Uses disklabel instead of partitions. Basically all of freebsd's partitions are extended partitions. Pain in the ass reading them in linux (I just gave up trying to mount one), but overall a rather nice feature.
Check out the Linux+FreeBSD minihowto. It's not really difficult
Allright, great. The bottom line is that you can upgrade a whole Debian system with just two commands from a shell (and this works very solidly I must say, but I prefer dselect to apt-get when updating the system.).
and apt-get install apache is certainly less typing than feeding the whole (sometimes very long and akward) URL to pkg_add on FreeBSD.
Of course this is a minor detail and both systems are very maintainable. Probably you can do this stuff with less worries and faster on Debian. I use both systems, FreeBSD usually needs more tinkering, but I still love it.
First, Let me ask you why do you think compiling is better than getting a binary package. Unless you want to change the compile time options or hack the source I don't see why you should wait for sometimes quite long compiles when you could get a binary package?
Second, debian's apt-get has a source option, which will download unpack and patch the source package. The you can just run debian/rules binary from the source directory which will build the deb package. But then, I rarely use that, since I rarely have to change compile time options or hack the source.
1. Easy to harden. I have two ports open - X (6000, 6010) and SSH (22). It was very easy to get my box to this stage. Much easier than it was with RH 6.0, which I have also hardened.
vi/etc/inetd.conf
2. Easy to upgrade. I have yet to see any tool surpass/usr/ports for pure ease of use.
apt-get install "insert-name-here" is even easier and faster.
I cvsup my ports every night, and in the morning I check the logs to see what package have been tweaked and configured and are ready to be loaded up. Then once or twice I week I cvsup the source code for the OS and do a make world. Upgrading FreeBSD is very very easy - cvsup is gorgeous and I've found nothing like it.
FreeBSDs package management is great but it is NO match to Debian GNU/Linux. Debian is even easier to upgrade. 1) You don't have to fix/etc by hand 2) You don't have to wait for hours for your stuff to compile (apt-get downloads binary packages unless told otherwise) 3) You have to remake all your ports one by one after upgrading system. On Debian all packages are a part of distribution. If you upgrade system everything is upgraded.
apt-get update; apt-get upgrade; will sync your system with the ftp mirror, download and install all updated packages.
On FreeBSD you need to 1)cvsup everything, 2)make buildworld, 3) make installworld, 4)see if/etc, changes, 5) remake new ports one by one..
Sounds like it is more difficult to stay up to date on FreeBSD..
4. One distribution, great docs, great organization. FreeBSD.org maintains everything I need to deal with regarding the OS in a clear and concise manner. The FreeBSD handbook is available online. I get CD subscriptions multiple times a year, at a good price. I find the linux world of distros rather confusing. FreeBSD makes it easier for me to know the "source of truth".
FreeBSD handbook is great, but then most of the major linux distributions(Debian and RedHat) have such handbooks too (usually online too) + a huge collection of online docs at LDP
Don't get me wrong, FreeBSD is a great system, I would choose it over RedHat in most cases. However, I also choose Debian GNU/Linux over FreeBSD because this distribution is so well engineered and it is easier to maintain than any other *nix operating system.
Simply, Linux became a buzzword today, and there is a crowd of windoze programmers who'd like to code on linux. But wait, they were using MS VC++ all the time. Even now I meet windows programmers who after looking at a linux machine start saying that their VISUAL tools are superior to gcc or unix editors just because they are Visual Something+++, go figure. Anyways, everything on unix appears to be difficult to use. But this is just a perception. Once you learn the basics you figure that the whole system makes sense, is very integrated and powerful..
the software is only available in rpm format, and has primarily been tested under...
Why is that? I must agree that using rpm and deb is great for managing packages which are a PART of a distribution. But I see no point at all in making third party software rpm.. I prefer getting third party softare in distribution independent format(targz or whatever) and installing it in/opt/local (sort of like netscape installer).
As for databasing, you should probably write your own, if at all possible. The FSF has some great database routines for C programs. Couple that with a MySQL setup on the server...and you're in business. Thats what most companies, including Burlington Coat Factory, which has a Linux-based solution, have done.
Bah! Screw this! Writing a databse in C or any low level programming language is like going back to 70s! If you just take the Access manual and rtfm for an hour, in 10 minutes you will be able to build a relational Access Database with queries and automatic reports and stuff. This is an excelent database application for simple and strightforward needs. Otherwise, use a real SQL server like Oracle if you need to develpo a fairly big DB with lots of simltaneous connection, etc. But for simple needs Access is just fine, no need to reinvent the wheel!
What I am looking for is a spreadsheet that has most capabilities and functionalities of Excel. Last time I checked StarCalc it was much less feature rich than Excel. One thing that I like in Excel is the DataAnalysis add-on pack (Inludes things like automized regession analysis, etc) Sure, StartCalc has some statiscal functions, but still Excel is better. Simple and powerful and easy to use(after you take a short look at its manual). Second, I want my Access. My definition of Access is a "Simple, Powerful, and EASY to use RDBS". If you don't need dozens of people connecting to the same data base, and you just want to be able to design it in a few minutes with automated reoprts , etc, Access is NICE. Alghouth MS OSes do suck, their other applications are usually good stuff (MS Office, IE, VC++..)
You can configure and price HP PA-RISC worstations and servers on HP website. You can get a base price quote for Compaq Alpha Servers and AlphaStations. Finally, you can configure and price Sun Ultra 5/10/2/60/250/450 machines right on SUN website.
I use Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 If you boot into sigle user modem it WILL ask you for password. This has nothing to do with OS Kernel but with INIT scripts! The following is from my/etc/inittab file:
# What to do in single-user mode. ~~:S:wait:/sbin/sulogin
First of all, I would like to point out that Linux is not fragmented as the author says (the "over 100 distributions" FUD).
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/etc/ by hand after upgrading FreeBSD. Debian handles changes in/etc in a better way. 3) the sysV style init scripts rock
Yes, this is marketing hype. Apple relies on really screwed up benchmarks and worse, they post them partitially. The only CPU benchmark I trust is spec95, and for some reason they haven't posted that.
You deserve to be shot for even suggesting this. You can have specialized distributions for server (e.g. Debian) or desktop (e.g. Corel Linux) but why split kernel? What makes one kernel a better kernel for server than its "desktop" version? Geez..
Well, for the majority of Linux users, RedHat is Linux. I don't see much else for distributions around, unless I seek them out (and even know about them first).
Typically a *BSD users who ditched Linux after trying it say they tried RedHat or Slackware. Both are the most braindead distributions around. If you want a real thing get something like Debian GNU/Linux, then compare it to FreeBSD. FreeBSD is a very immature system once you get past the kernel IMHO. Package management sucks compared to debian. BSD init scripts are braindead, etc.
Also, the GUI setup that comes with RedHat 6.0 by deafult is braindead (GNOME + E, coredumps all the time and is slow). Also did you try to optimize the kernel for your system? I had both FreeBSD and Linux on this same box, did not see any big differences in performance. (a P233)
Is there a reason to recompile ALL daemons even on a server? If I use apache and default package does not suite me, I can still recompile and rebuild the custom deb or rpm package and install it. ANd it still will integrate with the whole system and not get on your way.. Another thing I like about Debian (not sure about redhat), a simple, 'apt-get update;apt-get upgrade' will sync your system with the latest packages available on ftp mirrors, so pretty much you don't have to worry about security updates.
Slackware's package management sucks. One thing that I hate most about it is that you can NOT upgrade the distribution without reinstalling and trashing the whole system and its settings.
I have a Debian box, that I have been using for 2 years without reinstalling. It was 1.3(Bo), then upgraded to 2.0 (hamm), then 2.1 (slink) soon will install 2.2 (all upgrades over ftp using dselect ftp access method). RedHat Is very upgradable too. I have a 5.2 system that began its life as 5.0. Use slackware if you want but you'll have to reinstall it whenever you need to upgrade it, I don't fell like it, have better things to do...
1. I want the official user's guide (printed of course) 2. I want the official 60-day vendor support (through email or phone) 3. Several software packages are not really free and you cannot get those on cheapbytes cds.
(well, that and the ease of remote administration using ports, giving the advantage of fast downloads without hunting, and compileing software optimized completely to my hardware with the right/etc/make.conf flags).
I also don't want to sound like a Debian nut, but I must say that I like the Debian package management more (real packages not some makefiles.) One thing I don't like about ports is that one has to remake the ports after cvsuping the ports collection. When you upgrade Debian every deb package that is in distribution is upgraded. Second, I don't like compiling them all the time, some packages take a while to compile and all I wanted to see is how this cool-progie-2.3 works. On debian "apt-get install something" will get and install the something package. But yes, sometimes I do like getting the source to deb packages and rebuilding them to give better optimization for system.
And updating everytning in/etc BY HAND when you upgrade dFreeBSD istribution is just a pain in the ass. I conclude that Debian GNU/Linux is more maintainable but FreeBSD has its own good points too.
Slashdot Mirror
Uses disklabel instead of partitions. Basically all of freebsd's partitions are extended partitions. Pain in the ass reading them in linux (I just gave up trying to mount one), but overall a rather nice feature.
Check out the Linux+FreeBSD minihowto. It's not really difficult
Allright, great. The bottom line is that you can upgrade a whole Debian system with just two commands from a shell (and this works very solidly I must say, but I prefer dselect to apt-get when updating the system.).
and apt-get install apache is certainly less typing than feeding the whole (sometimes very long and akward) URL to pkg_add on FreeBSD.
Of course this is a minor detail and both systems are very maintainable. Probably you can do this stuff with less worries and faster on Debian. I use both systems, FreeBSD usually needs more tinkering, but I still love it.
First, Let me ask you why do you think compiling is better than getting a binary package. Unless you want to change the compile time options or hack the source I don't see why you should wait for sometimes quite long compiles when you could get a binary package?
Second, debian's apt-get has a source option, which will download unpack and patch the source package. The you can just run debian/rules binary from the source directory which will build the deb package. But then, I rarely use that, since I rarely have to change compile time options or hack the source.
1. Easy to harden. I have two ports open - X (6000, 6010) and SSH (22). It was very easy to get my box to this stage. Much easier than it was with RH 6.0, which I have also hardened.
/etc/inetd.conf
/usr/ports for pure ease of use.
/etc by hand
/etc, changes, 5) remake new ports one by one ..
..
vi
2. Easy to upgrade. I have yet to see any tool surpass
apt-get install "insert-name-here" is even easier and faster.
I cvsup my ports every night, and in the morning I check the logs to see what package have been tweaked and configured and are ready to be loaded up. Then once or twice I week I cvsup the source code for the OS and do a make world. Upgrading FreeBSD is very very easy - cvsup is gorgeous and I've found nothing like it.
FreeBSDs package management is great but it is NO match to Debian GNU/Linux. Debian is even easier to upgrade.
1) You don't have to fix
2) You don't have to wait for hours for your stuff to compile (apt-get downloads binary packages unless told otherwise)
3) You have to remake all your ports one by one after upgrading system. On Debian all packages are a part of distribution. If you upgrade system everything is upgraded.
apt-get update; apt-get upgrade; will sync your system with the ftp mirror, download and install all updated packages.
On FreeBSD you need to 1)cvsup everything, 2)make buildworld, 3) make installworld, 4)see if
Sounds like it is more difficult to stay up to date on FreeBSD
4. One distribution, great docs, great organization. FreeBSD.org maintains everything I need to deal with regarding the OS in a clear and concise manner. The FreeBSD handbook is available online. I get CD subscriptions multiple times a year, at a good price. I find the linux world of distros rather confusing. FreeBSD makes it easier for me to know the "source of truth".
FreeBSD handbook is great, but then most of the major linux distributions(Debian and RedHat) have such handbooks too (usually online too) + a huge collection of online docs at LDP
Don't get me wrong, FreeBSD is a great system, I would choose it over RedHat in most cases. However, I also choose Debian GNU/Linux over FreeBSD because this distribution is so well engineered and it is easier to maintain than any other *nix operating system.
Simply, Linux became a buzzword today, and there is a crowd of windoze programmers who'd like to code on linux. But wait, they were using MS VC++ all the time. Even now I meet windows programmers who after looking at a linux machine start saying that their VISUAL tools are superior to gcc or unix editors just because they are Visual Something+++, go figure.
Anyways, everything on unix appears to be difficult to use. But this is just a perception. Once you learn the basics you figure that the whole system makes sense, is very integrated and powerful..
the software is only available in rpm format, and has primarily been tested under...
/opt/local (sort of like netscape installer).
Why is that? I must agree that using rpm and deb is great for managing packages which are a PART of a distribution. But I see no point at all in making third party software rpm.. I prefer getting third party softare in distribution independent format(targz or whatever) and installing it in
Fast and powerful, thats why. Fully linux compatible ..
This is the last time I post on slashdot, this is the last time I even read slashdot comments. I am fed up with all trolls around here.
As for databasing, you should probably write your own, if at all possible. The FSF has some great database routines for ...and you're in business. Thats what most companies,
C programs. Couple that with a MySQL setup on the server
including Burlington Coat Factory, which has a Linux-based solution, have done.
Bah! Screw this! Writing a databse in C or any low level programming language is like going back to 70s! If you just take the Access manual and rtfm for an hour, in 10 minutes you will be able to build a relational Access Database with queries and automatic reports and stuff. This is an excelent database application for simple and strightforward needs. Otherwise, use a real SQL server like Oracle if you need to develpo a fairly big DB with lots of simltaneous connection, etc. But for simple needs Access is just fine, no need to reinvent the wheel!
What I am looking for is a spreadsheet that has most capabilities and functionalities of Excel. Last time I checked StarCalc it was much less feature rich than Excel. One thing that I like in Excel is the DataAnalysis add-on pack (Inludes things like automized regession analysis, etc) Sure, StartCalc has some statiscal functions, but still Excel is better. Simple and powerful and easy to use(after you take a short look at its manual). Second, I want my Access. My definition of Access is a "Simple, Powerful, and EASY to use RDBS". If you don't need dozens of people connecting to the same data base, and you just want to be able to design it in a few minutes with automated reoprts , etc, Access is NICE. Alghouth MS OSes do suck, their other applications are usually good stuff (MS Office, IE, VC++..)
You can configure and price HP PA-RISC worstations and servers on HP website.
You can get a base price quote for Compaq Alpha Servers and AlphaStations.
Finally, you can configure and price Sun Ultra 5/10/2/60/250/450 machines right on SUN website.
I use Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 /etc/inittab file:
If you boot into sigle user modem it WILL ask you for password. This has nothing to do with OS Kernel but with INIT scripts!
The following is from my
# What to do in single-user mode.
~~:S:wait:/sbin/sulogin
Screw RedHat for not using this!
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.
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
Yes, this is marketing hype. Apple relies on really screwed up benchmarks and worse, they post them partitially. The only CPU benchmark I trust is spec95, and for some reason they haven't posted that.
You deserve to be shot for even suggesting this.
You can have specialized distributions for server (e.g. Debian) or desktop (e.g. Corel Linux) but why split kernel? What makes one kernel a better kernel for server than its "desktop" version? Geez..
Well, for the majority of Linux users, RedHat is Linux. I don't see much else for distributions around, unless I seek them out (and even know about them first).
Typically a *BSD users who ditched Linux after trying it say they tried RedHat or Slackware. Both are the most braindead distributions around. If you want a real thing get something like Debian GNU/Linux, then compare it to FreeBSD. FreeBSD is a very immature system once you get past the kernel IMHO. Package management sucks compared to debian. BSD init scripts are braindead, etc.
Also, the GUI setup that comes with RedHat 6.0 by deafult is braindead (GNOME + E, coredumps all the time and is slow). Also did you try to optimize the kernel for your system? I had both FreeBSD and Linux on this same box, did not see any big differences in performance. (a P233)
5) FreeBSD was based on source code provided by the LORD himself *BSDlite* and thus FreeBSD is UNIX which makes it superior.
Oh, this is a bullshit. Why the f*ck should I care if linux was based on unix(tm) or whatever. It is POSIX compliant, thats good enough for me.
Being able to start from scratch instead of using 20 year old code base has its advantages too.
I don't think thast 400 and 900 are reasonable uptimes. If your Linux or Solaris box was up this long someone would just DoS it or crack it ..
Is there a reason to recompile ALL daemons even on a server? If I use apache and default package does not suite me, I can still recompile and rebuild the custom deb or rpm package and install it. ANd it still will integrate with the whole system and not get on your way.. Another thing I like about Debian (not sure about redhat), a simple, 'apt-get update;apt-get upgrade' will sync your system with the latest packages available on ftp mirrors, so pretty much you don't have to worry about security updates.
Slackware's package management sucks. One thing that I hate most about it is that you can NOT upgrade the distribution without reinstalling and trashing the whole system and its settings.
I have a Debian box, that I have been using for 2 years without reinstalling. It was 1.3(Bo), then upgraded to 2.0 (hamm), then 2.1 (slink) soon will install 2.2 (all upgrades over ftp using dselect ftp access method). RedHat Is very upgradable too. I have a 5.2 system that began its life as 5.0. Use slackware if you want but you'll have to reinstall it whenever you need to upgrade it, I don't fell like it, have better things to do...
See the topic.
Can someone post appoximate specs and prices for these two boxes? Their website was down when I tried to figure this out ..
1. I want the official user's guide (printed of course)
2. I want the official 60-day vendor support (through email or phone)
3. Several software packages are not really free and you cannot get those on cheapbytes cds.
(well, that and the ease of remote administration using ports, giving the advantage of fast downloads without hunting, and compileing software optimized completely to my hardware with the right /etc/make.conf flags).
/etc BY HAND when you upgrade dFreeBSD istribution is just a pain in the ass. I conclude that Debian GNU/Linux is more maintainable but FreeBSD has its own good points too.
I also don't want to sound like a Debian nut, but I must say that I like the Debian package management more (real packages not some makefiles.) One thing I don't like about ports is that one has to remake the ports after cvsuping the ports collection. When you upgrade Debian every deb package that is in distribution is upgraded. Second, I don't like compiling them all the time, some packages take a while to compile and all I wanted to see is how this cool-progie-2.3 works. On debian "apt-get install something" will get and install the something package. But yes, sometimes I do like getting the source to deb packages and rebuilding them to give better optimization for system.
And updating everytning in