsup ports-supfile. I'm still running 2.2.8 boxes, and the ports tree for that still has the majority of the latest software. Ports are also updated pretty fast. Anything major should be available in the ports tree within hours (ex apache, php, most stuff in www, net, sysutils or security).
----------
Hello,
/. or LinuxToday that I can dig up if you are
While I applaud your effort to set some facts straight I believe your article on Daemon News probably did more to inflame any anti-*BSD sentiment by Linux supporters than anything else. I personally have never run BSD, although I have a CD for FreeBSD 3.1 CD and now have sufficient bandwidth via my cable modem to download any distribution over night. However, I do know a "little bit" more than your average Linux bigot about the development of *BSD and Linux. I'm not going to attack you or make you feel uncomfortable, rather I'd like to explain how some of your words are inflamitory to the Linux community. Hopefully this will help you in communicating with the Linux community in the future in a less inflamitory way (you honestly sound like a "BSD bigot" even to someone who is rather open-minded about alternative operating systems).
"And while calls of fragmentation of the BSD community run rampant throughout the Linux world,Linux is a far more fragmented operating system. With over a hundred distributions, Linux is often unable to provide compatibility with itself even though "there is only one Linux kernel." I was bitten by this several years ago when I wrote a set of scripts to manage the startup rc files on a Slackware system. When the system was moved to Red Hat, the scripts broke. Thousands of others had problems when the move to glibc was rushed by Red Hat while other distributions remained cautious."
This is common misconception that many people, including Linux users, believe and causes problems. Unlike the FreeBSD "current" code tree there is no globally accepted recommendation to upgrade to the latest kernel or distribution. It's also a mistake to consider the various Linux distributions as the same operating system. Much like the various BSD OSs, the various distributions of Linux are designed for specific purposes. Caldera is squarely aimed at the corporate market. RedHat is the "average Joe" version. Turbo Linux is aimed at the asian market (with specific Japanese and Chinese versions). Slackware is for the Unix "guru" who has no problem with recompiling programs by hand. Failure to understand this is just that, a failure to understand the Linux marketplace. Similarly, distributions don't generally follow the "latest" releases, even when if comes to the standard releases. For example, RedHat 6.0 is still on the 2.2.5 kernel release while the official kernel is at version 2.2.12. While this is not "tying," as anyone with enough knowledge can run any software on any system and upgrade the their hearts content (I'm running 2.2.12 right now on a RedHat 6.0 box with PPTP patches, XFree86 3.3.4, gcc 2.7.2.3 (to compile the kernel) and gcc 2.95.1) it reinforces the concept that each distribution can generally be considered a "different" operating system much like the various *BSDs are.
One would have to ask though, why did you upgrade between Slackware and RedHat without investigating the differences? That's not a "normal" administrative move. It's actually more like reinstalling an operating system than upgrading. The differences in package methods should have given you a huge clue that the OSs were not the "same." That the rc scripts are different in various OSs is well know to any administrator. Solaris, HP-UX, *BSD, Unixware, and practically everyone else does it slightly different. Linux gives you both common methods of doing it. It's much like the perl programming language, "there's more than one way to do it." I really don't mean to imply that you're not a competant administrator, but I'm really surprised that you had this issue. Perhaps it wasn't your choice to make the "leap" between Slackware and RedHat. If that's the case, then the administrator who made the choice, especially on a production box, is at fault and probably should have had disceplenary action.
Lastly, I think it's fairly unreasonable to imply that there are "hundreds" of viable Linux distributions. A vast majority of those are only used by a very small number of users and for specific reasons. They can almost be thought of in the same vein as embedded systems (such as the "distribution" meant to use Linux as the OS for a router). There are actually only a few "large" distributions that the vast majority of the Linux community use. The number, while slightly larger than the number of *BSD "distributions" comes no where near "hundreds."
"Many others have mentioned that FreeBSD should quit complaining about the GPL while using GCC and other GNU tools. While it is true that a number of GNU utilities are used in FreeBSD, they comprise fewer than 8% of the utilities and 15% of the libraries. "
My personal view, which I suspect is shared by the vast majority of GNU fans, is that if BSD continues to use the gcc compiler then the percentage of other GNU tools that comprise a BSD system is relatively irrelavent. Most people I know view the C compiler in a Unix system to be one of the most important aspects of the system, much like the kernel. It would kind of, but not exactly, be like BSD using a HURD or Linux kernel and still insisting that it's BSD. This is in contrast to the GNU camp, which I think believes that the tools define the name of the OS and not necessarily the kernel (hence the GNU/Linux debate). It could still be argued that it shouldn't be called GNU/Linux in this case, but that's a side issue. I personally consider the kernel, C compiler, and C library as the main determining factors as far as what "kind" of system an OS is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's definately possible to grab the source for FreeBSD and recomile everything on a RedHat Linux system right? If so, does that transform the system into a BSD system, with the C library, compiler, and kernel based on RedHat Linux? I didn't think so.
"The Linux mindset can often be characterized as "code exists, throw it into the distribution.""
This is mildly offensive. I'm assuming that you are specifically talking about specific distributions instead of the kernel itself. If you're talking about the kernel then you are sadly mistaken. First, Linus has the ultimate say in what goes in the kernel. Second, there is a distinct development and stable kernel. The development kernel is NOT for your casual users and is expected to fail on a regular basis. Yes, code is often thrown into the development kernel so that it can be tested on "live" systems of the developers. This code is either tested to the point that it is considered stable or yanked out of the kernel before it is moved over to a stable version. To imply that untested code is "thrown into the distribution" is the offensive part. For example, I've been trying to get the new RAID code into the stable kernel but it was yanked at the last moment, even though it has been available and in test kernels for months, because a developer found what could have been a bug. While this was disappointing on my part, it shows that code is not "thrown into the distribution."
If you're talking about non-kernel parts of the distribution then I think you are mistaken also. As I mentioned, there are only a few different distributions that are used by the vast majority of the community. One of the reasons for the "fringe" distributions is the fact that the main distributions don't always update their code often enough for some on the leading (not bleeding) edge. That's why, for example, SGI Linux is basically RedHat with some updates. I belive another popular "fringe" distribution may be Mandrake, which is also based on RedHat with the latest updates for various packages. So, to claim that main distributions are just "throwing [code] into the distribution" is patently false. The fact that most Linux distributions make it extreamly easy for any old user with some experience to create a custom distribution is probably more of an example of the openness of Linux development than "fragmentation" or "code instability."
"Linux was developed by an undergraduate student at the University of Helsinki to correct the flaws of Minix. However, FreeBSD is based on the 4.4BSD distribution of Unix from the University of California at Berkeley released in 1994."
Here you imply that FreeBSD is somehow better because it was released by the high and mighty "University of California at Berkeley" while Linux development was started by a poor "undergraduate student" at the lowly University of Helsinki. While I don't believe that was your intention, at least I hope not, that's the way it comes off. I could care less about the University of California at Berkeley, much like I could care less about the University of Helsinki. They are both "institutions of higher learning." I don't think it's fair or logical to rate an OS on what University it blosomed out of. One can always ask the questions "what have you done for me lately!" In that regard, I suspect that the University of Helsinki gets my "vote" for the most innovative.
"The first widely used TCP/IP stack was included in 4.2BSD and was reused in dozens of other operating systems."
Here you imply that the Berkeley TCP/IP stack is used in Linux. Although I'm no expert on the matter, I believe this has been discussed ad infinitum and shown that the Linux stack is a "new" implementation. A comment I would also like to make is that you seem to imply that, since BSD has a long heritage that it is somehow "better." I, for one, don't believe that just because something has been around for so long that it's necessarily better. I'm not saying that everything must be constantly rearchitected, but has been shown that it is often necessary to rewrite from scratch from time to time instead of holding on to old code for the comfort factor. I believe there was an article referenced on
interested...
"There are No Applications for FreeBSD"
I completely agree with you here as that statement makes as much sense as saying that there are no applications for Linux. I do think that the comment about performance improvements by running Linux applications under FreeBSD was unnecessary, even if true. I thought your article was supposed to be about correcting misinformation about FreeBSD rather than comparing FreeBSD and Linux and showing that FreeBSD was somehow "better."
"FreeBSD is a Dead End"
I liked this part, it was informative and didn't include any jabs at Linux users. I didn't know about PicoBSD and would be interested in learning more... (This is the tone that your whole article should have taken).
"The majority of FreeBSD is owned by the Regents of the University of California, where it was originally developed. Removing the existing license without the permission of the Regents would be no different that releasing a version of GCC with a BSD copyright in place of the GPL."
I think everyone knows this. So why not petition the Regents to release the original code under the GPL? That would seem to solve all problems, would it not. You CAN release code under multiple licenses. I don't see why, with the release of the license by the Regents, that FreeBSD could not be released under both the GPL and the BSD license, do you? Besides, I would think that much if not the vast majority of code that was released by the Regents has been modified to the extent of being all but replaced, no? (And please don't take this opportunity to say "no, because the BSD code has such a strong history that there was no need to modify the original code." Everyone know that there are bugs in almost all software, including FreeBSD and Linux. While there are probably areas of FreeBSD that have not been touched since the original release I'd find it hard to believe that it's in the majority. If so, I'd have to ask "what have you guys been doing since 1994?").
FreeBSD SHOULD GPL itself if it wants to use GPL code. I though that that's just obeying the law. If you're telling me that FreeBSD uses GPL code and does not release under the GPL then I think that's a surprise to a LOT of people. I don't think "we" are trying to convert "you" to GPL bigots (well some are but...), however, I don't think that the various factions (BSD/OS, Free, Open, Net) petitioning the Regents to release their code as GPL SO THAT YOU CAN INCLUDE other GPL CODE into your distributions would be viewed as a "victory" by the GNU camp. Sure, we would "get" the Regents code under the GPL, but you could STILL release FreeBSD under a non-GPL "Regents" BSD license as long as you didn't include any GPL code.
This would not split the code tree, as the only differences would be in the license attached to any distributions. The base code would be available in both BSD and GPL licenses. Any additions to the code would have to be released under the GPL license if it included GPL code. But, you stated that the reason you don't do this is because of the license from the Regents. You imply that you would have no problem releasing under a GPL license if only you could. If that's NOT the case, and you simply don't agree with the GPL license, then don't use our code. You have no "right" to use our code, and complaining about it will do you no good. It's like us wanting to use BSD code but making the decision to not because of the license. Some code, like X, is under a non-GPL license, but we, like everyone else, have the right to pick and choose what we decide to use. I don't see any inconsistancy of GNU folk insisting that you release under the GPL if you use GPL copyrighted works.
I really don't understand what the issue is. I think it's kind of like an ego trip for the Regents and "advertisement" by the University of California at Berkeley. That's honestly the only reason why I can think that they don't release under the GPL. I mean they don't get any money for derrived works, right? They only get the free advertising.
"Some FreeBSD users may indeed be jealous. But many are simply curious about why a new user would choose Linux over FreeBSD, despite FreeBSD's technical superiority."
Why the reason for this insult? A new user would choose Linux because it's more in the news. A new user would choose Linux if they wanted an OS that was under blazingly fast development. May be a hacker who wanted to check out some esoteric hardware. Or, may be a "average" user who would probably stick with a major distribution and not compile applications or the kernel themselves (instead waiting for bug fixes and enhancements from the distribution vendor, much like the BSD twice yearly release cycle with security fixes in between). Or may be because "official" support from a variety of vendors (such as database vendors) has been announced for Linux but not BSD (much like user who wanted to run a particular database would most likely choose RedHat instead of a "niche" distribution because "official" support is pretty much RedHat's domain right now) [Side Note: I may be wrong here, but I certainly am not aware of any press releases by any major database vendor, for instance, about official FreeBSD support. To say that the application could run under FreeBSD may be true, but then why worry about official support. Might as well run some custom kernel and compile all programs yourself if that's what you want.]
"In many ways, this is how Linux proponents view Windows users. Others do not care."
Oh, no, more insults. I honestly can't believe you made this comment. After explaining above that both BSD and Linux have as a common goal to provide a free Unix environment to users they you imply that Linux is SO far behind BSD that it's more like Windows!?! How, then can BSD be so much better if it's striving for the same goal? No, Windows has a fundamentally different goal in mind and I belive the vast majority of Linux and BSD supporters agree that it's a "BAD" thing. To take fundamental control away from even system administrators and try to "dumb down" the administrative skills required is just a bad thing to do. It puts too much responsibility on the correctness of OS code that can have devastating results. Given the industry track record, not even Microsoft's specifically, on software bugs I'd say this is a humongous mistake (just as integrating the GUI into the kernel was). I really don't know what to say here other than I hope you didn't mean what was so plainly implied.
"Unlike Linux advocates, FreeBSD advocates do not believe FreeBSD should be running on every microchip. Most FreeBSD advocates merely wish it see it perform best where it does best: Internet servers and high end workstations."
No, but you have OpenBSD, NetBSD, BSD/OS, and at least PicoBSD, which are designed to run in various situations. I think this statement comes from the misinformation you have about Linux and the assumption that there is only "one" Linux operating system. There are multiple. The main distributions, like RedHat, only run on "popular" "internet server and high end workstation" architectures such as PPC, Alpha, SPARC, HP-PA and Intel (RedHat may not even run on all of those). Smaller, niche distributions run on the Palm Pilot, and other embedded devices. Hey, that's kinda like the embedded PicoBSD, right?
Conclusion:
May be I'm reading way too much into the statements in your article and if I am then I appologize in advance. However, I obviously don't think this is the case. Hopefully I have provided some constructive criticism that you can use to hone your ability to "deal" with us wild Linux bigots. It would have been much more useful, IMHO, to do as your article was stated was it's goal and "clear up many of the misconceptions" instead of trying to pit Linux against BSD. If it was only focused on providing information to the Linux community about *BSD then that would have accomplished the goals set forth. I realize that Linux would have to be mentioned in some of the topics you chose to address. However, I don't think the confrontational tone was constructive at all. More information on the new features coming out in *BSD, such as PicoBSD, would have been helpful. Less "hauty" attitude about the origins of Linux and *BSD would have helped (like I said, most people just don't care that *BSD came out of Berkeley).
I would be interested in a reply to let me know how you took my email. As stated numberous times, the goal of this email was to inform you about how your statements could have been more inflamitory than you intended. Hopefully I accomplished my goal.
Sincerely,
fwr
... or maybe not. FreeBSD does the job wonderfully for me. YMMV. All the flamage is idiotic.
I was looking forward to a piece that cleared up myths about FreeBSD. I've had extensive experience and know better than to buy into most of the false statements directed at the OS.
While the author does a good job of outlining what those myths are, he does a terrible job of debunking them. If you want people to stop thinking false things, you don't go and try to convince them by telling them a bunch of other false things.
It's also not very smart to write an article aimed at misguided Linux users and spend about as much time trying to clear up some misconceptions about FreeBSD as you do exposing your own cluelessness about Linux.
eg: "FreeBSD is not a Linux clone" - This is quite true.
"Linux is a FreeBSD clone" - Please. Not even a little bit.
Neither OS is a clone of the other, but both operating systems have strived to become better, sometimes with enhancements inspired by the other OS. This happens every bit as regularly in BOTH camps.
Anyway...
--- Tao
I also know that my workstation will not crash after my next upgrade.
The only time Linux has ever, ever crashed on me was due to faulty memory. Once it was replaced, it was all systems go. The article is just as offensive to Linux as it says Linux users are to BSD. What a big pile of bullpats.
The probability of your scenario is so remote that it's not worth pondering. However, philosophy is about pondering the improbable, so...
This instead classifies as willful negligence leading to death. This is what makes it evil. The non-act of non-sharing has nothing to do with it.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I was using BSD UNIX for more than a decade, since before it even had TCP/IP networking, and have been using Linux for a few years. Both seem to be good, solid systems, good enough for most server and desktop applications.
Given the momentum behind Linux, however, I see little reason to switch back to BSD. The technical differences seem academic to me (and I'm not convinced BSD always made the better choices). And most of the cutting-edge software that I care about seems to be coming out for Linux first.
I think for FreeBSD to attract more users, it needs to carve out a different niche from the one Linux is successful in. What that niche is, I don't know. What would pull me over to FreeBSD would be if it provided a rock-solid Java 2 implementation for client and server applications (something Linux currently lacks), and perhaps standardized on a desktop built around that.
"GPL gets you this. There is no reason why GPL software can't be used in a commercial setting."
:-)
In this case then, there are many proprietary licenses that count as freely redistributable as well
I could care less which license you choose to use. I'm all for freedom of choice. The key word here is "choice". How can a choice of licenses be called non-free?
By the way, I didn't mention communism at all in my post. Where did you get this?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
ftp.cdrom.com is running on FreeBSD
AFAIK www.yahoo.com runs FreeBSD
www.idt.net ( a major national ISP ) runs FreeBSD
Could you please tell me of a site of same magnitude running Linux?
Everybody Lies. But it doesn't matter since nobody listens.
"But many are simply curious about why a new user
would choose Linux over FreeBSD, despite
FreeBSD's technical superiority."
And this was a quote to refute that they are jealous of Linux. They're just... curious.
And MS doesn't have bugs, they just have issues.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
/*
:)
Guess what, NT runs an emulation layer to use 16 bit apps. */
It also runs an *application* (NOT emulation) layer for Windows 9x binaries.
Windows 9x binaries use Win32 syscalls. On a Windows 9x system these are native syscalls. On a Windows NT system these are translated to Native Layer syscalls.
FreeBSD runs an *application* layer. Does not create a virtual machine. Translates Linux syscalls to FreeBSD syscalls.
/*
If you want to run with C2 compliant security rating on NT, you have to disable your VDM (Virtual DOS Machine) and it breaks the functionality of your WOW emulation layer (Windows on Windows).
*/
Again, we're not talking WOWexec, or Win16. Win32 is an *application layer*. Win32 is *not* the native syscall API of Windows NT. The Native API has all of NT's syscalls. There's more or less a one to one correspondence; these translations are made during run-time. Would you say NT is emulated?
/*
This "layer" is NOWHERE as good as running the code native on a 98 box. If you think for a second that two machines, running the same speed, one running FreeBSD and the other Linux, and both running Linux binaries, that they both run the programs just as efficiently, you have head problems. For one, there is that emulation layer to go through.
*/
So you're saying Office 2000 on NT will run orders of magnitude slower than Office 2000 on 98? I call bullshit alert.
Application layer, not emulation layer! *beats AC on head with clue stick*
FreeBSD translates Linux syscalls; that's why you still need Linux libraries to run Linux applications. It is NOT a virtual machine. It is NOT a virtual OS. It's a little slower, sure, but same Order of magnitude.
/*
Get your facts straight before opening your pie hole
*/
mmm.. pie
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
Shoes making him faster...
-bugg
> ---> Did you know Linux stands for Linux Is Not UniX ?
Er..., no it doesn't. Linux == Linus' Unix, to the best of my recollection.
I can't see them recreating gcc. It's bigger then linux or freebsd. At least the gcc people seem to think it's more complex.
And are you saying that GNU users have any less disrespect for BSD? From your own post it appears that you have none, using words like "bizarre" and "fringe".
The fact is, GNU tools are not 100% redistributable. This was intentional on RMS's part. BSD wants their tools to be 100% redistributable, to anyone, anywhere, including commercial and proprietary uses.
If you believe that proprietary software is epitome of evil and pestilence, fine. But some people don't feel that way. The don't hold to the religious tenet. It doesn't bother them that proprietary developers use and re-release their software. BSD developers want to share the software with no strings attached.
This is why a non GNU grep is important, so that the core FreeBSD distro can be 100% redistributable, not 99% or 98%.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
umm... I hate to point this out, but if you're gonna call Irix superior in any way shape or form, I think we're gonna hafta throw out your statements in their entirety.
I tripped over the same line as you did.
So when can we expect a 'truly free' reimplementation of gcc, or does FreeBSD already use a different C-compiler?
Ain't no theory. It's real fact. BSD code can be freely reused even if you don't buy into the GNU communist utopia. GPV-licensed code can't.
but in practice BSD code is often made proprietary, and thus is not freely re-distributable
This is an oft-repeated claim by GPV partisans, but it just doesn't hold up. If a vendor makes proprietary improvements to BSD code, he cannot prevent the original code from being redistributed. If this were the case, BSD wouldn't be possible.
There are many things I don't like about BSD (For god's sake, people, at least give me the option of using a POSIX-compatible PS!!), but the licensing is truly free - something you can't say about the GPV.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
I beg to differ. I realize that parts of Linux we're/are base on BSD code (The TCP/IP stack, NAT, ipfw), but these things are chainging. And example would be, kernel 2.2 introduced linux's own firewalling/nat suite in ipchains.
Linux is already ahead of BSD in the SMP domain, and with 2.4, people will see improved SMP support, USB, firewire, and better IrDA. And the author admits it himself, FreeBSD uses GNU software for "8% of the utilities and 15% of the libraries".
The fact is both operating systems compliment each other, and they're really not that different. And right now, the Linux Kernel development is working faster than the FreeBSD Kernel.
So when USB keyboards and mice become standard, I wonder who's USB code FreeBSD will be using..
...
Bitchslapped? Give Rob a bitchslap from bitchslapped.com.
I would like to point out the fact that Mr. James Howard knows what he is talking about. He is also a very snappy dresser. If you mess with him, he may toss a salad at you.
Gnome and KDE both run flawless on my FreeBSD machines along with linux binaries.
Once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right. -Hunter/Garcia
this is total bullshit. i upgraded from redhat 5.1 to redhat 6 (2 releases) just by inserting the boot disk and hitting upgrade. and it kept all my config files. oh i had to reboot too.
i love the make all command. oh wait its the same as make world.
slashdot.org runs linux. its under more pressure than your pidly little system. ive seen solaris boxes do far more than your stupid freebsd box..does that mean solaris can stand up to more pressure and is technically superior ? Lets all switch to solaris then.
Get a clue. quit acting like one of the million of BSD snobs and grow up.
...presumably referring to binary-only software, or to sourceware that uses Linux-specific features or otherwise requires tweaking to make it run on other UNIX-compatible systems; if some software was written by somebody using a Linux box, but "accidentally" happens to be generic UNIX-compatible software, it's not really Linux software, it's generic UNIX-compatible software.
Eh? The Linux kernel is "monolithic" as well, if loadable kernel modules don't imply "non-monolithic", and Linux and FreeBSD (and possibly the other BSDs) both have loadable kernel modules. Even if the driver isn't a loadable module, they could supply a ".o" to be linked with the kernel.
Add more FUD into the arguement? I'm just relating my experiences. I have _yet_ to see a BSD user scream for their license to be forced upon someone. If you would like to see "FUD" or however you call it, then read all the snide remarks that are made against apple or microsoft whenever a newsbit concerns them.
I am using a 3c905 on the workstation that I am replying to this from. It is running Redhat 5.1. What problem were you having under linux?
They remind me of fringe libertarians who claim you aren't really free unless you have the freedom to sell yourself into slavery.
:-)
Heh, I must be one of those, because I believe exactly that. But oddly I much prefer the GPL
After I got past the fact that the CD-ROM drive that worked with FreeBSD did NOT work with RH Linux. The CDROM was a 1xspeed Apple
I don't know what you were doing wrong, but the 1x speed Apple (CD-150) has worked flawlessly with every Linux kernel I've tried since 0.99pl7, and with at least three different types of SCSI card (Adaptec, Future Domain and NCR/Symbios). I don't know how could it not work, its a pretty bog simple SCSI-1 Sony mechanism.
As for 3Com support, the 3C905 is most definitely supported under Linux, and has been for a long time. I know of quite a number of people who use that type of card with Linux in machines that are running 24x7. Personally I prefer the Bay Networks NetGear FA310TX (especially at 1/2 the price), but the 3C905 is in general a reliable if not stellar performer with Linux. Are you sure that the card didn't just fail? If so, its kinda a stretch to blame that on Linux.
Intel EtherExpress Pro's on the other hand, I have heard of more problems with (bus mastering arbitration problems mostly) -- and those problems affect even MS-DOS/Windows.
I've not tried FreeBSD recently, but I tried NetBSD recently only to find it difficult to get a WD8013 card to work that autodetects fine under Linux. The supported hardware lists for the *BSD's are also much shorter than Linux and I don't know how you can dispute that. I'm not saying that Linux's hardware support is perfect, but it seems to be more comprehensive than the *BSDs right now.
I'd have to agree.. I have both thou.. and NT and Solaris, on my home pc, so I need them to get along :-)
Only 'flamers' flame!
First, I use just about every operating system there is -- for different purposes. I've installed FreeBSD and BSDi as stable internet gateways or boxes running any daemon under the sun. Under linux, this is possible also, although there have been questions in the past whether it scales properly. SMP is also crap on both systems (even in 2.3.x and 4.0-CURRENT thus far). They both have a long way to go.
In experience, FreeBSD has been more stable -- but only because half a year ago, you could say it was more advanced and stable. I'm sure everyone would agree now, that the Linux kernels are getting there. However, the thing is, you don't have to upgrade you kernel every other week. The problem is that recently there have been showstoppers in so called -stable kernels. I think the FreeBSD team has an advantage at that fact.
However, for most users, the differences they will see in operations will be negligible. I think it all comes down to user preference.
The author of the article states that FreeBSD is obviously superior, but doesn't state why. I think he doesn't elaborate because he can't. Advocacy is ok, but this guy has a $%$%$ up war mentality.
I do, agree, that it is blurry as to what niche Linux AND FreeBSD are to fill. They do just about everything these days, but most things only average (other than strictly servers).
----------
Jay Maynard wrote:
[in theory BSD license gives users more permissions than the GNU license] Ain't no theory. It's real fact. BSD code can be freely reused even if you don't buy into the GNU communist utopia. GPV-licensed code can't.
Um, wrong. Here where I work we have a BSDI server, it comes with source code for a BSD kernel. The source code is covered under a BSD license. It is not freely redistributable, and cannot be freely reused. The BSD license does not prevent BSDI from adding restrictions to the license for their distribution, making it completely non-Free.
Also, watch with the flamebait there, GNU has nothing to do with communism.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
yep. most of the really clued in ppl have given up on BSD's and linuxen and use hardware and unixen with the muscle to put where their mouths are - AIX, OSF/1, Solaris and IRIX.
Someone has to say it. Might as well be me.
I'd like to add a disclaimer now: I don't represent the majority of anyone. Don't judge anything by me. You shouldn't
Call me naive, but i don't see the place for Linux. No offense. I just think its a lot of duplicated effort. No point to it whatsoever. It has the same goals as FreeBSD. They aren't like two different colors of cars, in which personal perferrance should be the deciding factor. Theres no reason to have two free UNIX (and UNIX-like) OSes with the same goal, imho.
And I'll say it from now, FREEBSD NEVER FRAGMENTED.
BSD died and had kids. 386BSD (now FreeBSD) was one of them. Nothing that I know of that anyone actually uses is based on FreeBSD besides FreeBSD itself. I've never seen FreeBSD modified and commericaly redistributed in any way. All of the CDs i see are EXACTLY the same as the "real thing"
BSD fragmented (if you want to view it so myopically). Not FreeBSD.
-bugg
First of all, I would like to point out that Linux is not fragmented as the author says (the "over 100 distributions" FUD).
/etc/ by hand after upgrading FreeBSD. Debian handles changes in /etc in a better way.
The only distributions that really matter are
1) rpm based distributions (RedHat, SuSE, Caldera, Madrake, LinuxPPC, etc, very similar!)
2) Debian
3) Slackware (it does not really matter but some hotheads continue to use it..)
Second, I have a feeling that many FreeBSD users got negative feeling about Linux after having tried Slackware or RedHat. Why not try something that is better than both, Debian? After having used FreeBSD and Debian for a while, I think I prefer Debian, here is why.
1) FreeBSD ports collection sucks compared to Debian package management (when you upgrade FreeBSD you need to remake all those ports one byt one to be up to date)
2) You need to fix/update
3) the sysV style init scripts rock
Ahh, thats refreshing. I too have used both Debian and FreeBSD. If you have read anything i have wrote since a switched, you'd know which one i liked (i'll give you a hint: its not the penguin) more.
And I too liked the GPL and GNU utils. Not anymore.
-bugg
youre obviously braindead. look at rdist. the code (original) was BSD. the new code is not. its subverted and no one wants to use the original cos its full of bugs. if you believe this is freedom, youre a nut.
BSD: ... must retain the above copyright
Redistributions
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
You are not allowed to change the license.
GPL:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
You are not allowed to use GPL'd code with other licenses.
Um.... I think you're sort of forgetting that software authors have a RIGHT to choose any license for their work that they desire.
Now, why is it bad for them to choose a license that they prefer? It's bad for you as a user -- so what, you didn't do jack diddly, the authors do not exist to serve you.
I prefer to license my software under the Artistic License that Perl comes with. Why, absolutely NO restrictions (other than maintaining attribution of the source). Is this bad? I'm giving as much freedom as I possibly can to both users and other authors.
The GPL is viral. I don't necessarily like that. The BSD license is non-viral. I consider that a better thing, from my point of view. This doesn't mean that I don't use the GPL license, but it does mean that I only use it when I must.
I don't have any goals related to restricting use of the code I write. I want people to write and use completely free software. I do that by writing completely free software; not by writing almost free software.
scottwimer
-- Beer. It's what's for breakfast.
I swear to god I'm gonna ground both you kids!
Was that 100 times comment a joke?
100 times better than any recent OS MS produced maybe. MAYBE. MAYBE!
NT has strong SMP support.
-bugg
I'd have to agree, but I think that is what the LSB is trying to get a grip on. After all Linux does have 3 different packaging schemes, deb, rpm, and tgz. There are people who hate some of the different distros of Linux, just because of how they do thing different than they think should be done. And yes there are certian stability issues in Linux. Certain kernel version are not good, while others are. Linux is more pickey IMHO. If it is configured properly it will work for a long period of time with no problem. If it is not, you eventually run into problems.
I have FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, at home, as well as Solaris, and Linux (Redhat & TL and have tried others) and NT. They are just operating systems. Which one you choose should depend mainly on your needs, not what is cool or not. Why do I have so many *NIX variants? cause I like *NIX.
I personally wish that more feature that are in Linux made there way to other *NIX vairants to make them more user friendly. Color ls is on of the main ones, it makes life easier.
There is room for all the OSes.. IMHO...
Only 'flamers' flame!
I am not sure about 2048 CPU Origin2000, but the 128 CPU Origin running Irix is a very reaslistic thing, you can take a look at it on sgi website.
Have any of you acutely used FreeBSD? Most of you are talking about how bad it is but have you actually tried it?
Linux IMHO is a great operating system, but so is FreeBSD. I just think you should try something before you insult it.
Personally I like the diversity. And as far as the GNU/GPL issues I don't understand the complaints. The GPL gives them every right to use those programs. It is kind of the point of the GPL.
No, the point of the GPV is to spread RMS' communist utopia. It's a political goal, having only peripherally to do with software.
The GPV does not allow reuse of Linux code in BSD while retaining the BSD license terms. Those who develop BSD have, as an explicit goal, allowing anyone to do anything they like with code - includeing use it in their proprietary programs without infecting them with its own license. GPV zealots don't understand this, and continue to flame based on the misconception that allowing people to use it for their own proprietary purposes allows it to be removed from public view.
BULLSHIT!
If this were indeed the case, then BSD WOULDN'T EXIST TODAY!
Those who flame BSD for not following the GPV's utopian ideals should realize that, just maybe, their communist utopia is not for everyone, and lay off. I would suggest that this would do wonders toward lowering the level of flamage from both sides.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Some of us don't like auto* because it's horrid, mad, and ugly.
It is a solution that just begs the question, "isn't there a better way?"
scottwimer
-- Beer. It's what's for breakfast.
It's not a process issue, they said "technical superiority" Can someone clear up what they meant?
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
and thus not liked by certain *BSD types?
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
Why would you ever type anything but "ps axu"? I've been a BSD user since 1981. It's in my wetware. Anything else blows my circuits.
Your fingers type "ps axu". Mine type "ps -ef"...and every time I get a usage message, I say "ARGH!" as I type "ps auxgww" to get the same amount of information.
I can't claim 1981...just 1987, having been an early user of Microport System V/AT. (Yes, on a 286.) Everyone but BSD itself has adopted POSIX, which is little more than an outgrowth of the System V Interface Definition. Like it or not, SysV won the standards wars...
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
When I run Red Hat, I run Linux. The reason I wrote GNU/Linux above is because I was mostly referring to GNU and I didn't want Linus to miss out on the credit.
"On the other hand, BSD tends to spread its legs to whoever wants to use it; any one can do what they like with it,"
Kind off odd for a professional write doncha think?
...
Bitchslapped? Give Rob a bitchslap from bitchslapped.com.
It gets old.
The truth never gets old...except to those who would deny it.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
If you're simply looking at an operating system that has "BSD" in its name and then doing a diff, of course your simple-minded approach will reval that they are different.
This has been expliained succinctly many times - I now look on people such as yourself who continue to bring up this matter in the same way I look at people who write "first posts" or "wouldn't a beowolf cluster be kewl!!"...i.e., mornons.
The GPL vs BSD license idea does present an interesting point, it seems that Linux users tend to "shove" the GPL licensing into people's mouths, if it's not GPL then it can't be allowed to live. An example would be the recent QT war.
Not the same at all. BSD has a good, simple license for a research operating system (which is, after all, BSD's background). The GPL is a tool to combat a certain type of commercial software paradigm, and thus does not play nice with the BSD style license (nor visa versa).
The QPL, on the other hand, is a tool designed to appease a community of developers who demand source code, while simultaneously forcing users of the code to restrict their use and distribution to venues that do not limit Trolltech's business model.
I'm not saying that any one or more of these are unreasonable, but clearly the first two licenses have in common a desire to see source code proliferate and grow. The third is hardly that altruistic....
There is a lot of BSD licensed code in your average Linux distribution. There is a lot of GPLed code in your average BSD distribution. This is not really the reason for the debate. The debate centers around two things: ego and "not developed here" syndrome. Before this article, I would have said that a lot of this centered on the Linux and GNU camps (especially GNU, since the Linux camp generally has Linus to calm it down, and the GNU folks have... er...) Now, I would have to say that clearly there are some over-inflated egos and far-too-undermedicated "not developed here" sufferers on both sides of the fence.
If you're using packages rather than ports, you're not compiling it for your system, you're just downloading a binary package. (I.e., FreeBSD, and, I think, at least some of the other BSDs, also offer a system for downloading and installing binaries, as well as a system for grabbing source.)
Just for clarification, please provide me with some examples where it would be illegal to use GPL'ed code.
Yeah the article was good for clarifying points to the zealots out there... I can't run FreeBSD because most of my hardware isn't properly supported but OTOH I have to admit it kicks ass... Maybe one day I'll switch from Linux to OpenBSD at home...
//c
The only thing lacking in the article was pointing out the amount of BSD derivative tools that have been ported to other OSes including Linux...
Hrrrmf... why wasting flame wars over Unix/Linux/xBSD/BeOS users?
/me thinks about playing a while with his Apple
ZoeSch
I hate to agree with davecrazy but...
gas wrote:
... must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
BSD:
Redistributions
You are not allowed to change the license.
No, that means that any new license must also include those restrictions. People change BSD licenses all the time. Sun's done it, BSDI's done it, even Microsoft has done it for some of the NT TCP/IP Networking tools if I recall.
GPL:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
You are not allowed to use GPL'd code with other licenses.
No, that is saying the GPL'ed code must be distributed under the GPL. If a license is trivial enough (or GPLey enough) that it's terms do not add or remove from the terms of the GPL, the code can have that license too.
If I remember correctly, the XConsortium license is sufficiently trivial, and Jordy makes a good argument that BSD might be too. I suspect there might be a flaw in his argument, but I can't see it. He should run it by the FSF, just in case.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
- A big part of why communism fails for material goods is that one cannot distribute material goods to one person without taking them away from another person. Software does not have this problem: it is infinitely copiable. Therefore, although the communist philosophy fails miserably for material goods, it may well be ideal for software.
- Communism with a Capital C advocates the use of government force to compel sharing of material goods. Tellingly, that is not what happens in the free software movement: authors use the GPL or BSD licenses out of their own free will, and any author is free to choose any license they wish for their code, without government interference.
You might argue that authors who use the GPL are using government force (via copyright) to enforce their philosophy. This is true. However, it cuts both ways. Authors of proprietary software are using the same government force for their own ends. If you really are a laissez-faire capitalist, you would chafe at the thought of any government regulation of the software market, and let's face it: Software copyrights are a form of government regulation of the software market.It is for these and other reasons that I maintain that the failure of communism has nothing to do with the free software movement, and that the current system of software copyright is not one that anyone with a capitalist philosophy can support.
Very free, in that by accepting the GPL you cannot ever make the software un-free. The "inheritance" clause ensures that all GPL-derivative works are also freely-distributed under the GPL. Say what you like about the "political belief" embodied therein, but GPL prohibits making proprietary anything based on or derived from GPL software.
GPL makes explicit the "free" part of free software. You can't improve GREP with your own extensions and then close the source and make it proprietary, selling it as if you wrote the whole thing. You can be sure that whatever happens to Grep in the future, you can check it out without charge.
Nobody makes you use GPL. Write your own free software from scratch, and you win... you can do anything you like.
The GPL, essentially, means that you honor the free-software wishes of the author whose code you are using and benefiting from.
In the end, it's whether you come at computer science from the academic viewpoint, or the business viewpoint.
Shut the fsck up!
Not only are you completely off base, you're slinging FUD with boundless statements that are completely unsupported by facts.
I'm personally a fan of the GPL, and haven't used BSD, so I'm not going to participate in the "My operating system beats your operating system." mudslinging that you have. I do think that reinventing the wheel when a perfectly usable and stable wheel is freely available to everyone (GNU tools) doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't developement be better focused by developing NEW tools that perform different tasks?
I just read the article and the first page of replies here at /. The article started well, and listed some good strengths of FreeBSD. Unfortunately it ran into FUD territory. Naturally some of us slashdotters couldn't stand that and had to fight FUD with FUD. Lotsa fun to read.
.debs that I installed went on without a hitch. (They also disappeared just as easily when I decided that I like windowmaker better).
I've never used any *BSD, but from what I've heard, they are perfectly fine OSen.
It seems to me that a good combination between the slow release cycle/nice packaging of FreeBSD and the other strengths of linux is Debian.
(Advocacy mode on) Debian goes through a very thourough(sp?) testing phase and handles dependencies beautifully. I've been using it for nearly 2 years now, and have had very few problems. I've gone from 1.3 to 2.0 to 2.1 and have always been impressed. The gnome and KDE
Disclaimer #1: The only linux dist that I have used is Debian. I have no experience with any other dists, so my opinions on them are solely based on hearsay.
Disclaimer #2: My computer experience is limited to:
(1) TI-99/4A,
(2) C64
(3) DOS, win3.1, win95
(4) limited use of VMS on a couple boxes
(5) an email only account on an AIX box
(6) Debian GNU/Linux
I am not a guru of any sorts.
------- Mark
IIRC: 3c905B yes, 3c905 no
Nope. I'm stupid. You'll have to point them out to me.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
"But why would you, if you were the author of free software, want to permit someone to take your software which you have contributed to the community, and make a proprietary product out of it?"
Because I don't believe in the tenet that proprietary developers are evil. If they proprietarize my work I still have my source code.
"I'd prefer that if someone were going to improve or use something I had contributed, that they should be required to return their changes to the community."
They can do whatever they want to with their code. My code still exists. Their improvements are theirs, and my original is still mine. I have no desire to tell other people what to do with their code. Sharing is good, stealing is evil, non-sharing is neither good nor evil since it is not an act. This is not kindergarten where you are forced under pain of confiscation to share your cookies.
They fact that proprieatry developers are not part of the community is inconsequential. Community involvement is not necessary for freedom. "The Public Good" is just an excuse used by the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I find the mailing list archives on www.freebsd.org answer more questions than anywhere else...
Might be a good idea to Check them out.
----------
However I've yet to see BSD advocates do a similar thing.
Maybe you haven't looked hard enough. Yeah, go add more FUD in the argument.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Towards the end of an article that's desperately
trying to sound unbiased, this leaks out:
"But many are simply curious about why a new user
would choose Linux over FreeBSD, despite
FreeBSD's technical superiority."
I was unaware that it is generally accepted that
FreeBSD is technically superior. I'll have to
go and rebuild the 80 machines we have in our
production system right now.
And, funny you should mention 3com. I installed 3.1 FreeBSD and RedHat 5.2 within 1 week of each other. Lo and behold, the 3c905 was supported under FreeBSD and NOT under Linux. (Hrmmm....so much for the better hardware support argument)
Lets see, RedHat 5.2 shipped with kernel 2.0.36. Downloading 2.0.36 . . . done. `tar zxvf linux-2.0.36.tar.gz ; cd linux ; make config`
...
3c590/3c900 series (592/595/597/900/905) "Vortex/Boomerang" support (CONFIG_VORTEX) [N/y/m/?]
WHOA! Hot dawg! 3com 3c905 support!
I have known alot of people who work(ed) at ISP's who swear by BSD, and I understand it is a very well written O/S. I have been tempted to try it, but after getting a job of upgrading some sun boxes from the OLD SunOS (which was BSD style unix) to Solaris 7 (sys V style unix) there were too many differences for my liking. Now, from my reading of the intro of O'Reilly's Systems Administration book (VERY good discription about the different flavors of unix), there is quite a divergence between SYS V and BSD styles of unix.
SO, I was hoping for an article that would address this question -- is there still such a difference?
The thing is, most of the commercial unicies are SYS V style, so I would imagine it becomes a royal pain to remember the differences when you go home to a BSD box after working all day on a sys V implementation of unix. Is this still the case, or have the two styles converged a lot?
Anyone have an answer/link?? Drop me a line -- orrjl@stl.nexen.com
(was it too much to look for an article that asked the REAL questions instead of posing as flame bait??)
That's a really laughable comparison.
kinda like saying, my flags better than
your flag because that guy over there
is wearing green sunglasses.
blink.
gotta love non-sequitor flame-bait.
Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
the apt-get/dselect system is almost exactly like the FreeBSD ports-packages system.
/stand/sysinstall, these are (i assume) tweaked for 386 systems. For better performance, you can use the ports (what most people think of when they hear the phrase 'FreeBSD package management' [or ANY *bsd for that matter]) -- then you can optimize it for your system, set various compiler flags, choose to include (or exclude) debug symbols, etc.
Some key points are:
FreeBSD lets you download binary packages via
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
FreeBSD has some good features. It does make a fantastic server. And the security features are great. My company uses FreeBSD for firewall, proxy, and web servers. We use OpenBSD for Kerberos.
Linux also makes a great server. I'll admit it doesn't yet have all of the same features as FreeBSD, but it is still amazingly stable and fast. We use Linux on the desktop at work, and also for mail and web servers.
Sparc Solaris is our production OS, we use that to run Sybase and also another web server. It also handles telephony. We originally ran SunOS 4 until Solaris 2.5 came out.
The official company web site, hosted on UUNET, is run on BSDI. It has served us well over the years.
And I find that Windows is sometimes stable enough to be useful as a game platform.
So what is all this about the "best" OS? They are all good for something. It just happens that, for me right now, Linux is the most generally satisfying. If I have to be in front of a computer 12 hours a day, I want it to be a Linux box on my desktop. If I have to be programming, I want to program from my Linux environment. If I need a server, most any Unix or "Unix-like" OS available today will be fine with me. If I want to play games, I'll go find a Windows machine or a Playstation.
I thought the article was markedly biased. It is unfortunate that the FreeBSD crowd feels displaced by the Linux crowd.
My best friend also has a 3c905B. He was able to get it working with 2.0.35 by getting a test version of the driver. I think the address is http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/l inux/drivers/vortex.html The driver in Linux 2.2 worked for him just fine, though.
IT truly does. ;)
While i hate generalizing, it realy shows the level of users that each movement attracts: while the *BSD comunity seems to attract more knowledgeable people with CS degrees, Engr degrees, Scientist.
The Linux community for the last year or so has attracted a bunch of damn script kiddies and clueless people, in did not use to be like this.
That try to defend with reasons that are not true and agains or for things they DONOT understand. Example, try looking at the posts up here, the are ridiculous, and they only show the clulessnes of these people.
Just as a side note, I have been a FreeBSD and Linux user since 1996, attracted by the lure of a free PC Unix OS, and have used both since.
And this is what i have found, while heading and colsuting various isp's. BSD has proven to be a more mature and stable server OS that linux hands down. The only thing that linux does a bit better is smb sharing (CIFS now ) since it has smbfs support in the kernel, an dthe reason BSD has not done it is because of the security stability issues this does bring.
The BSD mentality of doign things is that you do things right adn never let any half as simplementaion get into the main branch, somthign that linux does all the time. SO while linus *supports* more hardware than FreeBSD, it does so half ass, not full support. everyrthign that FreeBSD supports it does it with FULL support and with stability and speed as a prime objective.
As for applications, don't be idiots. Almost everythign that runs on linux can be recompiled to run on FreeBSD. ANd what doesn't can be run very much the same as it runs on linux. Thanks to FreeBSD's linux binary handling.
and as for the poeple that say that FreeBSD shoudl stop using all GLPapps, firts, do realize that most of these apps where started BEFORE linux, and where not made FOR linux. Second, maybe the linux kernel dev's should give back linux's tcp/ip stack, which is strikingly similar to the *BSD's, maybe is because it's tottaly based on it?? hrmmm
So, after the hype is gone for linux, you will see, that as a server and worksattion OS, FreeBSD is still a better choice.
yahoo, apache, hotmail, ftp.cdrom.com, and over 55% of isp cannot be wrong
Primarily aimed at slashdot readers. Hey! We're a demographic!
So if I own a domain with the word "linux" on it, my words will count as the words of a serious Linux user?
---> Did you know Linux stands for Linux Is Not UniX ?
It *has* a package management system.
It's not the bad mouthing, it's the ignorance that pisses us off.
For example, just the other day someone said in Undernet's #FreeBSD, "I thought they only made X for Linux."
Ugh..
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Bravo!
Well put.
Something we need to not do is fault the *BSD movement for their licensing ideals. They seem to feel that their license is more free than the GPL, and don't like being under the "strict control" of the GPL. That's fine. Any code distributed by the BSD license (especially if there's no advertising clause) can be ganked by coders and used in a project licensed under the GPL. Right? I guess that makes every *BSD coder a contributer to GNU/Linux.
OK, well, I haven't used FreeBSD a great deal recently, and if I remember correctly NetBSD called both binary- and source-downloads using their dependency-checking system "packages." Either way, the point is, it's not hard to extend FreeBSD's software after the default configuration is working; the other software just doesn't come with the distribution, typically, unlike most Linux distros.
I can just imagine a bunch of heroin addict looking models singing Richard Stallman's Free the Software song.
To think I was disturbed with the commercials in their current state.
Nathan.
People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
Go ahead, define the problem away. Do you think we'll believe you? BSDI is commercial. Fine, so is Redhat, but Redhat still sells Linux. FreeBSD runs on PC's. Fine, so does NetBSD and OpenBSD. OpenBSD is secure -- does that mean FreeBSD and NetBSD don't care about security?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I have read some, but not all of the works of Marx. I know full well the Cold War propaganda has nothing to do with communism. I also know that at least 90% of the people who use the "GNU/FSF/RMS is communist" line are trying to slander the target by associating them with the propaganda.
Here are some of the key points of theoretical, Marxist communism, and how they fit or don't fit with the GNU Philosophy (note, some are quotes of a translation of the Communist Manifesto, others are paraphrases of concepts):
the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles
The GNU Philosophy does not divide things along class lines. With GNU, the starving shareware author is as much in the wrong as the Microsoft Millionare, and the rich hardware manufacturer with Free specifications and driver source code is as much in the right as the poor amateur Free Software developer. The people too poor to be able to access computers are not even addressed in the GNU Philosophy. This is not an oversight on GNU's part, it's just Communism is a Social, Economic and Political system, GNU is a information and development system.
The bourgeoisie have developed substantial means of production, economic exchange and wealth, dependant on the proletariat. The proletariat, once it has gotten strong enough, will use its power over these tools to overthrow the bourguoisie.
The proprietary programmers wealth is dependant on rampant consumption, it's not dependant on the GNU developers. The tools the GNU developers are using to overthrow the proprietary system are not the proprietary programmers works, but works made by GNU for GNU, or by non-GNU Free software developers.
The proletariat are being oppressed and kept propertyless by the bourguoise. The proletariat will fight back.
The GNU developers are claiming the proprietary vendors are oppressing the consumers, not GNU. GNU is offering a way out, not a conflict.
The communists want to put total political power in the hands of the proletariat
The GNU philosophy wants enough political power to reform IP law. More might be desired by some individuals, but it is completely outside the scope of the project or the philosophy.
Private property, and its corrolary, personal wealth are oppressive evils and should be abolished.
The GNU project considers intellectual property to be a flawed concept, but physical property is perfectly valid. As for personal wealth, the GNU project encourages developers to charge as much for their services as they can get away with. It creates a system where people can focus on paying for tangible services rendered, rather than intangible IP licenses.
In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor [and therefore create capital]. In communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer.
So people working creates Capital (or code in the case of the GNU project). The bad society keeps the capital for the people at the top, the good society uses it to enrich the people making it. I'd say that's a match.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.
I'd say that's a match there.
To create the communist state, you have to tranform the capitalist state. Among the many changes suggested to get the ball rolling are state centralized communications and trade
The GNU project stresses dispersed, decentralized communications and "trade".
Equal obligation of all to work.
The GNU project does not obligate anyone to help it. People do so because they want to, not because they have to obligation.
To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.
The GNU project pays no attention to your needs (avoiding the "Tyranny of Need" as Ayn Rand puts it) you use what you want to use. It's software, there's always more. You put in what you want to put in. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and saying "contribute more, we know you can". Thus the GNU project might go slower sometimes, and faster others, but it always continues, because someone always wants to contribute something.
Basically, it's a very incomplete match. I'd say that the GNU Philosophy shares a few scattered ideals with the Communist Movement, disagrees on others (irreconcilably so when it comes to work and property), and shares none of its ideas on how to acheive the ideal society. The GNU Philosophy is no more Communist than the Libertarian movement is. They are all idealistic philosophies, that doesn't make them the same.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
So? The original BSD code that BSDI's system was based on is in no way affected by BSDI's license. You can go do anything you want to with the original. BSDI is free to do whatever they wish with their code. You know, freedom.
Also, watch with the flamebait there, GNU has nothing to do with communism.
Sorry, you will never convince me of that: their utopia is exactly "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". They deny ownership of software assets as vehemently as the Communists denied ownership of the means of production.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
There, I've said it. I've got a lot of respect for some BSD developers/users, but the FUD and hatred that some of these people have towards the FSF/GNU/RMS is simply ridiculous.
It didn't take long for this guy to fall into the mold. He wants to replace the GNU tools with "freely redistributable implementations". Last I checked the GNU tools were freely redistribable. Why in the world would anyone want to write a replacement grep? I can understand that some people have a problem with the GNU definition of free software, but the BSD definition is something out of the realm of the bizarre. They remind me of fringe libertarians who claim you aren't really free unless you have the freedom to sell yourself into slavery.
With beliefs like that it's not wonder people have a bad impression of FreeBSD. Even in a supposedly conciliatory argument these people can't resist taking pot shots at GNU.
Does anyone else feel that the point of the article was to attack linux because linux users bad mouthed *BSD? I personally like *BSD's but they could use a little help from the Linux community's advancements (eg., more supported peripherals (sp?), package management system, etc)
"Trouble is, just because it's obvious doesn't mean it's true"
"Trouble is, just because it's obvious doesn't mean it's true"
--Terry Pratchett
"many are simply curious about why a new user would choose Linux over FreeBSD, despite FreeBSD's technical superiority. In many ways, this is how Linux proponents view Windows users."
Technical Superiority. He who lives in a glass house...
Linux development model is catching BSD with leaps and bounds. BSD will soon loose it's technical superiority over Linux. That is something that should be addressed.
The problem I see: Linux zealots who complain about BSD don't understand it, or have never used it.
BSD Zealots and all there snobbery are just plain jealous of Linux, as well they should be.
It seems to me that Linux is learning from BSD, however this does not go the otherway.
Work (BSD on my desk, Irix/Sun Servers)
Home (Linux/NT on my desk gotta keep up da skillz)
Awesome!
BTW: Linux users don't hate Microsoft. They hate proprietary software.
I beg your pardon?
You are making some dangerous assumptions, grasshopper. It is not your place to dictate what others hate or do not hate. I am a Linux user, and and advocate of Open Source as a development model, yet I don't "hate" proprietary software. Just because I feel (and my experience supports) that Open Source generates better software, doesn't mean that all proprietary programs are worthless. The NetWare Client I am running is proprietary. So is Acrobat Reader. And StarOffice. (Note: yes, I know nkfs.o and SO are being opened up, but the versions I am running were developed under a proprietary model). He who writeth the code, chooseth the license. If a proprietary tool does the job better than an open one, then I will choose the proprietary one (unless the cost is prohibitive).
People use Linux for different reasons. Some do it because they hate proprietary software. Some indeed hate Microsoft*. Some want to be different. Me, well, I just use it because it works well.
- Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
* NB: I do, in fact, hate Microsoft as well, but it is their marketing practices that I disapprove of. I choose not to run Windows not for political reasons, but rather because it simply doesn't work all that well.
I think it's time you figured out was libertarianism is before you make further bizarre and irrational statements like that
Having freedom over one's own body in no way, in any philosophy, leads to a conclusion that murder is okay. (Well okay, a pro-lifer would disagree, but the pro-choicer does not view a fetus as a human being).
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I like Linux because Netscape runs better on it,
-- netscape on freebsd tends to buserror quite a bit. and because user level apps seem to run nicer.
I like freebsd because I haven't yet seen a problem with the tcp/ip stack... and, on linux I have.
so, for my desktop, it's Linux, and for my server it's freebsd. *shrug* that's the advantage of choices.
-- Beer. It's what's for breakfast.
I totally agree with you that communism applied to material goods is an utter failure. The USSR proved as much.
The first point of my post is that since software, unlike material goods, can be infinitely redistributed, one cannot conclude point blank, as you did, that the communist philosophy will also fail on software.
I am not interested in hearing about how miserably communism fails on material goods. We all know it fails. I am only interested in hearing about how well communism works with software. Please do not introduce material goods into the discussion. It is totally irrelevant to our topic.
OK, let's see how many people aren't familiar with Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator, and start counter-flaming....
Damnit, freebsd and linux are designed for diffrent applications, and it seems that both sides have people who think there operating system is the best for everything. FreeBSD seems more stable and reliable in the long run, while linux always gets software and hardwaer support first, making it better for desktops IMHO... everytime someone posts a article explaining this with good reasoning and evidence, slashdot ends up the battlefront for a flame war... at least this is a good test for the new servers.
Well it was an interesting article in any case ;) From my experience I've noticed that FreeBSD users tend to look down at Linux users, viewing them as immature unix children of sorts. Of course if anyone is offended by this then look no further then the way Linux Zealots view Windows, MacOS, or any other operating system ;) The GPL vs BSD license idea does present an interesting point, it seems that Linux users tend to "shove" the GPL licensing into people's mouths, if it's not GPL then it can't be allowed to live. An example would be the recent QT war. However I've yet to see BSD advocates do a similar thing. Luckily I've switched to BeOS where the Be fanatics just poke jokes instead of screaming and biting other operating systems ;)
Do you understand the difference between a symbol and a thing? Microsoft is the symbol, and proprietary software is the thing. It's like the difference between an integer, and a pointer to an integer. A pointer to an integer is not an integer. You have to dereference the pointer to get the integer. You have to dereference Microsoft to get to proprietary software. Get it?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Define "never" and "BSD". It wasn't until 4.4 (or maybe Net-2) that 64-bit file offsets were supported in BSD; 4.2BSD, 4.3BSD, and 4.3-Tahoe didn't have 64-bit file offsets.
These days, thanks to *BSD's package system, it is very easy to download and run software; it takes longer than just getting the binary RPM's and DEB's, but it's often more likely to work because you're compiling it for _your_ system.
How does it take longer? A FreeBSD Package is precompiled, as are RPM's and DEB's.
You might be thinking of the Ports System, which fetchs source, patches it if necessary, builds and installs it (as a package even, so the pkg_* commands work on it) with a single command. And it doesn't take you any longer, just your CPU. If something is large enough to take more than a few minutes to compile, you probably shouldn't be installing it as a package anyway (Configure changes, Compile time options, etc.)
As it is, the FreeBSD package system has been around a long time, not just "these days". The man page for pkg_info(1) is dated November 25, 1994.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
One thing to rememebr about the whole fragmented/not-fragmented issue is that, of the "four" BSDs, only one of them forked/split/fragmented/split away from one of the others (and that is OpenBSD which Theo split from NetBSD.) NetBSD never was FreeBSD or vice-versa. Nor was BSDI part FreeBSD or vice-versa. They all have roots in the various BSD releases (4.3, 4.4, 4.4-Lite) but they are different projects with different goals. And remember: duplicated effort is not necessarily a bad thing. Score Whore.
There really is no reason to buy a 3C509 anything today unless you find one in a used parts bin for $10 or something, at least not if you want to put it in a machine adequate for running NT. For any decent machine, something like a Bay Networks NetGear FA310TX, which is PCI, 10/100 and fast, can be had in quantity one at local computer retailers for $30. I've got three of those cards, and I'm very happy with all of them. I can't personally vouch for how well they do under NT as I don't use any Microsoft OSes at home, but Linux finds and runs happily with them.
Sure they do. If you buy the CD's, you get EVERY package *AND* EVERY port's distfile (source). If you're talking about FTP installs, the same applies to both (Download what you need.)
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Im getting a new computer soon. Id like to know why should I run FreeBSD instead of Linux, or Linux instead of FreeBSD. Lets say both of them support my new hardware, and I will only use c and java compilers, plus emacs.
---> Did you know Linux stands for Linux Is Not UniX ?
"Sharing is good, stealing is evil, non-sharing is neither good nor evil since it is not an act."
What if you held the only antidote to a plague and you did not share it?
Heh -- what a maroon. I have yet to build a box (mine are usually random parts) that didn't happily boot FreeBSD. Nice try. Next!
hmm, I tried to install FreeBSD on a Compaq Deskpro EP, completely stock, at my last job and the install froze completely when trying to setup the network card (an Intel eepro). I installed both Debian and Redhat linux distros on the same box with no problems. I'm not an insane linux advocate, but I do want to use what *works*.
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.
Touche.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
And if you believe that this is slavery then you're an idiot.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
2.2.x is about as new as 3.x, if not newer. So its not as if Linux has had it much longer.
In my opinion (so you can't call it FUD) FreeBSD is the best thing going for x86.
have you used both? have you?
I've used both Debian 2.0 [upgraded to 2.1 with apt-get and glibc2.1] (and shortly, as i despised it, RedHat 5.1) and FreeBSD 3.2-Release. I like FreeBSD more.
Actually, I switched to FreeBSD because Linux didn't support the hardware well that i had just bought that day. Boy am i glad i bought those NICs (Intel Etherexpress Pro/10+) as i got introduced to FreeBSD because of it.
I've never had any problem with hardware support. Have you actually been to www.freebsd.org and looked at supported-hardware?
Stable yes, efficent no.
Both Linux and FreeBSD have a lot of room for improvement for SMP. Neither one is that good. AFAIK NT outperforms both in SMP. (then again, x86 isn't a good platform for SMP either)
i dare you to find any popular (new or old) hardware that isn't supported by freebsd.
Take everything with a grain of salt that comes from someone who hasn't used both OSes. (and recently)
-bugg
The most important question is not which kernel is superior, but whether all the Unix-like systems will run the same applications with no change other than a possible recompilation.
I use Linux, but I want to be able to share code with any and all Unix-like systems, free or commercial. I want all of them to be completely compatible so that I can choose whichever one gives me the best price, performance, or reliability for a particular application.
>>>>>>>>
GPL gets you this. There is no reason why GPL software can't be used in a commercial setting. You can even package unmodified GNU tools on the same disc as a proprietary package: the restrictions apply to linking and code modification, not simple "aggregation".
Both GPL and BSD licensed software are 100 percent "distributable." The restriction means that it must stay redistributable, while BSD makes no such guarantee. Without one or two strings attached, the guy with the best lawyers wins.
By freely choosing to use GPL'ed software, I respect the author(s) of the software whose work I benefit every time I use GNU grep. I am willing to respect his/her wishes in exchange for free software; especially when it only means that I can't make changes without also redistributing them for free. I can accept this with a clear conscience. This does not make me a communist, utopianist, or libertarian (tho I am a libertarian.)
If I don't want this, I can use BSD software. In any case, nobody is forcing me to do anything.
Which brings me to my final point. This talk about communism has got to stop. It's a smear and nothing more. Under communism, the government decides who you are and what you do, and then they take your money and redistribute it to everyone else. Communist systems have absolutely nothing to do with any software license in existence, and the use of the term achieves absolutely nothing.
Remember, communism only works when you cannot opt out. It's your only choice. Not so with GNU. I don't think it's very productive to smear GNU, since without the long development of GNU tools that preceded Linux, Linux would be nothing but a kernel. Calling GNU a communist system is simply ignorant; that word tends to come out of the bag whenever ignorant people see something that isn't expressly designed to make money.
If you view GPL's restrictions as the "price to be paid" for free software, it's worth it. If, like me, you don't even view it as a restriction, then that's fine too.
Microsoft *is* propritary software... you don't really think there are *people* in those big buildings at One Microsoft Way, Redmond WA?
it is WA, right?
you could also say that it's busness practices, policys and structures are like software to...
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Really, if your file systems get repeatedly corrupted under Linux, and your system reboots spontaneously, then Linux is failing to achieve the basic functionality it is intended to provide (and which it actually _does_ provide for millions of boxes). You should (a) check your hardware, (b) check your kernel setup, and if this still is not the problem, (c) file a bug report against Linux.
---
For all of you people that still think not sharing something is an evil act, please graduate out of your kindergarten sharing mentality.
Before you confuse hoarding with non-sharing, take a look at your own covetousness. I have seen hundreds of AC comments on the order of "XYZ needs to GPL their software so I can get to use it." You folks aren't interested in sharing, you're interested in the forceable redistribution of wealth.
WILFULL negligence is an act. It is an evil act. But it is not the same thing as not sharing.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Precisely. I have a funny name for this which you criticise here: "The Libertine Software Movement".
---
Many BSD contributors and users are quite happy with the GPL, and see no need to replace GPL'd programs. Much GNU software was and is still developed on BSD systems.
I'm a FreeBSD user since 1.0. Before that it was 386bsd (there was NO Linux THEN).
Linux has its place -- the hacker..
FreeBSD has its place -- any production or server environement.
Just the other night, my Linux-using friend wanted to install an app. I decided to install the same app. I went into the "packages" menu using FreeBSD's install tool, selected the app, and sat back while the packages was downloaded from freebsd.org and installed on my system (including any necessary dependent apps, libs, etc.).
Meanwhile, my friend scoured the net for the appropriate RPM's. Then found out he had to find RPM's for the libraries, etc.
This exercise sums up the difference between FreeBSD and Linux.
FreeBSD is developed by a core group of developers and maintained as a SINGLE distribution.
Linux is a kernel.
Turns out that this is about my only real beef with *BSD... tho I can switch to something like "ps auxwww" if I think enough in advance. I'd imagine that anyone at all working with SysV-type systems would have the same beef.
(oh... and the init scripts in *BSD feel really weird to me for the same reason.)
--
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
This article seems to contain just as much prejudice and ill-judgement as the rantings it criticises. To quote:
When the system was moved to Red Hat, the scripts broke. Thousands of others had problems when the move to glibc was rushed by Red Hat while other distributions remained cautious.
In many ways, Linux is a FreeBSD clone
But many are simply curious about why a new user would choose Linux over FreeBSD, despite FreeBSD's technical superiority.
Unlike Linux advocates, FreeBSD advocates do not believe FreeBSD should be running on every microchip.
Most negative talk about FreeBSD is baseless and intended to destroy, scare, or subvert potential users
All of these statements say or imply things about Linux or Linux users that are not generally true. Most ranting by Linux zealots about FreeBSD is based on prejudice and misinformation. Repeating the same mistake in the other direction doesn't help.
The BSDs and Linux are all excellent, and very similar, operating systems. The only way to compare them is with strict technical or legal comparisons. Rhetoric doesn't help anyone to make decisions.
it's way underpowerd for what they are trying to do (be the central FTP server for the world). they should have 5 or 10 boxes running solaris, if they really cared. but they don't. and I can't even log on half the time
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Linux and the OSS and freedomware communities have enough zelots as it is, fortunately Linux has gained enough popularity to get over that. What was intended with that article? Sounds like arrogance or jeolousy to me, it's unfortunate because some of the BSDs have tremendous potential but they will never make an in roads with that attitude. They like to say that their community is more intelligent and more informed on the whole but that just got proved wrong, they are no different than any of the others.
Maybe its because linux is trying to enter markets like the desktop while freebsd has always been intended for servers. But, who cares? there are only a few hundred million persons running desktop computers.
I fell into FreeBSD thanks to some hacking I did years back on NetBSD-VAXstation 2000. I have never encountered something I cannot do (aside from RealAudio, but I'm pretty sure I have a fix for that now). I'm sure that if I had started off with Linux, I'd be a Linux user today. They're both great. I don't think either is so much more wonderful than the other to justify a switch, at least not on my home computer.
Ooohhh! How I hate flame wars and OS holy wars and the rest of the holy flame bullshit. But let me through and I will swing my old light saber a few times, for old times sake.
:)
:)
1. I tried both OSs in question.
2. FreeBSD IS more stable then Linux.
3. I currently run Linux ( Mandrake 6.0 )
4. Running Linux binaries under FreeBSD is possible and may even give you better performance. There are however a few things like registering binaries as Linux and there was ( as I recall ) some issues with Linux libraries.
5. Linux has more software written for it.
6. FreeBSD is much MUCH more structured as a distribution. The way they handle updates to the OS is something I hope Linux will learn sometime.
7. I don't give a damn about licensing.
8. FreeBSD supports way less hardware.
9. FreeBSD kernel is monolithic this way effectively preventing hardware support by manufacturer without the manufacturer supplying the source code.
10. FreeBSD ports system is much better organized then anything of the kind I've seen under Linux.
11. FreeBSD is much much less user friendly out of the box ( no bash installed for example ). You have to spend quite some time with it after installation to make it work as you want it too.
12. I kinda like SysV runlevel system
13. FreeBSD is even more flexible then Linux if you try to make it run in some kind of non-trivial conditions.
14. Memory management is better in FreeBSD.
15. Installation ( not the config ) is easier in FreeBSD
That should be about it.
/me is waiting for a flame storm to hit
Everybody Lies. But it doesn't matter since nobody listens.
With respect to:
"Sharing is good, stealing is evil, non-sharing is neither good nor evil since it is not an act."
Not doing something is as much of an act as doing something. By not doing something, you have distinctly chosen a path, weather or not you are aware of the consequences.
Example:
Microsoft takes the linux kernel, integrates support for win32, and doesn't release the source code. The act of not releasing the source code would probably destroy linux.
This would clearly be viewed as "good" by some, "bad" by others, and "who cares" by others still... just like everything else.
Iv'e got one of those in my windows98 box, it works fine
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Two points here - one is that the author of the article is (according to the FreeBSD WWW site) neither a core team member nor a committer for the FreeBSD project. I'm not aware of his background, but there's no evidence in the article (which was, of course, written in an advocacy forum) that he is anything other than a keen FreeBSD user or a spokesperson for anyone other than himself.
Additionally, he didn't actually state as fact that FreeBSD was technically superior (though I'm sure he thinks, as I do, that it is - fair enough), rather he paraphrased what he saw as a common attitude on the part of FreeBSD users.
Anyone who has read public statements from actual FreeBSD co-ordinators (particularly jkh) will realise they are a lot less offensive to folks in the Linux camp.
I am getting sick of all the religous wars about
"my OS is better than yours".
I have used both FreeBSD and Linux, and to an average user, they are very similar.
Sure you can go compiling kernels and look at the
differences, but face it, most people spend their time using the machine for work or play, not submitting patches or compiling kernels and worring about licences of the patches.
To most Windows users it doesn't matter wheather they can get the source code or not, all they care about is how easy is it to use and how effective it is for their needs, this should be the basis on which we choose an OS, not based on FUD arguments.
You're one to talk, Russ. You can't open your mouth without spewing bile about something or someone you don't like or disagree with. I've seen your postings for years in the various online forums. In many ways, your attitude isn't any different from that of any of the other Linux spokesmodels (RMS, Perens, etc.)- you waste far too many cycles on bitter attacks. Like the aforementioned spokesmodels, you seem to spend a lot more time attacking other people and their views than you do expressing your own beliefs. I'm not saying the FreeBSD article was any better- it contained equal parts truth and bad advocacy. But it's really ironic that you of all people would be among the first in line to object to its style. You'll attract a hell of a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar- if you want people to listen to you (and I mean the people that really think and matter, not the hordes of angry script kiddies (vinegar works fine for them)), you'd be well advised to seriously reevaluate how you express yourself.
I disagree.
The hatred of Mircosoft does not stem from a hatred of proprietary software, nor is MS a symbol of propriatery software. If anything, it's the other way around - free software / open source spokespeople have used the (existing) volumes of MS hatred as a springboard for attacking all of propriatery software.
Before The Cathedral and the Bazzar, was there really a big fuss about Open Source or propriatery software? Some, in the GNU camp. But for the most part, that mindset wasn't there. Hell, no one cared that xv was the defacto image viewer on X, and that's certainly propriatery (shareware). But MS hatred certainly abounded.
MS hatred exists because of the classic American values of Hate And Fear Those That Are Successful And Have Money And Power(TM). (This is the same reason why there are RedHat bashers.) The alleged hatred of propriatery software in the Linux community is mostly based on the feelings for Mircosoft (i.e. attempts to liken propriatery software houses to MS).
I say alleged, because Linux users don't hate really hate propriatery software itself - only when they feel that the company behind it is acting like Microsoft does that feeling come around. Witness all the games - Linux users love those, and they are certainly propriatery.
I use Linux all day, and all night. I have used it exclusively for years.
The main resons I switched to linux:
-I got bored with OS/2
-I wanted a more stable and robust OS
-I wasn't learning anything new in OS/2
-Windows was not an option
-The Linux 'headspace' seemed a better academic endeavour, and I looked forward to expanding my horizons.
One other main reson why I joined the linux bandwagon was becasue The crowd was technically good, reason and logical thinking seemed to be the aura of the community. I'm not so sure that this is the case anymore.
The surge in linux popularity is bitter-sweet for me. While attention is always nice, I would rather ATTRACT users by exaple of a solid implementation, and sound thinking than PROMOTE the OS into the mainstream.
Lately I find myself saddened by the sheer ignorance of some Linux advocates, and I feel dirty by assiciation.
It may be time for me to move on to BSD for this very reason. It seems serene over there, and I get the impression that their development model may be superior to Linux's.
Linus and Alan maintain tight control over kernel development. The best code floats to the top and get implemented. This allows for the kernel to be as robust and as solid as it has proven itself to be.
BSD's approach encompases the entire OS, not just the kernel. I would have to assume that having tight control over the entire distrubution ensures that the tools are solid, and most bugs have been worked out before something is added, as the author points out. Surely this is where BSD's legendary stability must stem from.
Another point is the package management. RedHat and Debian both have good efforts under way, and I'm sure many days could be spent debating which is superior. I think they're probably both equally crippled because both distributions depend on the development cycles of developers that are not necessarily affiliated with one distribution or an other. Control is lost. The Linux distributions are placed at the mercy of seperate development teams, with different goals.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by FreeBSD having tight control over the inclusion of core tools into the distribution, they can build a secure and stable distribution much more easily than can be done for Linux. Also, the issues of package dependancies, upgrades etc become exponentially more simple to handle. In this regard, I doubt FreeBSD can be touched by any Linux distro.
Obviously contributed software or applications is a different matter. I'm speaking of the core tools that form a distribution.
Hopefully the LSB can and will solve this problem. I really hope it's sooner than later.
I like Linux. More and more I dislike the self-devouring and ignorant behaviour of the ill-informed Linux advocate that spews propaganda which they detest in the 'other faction'.
Try as many Linux distros as you can, and try FreeBSD as well, and decide for yourself which you prefer. I'll be trying BSD real soon now, then I'll make my own decisions.
He used a shotgun to kill a fly. Instead of attacking the SlashKiddies he attacked the developers, the sysadmins, and the power users. Bad move.
Matthew
/. finds me to be 20% Troll, 80% Funny
Fair enough. If someone wants to write software and then only license it to people with blue hair born on a wednesday, then they can.
My reply was in particular to the line "Why in the world would anyone want to write a replacement grep?" There are good reasons for doing so... commercial viability for one.
It's practically impossible to build a large-scale system nowadays without drawing on existing work (if not code, then on concept). So, we need to build on existing work when we're producing commercial products.
These non-GPL replacements are often written by the people who *need* this non-GPL code for their work, and so they write it.
And my ass isn't lazy. It gets regular exercise (see the Intel "Ottoman")
If you are looking for a complete distribution where tight control is kept, you want Slackware. All the applications that come with it are tested, and it does have a great deal of applications. Also, there is active support for it by people who go and package up little tarballs for it (Slackware uses tar.gz format, so no evil RPMs around).
:-) (I've always wanted to say that), and seems to have fairly nice support.
Debian is looser, as it's backed by a consortium
Red Hat, et all, is for people who like buggy Linux.
:-P
Slackware-current on ftp.cdrom.com is the first Slackware to do Glibc (4.0 was 2.2 Kern + Libc5), and it's as stable in its current state as Red Hat ever was. Of course, I'll use my hybrid Slackware 3.6/4.0 system as my server for a long time before doing any ugprades on that, but the glibc Slackware is awsome for workstations. VMware with Win95OSR2 in it completes my working experience.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
No, people didn't "begin writing their own versions" of BSD. The code forked. That's a very different thing from writing a whole new version.
There are some differences, but the answer is much closer to "yes" than to "no".
The rc scripts are different, but for the most part they have the same names and perform the same functions. The libraries are based on the same code so they are very close internally, and the API is practically identical between BSDs. Except for a few exceptions, file locations are very standard because it's based on "the BSD way".
It just is. ;^) The same "argument" could be made for Linux, of course. It depends on your religion.
Ah, but you're missing the point: There's more to an operating system than just the kernel.
That's why Linux (I'm referring to the OS, not the kernel) can be considered fragmented. Sure, all the distributions share a common kernel, but that's the only thing that all Linux distributions are guaranteed to have in common.
Just because the article didn't rant, rave or curse, doesn't make it "Well written". It's just more of the usual FUD (yes, I do mean FUD).
I don't think the author made a point or claim (true or otherwise) that hadn't been made dozens of times before.
His claim that NetBSD runs on more architectures than any other OS may be true, but only just, and unless I am much mistaken, Linux is roughly at parity on CPUs.
Linux has real, portable SMP. I don't believe that the SMP in NetBSD or FreeBSD comes even close, for performance or platform support. I'm willing to be proved wrong, but I don't believe that any free BSD even has kernel threading support. The people who know about such things freely admit that Linux' networking is better (if not by much).
NetBSD rocks. OpenBSD rocks. FreeBSD probably rocks though, unlike the others, it doesn't fill a niche that Linux doesn't (for me).
I don't feel the need to slag off their work. I don't even abuse BSD users :-). Should rants like this article really be acceptable just because they come from a minority standpoint?
Matthew.
first you respond to someone with: p.s. if you don't understand that beginning from the same code base and producing a different operating system is the *definition* of "fragmentation", there is no hope for you.
then, when someone else has the temerity to use a definition to respond to your post: Go ahead, define the problem away. Do you think we'll believe you?
notice any inconsistencies in approach?
you also state: OpenBSD is secure -- does that mean FreeBSD and NetBSD don't care about security?
A: No. It means that their first priority is not security, not that security is ignored. completely.
The Devil - Good 'ole UCB. Sinfully delicious code.
The Tail - The legacy code that BSD grew out of.
The Horns - Advertisement required by UCB!
Big Eyes - Big and watchful for the likes of Stallman.
White Shoes - Not enough gay developers. Closed team?
The Fork - The branches of the BSD family tree!
HA! Tricky little devil. I see right through you, though.
BSD Is Too Fragmented /. BSD'ers constantly say "Look how fragmented Linux is, look at all the distributions!" Sorry, I beg to differ. Same kernel, same tools. /. BSD'ers even tell us "We can run Linux stuff, we just grab the libraries and we're set" yet those same people tell us our differing distributions are totally incompatible because we don't have the same libraries :P.
:). That's like saying you don't like paper and you prefer to use digital media, and still use sticky papers to label your disks.
/., 90% of the BSD'er posts I've seen are downright snobbish. There always will be "zealots" who go to extremes and treat new users with disdain. In the Linux community there is some of that. But that's a 5-10% margin(in my experience). It was the same when I used an Amiga, or OS/2. Very helpful communities, they'd always point you to the right path on how to solve your problem (and future ones by TEACHING you how to solve it).
:)
We get told its not, then shown how they reach out to other areas. That's fragmenting, you are splitting up the actual OS and kernel to go in different directions. Fragmentation is a fact. Not to mention the fact that alot of
Unrepentant Hypocrisy
The day you totally replace GNU code, that's the day when you can get on the license holy wars
In my opinion anyway, there shouldn't be *ANY* holy wars. You guys have what you like, we have what we like. Can't we all just get along?
FreeBSD is an Old Boy's Network and Too Closed
I agree with everything said here except the blip at the end. Just on
FreeBSD is a Linux Clone
Its not. But Linux is not a FreeBSD clone. Stop blowing out hype.
There are no Applications for FreeBSD:
I'm sure there are -- very few people would be using FreeBSD if it had none!
FreeBSD is a Dead End
I agree, it is constantly being developed, and is hardly a "dead end"
FreeBSD Should GPL Itself
I should certainly hope it doesn't. Some people don't like GPL. If they want to use a free intel based Unix, FreeBSD is definitely the way to go. Linux folk shouldn't even be saying this. On the other side of the fence, BSD'ers in general should stop bitching about GPL'ed programs. If you don't like it, write your own. Pretty simple.
FreeBSD Users are Simply Jealous of the Success of Linux
I was liking the author right up until this point. He says "But many are simply curious about why a new user would choose Linux over FreeBSD, despite FreeBSD's technical superiority. " Can we say OS bigot? Linux has its strengths, FreeBSD has its strengths. If you really think FreeBSD can beat Linux hands down in *EVERYTHING* then you've got to be an idiot, or never used Linux before. I'll admit I'm right up there bashing NT, but even NT has a place and a use, and some things it does better than Linux or FreeBSD.
My own conclusion: This article tried to start out in a good light, but ended up being biased and bigoted.
The Linux community and the BSD community could really become a power, building each other up. I like to think of Linux and FreeBSD as cousins. We're all practically family, and we should stop busting that up.
PS: When I say BSD'ers, I am not lending the impression that BSD is unified. I'm lending the impression that certain behaviour patterns (e.g. the notorious arrogant/snob attitude) can be found in all the separate BSD communities.
And this is intentional.
Actually, I understand the code just has to be made available, either on disk, or on a website, etc.
But, this is to keep people from using the code in their project and denying users the benefits of an opensource application while using someone else's code to write it. It's a good thing.
And the GPL doesn't prevent FreeBSD people from using the GNU utils, as long as they provide the source, etc. They will have problems using parts of the source code if they insist on the BSDL, but if they don't insist on every app having a BSDL license, they're fine.
Unlike Linux advocates, FreeBSD advocates do not believe FreeBSD should be running on every microchip.
I don't really want to shoot holes in the article but a large chunk of FreeBSD does run on a large number of embedded systems... RTEMS 4.0, the Open Source real time operating system, uses the FreeBSD networking infrastructure and TCP/IP stack. This runs in very little memory(for a full TCP/IP stack) on a wide range of 32 and 64bit microcontrollers (e.g. x86, 680x0, 683xx, ColdFire, i960, sh, MIPS, ppc, sparc)
The reason we chose the stack was because of the FreeBSD licencing which matched the GPL+exception licence that RTEMS uses. That and the speed and efficiency of the stack which is important for many applications.
More info on RTEMS can be found at OARCorp's web page.
And the GPL doesn't prevent FreeBSD people from using the GNU utils, as long as they provide the source, etc. They will have problems using parts of the source code if they insist on the BSDL [...]
That's just it, though. The people who work on BSD do insist on the BSDL and not on the GPV because the GPV conflicts with a central goal of the BSD project: to make a system with no restrictions on what can be done with it, specifically includingmaking and selling a proprietary, closed-source version of it. That is why you'll find lots of BSD code in Linux, but not the other way around: allowing the GPV to infect BSD would kill it.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Could this be the real load test of the new setup?
I've only been able to keep my linux box up for 7 days. I've been using Linux since '96, and still have not had a single crash. The only reason I haven't been able to keep it up longer is thunderstorms. Also, I turn it off if I go somewhere like prison, err, skool, and work. I need to get myself a UPS.
Do you know what FUD means? No, wait. Think about it for a second. Do you really know what it means? And if so how could you have called that article/editorial FUD?
F /...
Get off the FUD train boys and girls it got old about 9 months ago.
---
Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OS
--- I do not moderate.
I've used both FreeBSD and Linux, and I ran into an unfortunate reality. If you want to use common everyday hardware and still get the newest feature sets, short of using Windows 98, Linux is really your only choice.
Prior to my Linux days and prior to my FreeBSD days, I used OS/2. I was constantly driven nuts by the fact that OS/2 didn't support most of my hardware. If you have used OS/2 in the past, you know what I'm talking about. You buy a computer you can afford that is chock full 'o cheap hardware that OS/2 can't even guess at. When I gave up the ghost on OS/2, I tried FreeBSD, only to run into the same problem. Meanwhile, my buddy keeps trying to help me out ... "What do you mean that card isn't supported. I know Linux supports it ..."
Now I want to tip my hat to the FreeBSD folks. It is a GREAT operating system. Really, it is. No amount of FUD or stupidity on either side can change that. I'm sure they have even fixed some of the hardware support issues I initially had. But here is the cold, hard reality that every BSD developer knows deep down: there are simply *more* linux developers. More. More by a factor of 2 at least, if not more. More software is available for Linux and not for FreeBSD because of this. More hardware is supported and newer technology is in the kernel or on its way. Not because Linux is any "better". Not because it is "better" at marketing. But because there are more developers.
The reasons why there are more linux developers than are FreeBSD developers is the subject of a flame war that I do not wish to be involved in. Sorry :-) Maybe it could be AskSlashdot question? Or would that just be asking for clan wars?
That being said, a final hats off to the FreeBSD people. The Ports system is just too incredibly cool. If you have never used it, it is very much like the debian package system (or so I have heard). I have missed that feature set very much, and I have almost switched to Debian a couple of times just to see if it might work like ports did (sorry, too much RH inertia at this point--but there is still hope ;-).
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs."
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
Slackware is an awsome distribution, so why do you go and FUD saying it doesn't matter?
IT DOES MATTER TO ME!
You hateful person. FUDing away your life...
I hate Debian's SysV init scripts. Give me Slackware's BSD init scripts *ANY* day.
What's up with you having NO colour LS by default!? HORRIBLE!
How can you use a distro that doesn't let you *do* whatever you want? Horrible!!!!
Slackware is for me. No package-systems (except the nice bare-bones tgz) to get in the way, no other things. Just grab code, compile, install, enjoy.
I've learned a lot more about Unixen from Slackware than I'm sure I would've from Debian (I didn't keep it installed for long). And that's not FUD.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
You have to admit... even for a randomly generated complaint, this seems to fit pretty well.
LouZiffer
BSDI does not "own the BSD code". BSDI distributes modified BSD code, under the BSD license (since you cannot remove a license from code without the approval of the copyright holder). In order to "protect their investment" they have added their own licensing restrictions on top of the BSD license, which prevents free redistribution, and distribution of modifications. Therefore BSDI is BSD-licensed, but not even close to Free (or Open Source, or even Sun's favorite "Community Licensed"). BSDI's BSD code is proprietary.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
That was a damn fine article. I must admit that I knew very little of BSD as and OS before, having gone from dos to os/2 to Linux and considered each step an upgrade. That article has prompted me to look more closely at BSD and now I'm thinking that moving to BSD might be a good choice for my next OS "upgrade"
Silver
That article was biased, almost to the point of flamebait with a couple of the jabs in there. Not great advocacy on either sides part. Especially considering that this article seems to be aimed at dispelling FreeBSD myths to Linux users. But there is truth in there if you get past the jabs.
Does it really matter how FreeBSD licenses their code? If you don't use it or contibute to it why should you care? Personally I like the diversity. And as far as the GNU/GPL issues I don't understand the complaints. The GPL gives them every right to use those programs. It is kind of the point of the GPL. The free distribution of software. Sure the resources of the "free" community may be streched thin, but it is a "free" community. People are free to work on what they want. Bashing somebody because their goals are different from yours is much less productive then actually getting something done.
The linux community and the *BSD communities used to have a great relationship. I seriously hope bridges aren't being burned by some people's religous quest to make everything linux or GPL. I also hope the FreeBSD community realize not everybody in the linux community feels the same way. Some of us even greatly admire and respect their work and hope they continue long into the future.
Xamot "hoping to install FreeBSD for the first time as soon as I can get a bigger harddrive."
--
?
His point being that he's not going to go out and re-install the OS on 80 boxes on the simble say-so of a BSD advocate. If some guy from Microsoft walked in saying, "NT is better. Here's a hundred copies. Go put it on all your servers," would you do it?
> If they are so good why do they need Linux
> compatibility, why, because they are jealous of
> what we have.
Or perhaps because we can. Linux emulation is one of the emulations supported.
Just because someone is multi-lingual doesn't mean they are jealous about what's being spoken in other languages. It means that they care to communicate and share ideas.
ok, let me guess: the "new setup" for slashdot.org referred to yesterday is now in place. this is just a massive test. and this is the reason all the BSD articles have been posted today-- the /. people know that any pro-BSD article will generate huge amounts of flaming and counter-flaming, thus testing if the new setup can handle large amounts of heavy traffic.
:)
am i right?
-mcc
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS THEFT
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Now that's some interesting NewSpeak.
There are four wholly separate BSD derived operating systems in current development...These projects neither pretend to be the same operating system nor operate with the same goals
And then sentences later he admits they used to be the same but forked. Geee mister what's *your* definition of fragmentation then?
--
Infuriate left and right
I'm only going to say this once. It will probably be seen as redundant, but after reading that article, I feel the need to say it. Hell, it's probably too late to be moderated anyway, but here goes...
IT'S ALL UNIX - IT'S ALL GOOD
I cannot understand the huge controversy about this sort of thing. I mean, I've used Debian, Red Hat, SUSE and Slackware, in that order, and I've never used FreeBSD. I don't know what any of the BSDs are like, but why on Earth do we need to whine about this sort of thing? GNU software? Fine, it's all good, I have no problem with it. I don't have a problem with people who want to charge for their software either, so long as they understand that what's on my computer is mine. But for all our sakes, don't dismiss or advocate one version of UNIX over another!
Know ye not that ye are Gods???
Package management is designed to keep you from shooting yourself in the foot by installing components that are known to be incompatible or insufficiently recent. For your own uses, you might not care if your system is down for a day or three while you straighten it out; in the Real World, it makes a lot of difference.
The init scripts are another area like this, and one of my major complaints about BSD. I much prefer a flexible system where you don't have to go edit a critical system initialization script every time you want to change something. The SysV init script model has the serious advantage that it's robust in the face of a script error: one bad script doesn't hose up the whole system. There's been some discussion on the NetBSD mailing lists about adding a flexible startup system, even more so than SysV's (in particular, not depending on the file name to order execution), so the classic BSD init script may go the way of the buffalo even in BSD.
Finally, not having a color LS may be a minor annoyance for someone who doesn't want to set it up every time; for others (me included) who use their systems from other than the local console, it's a win. In any case, it's far from "HORRIBLE!".
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Applications are the reason. I dumped both over Microsoft with much great intellectual pain. Linux-land began to remind me of the early days of Commodore64. I began to want things to work right the first time. Linux was completely stable and functional but the desktop apps were usually broken and worked with more invested time than I wanted to spend. I want to create real work with a machine not just play with it. M$ and it's "what will this cost me today" is less stable, less user twistable and it like living in conformist land (BTW one size does not fit all) but its apps usually work. Some people use computers to create things other than device drivers. I miss my XWindows but ... everyone else can now read my mail and work.
Applications are the reason.
tsia.
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org
DNA just wants to be free...
This article was no better than the FUD it aimed to dispell. BSD is fragmented in the same sense UNIX is fragmented. UNIX started as one OS, and people began writing their own versions. *BSD began as one OS, and people began writing their own versions. Linux is fragmented as well, but to a lesser extent. There is only one Linux kernel, but there are many distributions. There are problems with libraries, file locations, and rc scripts, but the LSB (or whatever it's called right now) aims to remove these incompatibilites. Do all of the BSDs have common rc scripts, common libraries, common file locations? I don't know, but I'm fairly certain the answer is no. Is there any work underway to resolve these problems if they exist? There are far more Linux distributions than BSD, however, so IMHO they come up about equal for fragmentedness.
Also, the bit about FreeBSD being a technically superior OS was pure FUD. Why is FreeBSD technically superior? I don't think being derived from the original UNIX source (which IIRC is no longer true because of a law suit that forced them to remove all AT&T source from *BSD) qualifies as making a "technically superior" OS. I also don't think the cathedral-ish developement model makes any difference either. The author fails to mention is that Linux kernel patches go through much of the same procedure that *BSD patches do. People submit the patch to Linus, who then reviews and decides if the patch should become part of the official kernel.
I'm not going to go into the license issues as I feel they are a matter of personal choice and have nothing to do with one OS being superior than the other. Some people like the GPL, others like the BSD license, others still might prefer the MPL, QPL, or any one of the growing list of free licenses.
Finally, Linux is not a clone of FreeBSD anymore than FreeBSD is a clone of Linux. They are entirely different OSes with different goals started by different people. They are both UNIX clones. FreeBSD may be more closely tied to UNIX, but that does not make Linux a FreeBSD clone.
-matt
If this bothers you so much, take the original code, fix it, and sell it, or give it away, or even GPV it. It's still there, freely available. Knock yourself out. This is the best kind of freedom: no strings attached.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Even without SMP systems, Linux is faster in some real-world applications.
One good test is to set up a cross-platform compilation for a large software project under both systems. Because it is cross-compilation, it won't be depending on any local include files or libraries, making it a fair test.
The results the last time I saw this done were that Linux was 15% faster! It's possible we didn't have the latest BSD kernel.
I believe we could improve slashdot and the free software communities by administering the following quiz:
1) Do you believe that the GPL will save the world?
2) Do you believe that the GPL will ruin the world?
3) Do you believe the BSD licensing will save the world?
4) Do you believe that BSD licensing will ruin the world?
5) Do you get visibly upset if somebody says 'free software' instead of 'open source'?
and then shoot everybody who answers 'yes' to anything.
(quiz stolen from an acquaintance of mine)
Users of free OS's are becoming more pathetic by the day. I bet in MA and CA we'll start to see stickers of Calvin pissing on a penguin or on a daemon any day now!
If you're claiming one free UNIX is better than the next you're stupid. If you are claiming one free UNIX is better than the next it is because you are using the wrong tool for your task.
If you have a sun3 lying around, run NetBSD. If you have a brand new high end PC, run Linux. If you're actually creating a machine that multiple and potentially hostile users will login to, use OpenBSD. If you are creating a very high volume server use FreeBSD.
The different free OS's are tools. Nothing more -- nothing less.
I'm glad I'm not stupid enough to argue that a screwdriver is better than pliers or that a pocket knife is better than crowbar.
As someone who has used both products, I have to say that both have their points. Both are wonderful unicies.
:-) )
What I have a hard time dealing with is zealots, and there are enough of them in every camp.
He says:
I was bitten by this several years ago when I wrote a set of scripts to manage the startup rc files on a Slackware system. When the system was moved to Red Hat, the scripts broke.
You wrote code based on 1 system (BSD init) of rc scripts. You move to a system that advertises itself as having the other system (sysv init), and you expect your scripts to work?
He says:
In many ways, Linux is a FreeBSD clone.
This has been debunked enough already. Might as well say that Solaris is a FreeBSD clone. (just trying to tweak some noses
While I find that most of the BSD people who get published to be bigots, I must say that 2 things are important in this post:
1) Linux and *BSD both work. Use what you're comfortable with. Be it Redhat, NetBSD, slackware, OpenBSD, Debian, BSDI, mandrake or FreeBSD.
2) He said:
Those in the Linux community who trash talk FreeBSD merely imitate the Microsoft they hate so much.
So long as he applies that to those who trashtalk linux, he has a very important point.
Zapman
I've been a FreeBSD user from the very beginning (back when it was 386bsd). It kicks ass as a high-end Internet/Intranet server. I run my business on it and have no regrets. I've started using Linux in recent years. As a desktop workstation, it rocks. I've had no problems getting the two OS's to play together. I'm glad they both exist.
The way I see it, a little conflict and competition between the camps will only spur us on... It is not like defeating Windows offers much of a *technical* challange.
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
Once again, there is some massive generalization going on here, but, as my views were outlined in my post to Mr. Nelson, I'll let it slide.
Re: This post, however, I have to disagree with your analysis of why Microsoft is hated by so many. I will concede that some people do hate them because they are successful. That is jealousy, and it is unfortunate. There is, however, and important distinction to be made between petty jealousy, and the reason I (and many others, I would assume) dislike Microsoft: they didn't play fair. True, they won, but they won by cheating, and no one likes a cheater. (By "cheating", I am of course referring to the predatory and anti-competitive buisness practices displayed by Microsoft in their climb to market dominance, i.e.: threatening to cut off supplies of MS-DOS or drastically increase the price thereof if retailers gave customers the option of using DR-DOS, per-processor licences, and financial incentives to retailers and manufacturers to lock competitors out of the market.)
To further illustrate my point, I look to RedHat. Although they are, admittedly, nowhere near the scale of Microsoft, they are still taking a dominant role in their market. Why aren't as many people up in arms about this? Simple. They played fair. Bob Young and his company achieved what they did because they provide a good product and market it ethically. That's the beauty of GPL'd software: it must succeed on its merits, or else it will not be used. Without the ability to leverage the market financially (licancing fees, etc.) corporations have less opportunity to resort to cheap tricks. RedHat came by their success honestly, and I applaud them for that.
Sorry if this was starting to become a bit of a rant.
- Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
And we should care because why?
Seriously, if you wish to spend tons of time making something that someone can make a closed-source version of, fine, but don't expect sane people to help.
The proper people to rewrite the system in such a way that they can make a closed-source version of it are the actualy comapnies wishing to do so.
Well, as long as you understand that your closed-source goal is laughable and only a few freaks want it, then fine. Just shut up about the GPL virus. It's that way because we want it that way so take a flying leap.
We played with all the mount options. No matter how we looked at it, Linux as significantly faster than FreeBSD.
My there are a lot of little babies on Slashdot these days. Arguing about whether someBSD or Linux is "superior" is just plain stupid. Each of them are good OS's, and more importantly FREE OS's. Although Linux and the BSD's may differ from each other in some respects, they are much closer to each other than to any proprietary OS. I'm a Linux user myself, but even though I don't use the BSD's, I'm glad to know that there *are* other free OS's out there.
In the first week of Linux.com, VA Research was forced to pull off thier Guide to Operating System Comparisions in Linux@Work. Forced, I say, because it was complete junk and immediately tried to insult any non-Linux user, and spew propiganda so new users would only see Linux as an option. There are two reasons why. Va Resarch is a Linux company , which does have great people working under it (some of you guys at SVLUG!), and it helps the media blitz.
The first week, numerous people complained, and it was removed. There were no apologies (even in the replies), and they said (along these lines) "we can not be held responcible, as this is a new site and many items emerged last minute." I still have the page, somewhere.
And.. to defeat your claim once and for all, there was no aspect of it to back it up, for every OS they mentioned. However, they tried extra hard to hurt BSD. BTW, was written by a Linux Journal person.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
AC wrote:
SD people say Microsoft use FreeBSD as hotmail's servers. But I learn that it is hacked!
Irrelevent. The web-mail application that's run on those servers was 'hacked' (in point of fact, the 'hackers' exploited a hole that Microsoft had left in there deliberately for their own software to use -- just another reminder that security through obscurity doesn't work). The underlying OS wasn't hacked, nor was it responsible for the hole in the first place.
2) Most of the ISPs use FreeBSD as their servers to handle large volume of data/file transfer Is this true?
"Most" probably implies more than 50%, and no one can give you figures with that sort of accuracy. But, many of the ISPs that I know run FreeBSD internally, either exclusively, or as a core part of their internal network.
My ISP in the UK, Demon Internet uses FreeBSD all over the shop. For example, they run a bunch of games servers (Quake, Half Life, Team Fortress, and so on). The astute among you are probably realising that there aren't any FreeBSD binaries of these servers available. So they run the Linux binaries under emulation -- rock solid performance, and it integrates nicely with the rest of their (predominently) FreeBSD based network.
N
Then you must also agree that one is not free unless until one has the freedom to murder or be murdered.
I would say one must have the right to *consent* to be murdered, and to murder someone who *consents* to it - by equivalent analogy I never said one should have the right to enslave without consent.
Why not install both. This way you can compare them side by side, and figure out which is more to your liking.
Ungh
I've worked in the company of two semi-raving FreeBSD advocates, one of which made sure our routers ran it, so I (like a lot of folks here) have logged hours using it.
Based on that experience, I would say two things:
1 - FreeBSD does conform to the "traditional" UNIX standards very nicely.
2 - Conforming to traditional UNIX standards does not always encourage getting work done.
Some of the "tricks" and shortcuts that I can use in Linux (I think someone mentioned ifconfig defaulting to "-a" with no arguments in a previous article) make it a lot easier for me to accomplish things. After all, I'm the administrator! I know what ifconfig does! I don't want to be told the usage, I want it to do something smart when I type "ifconfig". And -a still works, for those old-school admins who happen to type that. So how have we lost anything? That's just one minor example.
I think that is one of the strengths of Linux: it is allowed to "do the right thing, within the limits of the standards" (for some definition of the right thing, but preferably mine). BSD has embraced the standards without necessarily contributing to usability, IMO. Does this make it good for servers that get installed and nobody ever touches again? Absolutely. Would I use it for anything else? Fraid not.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
I've heard this argument a lot that the BSD license is fundementally incompatible with the GPL. I can't find why that would be a case. The only restriction on compatibility that GPL maintains is that you are not allowed to infringe upon the rights given to you by the GPL. Placing a restriction on copyright notices, which the GPL already does in two seperate clauses doesn't seem to make this incompatible.
The actual clause for restriction is:Nowhere does the GPL state that you are given the right not to distribute the source without a copyright, in fact, the GPL makes it's own copyright restrictions in two places before this:
and
If I've made a mistake interpretting the GPL, please explain what I'm missing.
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
Um, SMP support under Linux isn't all that great. It became better ... very recently.
--
It's not that OpenBSD is secure.. it's that OpenBSD's primary goal is security.
Completely different matter. FreeBSD's primary goal is a good BSD on the x86 platform.
BSDI's primary goal is to make money (pretty much the definition of commercial. Sometimes even the legal definition -- in the UK the Companies Act states that the primary legal responsibility of the directors of a company is to make the company more money.)
Since OpenBSD's goal is security, the other BSDs can draw on that experience to make them more secure... similar to the way that FreeBSD and Linux have both drawn on each other's experience in certain areas.
I have yet to build a box that didnt boot dos. Your point?
I have decided to retry freebsd tho'
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
Quotes like these make me wonder about the mindset of those who favor the BSD license. James Howard is saying that GNU code is not freely re-distributable, and BSD code is. I disagree vehemently. Maybe in theory the BSD license gives users more permissions than the GNU license, but in practice BSD code is often made proprietary, and thus is not freely re-distributable.
From the software author's point of view, BSD code is easier to distribute, because its licensing is so liberal. However, from the software user's point of view, GPL code is more distributable, because unlike BSD code it is never proprietarized. As a software user myself, I think that James Howard (and all BSD license advocates) do software users like us a great disservice by focusing on the freedom of authors at the expense of freedom of users.
In conclusion, if you really do want to dispel the notion that "FreeBSD is an Old Boy's Network and Too Closed", please start paying more attention to the needs of software users instead of your own selfish interests as software authors. And please don't give me the "authors need money to eat" drivel. The success of Linux proves quite convincingly that authors can eat and serve their users at the same time.
The problem with FreeBSD is that if youre trying to install X brand hardware and you have searched the HOWTO, FAW, and BSDhandbook and cannot find any information then ask in #freebsd on efnet (0r any irc network for that matter) you will get the RTFM answer every time. ...... last year I was trying to get my ess1370 soundcard working in FreeBSD. When asking for advice in #freebsd I was told by many in the room that they had theirs working no problem with a hack. Asking how they did this I got the huge brush off. ALL I WANTED WAS A WEBPAGE, HOWTO, etc. I had searched google.com hotbot etc and didnt find anything.
Example
I still use FreeBSD as a NATd box for my cable modem. And yes I figured out how they installed their 1370 sound card. After I subscribed to several FreeBSD mailing lists.
Ok. I'm a Linux user. I have Debian installed at home and at work. I've never used *BSD. But so what? If Linux, for some unforseeable reason, started really sucking the big one, I would probably look at *BSD.
Why? Because both are stable versions of operating systems that will accomplish the tasks that I need to have accomplised.
This in fighting between Linux and *BSD is juvenile. Does any Linux or *BSD user really believe that their OS of choice is the only solution for everyone? I certainly hope not.
Remember, this whole movement is about being free to choose an alternative. Let's stop beating each other up because we didn't all make the same choice. Please? (Maybe it'll help if I ask nicely.)
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
So then why do so many of them buy Quake and Civ:CTP?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
While I do agree with some of the points in this article, I think that the author really needs some help with his arguements.
BSD is Too Fragmented
His arguement boils down to:
BSD: 4 versions
Linux: 100 distributions
Do you notice the difference? Linux has different distributions, not different versions. There are two main problems that fragmentation can cause.
1) Repatative work is done.
2) Incompatabilities.
Linux definately has the problem with #2 as per his example, but it doesn't have the problem of #1 as BSD does. There is only one kernel, all of the rest is package management.
Unrepentant Hypocrisy
His arguement: People say that BSD should stop complaining about the GPL while using a lot of software that is GPLed. But only 8% of tools and 15% of libs are GPLed.
Notice however, the most important things run under FreeBSD are GPLed: gcc, Apache, Samba, etc.
FreeBSD is an Old Boy's Network and Too Closed
Two points here: yes, FreeBSD is slow about moving things into distributions until they are sure that the software entering the distribution is stable and peachy keen. Linux distributions are usually a little more cutting edge. Most distributors don't want the people to have to hop on the web and download the latest version of things even though they just bought a distrib. of Linux the day before. Choose which mindset you will.
He then goes on to attack the one complaint that most people have against BSD. That its users act mightier than thou. The tone he uses in the article doesn't help his cause much. I think that if BSD wants to take off they really need to work on this problem. While he is right in saying it does happen no matter what OS you deal with, BSD has the repuatation that it happens much more with it. Whether this reputation is unfounded or not doesn't matter. People on BSD mailing lists and the BSD users need to act nicer than anyone else around if they are going to get over their rep.
FreeBSD is a Linux Clone
I hope everyone here realizes that they were developed separately. Granted they use many of the same programs, but the app does not an OS make(unless you are M$).
There are no apps for FreeBSD
Gee, it is nice to see a little FUD about Linux at the end of this section. I am glad that he feels the need to attack Linux at every turn.
FreeBSD is a Dead End
You never know.
FreeBSD Should GPL Itself
He is right. They can't. Them the brakes.
FreeBSD Users are Simply Jealous of the Success of Linux
Lets see, many wonder why a new user would try Linux as opposed to FreeBSD. I guess that he hasn't seen a newbie try to install FreeBSD before. The reason that RedHat has done so well as opposed to Slackware is all in the installation. The only current software harder to install than FreeBSD is OpenBSD.
Once again I feel that his FUD against Linux is a bit aggrevating. He says without doubt that BSD is technically superior to Linux. I know of a lot of people who would take issue with that.
Conclusion
BSD has a different way of approaching things than Linux does. If you are needing to run a box where you are considering one of the other, evaluate them both and pick the one that fits best.
I think that the main conclusion should be that everyone needs to chill out a bit. We shouldn't be fighting against each other. Both FreeBSD and Linux are fine operating systems with devout user groups. They should try to work together and advance their software rather than biting each others heads off because of percieved differences.
Doug Bridges is done spouting off.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
When the Yahoo! founders tried Linux it was in it's infancy. It just didn't cut it, and they needed something better than their existing setup (which was a bunch of older Sun stuff if I recall correctly).
... that is blatant FUD as the state of Unix init scripts has been a bone of contention for more years than FreeBSD and Linux has existed.
The legend at Yahoo! (where I used to work until recently) is that David Filo got given a copy of FreeBSD and slapped it into the CD-Rom drive of a spare PC. It installed first time, and they've been using it ever since.
Yahoo! also uses some high end Sun stuff, but the majority of the servers run FreeBSD. Rather than rely on the potential for true scalability and SMP on single boxes, they use massed ranks of smallish machines.
I hated FreeBSD - but not because of it's stability. As a server OS on high quality hardware it is pretty much unbeatable in the Intel world. As a workstation OS it sucks a large one. We were stuck with 2.2.8, which has little to recommend it. In comparison, the 3.x series is much closer to the convenience of Linux as a workstation OS.
As for the ports and packages system, it is crap. It fills your hard drive with badly configured applications and their source trees that often wont compile. In comparison the RPM system of RedHat is a dream.
So, the FreeBSD kernel may be technically superior than Linux (and I'd be reasonably surprised if it wasn't), but Linux has the edge in user friendliness.
Which brings me to the Daemon News article. So the guys init scripts wouldn't port from one Linux distro to another
Like many *BSD zelaots, he makes the mistake of confusing the Linux kernel with the Linux distributions. The code 'chucked' into a Linux distro has nothing to do with the quality of the kernel that runs it.
Chris - a NetBSD, Linux and ex-FreeBSD user.
Chris Wareham
Yeah, FreeBSD took a while to get SMP working (although I was using it two years ago in production.)
That's because they chose to engineer it carefully rather than just throwing in the first implementation sent to them.
Agreed.. Linux tends to have better support for whizzy new gadgets. FreeBSD tends to concentrate on good stable support for good stable hardware. Since FreeBSD aims more at the server market than the home market, you tend to engineer a new machine specifically for FreeBSD, rather than throwing one together. (Not that you *can't* just throw one together)
This article seemed pretty arrogant and condescending to me
With all the hype there was around the Mindcraft benchmarking of Linux vs. NT, I don't think there was ever a benchmark of FreeBSD vs. NT. I think this would be interesting to see, or even FreeBSD vs. Linux. Or maybe even a three-way competition! I wouldn't be surprised if FreeBSD outperformed both, or would at least give them a really good run for their money.
:)
BTW, I'm a Linux user, but I don't think FreeBSD deserves the negative response it's gotten from the some of the Linux community. As much negativity as there has been about the Linux community's take on FreeBSD, I'm sure there are plenty of other Linux users such as myself that think that FreeBSD is a good thing.
It seems to me that many times, articles tend to focus on the negative instead of the positive. How about some press on positive feelings that Linux users have about FreeBSD??? Someone out there help me out!
-Jorge Sierra
jasierra@netscape.net
It was bad CGI scripting. And you must keep this in mind. Any OS that lets users login or runs a service can be "hacked" it has nothing to do with the OS but the System admin.
if you read the fuckn' article on Hotmail,
it wasn't a server issue... but a logic error in the way hotmail was scripted..
Yeah, that's right, I'm going to install FreeBSD. Primarily to actually see what it's like, there should be some statement about zealousness here regarding the don't know you like it till you've tried it adage. So why not find out for yourself?
But after reading the article, I must say that I am bothered simply because I guess I'm kind of a GNU fan. I like the license what can I say.
I knew FreeBSD was mostly BSD license, but the desire to remove (replace) good tools produced by the FSF seems ridiculous. If it ain't broke and it's free, why fix it?
I realize they too give away their OS, which is why I'm trying it, but I think this article may just have turned me off to their internal affairs structure.
Oh well, if the little demon thing doesn't work out, looks like I'll go back to linux and finally pick up debian.
Btw, Linux will still be running on two of my machines, so I will have the familiar stomping grounds to play around with.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
> What does communication of ideas have to do with
> using applications meant for another OS,
It was a metaphor. Metaphors are used to imply a comparison.
Let's review:
Certainly, there is benefit to be gained from being able to run as many apps as possible from as many platforms as possible.
(Pay attention -- Now we are getting into the metaphor)
If an individual only spoke one language, that individual could only derive benefit from interacting with others of his ilk. If, however, I can speak multiple languages, I can derive great benefits from all that diversity and wealth of knowledge.
> I dare all BSD users to stop using all GPL'ed
> applications and all Linux applications right
> now and see how good your OS really is.
A significant portion of that GPL'ed code is older than Linux and was designed to run on many operating systems. Therefore, Linux does not "own" them.
GPL != Linux
Applications != OS
Unix became what it did because of the exchange of ideas from the BSD as well.
Cross-polination, Dude. Stop trying to mandate that everyone speak the same language. Different ideas from different camps makes everything better.
Only in their current models. The major distributions work on a smorgasbord model, trying to include any application the end user might want or need in the distribution. The BSDs take an alternate--and perhaps enlightened--approach, clearly distinguishing the "core" from the rest. From the BSD perspective, I would argue that nearly all the major distributions share the same core, even without the LSB. Where the Linux camps and BSD camps differ is in the definition of the core.
Ask and ye shall receive. Again, you're thinking of distributions like Red Hat, where any project of note is included in the distribution. One could easily create a secure distribution (such as Khaos is working on) simply by taking a more conservative stance on what the core should be.
Increasingly, it doesn't matter whether you run Linux or a BSD, if you check your favorite software it usually compiles for anything remotely Unix-like. Even commercial software, such as Netscape, can be installed, but there is a clear distinction in the BSD camp that it is not part of the "core"--though that courtesy isn't often given to Linux distributions. BSDers might point out Netscape as a potential security flaw in the distribution. Linux users would say,"Duh. You don't install that crap on your production machines."
Again, only in the current form. The sheer number of permutations of system libraries under Linux can make for installation nightmares, but it also makes for unbelievable flexibility. Yes, it's possible to run KDE and GNOME apps side by side, and a Caldera user might have to do some hunting to install gnumeric correctly, but those issues are still possible under the BSDs. Anything that's not part of the core will cause the same headaches, and for all the problems with .debs and .rpms the BSDs are eventually going to face the same problems in user-interface-land. Wait until the BSD UI Core Wars come, and all of a sudden Red Hat starts looking good.
In reality, users in both camps know the best way to handle userland software is './configure ; make ; make install', and it'll probably be that way for a very long time. That's how Unix got us here in the first place.
The problem is that some people now consider GNOME and KDE as core tools, much the way most distributions consider X a core tool. What the BSD camp sees as a detriment, the Linux camp sees as a unifying theme of freedom. Yes, it does cause it's share of headaches, but just as there are projects targetted specifically at FreeBSD, there are projects targetted specifically at glibc2.1 systems, or Debian systems. Just as the article's author pointed out, that it's not fragmentation, but differing market niches. The lines are blurry, but they definitely exist. Red Hat isn't for everyone.
Don't we all.
Hello Troll!
;-)
/kernel, however, it doesnt make an OS ;-)
;-)
/* They are envious of the tons of software that we have and the amount of hardware that Linux supports not to mention that we have KDE and gnome now that make Linux the awesome OS it is. */
Sheesh where to start?
1. "Tons of Software"
a. FreeBSD has a Linux application layer. I stress this is NOT AN EMULATOR. Unless you want to think that Windows NT "Emulates" Windows 95 apps. The syscalls are different but there is an application layer to do translation. (Of course, if you think that Windows NT -- a fundamentally VMS-like system -- 'emulates' Win95/98 apps then be my guest). The application layer runs Linux apps at native speed.
b. Most programs come in source as well, so you can compile it for your system. Beauty of open source? FreeBSD can run most Open/NetBSD apps without recompilation (s'true; i've done it) but you'd have a cleaner conscience if you compiled it anyway
2. KDE and GNOME
a. How does KDE and GNOME make a great OS? They make great *DESKTOP ENVIRONMENTS*. They make wonderful *WINDOW MANAGERS*. Until KDE replaces vmlinux or
b. FreeBSD has KDE and GNOME as well; ever heard of packages and ports?
/* No matter how much we try to befriend the BSDers they will always try to stab us in the back, even though they want a piece of what we have. If they are so good why do they need Linux compatibility, why, because they are jealous of what we have. */
I use both. I like both. Some tasks are better suited to each OS. Linux has better SMP and laptop support. FreeBSD, in my *personal experience* (no flames kids; your mileage may vary) is a better desktop workstation and server. I don't want to stab you in the back. Beat you with a clue stick, sure. Stab you in the back, never.
Why need Linux compatibility? Why does NT have a shared application layer for Windows 95 binaries? Why a shared layer for OS/2 and POSIX applications? (okay, their posix is broken; so what
Cost of development. If I don't have to waste time procuring a SEPERATE set of applications for a fundamentally similar operating system, I can spend more time making it better (and what improvements FreeBSD has seen ever since they moved CAM into 3.x and changed the VM subsystem!)
My $0.02; a penny for your thoughts but i'd have change coming
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
Disclaimer: I am personally a GPL fan, and I largely agree with you. However...
Notice however, the most important things run under FreeBSD are GPLed: gcc, Apache, Samba, etc.
Apache is not GPLed, it's under a BSD-ish license.
He is right. They can't [GPL FreeBSD]. Them the brakes.
Unless I am much mistaken, the whole point of the BSD license versus the GPL was that you could relicense the code to yourself for incorporation in a commercial product without requiring the intervetion of the copyright holders. This is the point that comes up most commonly in GPL v.s. BSD license discussions. Commercial (proprietary) licensing arrangements are considerably more restrictive than the GPL -- if this is the case, then they very well can relicence it to the GPL if they wanted.
Now, whether they should ... that's another matter. I would just as soon see the *BSDs remain under their current license.
FreeBSD is a Dead End
You never know.
That was just a cheap shot. "X is a Dead End./You never know." ... classic FUD.
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org
DNA just wants to be free...
It's FUD to assume that there might be *some* reason that this guy uses FreeBSD over Linux?? Yeah, that makes a world of sense.
I resent the hell out of the fact that anytime someone says something in favor of a non-Linux OS, they get labelled as "FUD spreaders". By a friggin' AC no less. FreeBSD is a great system. The fact that it runs Linux binaries makes it that much better. Can Linux run FreeBSD binaries?? I'm not sure, but I know there's no system out there that does it out of the box.
The guy said that FreeBSD has a stable kernel. He didn't say anything about Linux, and yet you assume that he was putting Linux down. Let the man use whatever OS he wants. Fsck you and all your little AC, script-kiddie friends that are ruining this perfectly good forum we once had.
Umm, he said FreeBSD without qualifying that statement. He who responded ironically implied he had been enlightened by this unqualified claim and would therefore install it everywhere.
/mill
In short the article didn't clear up anything. Still the claims of BSD superiority and still no proof of it.
My advice to you would be to run the two side by side (if you can get seperate systems, it's great). Slowly you will begin to see which applications are better.
:-)
:-)
In my experience (standard disclaimer; your mileage may vary) Linux makes a pretty robust database server (Berkely DB was never my thing), and a fun client (especially on my laptop). BSD is a kickass bridging router and firewall (packet filtering type). It can take network beatings.
ObNostalgicMoment: The day when I got FreeBSD running on a K5 with 16 megs of RAM, brought the load average up to *19* with about 15 concurrent 'make -j ', and was still able to browse the web with lynx no problem
Why did I do that? To show my boss that FreeBSD could take a beating that Windows NT couldn't. I then switched his desktop machine (a p75; this was a while ago mind you) to Linux, and he was astounded by the stability.
Now we run a healthy mix of Linux and BSD among our Windwos and Solaris machines. Each is tailored to its purpose. Linux DB, Solaris DB, BSD firewall, BSD web and file servers.
Diversity is a good thing
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
If you've decided once and for all that you're never, ever use an operating system other than Linux (or FreeBSD, or Windows, or whatever) ... why not just say "I'm really close-minded" instead of "Your operating system sucks?"
(Not rising to this one, but other comments..)
What's all this jealousy shite? Both are free (as in 'beer') for the most part, and I have the choice to use either.
Jealousy in this case implies that for some reason I can't choose Linux, and am envious of it's features. Sure, the grass is always greener, but it doesn't make any difference when there's no fence between.
Linux has numerous benefits such as a whole myriad of ditributions to fit many people's tastes. If you do not like RedHat, go with Debian, SuSE, Mandrake, Slackware, etc. That is the beauty of it...choose what you want.
/usr/local and the others."
;-)
The FreeBSD End:
To update FreeBSD all you have to do is CVSup to the current development branch and go have a beer, or two, or three and wait while it updates the sources on you system. Once that is complete, you go to "/usr/src" and then type "make world"
Which compiles all the sources and installs them.
What about config files? They are not installed, but put in the src tree for you to pick and choose some or all to update your system.
How many of us hate when RPM'ing something screws up your configs (mind you that usually is not the case by using RPM properly, or by backing up your configs).
What about apps - as the article states, go to the ports collection and you will probably find the same package that RedHat, Mandrake, etc. have to offer.
Sometimes FreeBSD ports offer a newer version over Linux, and sometimes not. But the number of ports is approx. 2559. I consider that fairly large.
I run Linux and FreeBSD as "mirrors" of one another and keeping the serverpackages on par with one another is easy.
Finally, long before the current Linux distro's of today, FreeBSD had a very clean and simple install.
The Linux End:
Well this one is shorter, becasue most of you know its benefits. Despite the problems with RPM it does make life easier when you have a whole bunch of apps to change.
I have also found that systems based on RPM allow you to change the core pieces of the distribution more easily than FreeBSD.
That is not bad on FreeBSD's part- it is just different, and sometimes better. I have seen people RPM a machine to death, but that was their choice.
IN the same vein, Linux has more choices about how you run your distibution. And most people never have a pristine system. It is usually their own hybrid. Something that works for them. A piece of contrib here, a piece of source compiled package there, and a smidgen of my own secret sauce. mmmmmm food. Oh yeah back to this topic.
FreeSBD has more (not complete)control over its core packages and lets you have fun with the ports. Basically FreeBSD says "/usr... is mine. You go play with
Which is fine by me most of the time.
--
All in all, the Linux distro's and FreeBSD are just different. Some would say one is better than the other. That is the beauty of choice, it is yours to make and your right (I honestly think it is a priveledge and that we are getting too greedy, forgetting the hard work that goes into these systems - look at the alternative - Micro&*%! - shudder)
The Linux and BSD camps have given us an alternative, away from the binds of Microsoft et all, and are alternatives from each other.
My CYA bit:
There are omissions in this (CVS and Linux). Becasue I did not include something does not mean either distrobution is missing or incapable of it. I just have to get back to hacking, and
wish I had more time to compose an article that all of you could so lovingly poke holes in
This is not ment to be an all-ecompassing discussion. That is the role Slashdot plays...cool.