Ah, I just meant having a nice curses/GUI - screen, with packets listed, and their descriptions in another window.
/stand/sysinstall will let you browse and install available Packages by category.
Ahem, I think OS's should not require net access for almost-full functionality.
I agree. You have everything you need. Old versions of third party software isn't non-functional, it's just old, and to be expected when you're using a -RELEASE that's also 6 months old.
If you're not net connected, then how will you get GNOME 1.2's source onto the machine? You can get a new Ports Collection on it the same magical way, as well as the required distfiles (what the Ports Collection calls the source tarballs, which you were planning on getting anyway.) Just make sure you get the right tarballs.
I'm thinking dselect here. Just being able to browse around the packages quickly would be nice.
pkg_info will tell you what you need regarding all installed Ports (and Packages too, which are really just precompiled Ports ala 'make package'.) Since I've not used Debian (you should have said Debian, not "Linux") I'm not really sure what you're referring to regarding browsing.
Yes, and I don't use RedHat 6.0 (I use Mandrake 7.1).
This was kinda my point. If you use something old, it's going to include old software. If you use something new, it's not.
Upgrading my Ports collection is not an option for me, because of the lack of net access (I use my box mostly for programming & toying around, instead of net-related stuff).
That's your fault, not FreeBSD's. Still, you should be able to compile GNOME 1.2 well enough on your own. You may need to refer to the current related Ports (there's 10 or 15 or something like that. Normally a meta-port takes care of the dependancies, though I usually install them each manually so it doesn't go installing bits of GNOME I don't care for or use [like games].) Just browse to www.freebsd.org/ports on a net-connected computer and take a look at the patches and configure options they use. Or don't and hope Miguel and company write with Systems-Other-Than-Linux in mind.
I think being able to start programs quickly is quite essential for a desktop system
And your example was that huge bloated monster of a program that thinks it's an OS in and of itself, Emacs. Oooookay.:)
Perhaps it was built with different compile-time options. If you're used to an emacs binary Package on Linux, was it optimized for your processor type? Did you install it on FreeBSD as a Package? (Packages are not compiled with any optimization.) Or did you install via Ports and not set optimization flags in/etc/make.conf? Whatever the case may be, there's a bit more to consider here than just the OS.
, and this is my main problem with FreeBSD (I read from a PDF linked to from this thread that mentioned FreeBSD having inferior fork & exec performance when compared to Linux). OTOH, I've only used it for, what, 4 hours, so perhaps I might change my mind after prolonged use (and after R'ing TFM).
Yes, 4 hours is too soon a time to develop "problems" with an OS. Any perceived problems during the learning curve can usually be attributed to ignorance, which can be fixed, as you said, with a little of TFM.
Hop on over to Undernet's #FreeBSD and if I'm not busy (I IRC from work, but I'm not always watching) I'll help out where I can.
Installation and package management of FreeBSD seems to be much cleaner & simpler (you get a better idea what ends up in your system, a lot like Slackware), whereas package management of Linux distros is much more user-friendly. With Linux you actually get a good description of what the package contains already at install time.
I've never seen rpm give a description of a package while I'm installing it. Granted, rpm has a switch that'll describe a given RPM for you, but pkg_info on FreeBSD can do the same.
FreeBSD has to resort to Linux binary "emulation" to carry out some tasks, like run Netscape. I didn't try it out, but the idea just doesn't feel quite comfortable. Call me prejudiced.
No, it doesn't. Only if you want to run Linux binaries (for when you can't get source, like commercial programs). You don't have to use the Linux Netscape. It runs better under the Linux ABI Compat (it's not really emulation) than the native FreeBSD Netscape does, but that's because Netscape won't build an ELF binary. Another alternative is to run the BSD/OS Netscape, since that's ELF and doesn't require the Linux compat.
And yes, your fears regarding Linux compat are completely unfounded & driven only by prejudice.:) It truly is a remarkable thing.
FreeBSD 4.0 ships with Gnome 1.0, which is obsolete. I hope I can compile Gnome 1.2 with it (will try today after work).
And RedHat 6.0 shipped with an obsolete GNOME too. So? 4.0 was -RELEASED 6 months ago, give it a break. If you update your Ports Collection, you can install the latest Helix GNOME 1.2. I just did.
I don't see how your points lead to the conclusion that Linux is better for the desktop.
What does your connection have to do with anything? You aknowledged that you're not using satellite or cable, so that excludes you.
Someone with one-way satellite or cable service needs to use a modem for their upstream data. Upstream packets must be spoofed with the IP of their satellite/cable connection.
As the System and Network admin for a regional ISP, I can tell you that it's simply not practical to log all traffic. The amount of storage required for such an undertaking is OUTRAGEOUS.
It's further hampered by the fact that 99% of users get dynamic IPs, so there's no easy way to correlate the data with individual users.
Security requires that you have to assume that your traffic is *ALWAYS* being recorded. Paranoia is good, but it's not realistic. Just be sure you present it as such, instead of fact.
Movies and Television shows based on comic books are NOT authoritative. Just like comics based on Movies and TV aren't (with a possible exception being some of the Star Wars comics.)
It always *HAS* been, it's just not been in by default. The code is distributed, but you had to recompile the kernel AND symlink the *.[ch] files from the contrib directory into the kernel source tree, presumably after reading the license and agreeing to it's (then) noncommercial only use.
Just letting you know that the whole "must be in the wheel group to su to root" is a BSDism, and is not limited to OpenBSD. Any BSD based OS (Early SunOS, Ultrix, etc) uses the wheel group to prevent non admins from becoming root. If Linux is your only Unix experience, then you're forgiven.:)
Anyway, the wheel thing is a poor example of how OpenBSD is overly paranoid. Is it really that much trouble to vi/etc/group? Also, if you're not overly paranoid, then you're not good at security. They go hand in hand.
It's got everything to do with the story as originally posted. It used to read "...Linux editor vi...". You just got here late. Did you not notice all the vi discussion?
io% diff -u bar foo --- bar Tue Mar 21 11:11:19 2000 +++ foo Tue Mar 21 11:11:03 2000 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ Concealed writes "There is an article in the new Wired which talks about the future of nanotechnology and 'intelligent machines.' Bill - Joy, (also the creator of the Linux text editor vi) who wrote the article, + Joy, (also the creator of the Unix text editor vi) who wrote the article, expresses his views on the neccesity of the human race in the near future. " From what I can gather this is the article that the Bill Joy on Extinction story was drawn from. Bill is a smart guy -- and this is well worth reading.
And no admission on Slashdot/Hemos' part. Shame on you.
"HISTORY The nex/nvi replacements for the ex/vi editor first appeared in 4.4BSD."
Yeah, you heard me...BSD. Live it. Learn it. Respect it.
And I don't mean just BSD, I mean all of Unix. Linux (even if it _is_ the bastard child of an Immaculate Conception) has a lineage that MUST be respected. I'm tired of Linux cluebies not realizing that Linux isn't the end all and be all of Unix.
There is no such thing as definitive proof when it comes to opinion. If you write code, you choose a license that most appeals to you. If you don't, you use the software that does what you want.
What you seem to be asking is which license makes the best software, and again, no such proof exists, because it's the people that make the code, not the license.
It's often argued that the GPL is better because "I don't want some stinkin company makin any money off my code". They're going to make money off your code no matter which license you use. The difference is whether or not you want to see if they changed your code so you (and others) can use it too.
The quality of your code remains the same. Other coders who are Open Source advocates that pickup on your code are going to give their changes back of course, and in this case, the license doesn't matter at all. The code will improve.
So then if you still say, "But they're making money off my code," then it's no longer about the code really is it? It's about money, and if you were so worried about money, maybe you should have kept your source code closed and sold the program for a bundle huh?
This is why, if you're honest about Open Source, and respect what it can do, it doesn't really matter *which* license you use.
1. This is because there is not yet a CD. ISO's will pop up in short order.
2. Yes. Install options are: CD, FTP (the two most popular), NFS, and local filesystem (Existing FreeBSD installation or DOS.) PPP and DHCP are provided for FTP installs.
3. KDE is not a "Linux" program (I know you didn't say that, but I can't stress it enough.) It's not "part" of FreeBSD anymore than it is a part of Linux. It's a third party program. If you install X during the installation, you're asked what Window Manager to install, and you can choose from KDE, Afterstep, WindowMaker & GNOME (not sure which WM.) Even if you don't, you can get the source for KDE and compile it yourself (Or let the Ports System do it for you.) It's also available as pre-compiled Packages (which is what sysinstall uses.)
4. FreeBSD comes with booteasy, but you can use any boot manager you want. There's better to choose from than LILO (and booteasy too.)
5. Warnings about using.0 releases apply to *all* software. You should always be wary about the stability of a "dot oh" release. If it's not for production, you've got nothing to worry about. (NOTE: I've been running 4.0 since August 99 and I've neither been worried or had a problem.)
6. 3.3 is old already. The latest release from the 3.X branch is 3.4. There will still be a 3.5-RELEASE(May), and then that will be the last from the 3.X-STABLE branch. 4.0-STABLE now exists, and 4.1-RELEASE will be a snapshot of that some time in June. 5.0-CURRENT is now 2 days old, and branched from 4.0. That's where all the development (and merging of BSD/OS code) will take place.
Sound is not in the GENERIC (default) kernel. That's something you'll have to compile in yourself. (MUCH easier than a Linux kernel compile btw. Add one line and do the config & make, etc. You don't have to sit through a Q&A session. [Not saying that's bad, just informing you of the ease with which a BSD kernel is made.])
Decent resolution? I assume that means X (XFree86 in this case), and like KDE, X is a third party program. The resolution you achieve now will be the same no matter if you use Linux or FreeBSD.
For hardware support in 4.0, read the link to the release notes that were provided in the story. (Sorry, you'll have to do that one on your own you lazy bum.)
Slashdot Mirror
Ahem, I think OS's should not require net access for almost-full functionality.
I agree. You have everything you need. Old versions of third party software isn't non-functional, it's just old, and to be expected when you're using a -RELEASE that's also 6 months old.
If you're not net connected, then how will you get GNOME 1.2's source onto the machine? You can get a new Ports Collection on it the same magical way, as well as the required distfiles (what the Ports Collection calls the source tarballs, which you were planning on getting anyway.) Just make sure you get the right tarballs.
pkg_info will tell you what you need regarding all installed Ports (and Packages too, which are really just precompiled Ports ala 'make package'.) Since I've not used Debian (you should have said Debian, not "Linux") I'm not really sure what you're referring to regarding browsing.
Yes, and I don't use RedHat 6.0 (I use Mandrake 7.1).
This was kinda my point. If you use something old, it's going to include old software. If you use something new, it's not.
Upgrading my Ports collection is not an option for me, because of the lack of net access (I use my box mostly for programming & toying around, instead of net-related stuff).
That's your fault, not FreeBSD's. Still, you should be able to compile GNOME 1.2 well enough on your own. You may need to refer to the current related Ports (there's 10 or 15 or something like that. Normally a meta-port takes care of the dependancies, though I usually install them each manually so it doesn't go installing bits of GNOME I don't care for or use [like games].) Just browse to www.freebsd.org/ports on a net-connected computer and take a look at the patches and configure options they use. Or don't and hope Miguel and company write with Systems-Other-Than-Linux in mind.
I think being able to start programs quickly is quite essential for a desktop system
And your example was that huge bloated monster of a program that thinks it's an OS in and of itself, Emacs. Oooookay. :)
Perhaps it was built with different compile-time options. If you're used to an emacs binary Package on Linux, was it optimized for your processor type? Did you install it on FreeBSD as a Package? (Packages are not compiled with any optimization.) Or did you install via Ports and not set optimization flags in /etc/make.conf? Whatever the case may be, there's a bit more to consider here than just the OS.
, and this is my main problem with FreeBSD (I read from a PDF linked to from this thread that mentioned FreeBSD having inferior fork & exec performance when compared to Linux). OTOH, I've only used it for, what, 4 hours, so perhaps I might change my mind after prolonged use (and after R'ing TFM).
Yes, 4 hours is too soon a time to develop "problems" with an OS. Any perceived problems during the learning curve can usually be attributed to ignorance, which can be fixed, as you said, with a little of TFM.
Hop on over to Undernet's #FreeBSD and if I'm not busy (I IRC from work, but I'm not always watching) I'll help out where I can.
I've never seen rpm give a description of a package while I'm installing it. Granted, rpm has a switch that'll describe a given RPM for you, but pkg_info on FreeBSD can do the same.
FreeBSD has to resort to Linux binary "emulation" to carry out some tasks, like run Netscape. I didn't try it out, but the idea just doesn't feel quite comfortable. Call me prejudiced.
No, it doesn't. Only if you want to run Linux binaries (for when you can't get source, like commercial programs). You don't have to use the Linux Netscape. It runs better under the Linux ABI Compat (it's not really emulation) than the native FreeBSD Netscape does, but that's because Netscape won't build an ELF binary. Another alternative is to run the BSD/OS Netscape, since that's ELF and doesn't require the Linux compat.
And yes, your fears regarding Linux compat are completely unfounded & driven only by prejudice. :) It truly is a remarkable thing.
FreeBSD 4.0 ships with Gnome 1.0, which is obsolete. I hope I can compile Gnome 1.2 with it (will try today after work).
And RedHat 6.0 shipped with an obsolete GNOME too. So? 4.0 was -RELEASED 6 months ago, give it a break. If you update your Ports Collection, you can install the latest Helix GNOME 1.2. I just did.
I don't see how your points lead to the conclusion that Linux is better for the desktop.
What does your connection have to do with anything? You aknowledged that you're not using satellite or cable, so that excludes you.
Someone with one-way satellite or cable service needs to use a modem for their upstream data. Upstream packets must be spoofed with the IP of their satellite/cable connection.
Like those using one way Satellite and Cable services, who use dialup for their upstream connection.
It's actually a quote from the article itself. That's what BOTH of us get for not reading it.
Nik didn't say that, the story submitter did. Is the italicized and quoted text after "foo says..." not enough to make that clear?
Many ISP's are not.
As the System and Network admin for a regional ISP, I can tell you that it's simply not practical to log all traffic. The amount of storage required for such an undertaking is OUTRAGEOUS.
It's further hampered by the fact that 99% of users get dynamic IPs, so there's no easy way to correlate the data with individual users.
Security requires that you have to assume that your traffic is *ALWAYS* being recorded. Paranoia is good, but it's not realistic. Just be sure you present it as such, instead of fact.
Movies and Television shows based on comic books are NOT authoritative. Just like comics based on Movies and TV aren't (with a possible exception being some of the Star Wars comics.)
It always *HAS* been, it's just not been in by default. The code is distributed, but you had to recompile the kernel AND symlink the *.[ch] files from the contrib directory into the kernel source tree, presumably after reading the license and agreeing to it's (then) noncommercial only use.
It's a conspiracy!
No, not really. Part of the problem is Netscape won't offer an ELF binary of Netscape for FreeBSD.
Try the Linux Netscape under FreeBSD's Linux ABI Compatibility or try the BSD/OS version.
I've tried the former, and it works great. It's a better choice since you can use all the plugins for Linux then too.
I don't know how well the BSD/OS Netscape runs, but someone's working on getting it into the Ports Collection.
And just a few days after I printed out the PDF version too.
Still, I'll probably buy it anyway to support the Project.
He *HAS* finished serving his time. He is on PROBATION, *NOT* Parole.
He didn't go underground until AFTER his probation. Are you the least bit familiar with the story?
But he's not ON parole. He's free (as it were.) His sentence is over and done with. He's on probation, which is an entirely different animal.
Just letting you know that the whole "must be in the wheel group to su to root" is a BSDism, and is not limited to OpenBSD. Any BSD based OS (Early SunOS, Ultrix, etc) uses the wheel group to prevent non admins from becoming root. If Linux is your only Unix experience, then you're forgiven. :)
/etc/group? Also, if you're not overly paranoid, then you're not good at security. They go hand in hand.
Anyway, the wheel thing is a poor example of how OpenBSD is overly paranoid. Is it really that much trouble to vi
I'm the only one who commented on the fact that the story was changed. How is that redundant?
Wishing for Multiple Meta Moderation per Day,
-Lazarus
I realize that. But there was no [...Unix editor... - Hemos] or anything like a good editor should do.
It's got everything to do with the story as originally posted. It used to read "...Linux editor vi...". You just got here late. Did you not notice all the vi discussion?
io% diff -u bar foo
--- bar Tue Mar 21 11:11:19 2000
+++ foo Tue Mar 21 11:11:03 2000
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Concealed writes "There is an article in the new Wired which talks
about the future of nanotechnology and 'intelligent machines.' Bill
- Joy, (also the creator of the Linux text editor vi) who wrote the article,
+ Joy, (also the creator of the Unix text editor vi) who wrote the article,
expresses his views on the neccesity of the human race in the near
future. " From what I can gather this is the article that the Bill Joy on Extinction
story was drawn from. Bill is a smart guy -- and this is well worth reading.
And no admission on Slashdot/Hemos' part. Shame on you.
Even vim isn't a "Linux program." Do not forget what Open Source means. "./configure && make install" shall set you free.
(And it was BSD, not Solaris/SysV.)
"HISTORY
The nex/nvi replacements for the ex/vi editor first appeared in 4.4BSD."
Yeah, you heard me...BSD. Live it. Learn it. Respect it.
And I don't mean just BSD, I mean all of Unix. Linux (even if it _is_ the bastard child of an Immaculate Conception) has a lineage that MUST be respected. I'm tired of Linux cluebies not realizing that Linux isn't the end all and be all of Unix.
There is no such thing as definitive proof when it comes to opinion. If you write code, you choose a license that most appeals to you. If you don't, you use the software that does what you want.
What you seem to be asking is which license makes the best software, and again, no such proof exists, because it's the people that make the code, not the license.
It's often argued that the GPL is better because "I don't want some stinkin company makin any money off my code". They're going to make money off your code no matter which license you use. The difference is whether or not you want to see if they changed your code so you (and others) can use it too.
The quality of your code remains the same. Other coders who are Open Source advocates that pickup on your code are going to give their changes back of course, and in this case, the license doesn't matter at all. The code will improve.
So then if you still say, "But they're making money off my code," then it's no longer about the code really is it? It's about money, and if you were so worried about money, maybe you should have kept your source code closed and sold the program for a bundle huh?
This is why, if you're honest about Open Source, and respect what it can do, it doesn't really matter *which* license you use.
1. This is because there is not yet a CD. ISO's will pop up in short order.
.0 releases apply to *all* software. You should always be wary about the stability of a "dot oh" release. If it's not for production, you've got nothing to worry about. (NOTE: I've been running 4.0 since August 99 and I've neither been worried or had a problem.)
2. Yes. Install options are: CD, FTP (the two most popular), NFS, and local filesystem (Existing FreeBSD installation or DOS.) PPP and DHCP are provided for FTP installs.
3. KDE is not a "Linux" program (I know you didn't say that, but I can't stress it enough.) It's not "part" of FreeBSD anymore than it is a part of Linux. It's a third party program. If you install X during the installation, you're asked what Window Manager to install, and you can choose from KDE, Afterstep, WindowMaker & GNOME (not sure which WM.) Even if you don't, you can get the source for KDE and compile it yourself (Or let the Ports System do it for you.) It's also available as pre-compiled Packages (which is what sysinstall uses.)
4. FreeBSD comes with booteasy, but you can use any boot manager you want. There's better to choose from than LILO (and booteasy too.)
5. Warnings about using
6. 3.3 is old already. The latest release from the 3.X branch is 3.4. There will still be a 3.5-RELEASE(May), and then that will be the last from the 3.X-STABLE branch. 4.0-STABLE now exists, and 4.1-RELEASE will be a snapshot of that some time in June. 5.0-CURRENT is now 2 days old, and branched from 4.0. That's where all the development (and merging of BSD/OS code) will take place.
Sound is not in the GENERIC (default) kernel. That's something you'll have to compile in yourself. (MUCH easier than a Linux kernel compile btw. Add one line and do the config & make, etc. You don't have to sit through a Q&A session. [Not saying that's bad, just informing you of the ease with which a BSD kernel is made.])
Decent resolution? I assume that means X (XFree86 in this case), and like KDE, X is a third party program. The resolution you achieve now will be the same no matter if you use Linux or FreeBSD.
For hardware support in 4.0, read the link to the release notes that were provided in the story. (Sorry, you'll have to do that one on your own you lazy bum.)