Maybe one with a LM chipset in there perhaps? Who knows.:) A fire in the room would surely increase the mobo temperature. Allright, who's got MRTG or RRDtool graphs?
Then switch to ext3 and tune2fs those counts away (disable them by setting them to 0). No more waiting. Oh, and upgrading from ext2 to ext3 is painless.
For a desktop box, the default setup is probably okay. Note that I use the word "probably". Since everyone and their brother has different needs w.r.t. the partitioning of disks, it's impossible to anticipate what _you_ need. If you're an expert user, don't use the defaults. The FreeBSD people can't please everyone at the same time.
Yes, using fdisk and disklabel to partition new disks is difficult for a newcomer, but actually, across all the BSD's that's pretty much "standard". You did it once on FreeBSD, well, you won't have to relearn much for Net and OpenBSD. Great huh?
I agree that such things must become somewhat less contused. But the BSD's use a wholly different systems than the intel partition map cruft that e.g. Linux uses. There are actually quite a few benefits in making one big slice and partitioning that up. You can get lots more partitions on a disk that way. Sysinstall is a step in the right direction for making this easier, but it's not perfect.
You clearly don't get it. One only gets to deal with FreeBSD's installation routines very few times. Sysinstall is handy to get a basic system up and running. No fuss, it works, it might not behave the way you expect it to, but at least it's not as horrible as debian's dselect.
For installation of an operating system, GUI installers have indeed NO use AT ALL, other than have people say to themselves "gee, that looks nice" and having the microserf kid next door drool over your keyboard. In the case of freebsd, sysinstall needs to guide someone through partitioning, labelling, unpack a tarball or two onto the root fs, and generate a/etc/rc.conf so stuff like hostnames are known. All the added fluff in sysinstall is just to facilitate things like installing from a FTP, NFS or HTTP host. Oh, there's the configuration stuff afterwards, but guess what? You already have a fully working system om that dist. Installation is already practically over. As freebsd unpacked that last distribution tarball, your system is already bootable and useadble (to a degree). Yes, you can already reboot and wake up to a working system. Sure, it has no hostname (so it defaults to Amnesiac), and no networking set up, but hey, you can always attach the rc.conf in/etc with vi.
To install FreeBSD you actually don't even need an installer like sysinstall, just a system that can partition disks, create FFS slices onto BSD partitions and unpack stuff on top of the root and install a boot sector that can boot FreeBSD kernels. The FreeBSD base install does NO complicated stuff like dependancy checking, post-install scripts or other stuff.
It's very simple and straightforward. Once someone knows more about the system, it's possible to just script sysinstall or just blast a FreeBSD install onto the disk across a LAN (which is what I do). Chroot in and finish up, reboot, done.
I'd say, let the FreeBSD developers put their efforts in creating a better BSD system instead of a "better" installation. A GUI doesn't constitute "user-friendlyness". FreeBSD's install doesn't NEED a friggin fluffy marketroid-feel-good GUI.
Yes I know people think that a graphical installer is somehow more aesthetically pleasing and "looks" easy, but I rather have function over pretty looks. Sysinstall might have a few quirks that might snag you the first time, but you'll figure it out.
Hello, please let's keep what works well. Graphical user interfaces for system installation? Come on! Have you ever tried to set up a FreeBSD box?
What's this animosity against text-mode installs? They work. What makes you think that the FreeBSD sysinstall scares away "lusers"? Because it hasn't got a crash-prone fluffy GUI which is a pain in the butt to recover from when it falls on it's ass?
FreeBSD's text mode installation is perfectly okay for that odd half an hour (depending on hardware and network speeds of course) of installing the base system.
Re:This year's once-in-a-lifetime event
on
Meet The Leonids
·
· Score: 3, Informative
*sigh* the big storm would be optimal here tonight at 4:50 AM. Well, I stood outside about 15 minutes before that. F**king thick clouds everywhere. It sucks to live in the netherlands:(
That's funny... You probably haven't had the fights I had with portupgrade. Portupgrade tends to go haywire if you update from installed packages instead of ports. Also, I don't like/need ruby. I'd _really_ love to have a sane way of upgrading ports without installing a scripting language I'll probably never use.
Actually, you can already switch to the port version of perl on STABLE. This will line you up better wrt CURRENT having no perl in the base system, and it might even save you the trouble of compiling/reinstalling all those perl modules again.
Just after compiling the perl port, do:
use.perl port <enter>
and you STABLE system will always use the perl from the ports. This will probably save you a headache or two when upgrading to CURRENT
They probably wouldn't recognise a truly living and actively developed Operating System Environment if it gnawed one of their legs off and slapped them in the face with it.
I use BSD everywhere. I sneak it into places where I work and impress the locals with it. And then it ends up in the server room. FreeBSD world domination! muhahahaha
Oh, and I never got fired for installing BSD somewhere:)
I'm using Gentoo right now, and I have to admit that portage is pretty good, but still, *BSD's ports are still better. Gentoo's package masking system and USE variable cruft is just inconvenient and gets in the way sometimes, and that's one of the major gripes I got with it. But otherwise, portage is pretty spiffy.
The only thing Gentoo's portage has over *BSD's ports is the better updating mechanism. Portupgrade under freebsd just blows chunks, and not just because yet another script interpreter (ruby) needs to be installed. It croaks a lot when dependancies somehow shift (because you compiled new versions of something). Which lieves you with the dreaded pkgdb -F which sometimes leaves you guessing. I think the FreeBSD ports system could learn something from the NetBSD port system which has a make update target.
But that's just my personal opinion on both systems. They are both nice, but the FreeBSD ports system comes out on top wrt flexibility.
It's an installer that doesn't get in your way. The partitioning/labelling is pretty easy (and has reasonable auto-defaults). And finishing up after (enabling ssh, nfs et al) is a doddle.
I don't see why FreeBSD needs graphical cruft in it's installer. The simple ncurses based one lets me install a fully working FreeBSD base system + ports tree in under 30 minutes. If I want something extra after that, pkg_add -r isn't far away.
I mean, come on... It's an installation, not something you have to work in for more than 8 hours. Yeah sure, GUI installers look nice, but what's the USE?
Lots of information there, and access to pre-built KDE-CVS snapshots (that is, if they built correctly). They have a handy script that gets the latest built snapshot and installs it for you. Bless pkg_add(1)'s little heart.:)
NOT bzflag! Man, that stuff is addictive. I can't remember how much productivity I lost when I had an O2 for a workstation and decided to give bzflag a go.
Stay away from that game. It's too much friggin fun. And way to addictive. Just say no. Same goes for gltron and tuxracer. Just don't do it. Go play quake or something, at least that gets boring after a while and you can get back to work.
CURRENT has come a long way. Heck, I've stopped trying to keep a machine CURRENT because problems started with me when they changed ABI's and compilers (from gcc 2.9x to gcc3), so I went back to STABLE land for a while.
Now that DP2 is here, I might as well jump in the CURRENT water again and give it a go again. The time that CURRENT _did_ work for me, it worked great and I considered it stable. I have been following/lurking the current@ mailinglist for quite a while, and it's been fun seeing al these cool new things appear.
Great work. I'm definately going to give this a spin.
Duh, I of course mean all of that stuff _and_ Qt 3.1. So KDE3 users can't compile OpenQvis. Hmm... I was looking forward to looking at 3d graphs of my network:(.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe one with a LM chipset in there perhaps? Who knows. :) A fire in the room would surely increase the mobo temperature. Allright, who's got MRTG or RRDtool graphs?
Oh? I heard lots of asbestos was released into the air because of this fire.
Glad to help :)
Those are Cisco syslog messages. No linux easter eggs.
The slashdot posting says it all really, the Utwente NOC burned down. I myself am dutch, so I grokked the links quite fine :)
Many friends of mine study at utwente. I was already wondering why they weren't on IRC, but since I heard the news I knew why.
Oh, AFAIK, utwente kept off-site backups of all data, so all is probably not lost.
Then switch to ext3 and tune2fs those counts away (disable them by setting them to 0). No more waiting. Oh, and upgrading from ext2 to ext3 is painless.
Yes, using fdisk and disklabel to partition new disks is difficult for a newcomer, but actually, across all the BSD's that's pretty much "standard". You did it once on FreeBSD, well, you won't have to relearn much for Net and OpenBSD. Great huh?
I agree that such things must become somewhat less contused. But the BSD's use a wholly different systems than the intel partition map cruft that e.g. Linux uses. There are actually quite a few benefits in making one big slice and partitioning that up. You can get lots more partitions on a disk that way. Sysinstall is a step in the right direction for making this easier, but it's not perfect.
For installation of an operating system, GUI installers have indeed NO use AT ALL, other than have people say to themselves "gee, that looks nice" and having the microserf kid next door drool over your keyboard. In the case of freebsd, sysinstall needs to guide someone through partitioning, labelling, unpack a tarball or two onto the root fs, and generate a /etc/rc.conf so stuff like hostnames are known. All the added fluff in sysinstall is just to facilitate things like installing from a FTP, NFS or HTTP host. Oh, there's the configuration stuff afterwards, but guess what? You already have a fully working system om that dist. Installation is already practically over. As freebsd unpacked that last distribution tarball, your system is already bootable and useadble (to a degree). Yes, you can already reboot and wake up to a working system. Sure, it has no hostname (so it defaults to Amnesiac), and no networking set up, but hey, you can always attach the rc.conf in /etc with vi.
To install FreeBSD you actually don't even need an installer like sysinstall, just a system that can partition disks, create FFS slices onto BSD partitions and unpack stuff on top of the root and install a boot sector that can boot FreeBSD kernels. The FreeBSD base install does NO complicated stuff like dependancy checking, post-install scripts or other stuff.
It's very simple and straightforward. Once someone knows more about the system, it's possible to just script sysinstall or just blast a FreeBSD install onto the disk across a LAN (which is what I do). Chroot in and finish up, reboot, done.
I'd say, let the FreeBSD developers put their efforts in creating a better BSD system instead of a "better" installation. A GUI doesn't constitute "user-friendlyness". FreeBSD's install doesn't NEED a friggin fluffy marketroid-feel-good GUI.
Yes I know people think that a graphical installer is somehow more aesthetically pleasing and "looks" easy, but I rather have function over pretty looks. Sysinstall might have a few quirks that might snag you the first time, but you'll figure it out.
I of course am quite happy with my mail and mx setup. My spam proofing is adequate enough for me to make my mail useable for me.
What's this animosity against text-mode installs? They work. What makes you think that the FreeBSD sysinstall scares away "lusers"? Because it hasn't got a crash-prone fluffy GUI which is a pain in the butt to recover from when it falls on it's ass?
FreeBSD's text mode installation is perfectly okay for that odd half an hour (depending on hardware and network speeds of course) of installing the base system.
*sigh* the big storm would be optimal here tonight at 4:50 AM. Well, I stood outside about 15 minutes before that. F**king thick clouds everywhere. It sucks to live in the netherlands :(
That's funny... You probably haven't had the fights I had with portupgrade. Portupgrade tends to go haywire if you update from installed packages instead of ports. Also, I don't like/need ruby. I'd _really_ love to have a sane way of upgrading ports without installing a scripting language I'll probably never use.
Just after compiling the perl port, do:
use.perl port <enter>
and you STABLE system will always use the perl from the ports. This will probably save you a headache or two when upgrading to CURRENT
NetBSD currently does not even boot on older NuBUS PowerPC macs. Just so you know. They are working to recify that situation though.
I use BSD everywhere. I sneak it into places where I work and impress the locals with it. And then it ends up in the server room. FreeBSD world domination! muhahahaha
Oh, and I never got fired for installing BSD somewhere :)
The only thing Gentoo's portage has over *BSD's ports is the better updating mechanism. Portupgrade under freebsd just blows chunks, and not just because yet another script interpreter (ruby) needs to be installed. It croaks a lot when dependancies somehow shift (because you compiled new versions of something). Which lieves you with the dreaded pkgdb -F which sometimes leaves you guessing. I think the FreeBSD ports system could learn something from the NetBSD port system which has a make update target.
But that's just my personal opinion on both systems. They are both nice, but the FreeBSD ports system comes out on top wrt flexibility.
It's an installer that doesn't get in your way. The partitioning/labelling is pretty easy (and has reasonable auto-defaults). And finishing up after (enabling ssh, nfs et al) is a doddle.
I don't see why FreeBSD needs graphical cruft in it's installer. The simple ncurses based one lets me install a fully working FreeBSD base system + ports tree in under 30 minutes. If I want something extra after that, pkg_add -r isn't far away.
I mean, come on... It's an installation, not something you have to work in for more than 8 hours. Yeah sure, GUI installers look nice, but what's the USE?
Lots of information there, and access to pre-built KDE-CVS snapshots (that is, if they built correctly). They have a handy script that gets the latest built snapshot and installs it for you. Bless pkg_add(1)'s little heart. :)
Try somewhere far in the 7000's. You, sir, are several YEARS behind ;)
NOT bzflag! Man, that stuff is addictive. I can't remember how much productivity I lost when I had an O2 for a workstation and decided to give bzflag a go.
Stay away from that game. It's too much friggin fun. And way to addictive. Just say no. Same goes for gltron and tuxracer. Just don't do it. Go play quake or something, at least that gets boring after a while and you can get back to work.
Now that DP2 is here, I might as well jump in the CURRENT water again and give it a go again. The time that CURRENT _did_ work for me, it worked great and I considered it stable. I have been following/lurking the current@ mailinglist for quite a while, and it's been fun seeing al these cool new things appear.
Great work. I'm definately going to give this a spin.
Duh, I of course mean all of that stuff _and_ Qt 3.1. So KDE3 users can't compile OpenQvis. Hmm... I was looking forward to looking at 3d graphs of my network :(.
Are there statically compiled bins (modulo OpenGL) available for several operating systems?
safety scissors - Cut
Elmer's glue - Paste