I can't speak for the reset of the linux community, but I for one welcome improvement in freebsd. I do not welcome the spreading of FUD by a community that I think has much more to gain as brethern. It seems a good portion of the *bsd community is too busy being eleetist to show any respect for Linux or its user base. Which is fine if thats how they feel.. however I will continue to ask for facts instead of "feelings" and baseless opinions.
RANT ON The day a *bsd users comes out with a solid conclusive arguement as for why *bsd is a superiorly designed system is the day I will eat my own shorts.
*bsd has it's good points, and it's bad points like any operating system.
The fact that it is a "TRUE UNIX" is not one of them, however it's CAM SCSI subsystem is.
The majority of what you hear these days as to why Freebsd is superior to linux are out dated myths, much like found on a certain microsoft web page.
Linux's networking stack was completely redesigned for Linux 2.2, and *bsd advocates would be hard pressed to outline how the current BSD networking stack is superior.
I have seen no evidence to support Freebsd being more stable, more secure or faster. I would like to see some, comparing current versions of both OS's.
Reading freebsd's release notes shows that freebsd is not immune to security holes, or system failures. And seeing as freebsd ships with about 1/3rd of the installed applications its not surprising there are slightly less security anouncements (they stick everything in ports, and if you use something from ports it is at your own risk).
In summary I would very much like to hear some hard supporting facts rather then rantings by those *bsd users who complain about linux not being a real unix, and it being a toy os.. and how it's insecure, unstable.. and definitly not as well designed as *bsd.
p.s. seeing as freebsd is based off a OS (BSD 4.4) which has had 20? some years to evolve and stabilize that linux has done extreamly well to (in my opinion) match freebsd in most areas and surpass it in others. RANT OFF/
It would be nice if Xfree would be a bit more descriptive.. rather then forcing its users to "try and see your problem has been resolved" or "read the source code".
Am I the only one who is wary of how the Xfree Group handles such a important project? Don't get me wrong, I have much respect for anyone who releases useful OSS, however there are a number of things that have always bothered me about Xfree86.
1) Xfree86 has never provided the quality of documetnation that most OSS projects of its size provide.
2) They do not seem to try very hard to interact with user needs.
3) They do not go out of their way to solicit users for feature requests (it is 2000 and we still don't have a decent API to change color depth or resolution on the fly!), or provide a decent forum for bug tacking/reporting (I reported a bug with ALL matrox drivers (Matrox Mill - G400MAX) where in 16bpp pixels will be dropped when using scroll bars that use the default Xfree96 widget set. This bug was reported back in 3.3.3 and as of 3.3.5 it was still a issue. (I doubt it will be fixed in 3.3.6 either).
4) Finally, Xfree86 does not act like most other OSS groups of their size. Maybe this has something to do with their *bsd origins (no insult intended). It has been my experince that the *bsd people has always had an eleetist approch, where a group of "old school" gurus huddle in a dark cave somewhere and scheme over the "right way" (TM) to do things. (which I am not saying isn't their right to do it that way), it just does not seem to produce the type/quality of software that I (or linux for that matter) have come to depend on.
I was completely correct. It had nothing to do with SMP. As shown by the benchmark mindcraft did with only 1 CPU enabled.
The problem was that Linux IS unable to use multiple network adapters at once.. period... you can put multiple network adapters IN a linux box but only one of those cards will be doing anything at any given time. Once the request has finished being servied on adapter A, it will move on to B, when its done with B it will move on to C.. and then on to D.
Haha the real problem was that the 2.2.x linux kernel had "major performence" problems with TCP/IP ONLY WHEN USING MULTIPLE NIC CARDS. Which is why they USED multiple nic cards..
*note* slashdot is obviously overworked, this test was posted 4 months ago, only differnce is it was reformated. *sigh* This is OLD news.. These benchmarks exploited a flaw in the 2.2 kernel's IP stack. Everytime you add another network card you effectivly cut the performence in half. This was caused by the fact that 2.2.x locked the *whole* IP stack everytime one of the "other" network cards were in use. *duh* this is why mindcraft used 4 network cards instead of 1 100Mbit network card. If they needed more bandwidth they should of used a Gigabit network adaptor. p.s. Run the exact same tests with 1 nic card and or wait for 2.4 to be released and you will see how f*cked these tests were.
*note* slashdot is obviously overworked, this test was posted 4 months ago, only differnce is it was reformated. *sigh* This is OLD news.. These benchmarks exploited a flaw in the 2.2 kernel's IP stack. Everytime you add another network card you effectivly cut the performence in half. This was caused by the fact that 2.2.x locked the "whole" IP stack everytime one of the "other" network cards were in use. *duh* this is why mindcraft used 4 network cards instead of 1 100Mbit network card. If they needed more bandwidth they should of used a Gigabit network adaptor.
Has anyone else noticed that it is becoming more common to hear a *bsd slanted article where the author talks about Linux in the same way we talk about Windows?.
Something is wrong with this.. its not how its supposed to be. We are supposed to get along with our *bsd brothers and sisters. We are not against them.. we are with them.. for the good of software everywhere:).
Every Free OS installed is a wonderful thing for us all. every installation of Linux at the expense of Freebsd is a BAD THING.. every Freebsd install at the expense of Linux is a BAD THING.
Picking the best OS for the job is one thing. Spreading FUD with no facts to back it up is another. If linux really can't cut it as a Efnet IRC server, where are the facts? HUB admins have not allowed someone to link a major linux server so how do they know if it can not perform?
One thing you might find interesting is.. a good number of the people who develop freebsd also develop IRC. You might find it also interesting to know that the majority of these people spend most of their lives on IRC, and they all have global O:'s and most of them run HUB servers:)
Efnet and dalnet have few linux servers because the HUB servers refuse to link a Linux server. This has been the case for over 5 years. You have a couple choices. Use *bsd, use solaris or find a network that will link you.
This has little to do with linux's current ability to perform as an IRC server and alot to do with the fact that HUB admins are "old school" and of the opinion that linux isn't UNIX and its a toy.
I find this whole debate silly. Why do some *bsd users feel that they need to compare their OS to Linux? Because it's popular? Is it easier to compare Freebsd to linux then to say Windows?
We are on the same side guys.. Learn something about the linux of Sept 1999 and stop talking about urban legonds or problems that have not existed in 2/3 years.
For all the myths I hear from the *bsd community about how Linux is insecure. (a distro provides a version of ftpd that happens to have a buffer overflow) Or linux's networking stack is poorly written compared too *bsd or *bsd is more correct then linux because it is based on UNIX (BSDlite). Or freebsd scales better then linux for web servers or ftp servers.. it's all baseless and you will never see hard facts to support these claims because they are false.
ftp.cdrom.com doesn't use Freebsd because linux could not provide the same "record setting" performence. They use it because they have always used it. Because their admins like it, and because they make money selling Freebsd cds.
yahoo doesn't use Freebsd because linux wouldn't fit the bill, matter of fact they have been quoted as saying it would fit the bill, it is just not the OS they feel most comfterable with.
Security: Freebsd isn't fundamentally any more secure then any other operating system. Freebsd is subject to the same rules as all other software. It is commonly accepted that for every 1000 lines of code you will have 1 bug. The major differences between linux and freebsd in security is that a) freebsd has less eye balls looking at their code b) that freebsd's exploitable services tend to only receive updates when there is a "problem" with it. This being the case it is much more likely that a new feature in wuftpd will lead to a "exploitable" hole then it is that a Freebsd "fix" will intrduce a new hole. It's always a balance between features/stability. Most of us accept the risk that our latest and greatest ftp server (wu-2.5.0(1)) might not be as secure as version (wu-2.0.9(23)) we either take that risk because the features are more important to us. Or we down grade to the latest PATCH level of the last stable version. This is common sense not rocket science.
Linux's TCP/IP STACK is of poor quality: This is rather funny because I was around when this legend was created, I say legend and not myth because it WAS true. Back in the 1.2.xx days Linux's tcp/ip stack was very immature and BETA. ALOT has changed since then. As some people might notice when they boot up Redhat 6.0 or latest debian or whatever it says: Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039 NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0 for Linux NET4.0. NET4: Linux TCP/IP 1.0 for NET4.0
Try booting a 1.2 kernel sometime..
Linux isn't a true UNIX: This is of course correct, but it was never the stated intent of Linux to BEcome a UNIX. Linux's stated goals was to take the GOOD things from UNIX while leaving out as much of the BAD things as possible. Linux was also designed with the intent of creating the most "common sensed" and "generic" opereating system possible. Most people don't see common sense or "generic" as being that exciting.. However if you judge Linux based on its success as a operating system I would have to say it's paid off.
The people who are flipping out over the QPL really need to get a CLUE. The QPL license is less then two pages long and uses simple words that a 5th grader could understand.
QPL resembles the (current (no advertising clause)) BSD license. The only differnces I saw was that they require you (like the GPL) to redistribute any modifications you make to the GPL'ed source code back to the community.
read it yourself: http://www.openlinux.org/lizard/qpl.html
If you think Linux is easy to install compared to Win98, well you are right. If you think Linux is as easy to install as it could be well check out: http://www.openlinux.org/lizard/screenshots.html
p.s. some people need to get off their jihad trip.
People, at least read the QPL. It is less then two pages long. And covers (all of the OSS guidelines) It is basicly the BSD license with the clause that you must distribute the source with any modifcations. Oh and that you must provide the source to anyone who ASKS for it. Sounds like a "Good Thing" (tm) to me.
That patch would never even reach linus's eyes my friend. Linus doesn't say ye or na on every line of code written for linux. I would be suprised if he even looks at 10% of it. More like 4% I would guess.
I would agree with you not to agree on the original points I mentioned:). However I do hear that from the *bsd camp. Now granted they might not be the "informed" *bsd users... but it's not like I pulled those out of my *ss:).
As far as package management is concerned r'pm -bi ftp://ftp:joe@rawhide.redat.com/path/to/rawhide/*. rpm' would do the same thing as cvsup. AS far as "There is no better system for managing dependencies and installing, upgrading, and removing software than the ports tree" I would have to first ask you to look at rpm v3.0.3 and then let me know what it is exactly that ports has over RPM, or debians package management. I have heard this arguement before... but have never received reasons WHY.. only that it was better.
Anyone has the right to change the linux source code. If you are talking about the linux kernel then anyone can add patches. Linus has the option to veto any patch however. But in some cases companies like RedHat add their own patches to the kernel before shipping.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for the reset of the linux community, but I for one welcome improvement in freebsd. I do not welcome the spreading of FUD by a community that I think has much more to gain as brethern. It seems a good portion of the *bsd community is too busy being eleetist to show any respect for Linux or its user base. Which is fine if thats how they feel.. however I will continue to ask for facts instead of "feelings" and baseless opinions.
RANT ON
The day a *bsd users comes out with a solid conclusive arguement as for why *bsd is a superiorly designed system is the day I will eat my own shorts.
*bsd has it's good points, and it's bad points like any operating system.
The fact that it is a "TRUE UNIX" is not one of them, however it's CAM SCSI subsystem is.
The majority of what you hear these days as to why Freebsd is superior to linux are out dated myths, much like found on a certain microsoft web page.
Linux's networking stack was completely redesigned for Linux 2.2, and *bsd advocates would be hard pressed to outline how the current BSD networking stack is superior.
I have seen no evidence to support Freebsd being more stable, more secure or faster. I would like to see some, comparing current versions of both OS's.
Reading freebsd's release notes shows that freebsd is not immune to security holes, or system failures. And seeing as freebsd ships with about 1/3rd of the installed applications its not surprising there are slightly less security anouncements (they stick everything in ports, and if you use something from ports it is at your own risk).
In summary I would very much like to hear some hard supporting facts rather then rantings by those *bsd users who complain about linux not being a real unix, and it being a toy os.. and how it's insecure, unstable.. and definitly not as well designed as *bsd.
p.s. seeing as freebsd is based off a OS (BSD 4.4) which has had 20? some years to evolve and stabilize that linux has done extreamly well to (in my opinion) match freebsd in most areas and surpass it in others.
RANT OFF/
No he did not, re-read the post again.
It would be nice if Xfree would be a bit more descriptive.. rather then forcing its users to "try and see your problem has been resolved" or "read the source code".
*sigh*
Am I the only one who is wary of how the Xfree Group handles such a important project? Don't get me wrong, I have much respect for anyone who releases useful OSS, however there are a number of things that have always bothered me about Xfree86.
1) Xfree86 has never provided the quality of documetnation that most OSS projects of its size provide.
2) They do not seem to try very hard to interact with user needs.
3) They do not go out of their way to solicit users for feature requests (it is 2000 and we still don't have a decent API to change color depth or resolution on the fly!), or provide a decent forum for bug tacking/reporting (I reported a bug with ALL matrox drivers (Matrox Mill - G400MAX) where in 16bpp pixels will be dropped when using scroll bars that use the default Xfree96 widget set. This bug was reported back in 3.3.3 and as of 3.3.5 it was still a issue. (I doubt it will be fixed in 3.3.6 either).
4) Finally, Xfree86 does not act like most other OSS groups of their size. Maybe this has something to do with their *bsd origins (no insult intended). It has been my experince that the *bsd people has always had an eleetist approch, where a group of "old school" gurus huddle in a dark cave somewhere and scheme over the "right way" (TM) to do things. (which I am not saying isn't their right to do it that way), it just does not seem to produce the type/quality of software that I (or linux for that matter) have come to depend on.
I was completely correct. It had nothing to do with SMP. As shown by the benchmark mindcraft did with only 1 CPU enabled.
The problem was that Linux IS unable to use multiple network adapters at once.. period... you can put multiple network adapters IN a linux box but only one of those cards will be doing anything at any given time. Once the request has finished being servied on adapter A, it will move on to B, when its done with B it will move on to C.. and then on to D.
again.. this has NOTHING to do with SMP.
Haha the real problem was that the 2.2.x linux kernel had "major performence" problems with TCP/IP ONLY WHEN USING MULTIPLE NIC CARDS. Which is why they USED multiple nic cards..
drink your coffe boys..
*note* slashdot is obviously overworked, this test was posted 4 months ago, only differnce is it was reformated. *sigh* This is OLD news.. These benchmarks exploited a flaw in the 2.2 kernel's IP stack. Everytime you add another network card you effectivly cut the performence in half. This was caused by the fact that 2.2.x locked the *whole* IP stack everytime one of the "other" network cards were in use. *duh* this is why mindcraft used 4 network cards instead of 1 100Mbit network card. If they needed more bandwidth they should of used a Gigabit network adaptor. p.s. Run the exact same tests with 1 nic card and or wait for 2.4 to be released and you will see how f*cked these tests were.
*note* slashdot is obviously overworked, this test was posted 4 months ago, only differnce is it was reformated. *sigh* This is OLD news.. These benchmarks exploited a flaw in the 2.2 kernel's IP stack. Everytime you add another network card you effectivly cut the performence in half. This was caused by the fact that 2.2.x locked the "whole" IP stack everytime one of the "other" network cards were in use. *duh* this is why mindcraft used 4 network cards instead of 1 100Mbit network card. If they needed more bandwidth they should of used a Gigabit network adaptor.
Hmmm I can not believe that any Linux user would be so seriously blind as to make such a statement.
:)
There for you must be a Microsoft user sent to make linux users look bad
Good logic huh? hehe
Has anyone else noticed that it is becoming more common to hear a *bsd slanted article where the author talks about Linux in the same way we talk about Windows?.
:).
Something is wrong with this.. its not how its supposed to be. We are supposed to get along with our *bsd brothers and sisters. We are not against them.. we are with them.. for the good of software everywhere
Every Free OS installed is a wonderful thing for us all. every installation of Linux at the expense of Freebsd is a BAD THING.. every Freebsd install at the expense of Linux is a BAD THING.
Picking the best OS for the job is one thing. Spreading FUD with no facts to back it up is another. If linux really can't cut it as a Efnet IRC server, where are the facts? HUB admins have not allowed someone to link a major linux server so how do they know if it can not perform?
One thing you might find interesting is.. a good number of the people who develop freebsd also develop IRC. You might find it also interesting to know that the majority of these people spend most of their lives on IRC, and they all have global O:'s and most of them run HUB servers :)
Efnet and dalnet have few linux servers because the HUB servers refuse to link a Linux server. This has been the case for over 5 years. You have a couple choices. Use *bsd, use solaris or find a network that will link you.
This has little to do with linux's current ability to perform as an IRC server and alot to do with the fact that HUB admins are "old school" and of the opinion that linux isn't UNIX and its a toy.
You need to grow up.
Go through the freebsd 3.3 changelog.
:).
Notice the possible root exploits... wow looks just like the root exploits for newer linux kernels
p.s. most of the problems with 2.2.5 were very minor. as far as never running into problems with freebsd check the changelog for 3.3
I find this whole debate silly. Why do some *bsd users feel that they need to compare their OS to Linux? Because it's popular? Is it easier to compare Freebsd to linux then to say Windows?
We are on the same side guys.. Learn something about the linux of Sept 1999 and stop talking about urban legonds or problems that have not existed in 2/3 years.
For all the myths I hear from the *bsd community about how Linux is insecure. (a distro provides a version of ftpd that happens to have a buffer overflow) Or linux's networking stack is poorly written compared too *bsd or *bsd is more correct then linux because it is based on UNIX (BSDlite). Or freebsd scales better then linux for web servers or ftp servers.. it's all baseless and you will never see hard facts to support these claims because they are false.
ftp.cdrom.com doesn't use Freebsd because linux could not provide the same "record setting" performence. They use it because they have always used it. Because their admins like it, and because they make money selling Freebsd cds.
yahoo doesn't use Freebsd because linux wouldn't fit the bill, matter of fact they have been quoted as saying it would fit the bill, it is just not the OS they feel most comfterable with.
Security: Freebsd isn't fundamentally any more secure then any other operating system. Freebsd is subject to the same rules as all other software. It is commonly accepted that for every 1000 lines of code you will have 1 bug. The major differences between linux and freebsd in security is that a) freebsd has less eye balls looking at their code b) that freebsd's exploitable services tend to only receive updates when there is a "problem" with it.
This being the case it is much more likely that a new feature in wuftpd will lead to a "exploitable" hole then it is that a Freebsd "fix" will intrduce a new hole. It's always a balance between features/stability. Most of us accept the risk that our latest and greatest ftp server (wu-2.5.0(1)) might not be as secure as version (wu-2.0.9(23)) we either take that risk because the features are more important to us. Or we down grade to the latest PATCH level of the last stable version. This is common sense not rocket science.
Linux's TCP/IP STACK is of poor quality: This is rather funny because I was around when this legend was created, I say legend and not myth because it WAS true. Back in the 1.2.xx days Linux's tcp/ip stack was very immature and BETA. ALOT has changed since then. As some people might notice when they boot up Redhat 6.0 or latest debian or whatever it says:
Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039
NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0 for Linux NET4.0.
NET4: Linux TCP/IP 1.0 for NET4.0
Try booting a 1.2 kernel sometime..
Linux isn't a true UNIX: This is of course correct, but it was never the stated intent of Linux to BEcome a UNIX. Linux's stated goals was to take the GOOD things from UNIX while leaving out as much of the BAD things as possible. Linux was also designed with the intent of creating the most "common sensed" and "generic" opereating system possible. Most people don't see common sense or "generic" as being that exciting.. However if you judge Linux based on its success as a operating system I would have to say it's paid off.
It's running Oracle. Not SAP/3 :)
You are a moron.
Go back into your cave.
The people who are flipping out over the QPL really need to get a CLUE. The QPL license is less then two pages long and uses simple words that a 5th grader could understand.
l
QPL resembles the (current (no advertising clause)) BSD license. The only differnces I saw was that they require you (like the GPL) to redistribute any modifications you make to the GPL'ed source code back to the community.
read it yourself: http://www.openlinux.org/lizard/qpl.html
If you think Linux is easy to install compared to Win98, well you are right. If you think Linux is as easy to install as it could be well check out:
http://www.openlinux.org/lizard/screenshots.htm
p.s. some people need to get off their jihad trip.
People, at least read the QPL. It is less then two pages long. And covers (all of the OSS guidelines) It is basicly the BSD license with the clause that you must distribute the source with any modifcations. Oh and that you must provide the source to anyone who ASKS for it. Sounds like a "Good Thing" (tm) to me.
The topic says it all. I am stuck using the G400 options. 300Mhz ram dac vs 360, 16MBs ram vs 32, single head vs two.. sigh...
You may not claim this, but users of *bsd do. You only need to go as far as searching on slashdot for previous *bsd related articals.
:).
Education of a userbase is the responsibility of the elder users
That patch would never even reach linus's eyes my friend. Linus doesn't say ye or na on every line of code written for linux. I would be suprised if he even looks at 10% of it. More like 4% I would guess.
I would agree with you not to agree on the original points I mentioned :). However I do hear that from the *bsd camp. Now granted they might not be the "informed" *bsd users... but it's not like I pulled those out of my *ss :).
. rpm' would do the same thing as cvsup. AS far as "There is no better system for managing dependencies and installing, upgrading, and removing software than the ports tree" I would have to first ask you to look at rpm v3.0.3 and then let me know what it is exactly that ports has over RPM, or debians package management. I have heard this arguement before... but have never received reasons WHY.. only that it was better.
As far as package management is concerned r'pm -bi ftp://ftp:joe@rawhide.redat.com/path/to/rawhide/*
Anyone has the right to change the linux source code. If you are talking about the linux kernel then anyone can add patches. Linus has the option to veto any patch however. But in some cases companies like RedHat add their own patches to the kernel before shipping.