2) The attitude of the FreeBSD elite towards the hoi paloi is well known and noted. FreeBSD zealots have accused both me and David Miller of needing Qualudes in our meals when we point out (with code patches) idiocies in FreeBSD that need fixing (especially irritating when we just finished fixing the same idiocy in Linux... idiocy is idiocy, no matter what OS it is in or who wrote the code, and the migration goes from Linux->FreeBSD as often as it goes from FreeBSD->Linux, there's no reason for FreeBSD zealots to jump down our throats just because we're Linux geeks who found a bug in their precious OS).
I've found that the development people are actually quite friendly with or without code patches. I've found that people are much friendlier when you approach them with a tone of, "I think I may have found a problem with said code. I have a patch that I've made to correct this." I've found that they are much less receptive when you use the tone, "Hey fix your code. Here is a patch for you idiots since you obviously can't code your own shit."
The fact that you are starting with term "idiocies" makes me believe that, infact, you should perhaps work on the people skills aspect of software design (the very aspect of FreeBSD's design that this article is highlighting).
3) The so-called stability advantages of FreeBSD are a myth. From FreeBSD 3.3 up to FreeBSD 4.0, both my system at home and my system at work would spontaneously reboot at random intervals under FreeBSD (I mention two different systems because that rules out hardware problems -- hell, they didn't even have the same chipset, one was AMD and one was Intel, the only thing they had in common was that both had an IDE hard drive). In fact, FreeBSD 3.4 led me to switch back to Linux -- I got tired of my system spontaneously rebooting and destroying all my unsaved work.
I've had very good luck with FreeBSD stability and so have a lot of other people. I'm guessing that maybe you had some other problems, but it sounds like you have some coding experience, so maybe you could try out one of the recent builds and start from there on helping with stability if it is still a problem for you.
Deviating from the topic at hand....
I hate this new "I'll try to sound like a moderate while flaming" tactic on Slashdot. "idiocies in FreeBSD that need fixing", "The so-called stability advantages of FreeBSD are a myth." "The attitude of the FreeBSD elite towards the hoi paloi".
No offense, and sorry to go off topic, but what a load of shit. You are most definitely biased, as am I. This is the joy of discussion forums---telling other user when they didn't get something right, or you disagree. Don't give me this tripe: "But I expect to be flamed roundly from FreeBSD zealots with attitude for daring to suggest that their precious OS was at anytime unstable..."
The fact is, that you are going to get flamed if you flame. Whether or not I'm a FreeBSD, Plan9, QNX, MacOS, or BeOS zealot is not the issue.
Rather than continue to troll on Slashdot about how FreeBSD failed for you in the past (and then make platitudes toward it to avoid being labeled a troll), how about giving a recent version a shot. FreeBSD 4.5 surprised this die-hard *BSD user with how polished it was.
FreeBSD feels like a real quality product. The installer, and the overall level of "spit shine" is better than I've seen anywhere else (Windows, Solaris, Linux, QNX).
The packages/ports collection rocks. Software works as documented. Documentation exists.
I can't wait to see all the goodies planned for FreeBSD-5.
Anyone who is interested in UNIX should check it out. It is one of the very "cleanest" implimentations out there, and it also happens to perform quite well.
Go ahead download the.iso (or buy from Daemon News). The install doesn't take long (6 minutes boot to finish on my 1.0ghz Athlon).
-Peter
Re:I wish I could get FreeBSD to work
on
NetBSD 1.5ZB
·
· Score: 2
This is more appropriately addressed to the freebsd-questions mailing list, and you seem like you've already made up your mind that this won't work.
But, I'll bite. Check the device naming conventions. They really make (for my mind anyway) a lot more sense.
Your linux/dev/hdb3 (what does this this stand for? Hard Disk Controller B partition 3? What if it was on the SCSI chain?) is, infact,/dev/ad1s3 (ata contoller 2, third slice) under FreeBSD.
Try mount -t ext2fs/dev/ad1s3/mymountpoint
Hope that works for you. If not man mount_ext2fs(8). Also, you shouldn't have to recompile the kernel explicitly with ext2fs support either. Usually the system will auto load these modules if it needs them.
People talk about the exchange of ideas between the BSDs and Linux, and I think that a core group like FreeBSD's would be a great idea for the Linux world.
It seems like we are running into more and more scaling issues with the people behind Linux than with Linux itself. This is no fault of theirs. Linux is too big a project for a "the buck stops here" kind of person like Linus.
Obviously, Linux is Linus's brainchild, and he can do whatever he likes with it (yes, I know the GPL allows forking, but think of how a kernel fork would be recieved on/.).
I don't believe that Linux can attain the kind of consistency (and that is not the goal anyway) of FreeBSD or NetBSD, I think they might be able to fix some of the kernel patching and architecting problems if an elected core team could work on this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't QT now use an open source license?
Actually, they use a dual license (commercial & GPL), and people are free to do whatever they want, but people still tend to use the TrollTech produced version. Just as even though, IIRC, Solaris's source code is released under the Sun Community source license, people tend to use Sun's Solaris, and Sun still holds the control.
OK. The nail is in the coffin for OSX on Intel. Let me sum up why: Why would Apple expose themselves to the headache of supporting the plethora of x86 systems only to gut their hardware sales. There is a reason why Macs work great---Apple controls the whole platform. This is the same reason that you have never seen an IRQ conflict on a Sun box.
However, one idea that I haven't heard is to port Aqua and the developer package to FreeBSD.
Aqua on FreeBSD is good for Apple because they can extend their developer base without giving away the crown jewels.
Think about it. People who buy desktop Macintosh are going to buy desktop Macintosh. Aqua alone would be like selling an excellerated X server with the QT toolkit.
If people were allowed to install FreeBSD and load on Aqua with support for a few video cards, that would create a developer base on Intel, that still has to buy a Mac for the integrated environment of OSX.
FreeBSD/Aqua gives developers well, a completed GNUStep. But for iTunes, Final Cut Pro, iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto, firewire that works when you plug it in, sleek sexy machines that are attractive to most people, etc, etc, etc,you have to buy the Mac.
I know that Apple can port this. OpenStep was ported to damn near everything, and Aqua isn't all that different. Plus the fact that FreeBSD is similar in many respects to OSX.
Also giving FreeBSD users the development tools makes development candy for FreeBSD. Coupled with the fact that JKH works for Apple, we would see some cool apps, and some cool cross-pollination without diluting what makes Apple Apple.
Maybe down the line Apple would find it worth their while to port to other *nixen, but Apple seems pretty bent on "There are five times as many BSD users as Linux users" sort of PR.
I would probably reccommend that Apple keep Aqua/FreeBSD pretty much under their own control. (Like Sun with Solaris source) This would be neccesary to keep the platforms in sync. Before anyone flames me for not worshiping OpenSource, just ask yourselves how many people use the Trolltech produced version of QT versus FreeQT or whatever it is called.
Note that I intentionally left out Linux and Net/OpenBSD because they all compete on the same hardware. Plus, I use FreeBSD, and I'm a poopy BSD bigot. Perhaps for the aformentioned reasons of "the Apple platform", this wouldn't be an issue. Apple could unify the UNIX desktop this way, but that might hurt them in the long run. Plus choice is good, right?
Adobe should be bending over backward kissing ElcomSoft's ass for not just breaking and rereleasing Adobe's own software and selling it on the street in Moscow.
I just spent the last month in Moscow where one can purchase the Russian edition of Windows XP for the modest price of 70 Rubles (~30 Rubles = 1 USD). I'm sure that every penny went to Bill Gates. Just like the 80 Ruble copies of Shrek in DivX format and 60 Ruble copies of The Sims plus every expansion pack are surely on the up and up.
I'm running FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE with windowmaker.80 . I find it very quick to use.
For example, I type ctrl-alt-t and I get a terminal (rxvt -fg green -bg black +sb --geometry 80x50). Or I can hit ctrl-alt-r for a run dialogue.
If I want to dial the net I hit ctrl-alt-UP. (rxvt -fg green -bg black +sb -geometry 50x8 -e/usr/sbin/ppp -background default).
If I want to dial down, I hit ctrl-alt-DOWN. (killall ppp)
My dock looks pretty attractive too with WmCalClock (/usr/ports/x11-clocks/wmcalclock). If I double click it, I get jpilot.
Below that is wmfire (/usr/ports/sysutils/wmfire) for eye candy / system load. Then comes my mixer, wmmixer (/usr/ports/audio/wmmixer), and XMMS (/usr/ports/audio/xmms).
With a little bit of playing with the menus (the drag and drop menu configuration is great) you can organize your programs quite easily.
The difference, is that when you click restart, your screen flickers for a half second and all of your windows return to exactly where they were as if nothing happened.
Crashes in Window Maker (which are damn infrequent) make me wonder why they even bother to tell you that WM has crashed. A Window Maker crash has never scared me or caused me to lose more than 1 mouse click's productivity.
OK. I'm typing this from a FreeBSD workstation, so believe me that I'm not trolling. I would like to see the FreeBSD/PPC port come along a little further too. However, we BSD lovers already have a couple of options besides OS X, which is lovely, but somewhat slow on older hardware.
Try NetBSD on your PowerBook. I had the opportunity to play with NetBSD the other day. It is not as friendly to set up as FreeBSD, but it is not bad. Just as with FreeBSD, it found and Just Worked(tm) with all of my hardware (Linux generally takes some fanagaling).
NetBSD should support your PowerBook. They seem to support every other damn piece of hardware known to man.
NetBSD seems to have a really clean design, and it feels good if you are used to FreeBSD as well.
Also, I hear OpenBSD works well with the Macs. I generally find that OpenBSD makes a pretty good workstation.
Well, I hope this helps. On a side note, if OS X has done nothing else for BSD, it has made my Mac friends nod in approval when I say that I'm a BSD guy.
Ok, then tell me how I can use my PCI Modem with FreeBSD (no, it is not a winmodem). I've never been able to get it work work under BSD, and I haven't found any clear instructions on how to get it to work.
Really? What modem do you have? I've got the ActionTec Call Waiting PCI modem and it worked fine.
Check your dmesg (dmesg |more). Look for something like the following:
sio0: [ActionTec 56k FAX PCI Modem] port 0xdc00-0xdc07,0xd800-0xd8ff,0xd400-0xd4 ff mem 0xe2001000-0xe20010ff irq 11 at device 7.0 on pci0
sio0: moving to sio4
sio4: type 16550A
Actually, a good place to start would be to type "dmesg |grep sio" at the command prompt. I bet that FreeBSD has probably found it already. Remember that the serial interface "sio4" corresponds to/dev/cuaa4. You might also check to make sure you have enough software serial ports enabled in FreeBSD (do you have two unused serial ports on the back of your machine? I disable mine in the BIOS, but if you need them, you can just enable com3 & com4 which are disabled in a standard install. Read the handbook section on building a kernel. It's easy. I promise.)
I hope this helps. If not, you can always send an e-mail to questions@freebsd.org. They are generally quite helpful.
It just works? That's been my impression of linux. With *BSD, the kernel and userland are tightly integrated. With linux, the latest, snazziest kernel is duct tape'd to various gnu utilities. Documentation? Ha!
Touche!:-) I think we are argueing the same point. FreeBSD tends to Just Work(tm) (in the sense that it doesn't require any extra fiddling). Linux tends to just work (in the "just barely" sense). Not to bash on Linux though. There are some very inventive hacks that work quite well. I, however, prefer the more conservative nature of FreeBSD.
Incidentally, I had the opportunity to install and play with NetBSD the other day (I'm thinking about ditching my PC for an iBook.), and I found it to work much the same way as FreeBSD. That is, it found all my hardware, and Just Worked (tm). In the past when I've used OpenBSD, it has done well too. I should take a look again as they've released a few times since I've played with OpenBSD.
O.K. There always seems to be a number of out right false hoods perpetuated about FreeBSD. More often than not, they are not malicious. More often than not they are perpetuated by casual FreeBSD users. Let me set the record straight.
"The ports collection sure is great! I just wish that FreeBSD had some kind of package management that didn't require building from source."
It so happens that FreeBSD does have package management that won't ever invoke gcc.
Try the package management tools (man pkg_create(1), pkg_delete(1), pkg_info(1), pkg_update(1), pkg_version(1) for more specific info).
In fact, FreeBSD is so bad-ass that you can type something like "pkg_add -r mozilla" and the system will download and install the latest mozilla. Carefull though, some packages require that you specify the whole version (i.e. pkg_add -r lyx-1.1.6.3). This will get all the dependancies you need in most cases.
The only real reasons to build from the ports are:
You need specific compile time options. (Install a custom Apache on RedHat then with FreeBSD's ports and come back and tell me which is easier)
You have a multi architecture workplace and you want to use a central distfile repository. (Please note that this is rare.)
"FreeBSD is less user friendly than Linux"
This is highly subjective. I taught a class this summer to a group of people at my University who had never installed Windows, much less anything else. By the end of the first week, they were able to install FreeBSD, compile a kernel, and successfully manage packages. By the end of the second week, they all had their desktops going with the productivity apps they wanted. By the middle of the third week, I couldn't hold their attention because they were having too much fun playing with the OS.
FreeBSD belongs to the "it just works" school of computing. I don't know how to describe it. I've never had to worry about whether or not FreeBSD would correctly auto detect my USB optical mouse during the install (I've had a number of Linux distros both succeed and fail). FreeBSD Just Works(tm). No dicking around. "Does your system have a USB mouse attached to it?" "Yes?" "OK, we'll make sure and load usbd." If I've had "device pcm" in my kernel config file at build time, my sound has always worked.
As a workstation, FreeBSD performs very well. I don't have benchmarks for you, but I've never had a FreeBSD machine that has felt slower than any Linux distribution on the same hardware. Incidentally, FreeBSD starts notably quicker than any Linux distro newer than Slack 2.0.
I feel really good about the state of FreeBSD. They have made things easy by design, not by GUI abstraction. If you judge ease as being a point and click installer, then Linux will win every time. If you judge ease as simplicity and consistancy, FreeBSD is a clear victor.
if the Linux version of Office would be as good as the Windows / Macintosh version.
I have a sneaking suspicion that it would not be. Then again, I've always been more fond of Office for MacOS than Office for Windows. I know plenty of users who claim that Office for Mac is pretty darned good. I'm inclined to say that MS Software for the Mac is pretty good overall. Even Outlook Express for Mac is liveable.
That being said, MS is bad. M-kay? Long live vi / emacs and LaTeX (don't want/. thinking I'm going soft).
... because NeXT really was the coolest interface of all time. I'm using WindowMaker right now, and let me tell you, I'm so proficient with the keyboard shortcuts that I rarely touch a mouse.
Plus, will all the cool effects of windows zooming on to the screen (this is a new one), and windows zooming off the screen, I the interface looks bad-ass and I look productive.
These guys have some wicked bad programming experience between them. BeOS is already established. BeOS has already been designed. These people already have a source / (hopefully) binary compatible development box complete with an IDE designed to write this kind of stuff.
Hang on BeOS users. For OpenSource coders who want to do something cool, but aren't sure what, this is a grand opportunity. These people have a plan, a working prototype, and the experience and skills with BeOS to make it happen.
Remember that BeOS is not Linux. The two will fail or succeed on their own merits.
As for reaching critical mass, well, that is a problem still with linux. I think OpenBeOS could do it though with careful planning and hard work. If not, then we get back our niche OS and best of all it will be Free.
I'm beginning to wonder about all "All you BeOS users should come join / extend Linux." There is a reason that BeOS users used Be. I don't even understand this reasoning. The user experience with Be was so vastly different from Linux that I don't even know where to start.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux / UNIX. I'm typing this from a FreeBSD workstation right now. I personally love the windowmaker environment and the "UNIX way". I don't believe in wordprocessors (long live LaTeX---or LyX for you neophytes). I read my e-mail with mutt. I use lynx to browse the web most often. I use X to organize my terminals and set their geometry!!!
That all being said, I would not wish my computing lifestyle on anyone.
I'm also a closet BeOS user when I can be. Let me tell you what I like about BeOS.
Never once have I compiled a kernel
I rarely have had to dick around installing software. I installed video lan client for DVD and it worked immediately. I've still yet to figure it out in X. Yes, I'm stupid.
You may have heard it before, but BeOS is FAST. Really. My computer takes more time in the bios screen than it does booting the OS.
The user interface was marginally attractive (nothing is as sexy as NeXT), but more importantly it was consistant...everywhere. This is not to be underestimated. GTK and QT and XForms apps sit and mock me constantly when I have to use them. Yes, I've set their theme to NeXT. I still know which widget set everything uses.
BeOS didn't try to be everything to everyone, but came damn close. It wasn't just a multimedia OS. Whoever said BeOS was never made for wordprocessing never used Gobe. For me it even had TeX.
Some of the other things that be had was a file system that you could do many database style things to. Ripping and organizing mp3s from the standard filesystem and OS features was cake!
Replicants and such were badass. I could imbed a webpage on my desktop with netpositive.
I could go on and on. I loved the system. I love Linux. I love them for vastly different reasons.
I love my Linux brethren because of their idealism, but sometimes they are too interested in ruling the world by exclusionary tactics. Don't assume that alternative OS users', their hacking ability and intellect belong to "the movement".
First, you purchase a copy of OS/2 Warp. Then you upgrade to 95 (Yes, OS/2 was a valid upgrade system). From there if you followed the upgrades you were legal.
Or, then again you could do what I did:
Pirate DOS+Win3.1 -->
OS/2 v.3.0 -->
Slak w/linux kernel v.1.2.13 -->
FreeBSD
What does the future hold? I advise everyone to upgrade to Plan 9 NOW! When Plan 10 or 11 come out, you are not going to want to be the last person on the block to have it.
Seriously, you are not 31337 if more than 20 people use your OS.
Actually, scrap that, your best bet is to port NetBSD to that wind-up Mickey Mouse watch you've had since you were a kid.
OK, I just got done upgrading all the workstations that I administer to 0.9.4. That's cool, all I have to do is wait for.9.5 to show up in the FreeBSD ports right?
I just don't look forward to downloading the new tarballs over my 56.6 modem at home.
*Sigh* I suppose by the time I get that one downloaded there will be 0.9.6.
Really? You don't think that it has become something akin to a religion?
O.K. I can buy that; religion doesn't go far enough to describe the phenomenon. It has become much more pervasive and idealistic than religion.
To put it this way: There is a way of life surrounding Linux. The difference is that with Linux there is no separation of church and state. Dissenters are more commonly flamed these days. If you work a tech job, chances are, you are in the clergy.
I see a lot of people in the GNU/Linux crowd get very misty eyed at the GPL and any other arguement involving IP. Perhaps rightfully so. I think that some of the philosophical ideas to be accepted in the Linux world are coming to the real world to the benefit of all. There really is a great sense of community with Linux, and some of the (IMHO) altruistic ideals can do us all good.
Just like some aspects of religion.
This was the only comparison I was making. Your posting had a tone that said to me, "Jeeeesus. Don't make Linux a religion. I don't want things that polarized."
Post a message to/. saying something to the effect of "Linux sux. M$ ru13z" and see how fast it gets modded down. Hello! Linux is already that polarized.
Man, I really got a sense of burn-out in this message.
I worry about Linus and also Linux. I feel like Linus is trying to disassociate himself from Linux because he has two dynamics at work inside him.
1. Linus realizes that he really is the leader of a large and idealistic movement, and would like to see the Good Things(tm) keep rolling.
2. Linus either feels that he is not the man to lead, or he realizes that he cannot be the leader forever.
His reaction is unfortunate. If he really does want things to keep rolling, he needs to provide for a sustainable method of succession of power.
Linux is a religion these days. Really. It may not have gods, but it has a fiercly defended ideology that really does border on the metaphysical.
Human knowledge is libre is not so much a radical notion, but its particular application to technology is very radical--bordering on the spiritual.
Look at all the major world religions. They have all suffered at some point due to the schisms created by lack of smooth power succession. These problems are inherent to systems where there is one guru.
I hope I'm not decending into troll territory here, but the FreeBSD core team idea is a very good one. There are no succession problems, and the team seems to deal well with changes in staff despite the smaller numbers of people working on the project.
I think that Kurt Vonnegut spelled out religion at its finest in his novel Cat's Cradle.
The beginning of the book of Bokonon states, "All of the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies."
Seemingly a barb at the falsity of religion there is more than a little wisdom in his caution to not write off religion entirely. "Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either," writes Bokonon.
So, go my children and practice a religion, so long as it does good. Don't sweat the minor details (like the religion's veracity).
Ofcourse, I'll always hold a special place in my heart for Slak.
Slashdot Mirror
I've found that the development people are actually quite friendly with or without code patches. I've found that people are much friendlier when you approach them with a tone of, "I think I may have found a problem with said code. I have a patch that I've made to correct this." I've found that they are much less receptive when you use the tone, "Hey fix your code. Here is a patch for you idiots since you obviously can't code your own shit."
The fact that you are starting with term "idiocies" makes me believe that, infact, you should perhaps work on the people skills aspect of software design (the very aspect of FreeBSD's design that this article is highlighting).
I've had very good luck with FreeBSD stability and so have a lot of other people. I'm guessing that maybe you had some other problems, but it sounds like you have some coding experience, so maybe you could try out one of the recent builds and start from there on helping with stability if it is still a problem for you.
Deviating from the topic at hand....
I hate this new "I'll try to sound like a moderate while flaming" tactic on Slashdot. "idiocies in FreeBSD that need fixing", "The so-called stability advantages of FreeBSD are a myth." "The attitude of the FreeBSD elite towards the hoi paloi".
No offense, and sorry to go off topic, but what a load of shit. You are most definitely biased, as am I. This is the joy of discussion forums---telling other user when they didn't get something right, or you disagree. Don't give me this tripe: "But I expect to be flamed roundly from FreeBSD zealots with attitude for daring to suggest that their precious OS was at anytime unstable..."
The fact is, that you are going to get flamed if you flame. Whether or not I'm a FreeBSD, Plan9, QNX, MacOS, or BeOS zealot is not the issue.
Rather than continue to troll on Slashdot about how FreeBSD failed for you in the past (and then make platitudes toward it to avoid being labeled a troll), how about giving a recent version a shot. FreeBSD 4.5 surprised this die-hard *BSD user with how polished it was.
-Peter
The packages/ports collection rocks. Software works as documented. Documentation exists.
I can't wait to see all the goodies planned for FreeBSD-5.
Anyone who is interested in UNIX should check it out. It is one of the very "cleanest" implimentations out there, and it also happens to perform quite well.
Go ahead download the
-Peter
But, I'll bite. Check the device naming conventions. They really make (for my mind anyway) a lot more sense.
Your linux
Try mount -t ext2fs
Hope that works for you. If not man mount_ext2fs(8). Also, you shouldn't have to recompile the kernel explicitly with ext2fs support either. Usually the system will auto load these modules if it needs them.
Also, check out the handbook and the FAQ
Let me know if it works.
-Peter
...And no, I'm not trolling.
/.).
People talk about the exchange of ideas between the BSDs and Linux, and I think that a core group like FreeBSD's would be a great idea for the Linux world.
It seems like we are running into more and more scaling issues with the people behind Linux than with Linux itself. This is no fault of theirs. Linux is too big a project for a "the buck stops here" kind of person like Linus.
Obviously, Linux is Linus's brainchild, and he can do whatever he likes with it (yes, I know the GPL allows forking, but think of how a kernel fork would be recieved on
I don't believe that Linux can attain the kind of consistency (and that is not the goal anyway) of FreeBSD or NetBSD, I think they might be able to fix some of the kernel patching and architecting problems if an elected core team could work on this.
-Peter
Actually, they use a dual license (commercial & GPL), and people are free to do whatever they want, but people still tend to use the TrollTech produced version. Just as even though, IIRC, Solaris's source code is released under the Sun Community source license, people tend to use Sun's Solaris, and Sun still holds the control.
-Peter
However, one idea that I haven't heard is to port Aqua and the developer package to FreeBSD.
Aqua on FreeBSD is good for Apple because they can extend their developer base without giving away the crown jewels.
Think about it. People who buy desktop Macintosh are going to buy desktop Macintosh. Aqua alone would be like selling an excellerated X server with the QT toolkit.
If people were allowed to install FreeBSD and load on Aqua with support for a few video cards, that would create a developer base on Intel, that still has to buy a Mac for the integrated environment of OSX.
FreeBSD/Aqua gives developers well, a completed GNUStep. But for iTunes, Final Cut Pro, iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto, firewire that works when you plug it in, sleek sexy machines that are attractive to most people, etc, etc, etc,you have to buy the Mac.
I know that Apple can port this. OpenStep was ported to damn near everything, and Aqua isn't all that different. Plus the fact that FreeBSD is similar in many respects to OSX.
Also giving FreeBSD users the development tools makes development candy for FreeBSD. Coupled with the fact that JKH works for Apple, we would see some cool apps, and some cool cross-pollination without diluting what makes Apple Apple.
Maybe down the line Apple would find it worth their while to port to other *nixen, but Apple seems pretty bent on "There are five times as many BSD users as Linux users" sort of PR.
I would probably reccommend that Apple keep Aqua/FreeBSD pretty much under their own control. (Like Sun with Solaris source) This would be neccesary to keep the platforms in sync. Before anyone flames me for not worshiping OpenSource, just ask yourselves how many people use the Trolltech produced version of QT versus FreeQT or whatever it is called.
Note that I intentionally left out Linux and Net/OpenBSD because they all compete on the same hardware. Plus, I use FreeBSD, and I'm a poopy BSD bigot. Perhaps for the aformentioned reasons of "the Apple platform", this wouldn't be an issue. Apple could unify the UNIX desktop this way, but that might hurt them in the long run. Plus choice is good, right?
-Peter
Adobe should be bending over backward kissing ElcomSoft's ass for not just breaking and rereleasing Adobe's own software and selling it on the street in Moscow.
I just spent the last month in Moscow where one can purchase the Russian edition of Windows XP for the modest price of 70 Rubles (~30 Rubles = 1 USD). I'm sure that every penny went to Bill Gates. Just like the 80 Ruble copies of Shrek in DivX format and 60 Ruble copies of The Sims plus every expansion pack are surely on the up and up.
-Peter
For example, I type ctrl-alt-t and I get a terminal (rxvt -fg green -bg black +sb --geometry 80x50). Or I can hit ctrl-alt-r for a run dialogue.
If I want to dial the net I hit ctrl-alt-UP. (rxvt -fg green -bg black +sb -geometry 50x8 -e
If I want to dial down, I hit ctrl-alt-DOWN. (killall ppp)
My dock looks pretty attractive too with WmCalClock (/usr/ports/x11-clocks/wmcalclock). If I double click it, I get jpilot.
Below that is wmfire (/usr/ports/sysutils/wmfire) for eye candy / system load. Then comes my mixer, wmmixer (/usr/ports/audio/wmmixer), and XMMS (/usr/ports/audio/xmms).
With a little bit of playing with the menus (the drag and drop menu configuration is great) you can organize your programs quite easily.
Hope any of this is useful.
-Peter
Crashes in Window Maker (which are damn infrequent) make me wonder why they even bother to tell you that WM has crashed. A Window Maker crash has never scared me or caused me to lose more than 1 mouse click's productivity.
-Peter
Usually this has to do with your network settings (yes, even if you aren't on a network).
/etc/hosts and make sure that 127.0.0.1 points to your host name as well as "localhost"
Check your
Hope this helps.
-Peter
Please man pkg_create(1), pkg_delete(1), pkg_info(1), pkg_update(1) and pkg_version(1) for more information.
As a side benefit, these binary packages are built FROM the ports tree every day by the kind people at freebsd.org.
-Peter
Try NetBSD on your PowerBook. I had the opportunity to play with NetBSD the other day. It is not as friendly to set up as FreeBSD, but it is not bad. Just as with FreeBSD, it found and Just Worked(tm) with all of my hardware (Linux generally takes some fanagaling).
NetBSD should support your PowerBook. They seem to support every other damn piece of hardware known to man.
NetBSD seems to have a really clean design, and it feels good if you are used to FreeBSD as well.
Also, I hear OpenBSD works well with the Macs. I generally find that OpenBSD makes a pretty good workstation.
Well, I hope this helps. On a side note, if OS X has done nothing else for BSD, it has made my Mac friends nod in approval when I say that I'm a BSD guy.
-Peter
Really? What modem do you have? I've got the ActionTec Call Waiting PCI modem and it worked fine.
Check your dmesg (dmesg |more). Look for something like the following:
sio0: [ActionTec 56k FAX PCI Modem] port 0xdc00-0xdc07,0xd800-0xd8ff,0xd400-0xd4 ff mem 0xe2001000-0xe20010ff irq 11 at device 7.0 on pci0
sio0: moving to sio4
sio4: type 16550A
Actually, a good place to start would be to type "dmesg |grep sio" at the command prompt. I bet that FreeBSD has probably found it already. Remember that the serial interface "sio4" corresponds to
I hope this helps. If not, you can always send an e-mail to questions@freebsd.org. They are generally quite helpful.
-Peter
Touche!
Incidentally, I had the opportunity to install and play with NetBSD the other day (I'm thinking about ditching my PC for an iBook.), and I found it to work much the same way as FreeBSD. That is, it found all my hardware, and Just Worked (tm). In the past when I've used OpenBSD, it has done well too. I should take a look again as they've released a few times since I've played with OpenBSD.
-Peter
"The ports collection sure is great! I just wish that FreeBSD had some kind of package management that didn't require building from source."
It so happens that FreeBSD does have package management that won't ever invoke gcc.
Try the package management tools (man pkg_create(1), pkg_delete(1), pkg_info(1), pkg_update(1), pkg_version(1) for more specific info).
In fact, FreeBSD is so bad-ass that you can type something like "pkg_add -r mozilla" and the system will download and install the latest mozilla. Carefull though, some packages require that you specify the whole version (i.e. pkg_add -r lyx-1.1.6.3). This will get all the dependancies you need in most cases.
The only real reasons to build from the ports are:
"FreeBSD is less user friendly than Linux"
This is highly subjective. I taught a class this summer to a group of people at my University who had never installed Windows, much less anything else. By the end of the first week, they were able to install FreeBSD, compile a kernel, and successfully manage packages. By the end of the second week, they all had their desktops going with the productivity apps they wanted. By the middle of the third week, I couldn't hold their attention because they were having too much fun playing with the OS.
FreeBSD belongs to the "it just works" school of computing. I don't know how to describe it. I've never had to worry about whether or not FreeBSD would correctly auto detect my USB optical mouse during the install (I've had a number of Linux distros both succeed and fail). FreeBSD Just Works(tm). No dicking around. "Does your system have a USB mouse attached to it?" "Yes?" "OK, we'll make sure and load usbd." If I've had "device pcm" in my kernel config file at build time, my sound has always worked.
As a workstation, FreeBSD performs very well. I don't have benchmarks for you, but I've never had a FreeBSD machine that has felt slower than any Linux distribution on the same hardware. Incidentally, FreeBSD starts notably quicker than any Linux distro newer than Slack 2.0.
I feel really good about the state of FreeBSD. They have made things easy by design, not by GUI abstraction. If you judge ease as being a point and click installer, then Linux will win every time. If you judge ease as simplicity and consistancy, FreeBSD is a clear victor.
-Peter
Just my $0.02
if the Linux version of Office would be as good as the Windows / Macintosh version.
/. thinking I'm going soft).
I have a sneaking suspicion that it would not be. Then again, I've always been more fond of Office for MacOS than Office for Windows. I know plenty of users who claim that Office for Mac is pretty darned good. I'm inclined to say that MS Software for the Mac is pretty good overall. Even Outlook Express for Mac is liveable.
That being said, MS is bad. M-kay? Long live vi / emacs and LaTeX (don't want
-Peter
Plus, will all the cool effects of windows zooming on to the screen (this is a new one), and windows zooming off the screen, I the interface looks bad-ass and I look productive.
Hehe, fooled them didn't I?
-Peter
Touchpad and USB mouse work just fine under FreeBSD. Not sure about the winmodem, but USB is a snap in FreeBSD compared to linux.
Hang on BeOS users. For OpenSource coders who want to do something cool, but aren't sure what, this is a grand opportunity. These people have a plan, a working prototype, and the experience and skills with BeOS to make it happen.
Remember that BeOS is not Linux. The two will fail or succeed on their own merits.
As for reaching critical mass, well, that is a problem still with linux. I think OpenBeOS could do it though with careful planning and hard work. If not, then we get back our niche OS and best of all it will be Free.
-Peter
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux / UNIX. I'm typing this from a FreeBSD workstation right now. I personally love the windowmaker environment and the "UNIX way". I don't believe in wordprocessors (long live LaTeX---or LyX for you neophytes). I read my e-mail with mutt. I use lynx to browse the web most often. I use X to organize my terminals and set their geometry!!!
That all being said, I would not wish my computing lifestyle on anyone.
I'm also a closet BeOS user when I can be. Let me tell you what I like about BeOS.
Some of the other things that be had was a file system that you could do many database style things to. Ripping and organizing mp3s from the standard filesystem and OS features was cake!
Replicants and such were badass. I could imbed a webpage on my desktop with netpositive.
I could go on and on. I loved the system. I love Linux. I love them for vastly different reasons.
I love my Linux brethren because of their idealism, but sometimes they are too interested in ruling the world by exclusionary tactics. Don't assume that alternative OS users', their hacking ability and intellect belong to "the movement".
-Peter
Or, then again you could do what I did:
Pirate DOS+Win3.1 -->
OS/2 v.3.0 -->
Slak w/linux kernel v.1.2.13 -->
FreeBSD
What does the future hold? I advise everyone to upgrade to Plan 9 NOW! When Plan 10 or 11 come out, you are not going to want to be the last person on the block to have it.
Seriously, you are not 31337 if more than 20 people use your OS.
Actually, scrap that, your best bet is to port NetBSD to that wind-up Mickey Mouse watch you've had since you were a kid.
-Peter
I just don't look forward to downloading the new tarballs over my 56.6 modem at home.
*Sigh* I suppose by the time I get that one downloaded there will be 0.9.6.
-Peter
O.K. I can buy that; religion doesn't go far enough to describe the phenomenon. It has become much more pervasive and idealistic than religion.
To put it this way: There is a way of life surrounding Linux. The difference is that with Linux there is no separation of church and state. Dissenters are more commonly flamed these days. If you work a tech job, chances are, you are in the clergy.
I see a lot of people in the GNU/Linux crowd get very misty eyed at the GPL and any other arguement involving IP. Perhaps rightfully so. I think that some of the philosophical ideas to be accepted in the Linux world are coming to the real world to the benefit of all. There really is a great sense of community with Linux, and some of the (IMHO) altruistic ideals can do us all good.
Just like some aspects of religion.
This was the only comparison I was making. Your posting had a tone that said to me, "Jeeeesus. Don't make Linux a religion. I don't want things that polarized."
Post a message to
-Peter
I worry about Linus and also Linux. I feel like Linus is trying to disassociate himself from Linux because he has two dynamics at work inside him.
1. Linus realizes that he really is the leader of a large and idealistic movement, and would like to see the Good Things(tm) keep rolling.
2. Linus either feels that he is not the man to lead, or he realizes that he cannot be the leader forever.
His reaction is unfortunate. If he really does want things to keep rolling, he needs to provide for a sustainable method of succession of power.
Linux is a religion these days. Really. It may not have gods, but it has a fiercly defended ideology that really does border on the metaphysical.
Human knowledge is libre is not so much a radical notion, but its particular application to technology is very radical--bordering on the spiritual.
Look at all the major world religions. They have all suffered at some point due to the schisms created by lack of smooth power succession. These problems are inherent to systems where there is one guru.
I hope I'm not decending into troll territory here, but the FreeBSD core team idea is a very good one. There are no succession problems, and the team seems to deal well with changes in staff despite the smaller numbers of people working on the project.
-Peter
The beginning of the book of Bokonon states, "All of the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies."
Seemingly a barb at the falsity of religion there is more than a little wisdom in his caution to not write off religion entirely. "Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either," writes Bokonon.
So, go my children and practice a religion, so long as it does good. Don't sweat the minor details (like the religion's veracity).
Ofcourse, I'll always hold a special place in my heart for Slak.
-Peter