i use cvsup to maintain the ports tree, but why don't individual ports use cvsup to maintain the source tree of the port? cvsup or rsync or cvs or whatever, just something a little more bandwidth friendly than schlorping down everything via FTP. i really HATE having to download megabytes worth of packages just because a few dozen K changed in them. this is where every linux distro also fails miserably. Some countries still pay by the minute for connectivity, some don't have better than 28.8 connectivity -- if they're lucky. Give me incremental updates for EVERYTHING dammit.
Because it's ALSO a waste to keep old distfiles (original source tarballs) on disk. Lost of people keep their/usr/ports/distfiles trimmed. (make install distclean). It's not feasible.
I suppose it's possible to add some checks and Make VARS to bsd.port.mk and to download (for example) apache1.3.9-1.3.11.diff.shar if the old distfiles exist. How many releases of (for example) apache will it have support for? Interesting idea.
Problems don't go away unless someone fixes them, so when are you gonna submit your diffs?
If you're going to quote him, at least quote him accurately. Your misquote I think is a direct result of your misinterpretation. He said "Larger support....", meaning "more than FreeBSD."
"Olle Hällnäs wrote in to tell us that XMMS (the premiere GUI MP3 player for Linux these days"
Do you have any idea how hard it is to undo this? Any Linux user who may be thinking about trying other Unices will take this to mean that XMMS isn't "for" _insert_other_unix_system_here_. It's not intentional I know, and the message is completely subliminal.
Open Source isn't just a catch phrase, it means "./configure && make install". To say that XMMS, or any other program that compiles WITHOUT MODIFICTATION from source is "for Linux" undermines the spirit of Open Source.
This is a big issue for me. I'm a FreeBSD user (I use Linux on my workstation at work, and as a MP3 server at home) and #FreeBSD volunteer and Ports Maintainer, and the "Can I get _insert_open_source_program_here_ for FreeBSD?" gets really annoying.
Even if the question is "There's not an [RPM|DEB] for _insert_open_source_program_here_ for Linux, how can I get it?" (And I've seen this on #Linux) I still think it's important that people realize what it's all about.
Hmm...yes..I supposed technically there's not GNOME "port" and that's because "./configure && make install" works just fine.
To ease this though, GNOME *IS* in the Ports Collection (Note 'Port' the noun != 'port' the verb) so a `cd/usr/ports/x11/gnome && make install` will fetch and build GNOME with all the necessary dependancies.
Please post responsibly. Don't spread misinformation.
If you don't know that you CAN do a net install with *BSD, then I would say you're not terribly experienced with their installation process at all and you're not really in a possition to say whether or not they're harder to install.
As for FreeBSD being closed, that is also not from first hand experience, but from misinformation propogated on this and other forums.
Want to mess with the kernel? It's in/usr/src/sys. Want to discuss it? `echo "subscribe freebsd-hackers" | mail majordomo@freebsd.org` or check out comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc. Want to submit patches/additions? `/usr/bin/send-pr` or use the web interface at http://www.FreeBSD.org/send-pr.html
People will read your lies and believe them. Please be more cautious.
Two weeks huh? An install shouldn't be more than 20 minutes (if you have the CD) and no more than 2 hours (if you have a fast connection for an FTP install.)
What exactly is a "beta 3.3 kernel" anyway?
As for your claim regarding 3.2, here is the errata page for the 3.2-RELEASE. No mention made whatsoever regarding sysinstall. Please stop talking out of your ass.
From the sysinstall man page: HISTORY This version of sysinstall first appeared in FreeBSD 2.0.
Also from the man page: BUGS This utility is a prototype which lasted several years past its expiration date and is greatly in need of death.
It's far from perfect, but it's not the nightmare you say it is.
FreeBSD isn't to blame for your incompetence.
The only one that trashed your MBR was you.
Btw, The "Linux is only a kernel" line isn't an attack, it's a fact, one that some people forget, or don't realize from the start.
Re:Flavours of BSD, Why so many?
on
Which BSD?
·
· Score: 1
These are not forks, they are different distributions. Linux is a "pick-and-choose" OS. A distribution is just someone else's idea of what should be included. You could start your own distribution, and include whatever packages you wanted. The only forking possible on Linux is in the kernel, and Linux's development nature makes that difficult (Linus as the Core Dude, GPL, etc.)
The BSDs are a completely different development model (the entire OS is part of the same source tree.)
BSDI is the commercial venture of the folks who started BSD at UCB.
FreeBSD and NetBSD formed independantly (NOT split) from 386BSD. Free's goals being getting a working system (It started out being called just the "386 Patchkit") and making it run REAL good. Net's goal was to get BSD on as many platforms as possible.
The only fork that occured was OpenBSD's split from NetBSD, primarily at the hands of Theo. OpenBSD's relationship with NetBSD means it runs on multiple platforms, but it's primary focus, as has been pointed out, is security.
Oops, left out the others.
on
Which BSD?
·
· Score: 1
OpenBSD uses IPFilter (ipf) and ipnat for it's NAT implementation. I'm not sure what NetBSD ships with, but IPFilter is available.
IPFilter is in FreeBSD, but is not the default.
NAT..it's Called NAT. Get it right.
on
Which BSD?
·
· Score: 1
"Masquerading" is a Linux term.
The industry standard term is Network Address Translation (NAT).
It's implemented on FreeBSD in two ways, which both use the same libraries (libalias).
There's the NAT Daemon (natd). It requires setup via divert rules using the FreeBSD IP Firewall (ipfw.)
There's also the userland ppp program, which has an -alias option. No further configuration is necessary.
If you've got a direct connection (DSL, Cable, etc), use natd. If you dial-up, use ppp with -alias.
The biggest reason for this is because the only thing auditable in Linux is the kernel (From a project perspective.) *ALL* other software on Linux is third party, and would be require each independant author to audit their own code.
The various distributions would have to audit the source for each and every package (That would be required for a base, useable system) they include in a default installation.
"You should start with linux; the sheer number of new users it is gaining means that information geared to the new user level is abundant. This isn't saying anything bad about the *BSDs available... its just that linux is easier to start with."
Quantity doesn't mean Quality (not that there isn't quality Linux documentation.) It's knowing where to look that matters, and if you know where to look for BSD documentation, it's as good as the quality Linux docs.
I don't think that, as a user, Linux is easier to learn than BSD. The user interface is going to be the same. (And when it's not, it's a shell or TERM problem.) In fact experience on IRC (Undernet #FreeBSD) has shown that the average Linux user looking for info on BSD isn't as Unix-savvy as they should be.
Q: "Is there a file manager program for FreeBSD like Midnight Commander?"
A: Midnight Commander
Q: "I hear good stuff about BSD, but there's no cool software like xmms and Gnome and KDE and stuff."
A:./configure && make && make install
S: "I thought they only made X for Linux."
In contrast, your average BSD user learns more about Unix, and learns these very important, OS Independant lessons early on.
It was much larger than they supposed it would be. Didn't you hear Jordan say there were more people than they thought? When we were waiting in line for the dinner cruise, he walked down the line and I heard him say "I didn't even think there were this many people AT the Con."
Sure, it would have been nice to see more exhibitors, but that wasn't my reason for being there.
A little reasoning would explain why it was small compared to a modern Linux con.
FreeBSD is older than Linux, but it's younger in many other ways. This was a learning experience. Next year's will be bigger, and the next, and maybe when the BSD's are accepted more by the media as a part of the Open Source community, there *will* be a BSD Con.
I *seriously* doubt that any exhibitors were excluded. If NetBSD and OpenBSD weren't present, it's because they probably didn't ask.
So, Per Bergman's comments, and your agreement, aren't quite as on target as you think.
Re:OpenBSD v FreeBSD (back to the original questio
on
FreeBSDCon Quickies
·
· Score: 1
When will you people LEARN that Open Source is NOT just a catch phrase. OpenBSD doesn't *HAVE* KDE or GNOME any more than Linux does. They are collections of programs that will run on any system they will compile on, and they WILL compile on OpenBSD. They're even included in OpenBSD's ports system (borrowed from FreeBSD.)
And yes, it also has Linux Binary compatibility.
I swear, your average Linux user has absolutely *no* respect for their Unix Heritage.
The CVSup approach is VERY workable with a mediocre net connection. In fact, it's why it was created in the first place. You should read up on how CVSup works.
You might be thinking of CVS, for which your comment is accurate.
You don't have to do development and know how to write C to use CVSup. If you wanted to make changes to the system perhaps, but as an upgrade procedure, it's brainless. Make World doesn't require any hacking.
It was nothing like this at all. Most such comments are made in jest, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Always so quick to point the finger at anyone who says anything bad about Linux, but never to give credit to anyone who says anything good about it.
What do you believe more, Jordan's words in his keynote re: Linux, or a comment made in jest during the beer bash (or wherever?)
You got out of the experience what you wanted to. There seemed to be Linux bashing all over the place to you, because that's what you wanted to see. Don't be so sensitive.
More real work was done on FreeBSD last week than could have been accomplished in several months via mailing lists and e-mail. Core members and committers sharing ideas and being able to convey meaning with perfect clarity. Several commits were made from the terminal room itself, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a rush of new ones in the weeks to follow. FreeBSD scapegoating and blaming indeed! Pffft.
Linux user, FreeBSD advocate & FreeBSDCon Attendee.
Moron Moderator doesn't understand apache logs
on
FreeBSDCon Quickies
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
This is as much a problem in Linux as it is in FreeBSD.
/usr.)
It's probably not as common, as it's popular to have large / partitions in Linux. (Must be all those packages that install to / and
i use cvsup to maintain the ports tree, but why don't individual ports use cvsup to maintain the source tree of the port? cvsup or rsync or cvs or
/usr/ports/distfiles trimmed. (make install distclean). It's not feasible.
whatever, just something a little more bandwidth friendly than schlorping down everything via FTP. i really HATE having to download megabytes worth of packages just because a few dozen K changed in them. this is where every linux distro also fails miserably. Some countries still pay by the minute for connectivity, some don't have better than 28.8 connectivity -- if they're lucky. Give me incremental updates for EVERYTHING dammit.
Because it's ALSO a waste to keep old distfiles (original source tarballs) on disk. Lost of people keep their
I suppose it's possible to add some checks and Make VARS to bsd.port.mk and to download (for example) apache1.3.9-1.3.11.diff.shar if the old distfiles exist. How many releases of (for example) apache will it have support for? Interesting idea.
Problems don't go away unless someone fixes them, so when are you gonna submit your diffs?
If you're going to quote him, at least quote him accurately. Your misquote I think is a direct result of your misinterpretation. He said "Larger support....", meaning "more than FreeBSD."
"Olle Hällnäs wrote in to tell us that XMMS (the premiere GUI MP3 player for Linux these days"
Do you have any idea how hard it is to undo this? Any Linux user who may be thinking about trying other Unices will take this to mean that XMMS isn't "for" _insert_other_unix_system_here_. It's not intentional I know, and the message is completely subliminal.
Open Source isn't just a catch phrase, it means "./configure && make install". To say that XMMS, or any other program that compiles WITHOUT MODIFICTATION from source is "for Linux" undermines the spirit of Open Source.
This is a big issue for me. I'm a FreeBSD user (I use Linux on my workstation at work, and as a MP3 server at home) and #FreeBSD volunteer and Ports Maintainer, and the "Can I get _insert_open_source_program_here_ for FreeBSD?" gets really annoying.
Even if the question is "There's not an [RPM|DEB] for _insert_open_source_program_here_ for Linux, how can I get it?" (And I've seen this on #Linux) I still think it's important that people realize what it's all about.
Or haven't you noticed?
Regardless..it was obvious.
You must not have read the article, for the writer of the article called HIMSELF a Linux weenie. The comment made this clear by italizing the text.
You are seeing bigotry where there is none.
Hmm...yes..I supposed technically there's not GNOME "port" and that's because "./configure && make install" works just fine.
To ease this though, GNOME *IS* in the Ports Collection (Note 'Port' the noun != 'port' the verb) so a `cd
Please post responsibly. Don't spread misinformation.
The FreeBSD PowerPak is now also available at CompUSA.
These are VERY irresponsible comments.
/usr/src/sys. Want to discuss it? `echo "subscribe freebsd-hackers" | mail majordomo@freebsd.org` or check out comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc. Want to submit patches/additions? `/usr/bin/send-pr` or use the web interface at http://www.FreeBSD.org/send-pr.html
If you don't know that you CAN do a net install with *BSD, then I would say you're not terribly experienced with their installation process at all and you're not really in a possition to say whether or not they're harder to install.
As for FreeBSD being closed, that is also not from first hand experience, but from misinformation propogated on this and other forums.
Want to mess with the kernel? It's in
People will read your lies and believe them. Please be more cautious.
It's not "proper."
The only reason using just the domain name to get to a website works nowadays is to allow the lazy or the ignorant to leave off the hostname.
Some hostmasters are old fashioned, and don't provide an A record for the domain itself. Can't say I blame them really.
Two weeks huh? An install shouldn't be more than 20 minutes (if you have the CD) and no more than 2 hours (if you have a fast connection for an FTP install.)
What exactly is a "beta 3.3 kernel" anyway?
As for your claim regarding 3.2, here is the errata page for the 3.2-RELEASE. No mention made whatsoever regarding sysinstall. Please stop talking out of your ass.
From the sysinstall man page:
HISTORY
This version of sysinstall first appeared in FreeBSD 2.0.
Also from the man page:
BUGS
This utility is a prototype which lasted several years past its expiration date and is greatly in need of death.
It's far from perfect, but it's not the nightmare you say it is.
FreeBSD isn't to blame for your incompetence.
The only one that trashed your MBR was you.
Btw, The "Linux is only a kernel" line isn't an attack, it's a fact, one that some people forget, or don't realize from the start.
And if someone asks "How do I delete a file?" you can call him lame, and tell him to buy a clue.
If you're referring to the ones that say "I'm an experienced Linux user, and I just started using FreeBSD. How do I delete a file?"
Absolutely!
Laz`: we turned off uunet, to force more traffic out of Uu.Net
I meant to say that we forced the traffic through Nap.Net.
UU.Net = 1.544Mbps T1
Nap.Net/GTEI/BBN = 100Mbps Ethernet
These are not forks, they are different distributions. Linux is a "pick-and-choose" OS. A distribution is just someone else's idea of what should be included. You could start your own distribution, and include whatever packages you wanted. The only forking possible on Linux is in the kernel, and Linux's development nature makes that difficult (Linus as the Core Dude, GPL, etc.)
The BSDs are a completely different development model (the entire OS is part of the same source tree.)
BSDI is the commercial venture of the folks who started BSD at UCB.
FreeBSD and NetBSD formed independantly (NOT split) from 386BSD. Free's goals being getting a working system (It started out being called just the "386 Patchkit") and making it run REAL good. Net's goal was to get BSD on as many platforms as possible.
The only fork that occured was OpenBSD's split from NetBSD, primarily at the hands of Theo. OpenBSD's relationship with NetBSD means it runs on multiple platforms, but it's primary focus, as has been pointed out, is security.
OpenBSD uses IPFilter (ipf) and ipnat for it's NAT implementation. I'm not sure what NetBSD ships with, but IPFilter is available.
IPFilter is in FreeBSD, but is not the default.
"Masquerading" is a Linux term.
The industry standard term is Network Address Translation (NAT).
It's implemented on FreeBSD in two ways, which both use the same libraries (libalias).
There's the NAT Daemon (natd). It requires setup via divert rules using the FreeBSD IP Firewall (ipfw.)
There's also the userland ppp program, which has an -alias option. No further configuration is necessary.
If you've got a direct connection (DSL, Cable, etc), use natd. If you dial-up, use ppp with -alias.
The biggest reason for this is because the only thing auditable in Linux is the kernel (From a project perspective.) *ALL* other software on Linux is third party, and would be require each independant author to audit their own code.
The various distributions would have to audit the source for each and every package (That would be required for a base, useable system) they include in a default installation.
"You should start with linux; the sheer number of new users it is gaining means that information geared to the new user level is abundant. This isn't saying anything bad about the *BSDs available ... its just that linux is easier to start with."
./configure && make && make install
Quantity doesn't mean Quality (not that there isn't quality Linux documentation.) It's knowing where to look that matters, and if you know where to look for BSD documentation, it's as good as the quality Linux docs.
I don't think that, as a user, Linux is easier to learn than BSD. The user interface is going to be the same. (And when it's not, it's a shell or TERM problem.) In fact experience on IRC (Undernet #FreeBSD) has shown that the average Linux user looking for info on BSD isn't as Unix-savvy as they should be.
Q: "Is there a file manager program for FreeBSD like Midnight Commander?"
A: Midnight Commander
Q: "I hear good stuff about BSD, but there's no cool software like xmms and Gnome and KDE and stuff."
A:
S: "I thought they only made X for Linux."
In contrast, your average BSD user learns more about Unix, and learns these very important, OS Independant lessons early on.
Cripes man. It was the first ever.
It was much larger than they supposed it would be. Didn't you hear Jordan say there were more people than they thought? When we were waiting in line for the dinner cruise, he walked down the line and I heard him say "I didn't even think there were this many people AT the Con."
Sure, it would have been nice to see more exhibitors, but that wasn't my reason for being there.
A little reasoning would explain why it was small compared to a modern Linux con.
FreeBSD is older than Linux, but it's younger in many other ways. This was a learning experience. Next year's will be bigger, and the next, and maybe when the BSD's are accepted more by the media as a part of the Open Source community, there *will* be a BSD Con.
I *seriously* doubt that any exhibitors were excluded. If NetBSD and OpenBSD weren't present, it's because they probably didn't ask.
So, Per Bergman's comments, and your agreement, aren't quite as on target as you think.
When will you people LEARN that Open Source is NOT just a catch phrase. OpenBSD doesn't *HAVE* KDE or GNOME any more than Linux does. They are collections of programs that will run on any system they will compile on, and they WILL compile on OpenBSD. They're even included in OpenBSD's ports system (borrowed from FreeBSD.)
And yes, it also has Linux Binary compatibility.
I swear, your average Linux user has absolutely *no* respect for their Unix Heritage.
The CVSup approach is VERY workable with a mediocre net connection. In fact, it's why it was created in the first place. You should read up on how CVSup works.
You might be thinking of CVS, for which your comment is accurate.
You don't have to do development and know how to write C to use CVSup. If you wanted to make changes to the system perhaps, but as an upgrade procedure, it's brainless. Make World doesn't require any hacking.
It was nothing like this at all. Most such comments are made in jest, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Always so quick to point the finger at anyone who says anything bad about Linux, but never to give credit to anyone who says anything good about it.
What do you believe more, Jordan's words in his keynote re: Linux, or a comment made in jest during the beer bash (or wherever?)
You got out of the experience what you wanted to. There seemed to be Linux bashing all over the place to you, because that's what you wanted to see. Don't be so sensitive.
More real work was done on FreeBSD last week than could have been accomplished in several months via mailing lists and e-mail. Core members and committers sharing ideas and being able to convey meaning with perfect clarity. Several commits were made from the terminal room itself, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a rush of new ones in the weeks to follow. FreeBSD scapegoating and blaming indeed! Pffft.
Linux user, FreeBSD advocate & FreeBSDCon Attendee.
COMPLETELY on topic.