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.)
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.
There *is* no other system like the FreeBSD ports system. A port is really just a skeleton directory that contains a few files. For example:
$ ls -F/usr/ports/editors/emacs CVS/ README.html patches/ Makefile files/ pkg/ $ du -sk/usr/ports/editors/emacs 105 emacs
The Makefile tells the ports system where to download the source from, lists the dependancies, provides the configure options, etc and.includes the bsd.port.mk file that holds the Ports system together. The source is extracted into a work/ directory, patches specific to FreeBSD are applied, it's configured, compiled, and installed. Any necessary dependancies are also fetched and built in the same way, automatically.
The benefits of building from source instead of installing someone else's binary should be plainly obvious.
It would only be fair to compare RPM and.deb to FreeBSD's package commands. As it is, I do think that rpm is better than the pkg_* commands FreeBSD has..but guess what? There's an RPM port available.
So if I wasn't clear enough... the Ports System and the pkg_* commands are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
NOTE: I don't use emacs, I just picked it to illustrate the size of a port skeleton and emphasize the difference between a Port and a Package.
These are the same commands used by/stand/sysinstall (during or post-install) to install additional, *pre-compiled* software.
A FreeBSD package is essentially a port, that someone else built for you. You can even make your own packages from a port-for easy distribution-using the make package target for a port.
FYI and anyone who may get the wrong impression from your post:
(From the pkg_add man page)
Pkg_add is fairly simple. It extracts each package's "packing list" into a special staging directory, parses it, and then runs through the follow- ing sequence to fully extract the contents:
1. Check if the package is already recorded as installed. If so, ter- minate installation.
2. Scan all the package dependencies (from @pkgdep directives, see pkg_create(1)) and make sure each one is met. If not, try and find the missing dependencies' packages and auto-install them; if they can't be found the installation is terminated.
(Note: Can't be found on your installation media, be it CD or FTP, etc.)
There's more but you can look it (or any man page) up at http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi
Additionally, once you install a port, it is registered as a package and the pkg commands work on it.
New make targets were introduced in 3.X...."make aout-to-elf", "make upgrade", etc that made an upgrade from 2.2.X to 3.X easy. It's my guess that this AC just screwed up himself. 2.2.X -> 3.X upgrades work just fine, when done correctly.
The recommended procedure-to minimize user error, etc-is to upgrade to 2.2.8-STABLE (Work was done on the 2.2 branch after 2.2.8 was -RELEASEd, and prior to the 3.X branch switching from -CURRENT to -STABLE), and then do a "make upgrade" from that.
The Upgrade Kits don't upgrade the system, they upgrade the Ports mechanism that FreeBSD uses to install 3rd party software from source. There is a make file (bsd.port.mk) that is.included in all port Makefiles that defines targets, ftp sites, and other variables that make the ports system work. If this file is updated, or the supporting programs that the ports system uses (fetch for example (fetch(1) - retrieve a file by Uniform Resource Locator)) change, the Upgrade Kits will keep your ports system current.
If you keep your system current anyway via CVS, you don't need them-but if you keep your ports current (so you can install the latest software anytime), you need the kits.
If you want to upgrade your system, you can still do so without a reinstall like Alfred said. I just wanted to keep things straight.
Cutler named his new OS "WNT" by adding one letter each to VMS:
VMS +111 ---- WNT
It wasn't until two weeks after WNT was the official name that Gates learned the truth, and quickly came up with the "New Technology" line to cover it up.
Re:They should have used a real UNIX
on
The Future of KDE
·
· Score: 1
We did. FreeBSD. It wasn't an OS issue anyway.
Re:Ok, this mirror is good I swear.
on
The Future of KDE
·
· Score: 1
DNS was working fine. Just made some address and TTL changes that didn't propogate rapidly enough.
And it's FreeBSD anyway.
Re:MRTG Graph of Slashdot Effect..Freebsd???
on
The Future of KDE
·
· Score: 1
Think for a moment and you'll realize there's two machines involved here.
The original server ("www") is one we've been having problems with lately anyway. We simply weren't prepared. It's just a members web server.
Had we been aware of the article we would have moved Donald's site to the server that is now the mirror sooner. It's now on the commercial web server ("halley" or "www2" if you don't have a cached entry), and it's not even blinking at the load:
The artical says that the difference, as if it really means anything, is that BSD developers have degrees and 10 years of experience and are managers in their work, while Linux hackers are all unwashed masses without degrees (loosely interpreted). It said it as if that implies a certain quality of the code that won't be found in Linux.
You misunderstood this part of the article. They were explaining why Linux development has been faster and more successful in those years than BSD. The average BSD developer has less time to spend hacking than your average Linux user.
"When *BSD is as easy to use, configure, and setup for my own personal needs and wants"
You contradict yourself. As it is, I find FreeBSD far easier to configure than Linux, for two reasons.
1) I find the BSD style Init process to be less complicated than SysV. There is one master rc script that is configured via one single config file. Local programs can be run via a single rc.local, and scripts placed in/usr/local/etc/rc.d/ are executed at startup. Just how many files are there again in the Linux Init?
2) FreeBSD is an entire system, not just a kernel and a hodge-podge collection of packages the distributor includes with it. The entire OS can be rebuilt with 2 commands.
This doesn't mean FreeBSD is better (it is better in other ways for other reasons.) I'm just reacting to your totally baseless claims.
"no apps!"
StarOffice and WordPerfect run just fine under Linux emulation.
The problem is that far too many Linux users think that Unix software is only for Linux. It doesn't occur to them that source code is *supposed* to be portable. Linux software developers are as guilty as this as anyone...they present their software as being for Linux, even if it compiles on BSD without modification!
Many "Linux" programs compile cleanly on FreeBSD. The ones that don't only require a few changes. That's what the ports system is for..someone's already made the changes for you.
Not only does the Linux Netscape run under emulation, but there's a native FreeBSD version as well, and has been at least since 2.2.2.
The xmms (formerly x11amp) homepage says It works on most unix systems with sound, preferable OSS but on i386 systems any sounddrivers that is OSS compatible should work without any problems.
Of course..then they go and ruin it all by saying This player has most of the features as the original winamp from Windows 95/98/NT but it will of course feature some specials only available for the linux version.
This proves my point above about Linux software. People are being misled (though unintentionally) by the very people who write their precious software!
Slashdot Mirror
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.)
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.
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..
Don't make it about the [few] people.
There *is* no other system like the FreeBSD ports system. A port is really just a skeleton directory that contains a few files. For example:
$ ls -F
CVS/ README.html patches/
Makefile files/ pkg/
$ du -sk
105 emacs
The Makefile tells the ports system where to download the source from, lists the dependancies, provides the configure options, etc and
The benefits of building from source instead of installing someone else's binary should be plainly obvious.
It would only be fair to compare RPM and
So if I wasn't clear enough... the Ports System and the pkg_* commands are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
NOTE: I don't use emacs, I just picked it to illustrate the size of a port skeleton and emphasize the difference between a Port and a Package.
The FreeBSD package commands:
/stand/sysinstall (during or post-install) to install additional, *pre-compiled* software.
pkg_add, pkg_info, pkg_delete and pkg_create
These are the same commands used by
A FreeBSD package is essentially a port, that someone else built for you. You can even make your own packages from a port-for easy distribution-using the make package target for a port.
FYI and anyone who may get the wrong impression from your post:
(From the pkg_add man page)
Pkg_add is fairly simple. It extracts each package's "packing list" into
a special staging directory, parses it, and then runs through the follow-
ing sequence to fully extract the contents:
1. Check if the package is already recorded as installed. If so, ter-
minate installation.
2. Scan all the package dependencies (from @pkgdep directives, see
pkg_create(1)) and make sure each one is met. If not, try and find
the missing dependencies' packages and auto-install them; if they
can't be found the installation is terminated.
(Note: Can't be found on your installation media, be it CD or FTP, etc.)
There's more but you can look it (or any man page) up at http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi
Additionally, once you install a port, it is registered as a package and the pkg commands work on it.
There haven't been many flames/trolls this time. There's been alot of debate, information, misinformation (and followups that correct them), etc.
It is not flame to state opinions (no matter how strong) or list facts.
New make targets were introduced in 3.X...."make aout-to-elf", "make upgrade", etc that made an upgrade from 2.2.X to 3.X easy. It's my guess that this AC just screwed up himself. 2.2.X -> 3.X upgrades work just fine, when done correctly.
The recommended procedure-to minimize user error, etc-is to upgrade to 2.2.8-STABLE (Work was done on the 2.2 branch after 2.2.8 was -RELEASEd, and prior to the 3.X branch switching from -CURRENT to -STABLE), and then do a "make upgrade" from that.
The Upgrade Kits don't upgrade the system, they upgrade the Ports mechanism that FreeBSD uses to install 3rd party software from source. There is a make file (bsd.port.mk) that is
If you keep your system current anyway via CVS, you don't need them-but if you keep your ports current (so you can install the latest software anytime), you need the kits.
If you want to upgrade your system, you can still do so without a reinstall like Alfred said. I just wanted to keep things straight.
See you at FreeBSDCon! (www.freebsdcon.com)
Cutler named his new OS "WNT" by adding one letter each to VMS:
VMS
+111
----
WNT
It wasn't until two weeks after WNT was the official name that Gates learned the truth, and quickly came up with the "New Technology" line to cover it up.
It's FreeBSD, and it's still up.
We did. FreeBSD. It wasn't an OS issue anyway.
DNS was working fine. Just made some address and TTL changes that didn't propogate rapidly enough.
And it's FreeBSD anyway.
Think for a moment and you'll realize there's two machines involved here.
The original server ("www") is one we've been having problems with lately anyway. We simply weren't prepared. It's just a members web server.
Had we been aware of the article we would have moved Donald's site to the server that is now the mirror sooner. It's now on the commercial web server ("halley" or "www2" if you don't have a cached entry), and it's not even blinking at the load:
3:22PM up 83 days, 21:50, 2 users, load averages: 0.05, 0.07, 0.04
http://halley.jorsm.com/~mosfet/slashdotted.gif
Had to move around some IP's and make some DNS changes. Requests were going to the wrong server.
http://halley.jorsm.com/~mosfet/sc reenshots.html
The next one is better I promise.
Sorry folks. Had to increase mbufs.
Mirror is up at http://www2.jorsm.com/~mosfet/screens hots.htm.
JORSM Admin
Sorry folks. Had to increase mbufs.
Mirror is up at http:/www2.jorsm.com/~mosfet/screensho ts.htm.
JORSM Admin
Devo did the soundtrack for the C=64 game. Are they still around?
The rumors about this have been around a *long* time...since before the C=64 game was but a fond memory.
God help us all. God help us all.
The artical says that the difference, as if it really means anything, is that BSD developers have degrees and 10 years of experience and are managers in their work, while Linux hackers are all unwashed masses without degrees (loosely interpreted). It said it as if that implies a certain quality of the code that won't be found in Linux.
You misunderstood this part of the article. They were explaining why Linux development has been faster and more successful in those years than BSD. The average BSD developer has less time to spend hacking than your average Linux user.
"and easier to configure than I expected"
/usr/local/etc/rc.d/ are executed at startup. Just how many files are there again in the Linux Init?
"When *BSD is as easy to use, configure, and setup for my own personal needs and wants"
You contradict yourself. As it is, I find FreeBSD far easier to configure than Linux, for two reasons.
1) I find the BSD style Init process to be less complicated than SysV. There is one master rc script that is configured via one single config file. Local programs can be run via a single rc.local, and scripts placed in
2) FreeBSD is an entire system, not just a kernel and a hodge-podge collection of packages the distributor includes with it. The entire OS can be rebuilt with 2 commands.
This doesn't mean FreeBSD is better (it is better in other ways for other reasons.) I'm just reacting to your totally baseless claims.
"no apps!"
StarOffice and WordPerfect run just fine under Linux emulation.
The problem is that far too many Linux users think that Unix software is only for Linux. It doesn't occur to them that source code is *supposed* to be portable. Linux software developers are as guilty as this as anyone...they present their software as being for Linux, even if it compiles on BSD without modification!
Many "Linux" programs compile cleanly on FreeBSD. The ones that don't only require a few changes. That's what the ports system is for..someone's already made the changes for you.
Not only does the Linux Netscape run under emulation, but there's a native FreeBSD version as well, and has been at least since 2.2.2.
The xmms (formerly x11amp) homepage says It works on most unix systems with sound, preferable OSS but on i386 systems any sounddrivers that is OSS compatible should work without any problems.
Of course..then they go and ruin it all by saying This player has most of the features as the original winamp from Windows 95/98/NT but it will of course feature some specials only available for the linux version.
This proves my point above about Linux software. People are being misled (though unintentionally) by the very people who write their precious software!
The book was published in '97.