I've built and configured asterisk numerous times. My production server attempt was a dual AMD 64 Opteron but I am having VoicemailMain quality problems. Have you, or anyone else here, who have installed asterisk numerous times, run into anything like this? I can't be the only one. See my email at asterisk forums for more detail. Any insight is appreciated.
Because,as you can see from the video, the amount of information that is conveyed in a pile of papers is much larger than you could ever achieve on a desktop. Then what about folders, directories, or labels? Well, so far none of these could communicate, for example, your workload at a glance. How many times have you filed something away so neatly that you can't find it hirearchically (is that even a word?) and have to resort to searching!?
--ZS
I think the spirit of his statement (i.e. cd up and then delete the folder) shows then tendancy to avoid "Kleene star (*)" whenever possible in an attemt to minimize ambiguity while executing a potentially destructive command. Since by it's very nature * matches as much as possible I'd always prefer to manually type what needs to be removed rather then taking a chance I overlooked something (which is very likely at 4AM).
I have 12+ years of *nix admin experience. During these years I worked together with many administrators of various experience levels. If I can note one correlation it would be that those lacking in admin experience tend to log in as root more often (if not always). One reason is out of an unconscious fear that something won't work and they won't be able to figure out what.
Many of the above posts advocating root login/root all the time seem to display similar characteristics. The real question is whether there is both a 10+ year and an experienced sysadmin out there who logs in as root all the time? Chances are give enough time and experience one will learn one way or another all the many reasons why all root all the time may not such a good idea?
PS. One more question for the road?
How may out there are brave enough to do "rm -rf *" (even after a pwd) as root?
Let's compare the AK47 vs. M16. The M16 is more technically advanced than the AK47 but while the American ligher M16s were jamming as soon as they got into some sand the AK47 were still working.
I think the expression was Keep It Simple Stupid!!!
Former minister of science and technology, Hrvoje Kraljevic, physist, during his mandate financally supported Djurek's work, but as he remembers, the project was not close to completion and subsequent application in everyday life such as what Dr. Djurek is discussing today. Superconductive materials exists, but currently they function at extremely low temperatures close to absolute zero. They are applied today only in special cases. Djurek's superconductive materijal supposedly functions at a much higher temperature of -70 degrees [most likely celsius]. The problem is, as far as i understand it, that it is only superconductive on surface. I don't know whether he was able to perfect his design in the meantime -explains prof. Kraljevic. He adds that the discovery of a superconductive material which would function at fairly normal temperatures would be really revolutionally. (I.K.)
Discovery verified
The material [could also be The topic] is very delicate. Dr. D. Djurek's discovery has been verified and the results held their ground. However, Meissner's [something maybee field] is missing. I am assuming it has to do with a type of superconductivity - called hyperconductivity. Additional investigation is necessary - said Dr. Mladen Prester of Zagreb's Physics Institute. The fact that the new material is mising magnetic [i think field's] makes it better for application since superconductive properties extends all the way till 400 degrees celsius, insist Djurek. Even though new technology may improve the local economy, he [there] won't see increased earnings from the superconductive discovery. It is very expensive to patent a new material. When we were suppose to protect manufacturing, croatian government was not interested in the project. Its important that the discovery will improve the overall global economy - concluded Djurek. Croatian physisit Today Dr. Danijel Djurek will annouce/present his discovery to the croatian public.
I finally get to use my croatian knowledge for something....
Here we go:
Huge Discovery
Danijel Djurek manufactured a techologically revolutionary material that helps conserve energy.
Croatian physycist discovered a conductor of electicity without resistance. Even though results are verified additional investigation is still needed according to Mladen Prester from the Physics Institute
Conduction of electiricity without loss and vehicles which with their small electrical motors travel thousands of kilometars [without recharching i guess] will soon be an everyday occurance. This revlutionary discovery, a material composed of led, silver, oxygen and water [maybee hydrogen], surounded by [i think] copper, performs as a superconductor, insists the croatian physisist Dr. Danijel Djurek. The global independant labaratory already verified this croatian scientists discovery and have announced a new technological revolution.
Some are skeptical
The quest for superconductivity, transfer of electricity without loss resulting from resistance, lasted 15 years. Massive production of wires and the installation of new materials in various compontens, ie. speakers and electrical motors, should begin in the upcoming months in Croatia and should expand throughout the world afterwards. If it suceeds, a new industrial branch should make a contribution to croatian economy.
The world acknowledges
In order for a scientific discovery to be acknowledged and subsequently published in various journals it has to be verified by independent labaratories whose members are secretely selected by teams of particular journals. Dr. Danijel Djurek's discovery has been given the green light by the independant labaratory. As a result of which an article in The Economist, Scientific American, New Scientist and a scientifict brach of New York Times, about the new superconductive material has been published. This is a landmark discovery for technology and [maybee economy, not sure]. With current techniques, transmition over high power electrical lines, results in a loss of 30% of the manufactured power. An additional 20% is lost at the consumer level. The new material is not only ecologically acceptable and will save electrical energy, time and money - said Dr. D. Djurek. Despite the support of coleagues and scientists from other parts of the word and a despite a worldwide [maybee global] ackowledgment many remain skeptical becuase Djurek's material does not emit a magnetic field. More correcty, Meissner's [something maybee work] which was though to be required in order for a material to be superconductive.
I will continue in next post as it is not relevant to discussion any more but will be there in case you want to read.
I've read about half the comments and all the positively modded were against the show continuing.
WTF. This isn't some matrix cult idea that should not be messed with. While I may wish I only watched the first matrix and left it at that I can't agree with the same philosophy on Enterprise.
I find the stories about the expanse interesting. I want to know how the Zindy (i think that's how you spell it) problem gets solved. And I don't mind the rub-down scenes. Actually now that I think about it the new format has made my girlfriend complain less about me watching the show and sometimes she even watches it.
So without inviting flame wars here. I suggest that you all think about why it is you at some point liked ST and take it with a grain of salt. ST:TNG came out over 15 years If ST:E dies now it will be a sad end to the franchise since we all clearly agree that ST:E is not the creme of the crop.
Support ST by watching even though you may not think too much of the show. We all know you secretly do that anyways.
There're all sorts of myths and objections and "common knowledge" and
"conventional wisdom" and such floating around about BSD.
I'm always a little surprised at how quick some Linux people are to
latch onto such over-simplifications and long-dead statements about the
BSDs, especially since they then spend so much effort screaming about
people doing the same thing concerning Linux.
Oh well.
Let's rip up a few.
Hardware
"BSD doesn't support common hardware."
Does Linux support hardware that BSD doesn't?
Probably.
Does it matter?
Only if you have that hardware.
I'll betcha Windows supports hardware Linux doesn't.
For that matter, MacOS probably supports hardware that none of the rest
do.
BSD supports most common hardware you'd stick in a server, most common
hardware you'd stick in a workstation, most common hardware you'd stick
in a desktop...
There are gaps, but the gaps change from release to release, just like
every other system.
Video card support, for instance, is hardly ever claimed in any BSD
documentation, while Linux documentation talks about it a lot.
That seems weird, until you realize that in the BSD worldview, the
OS isn't supporting any of those video cards; X is, which is a separate
package.
So you can use any video card under BSD that you can under Linux, since
neither the BSD kernel nor the Linux kernel is supporting the video
card.
Now, that's not strictly true, particularly in some of the more esoteric
reaches of 3D and DRI, which require more direct hardware ties and more
grubbing in the kernel itself.
Of course, I don't follow that, so I don't even know what the current
state of the world is in FreeBSD, to say nothing of Linux.
Maybe BSD doesn't have support on a par with Linux on that.
Maybe it does.
I dunno, and it'll probably change between the time I write this and the
time you read it.
But most hardware is simple.
Most common IDE and SCSI mass storage controllers work just fine.
Even most RAID controllers are supported to some extent.
Most network cards, wired and wireless, most sound cards, some
crypto-assist cards...
But it is simple.
You don't care what hardware the OS supports, as long as it
supports what you have.
Read the hardware support lists and/or just try booting it up.
You might be surprised.
When in doubt, check the lists.
Hardware support lists are available per-release, such as the lists for
5.2-RELEASE and for
4.9-RELEASE of FreeBSD.
Program Availability
"But Linux has more programs than BSD!"
How do you figure?
Most of these "programs" you're so hot about are things that are open
source or source-available anyway.
If it's written reasonably portably, 95% or better of it will compile
right off on any vaguely POSIX-compliant system.
Heck, just look in the ports tree; there are over 10,000 programs and
packages there.
Of course, there's a lot of software out there that won't compile on
anything but Linux.
Sometimes, that's because it really does require facilities
that only Linux has, or does things that only matter on Linux.
Sometimes, that means you need to pick up a 2x4 and go find the author,
because they've put in something gratuitously imcompatible through
malice or laziness.
There are people who do the same with BSD, or with HP/UX, of course, but
the rapidly growing Linux community, combined with the number of people
writing programs who have with less experience in traditional software
engineering, make it far more visible there.
Of course, there are some things that won't cross-build, particularly
those that stick their fingers deep in implementation details.
Some require only a little work to port, some major work, and some don't
even have any meaning on other systems (When did anybody ever port
Mic
Ah, now this is the part I enjoy.
Lots of soaring generalities, without a single hard fact in sight.
Saves the trouble of having to do research.
8-)
What I'm going to discuss here is some of the real and imagined
philosophical differences that both cause, and are caused by, some of the
technical and organizational differences we've discussed.
Like most such discussions, there's little that's hard-and-fast here;
there's plenty of overlap in attitudes among people in the various
camps.
And there's certainly plenty of completely deserved flak for both sides
to take, as well as undeserved flak they've been forced to.
Still, I think it's important to examine some of these splits, without
trying to presume that one is "correct" and the other is "incorrect".
Realize, I must emphasize, that a lot of this is very general.
Practically every point is riddled with exceptions.
And both systems often don't "follow the rules", or fail to meet their
own expectations.
It's more a question of inclination that of exceptionless
implementation.
I'm just saying this now, so I don't have to keep qualifying and
re-qualifying every statement I make, until it's impossible to read.
Chaos vs Order
One common generality is that the Linux methodology is the living
incarnation of chaos, whereas the BSD methodology is far more about
control.
To a large extent, it's true.
Linux grew out of a spare-time hacking background, while BSD grew out of
a controlled engineering background.
Of course, there's plenty of weekend tinkers writing BSD code, and
plenty of full-time professional programmers sloughing away at various
parts of Linux.
But the feel of the systems still does reflect that sort of schism.
We've already discussed the construction methodology; BSD builds up a
core system which is uniform, whereas Linux distributions takes
pre-existing pieces and pretty much puts them together helter-skelter.
Naturally, the BSD method is far more amenable to keeping things
ordered, while the Linux method practically necessitates utter chaos.
That's not to say that chaos is inherently bad, or order
inherently good.
They're just different environments.
Linux will also generally chase new versions of other programs much more
closely, adopting particularly more major changes like Apache 2 much
sooner than BSD will move that way.
Now, the stricter separation of "base" vs "ports" in BSD, as well as the
structure of the ports tree itself, make it easier to have multiple
parallel versions of packages in BSD.
Sometimes, it's even possible and easy to have multiple versions
installed at the same time.
Linux, by not having that sort of separation, makes it very difficult to
have parallel versions, and instead almost requires a single "blessed"
one.
And the primacy of source-compiling in packages also makes it easier to
handle multiple versions.
For instance, PHP must be compiled
differently depending on whether you're using Apache 1.3 or Apache 2.
With from-source packages like ports, I can define an environmental
variable when I compile and install PHP to tell it whether to use Apache
1.3 or Apache 2.
With binary packages, you'd have to have 2 separate packages available,
which will lead to confusion sooner or later.
Right vs Wrong
The difference can also be seen in the way core code is integrated.
BSD tends to always shy away from hackish solutions when there's even a
hint of a proper solution in the wings.
The theory is that it's far easier to wait for the clean answer, than to
integrate the dirty answer now, for several reasons.
For one thing, if you integrate the dirty answer, that reduces the
incentive to implement a better one.
For another, once you dirty up the architecture to integrate something
it'll never get cleaned up again.
You know it as well as I do.
Oh, sure, you'll say it's temporary.
But you know
Then, there's the second category; those programs which are add-on
packages.
In the BSD world, this is usually called the "ports system".
That name is chosen for a specific reason.
Traditionally, when you wanted to run a package on your system, the
first thing you had to do was compile it.
And often before you could compile it, you'd have to fiddle with it.
Your system would require different header files.
Sometimes, manifest constants would be different.
Sometimes, you'd even need to rewrite parts of it from scratch, because
of basic assumption that didn't hold on your system.
Or, in other words, you'd have to "port" it to your OS, and/or to
your specific system.
The basic intent of the ports system is to do all that "porting" stuff
for you.
That it also automates building and installing, and provides packaging
services (for things like 'uninstall') isn't as well reflected in the
name.
But as with many things, it grew past its name into the beast it is
today.
The current FreeBSD ports collection has close to 10,000 packages in it
(this number will, of course, be outdated quickly, but that's the nature
of development).
The most obvious feature of ports is that it builds things from source
all the time, rather than just install pre-built binaries.
This, it seems, is another one of those blatant differences that trip
people up when trying to look at BSD from a Linux perspective.
That it builds from source is just a side effect, it's not the primary
purpose or difference.
Binary packages are also available; in fact, binary packages are built
from the ports tree!
Now, it's true that most Linux users install binary packages, and most
BSD users install by building from source.
Partly, that's a result of the tools; the ports system is designed
around the concept of building from source, with the ability to make and
install binary packages being something of an afterthought, while Linux
packaging like RPM and dpkg and such are designed around the concept of
installing a binary package, with building from source as an
afterthought.
Some of this is historical; binary packaging historically isn't a
predominant theme in Unix systems, as I mentioned earlier.
For that matter, packaging itself is a more recent thing.
Traditionally, you'd deal with uninstalling and such manually.
Gentoo is a Linux distribution gaining in prominence these days.
One of its big selling points is its
portage
system, which is often considered very similar to BSD ports.
Perhaps most visibly, in that it compiles from source.
That avoids a lot of the problem of binary packages.
I've never used it myself, but the impressions I've gotten from
information I've seen on it, and people I know who have used
it, is that it's taken some good ideas from everyone, and smooshed them
together.
It'll be very interesting to see how it progresses and matures over the
next few years.
It's still much more Linux than BSD, but it may well be the closest to
the BSD style of the major Linux distributions.
Now, there are advantages to pre-compiled binaries; mostly time (as in
much less), and usually it'll take a lot less space to install a
pre-compiled package, than it would to compile the package.
There are also advantages to building from source, like avoiding all
sorts of library versioning ugliness (my personal pet peeve with binary
packages).
You can install binary packages on Linux or BSD; you can build from
source on Linux or BSD.
But the users seem to be biased differently, because the systems are
biased differently, because the users are biased differently... it all
dovetails.
I guess what's important here is to realize that the difference between
ports and RPM's isn't just that ports compile and RPM's just install.
Ports are designed to cover the full range of bits and pieces of
installing stuff; encoding and tracking and installing depe
I read your horror story. Reminds me of a few I had to endure.
Do you think if, at the beggining of our conversation with the CSR, we told them that "for our mutual protection this conversation is being recorded" the CSR would have grounds to refuse talking to us?
We could post the recordings to accompany personal accounts of customer service nightmares which the company would have a hard time refutting.
I wonder whether there are legal issues that could be raised to force us to take the recordings down?
Just my 0.02. I'd really love to do it but, just as I already learned the hard way, I don't want to test the waters unless I'm prepared to see the fight to the end.
And, in many cases, for various reasons (including financial) us "little people" don't have the resources,time,sainty to see it to the very end.
Slashdot Mirror
I've built and configured asterisk numerous times. My production server attempt was a dual AMD 64 Opteron but I am having VoicemailMain quality problems. Have you, or anyone else here, who have installed asterisk numerous times, run into anything like this? I can't be the only one. See my email at asterisk forums for more detail. Any insight is appreciated.
Would that be termed as "Blackbox Shopping"?
Because,as you can see from the video, the amount of information that is conveyed in a pile of papers is much larger than you could ever achieve on a desktop. Then what about folders, directories, or labels? Well, so far none of these could communicate, for example, your workload at a glance. How many times have you filed something away so neatly that you can't find it hirearchically (is that even a word?) and have to resort to searching!? --ZS
I think the spirit of his statement (i.e. cd up and then delete the folder) shows then tendancy to avoid "Kleene star (*)" whenever possible in an attemt to minimize ambiguity while executing a potentially destructive command. Since by it's very nature * matches as much as possible I'd always prefer to manually type what needs to be removed rather then taking a chance I overlooked something (which is very likely at 4AM).
Many of the above posts advocating root login/root all the time seem to display similar characteristics. The real question is whether there is both a 10+ year and an experienced sysadmin out there who logs in as root all the time? Chances are give enough time and experience one will learn one way or another all the many reasons why all root all the time may not such a good idea?
PS. One more question for the road? How may out there are brave enough to do "rm -rf *" (even after a pwd) as root?
Just to add to your point.
Let's compare the AK47 vs. M16. The M16 is more technically advanced than the AK47 but while the American ligher M16s were jamming as soon as they got into some sand the AK47 were still working.
I think the expression was Keep It Simple Stupid!!!
Kraljevic supported investigation
Former minister of science and technology, Hrvoje Kraljevic, physist, during his mandate financally supported Djurek's work, but as he remembers, the project was not close to completion and subsequent application in everyday life such as what Dr. Djurek is discussing today. Superconductive materials exists, but currently they function at extremely low temperatures close to absolute zero. They are applied today only in special cases. Djurek's superconductive materijal supposedly functions at a much higher temperature of -70 degrees [most likely celsius]. The problem is, as far as i understand it, that it is only superconductive on surface. I don't know whether he was able to perfect his design in the meantime -explains prof. Kraljevic. He adds that the discovery of a superconductive material which would function at fairly normal temperatures would be really revolutionally. (I.K.)
Discovery verified
The material [could also be The topic] is very delicate. Dr. D. Djurek's discovery has been verified and the results held their ground. However, Meissner's [something maybee field] is missing. I am assuming it has to do with a type of superconductivity - called hyperconductivity. Additional investigation is necessary - said Dr. Mladen Prester of Zagreb's Physics Institute. The fact that the new material is mising magnetic [i think field's] makes it better for application since superconductive properties extends all the way till 400 degrees celsius, insist Djurek. Even though new technology may improve the local economy, he [there] won't see increased earnings from the superconductive discovery. It is very expensive to patent a new material. When we were suppose to protect manufacturing, croatian government was not interested in the project. Its important that the discovery will improve the overall global economy - concluded Djurek. Croatian physisit Today Dr. Danijel Djurek will annouce/present his discovery to the croatian public.
Article written by Zoran Turkovic
pheeeeeeeeew. that was tough.
I finally get to use my croatian knowledge for something ....
Here we go:
Huge Discovery
Danijel Djurek manufactured a techologically revolutionary material that helps conserve energy.
Croatian physycist discovered a conductor of electicity without resistance. Even though results are verified additional investigation is still needed according to Mladen Prester from the Physics Institute
Conduction of electiricity without loss and vehicles which with their small electrical motors travel thousands of kilometars [without recharching i guess] will soon be an everyday occurance. This revlutionary discovery, a material composed of led, silver, oxygen and water [maybee hydrogen], surounded by [i think] copper, performs as a superconductor, insists the croatian physisist Dr. Danijel Djurek. The global independant labaratory already verified this croatian scientists discovery and have announced a new technological revolution.
Some are skeptical
The quest for superconductivity, transfer of electricity without loss resulting from resistance, lasted 15 years. Massive production of wires and the installation of new materials in various compontens, ie. speakers and electrical motors, should begin in the upcoming months in Croatia and should expand throughout the world afterwards. If it suceeds, a new industrial branch should make a contribution to croatian economy.
The world acknowledges
In order for a scientific discovery to be acknowledged and subsequently published in various journals it has to be verified by independent labaratories whose members are secretely selected by teams of particular journals. Dr. Danijel Djurek's discovery has been given the green light by the independant labaratory. As a result of which an article in The Economist, Scientific American, New Scientist and a scientifict brach of New York Times, about the new superconductive material has been published. This is a landmark discovery for technology and [maybee economy, not sure]. With current techniques, transmition over high power electrical lines, results in a loss of 30% of the manufactured power. An additional 20% is lost at the consumer level. The new material is not only ecologically acceptable and will save electrical energy, time and money - said Dr. D. Djurek. Despite the support of coleagues and scientists from other parts of the word and a despite a worldwide [maybee global] ackowledgment many remain skeptical becuase Djurek's material does not emit a magnetic field. More correcty, Meissner's [something maybee work] which was though to be required in order for a material to be superconductive.
I will continue in next post as it is not relevant to discussion any more but will be there in case you want to read.
Search for item #3456315281.
I've read about half the comments and all the positively modded were against the show continuing.
WTF. This isn't some matrix cult idea that should not be messed with. While I may wish I only watched the first matrix and left it at that I can't agree with the same philosophy on Enterprise.
I find the stories about the expanse interesting. I want to know how the Zindy (i think that's how you spell it) problem gets solved. And I don't mind the rub-down scenes. Actually now that I think about it the new format has made my girlfriend complain less about me watching the show and sometimes she even watches it.
So without inviting flame wars here. I suggest that you all think about why it is you at some point liked ST and take it with a grain of salt. ST:TNG came out over 15 years If ST:E dies now it will be a sad end to the franchise since we all clearly agree that ST:E is not the creme of the crop.
Support ST by watching even though you may not think too much of the show. We all know you secretly do that anyways.
General
There're all sorts of myths and objections and "common knowledge" and "conventional wisdom" and such floating around about BSD. I'm always a little surprised at how quick some Linux people are to latch onto such over-simplifications and long-dead statements about the BSDs, especially since they then spend so much effort screaming about people doing the same thing concerning Linux. Oh well. Let's rip up a few.
Hardware
"BSD doesn't support common hardware."
Does Linux support hardware that BSD doesn't? Probably. Does it matter? Only if you have that hardware.
I'll betcha Windows supports hardware Linux doesn't. For that matter, MacOS probably supports hardware that none of the rest do. BSD supports most common hardware you'd stick in a server, most common hardware you'd stick in a workstation, most common hardware you'd stick in a desktop... There are gaps, but the gaps change from release to release, just like every other system.
Video card support, for instance, is hardly ever claimed in any BSD documentation, while Linux documentation talks about it a lot. That seems weird, until you realize that in the BSD worldview, the OS isn't supporting any of those video cards; X is, which is a separate package. So you can use any video card under BSD that you can under Linux, since neither the BSD kernel nor the Linux kernel is supporting the video card. Now, that's not strictly true, particularly in some of the more esoteric reaches of 3D and DRI, which require more direct hardware ties and more grubbing in the kernel itself. Of course, I don't follow that, so I don't even know what the current state of the world is in FreeBSD, to say nothing of Linux. Maybe BSD doesn't have support on a par with Linux on that. Maybe it does. I dunno, and it'll probably change between the time I write this and the time you read it.
But most hardware is simple. Most common IDE and SCSI mass storage controllers work just fine. Even most RAID controllers are supported to some extent. Most network cards, wired and wireless, most sound cards, some crypto-assist cards...
But it is simple. You don't care what hardware the OS supports, as long as it supports what you have. Read the hardware support lists and/or just try booting it up. You might be surprised.
When in doubt, check the lists. Hardware support lists are available per-release, such as the lists for 5.2-RELEASE and for 4.9-RELEASE of FreeBSD.
Program Availability
"But Linux has more programs than BSD!"
How do you figure? Most of these "programs" you're so hot about are things that are open source or source-available anyway. If it's written reasonably portably, 95% or better of it will compile right off on any vaguely POSIX-compliant system. Heck, just look in the ports tree; there are over 10,000 programs and packages there.
Of course, there's a lot of software out there that won't compile on anything but Linux. Sometimes, that's because it really does require facilities that only Linux has, or does things that only matter on Linux. Sometimes, that means you need to pick up a 2x4 and go find the author, because they've put in something gratuitously imcompatible through malice or laziness. There are people who do the same with BSD, or with HP/UX, of course, but the rapidly growing Linux community, combined with the number of people writing programs who have with less experience in traditional software engineering, make it far more visible there.
Of course, there are some things that won't cross-build, particularly those that stick their fingers deep in implementation details. Some require only a little work to port, some major work, and some don't even have any meaning on other systems (When did anybody ever port Mic
General
Ah, now this is the part I enjoy. Lots of soaring generalities, without a single hard fact in sight. Saves the trouble of having to do research. 8-)
What I'm going to discuss here is some of the real and imagined philosophical differences that both cause, and are caused by, some of the technical and organizational differences we've discussed. Like most such discussions, there's little that's hard-and-fast here; there's plenty of overlap in attitudes among people in the various camps. And there's certainly plenty of completely deserved flak for both sides to take, as well as undeserved flak they've been forced to. Still, I think it's important to examine some of these splits, without trying to presume that one is "correct" and the other is "incorrect".
Realize, I must emphasize, that a lot of this is very general. Practically every point is riddled with exceptions. And both systems often don't "follow the rules", or fail to meet their own expectations. It's more a question of inclination that of exceptionless implementation. I'm just saying this now, so I don't have to keep qualifying and re-qualifying every statement I make, until it's impossible to read.
Chaos vs Order
One common generality is that the Linux methodology is the living incarnation of chaos, whereas the BSD methodology is far more about control. To a large extent, it's true. Linux grew out of a spare-time hacking background, while BSD grew out of a controlled engineering background. Of course, there's plenty of weekend tinkers writing BSD code, and plenty of full-time professional programmers sloughing away at various parts of Linux. But the feel of the systems still does reflect that sort of schism.
We've already discussed the construction methodology; BSD builds up a core system which is uniform, whereas Linux distributions takes pre-existing pieces and pretty much puts them together helter-skelter. Naturally, the BSD method is far more amenable to keeping things ordered, while the Linux method practically necessitates utter chaos. That's not to say that chaos is inherently bad, or order inherently good. They're just different environments.
Linux will also generally chase new versions of other programs much more closely, adopting particularly more major changes like Apache 2 much sooner than BSD will move that way. Now, the stricter separation of "base" vs "ports" in BSD, as well as the structure of the ports tree itself, make it easier to have multiple parallel versions of packages in BSD. Sometimes, it's even possible and easy to have multiple versions installed at the same time. Linux, by not having that sort of separation, makes it very difficult to have parallel versions, and instead almost requires a single "blessed" one.
And the primacy of source-compiling in packages also makes it easier to handle multiple versions. For instance, PHP must be compiled differently depending on whether you're using Apache 1.3 or Apache 2. With from-source packages like ports, I can define an environmental variable when I compile and install PHP to tell it whether to use Apache 1.3 or Apache 2. With binary packages, you'd have to have 2 separate packages available, which will lead to confusion sooner or later.
Right vs Wrong
The difference can also be seen in the way core code is integrated. BSD tends to always shy away from hackish solutions when there's even a hint of a proper solution in the wings. The theory is that it's far easier to wait for the clean answer, than to integrate the dirty answer now, for several reasons. For one thing, if you integrate the dirty answer, that reduces the incentive to implement a better one. For another, once you dirty up the architecture to integrate something it'll never get cleaned up again. You know it as well as I do. Oh, sure, you'll say it's temporary. But you know
Then, there's the second category; those programs which are add-on packages. In the BSD world, this is usually called the "ports system". That name is chosen for a specific reason.
Traditionally, when you wanted to run a package on your system, the first thing you had to do was compile it. And often before you could compile it, you'd have to fiddle with it. Your system would require different header files. Sometimes, manifest constants would be different. Sometimes, you'd even need to rewrite parts of it from scratch, because of basic assumption that didn't hold on your system.
Or, in other words, you'd have to "port" it to your OS, and/or to your specific system. The basic intent of the ports system is to do all that "porting" stuff for you. That it also automates building and installing, and provides packaging services (for things like 'uninstall') isn't as well reflected in the name.
But as with many things, it grew past its name into the beast it is today. The current FreeBSD ports collection has close to 10,000 packages in it (this number will, of course, be outdated quickly, but that's the nature of development). The most obvious feature of ports is that it builds things from source all the time, rather than just install pre-built binaries. This, it seems, is another one of those blatant differences that trip people up when trying to look at BSD from a Linux perspective. That it builds from source is just a side effect, it's not the primary purpose or difference. Binary packages are also available; in fact, binary packages are built from the ports tree!
Now, it's true that most Linux users install binary packages, and most BSD users install by building from source. Partly, that's a result of the tools; the ports system is designed around the concept of building from source, with the ability to make and install binary packages being something of an afterthought, while Linux packaging like RPM and dpkg and such are designed around the concept of installing a binary package, with building from source as an afterthought. Some of this is historical; binary packaging historically isn't a predominant theme in Unix systems, as I mentioned earlier. For that matter, packaging itself is a more recent thing. Traditionally, you'd deal with uninstalling and such manually.
Gentoo is a Linux distribution gaining in prominence these days. One of its big selling points is its portage system, which is often considered very similar to BSD ports. Perhaps most visibly, in that it compiles from source. That avoids a lot of the problem of binary packages. I've never used it myself, but the impressions I've gotten from information I've seen on it, and people I know who have used it, is that it's taken some good ideas from everyone, and smooshed them together. It'll be very interesting to see how it progresses and matures over the next few years. It's still much more Linux than BSD, but it may well be the closest to the BSD style of the major Linux distributions.
Now, there are advantages to pre-compiled binaries; mostly time (as in much less), and usually it'll take a lot less space to install a pre-compiled package, than it would to compile the package. There are also advantages to building from source, like avoiding all sorts of library versioning ugliness (my personal pet peeve with binary packages). You can install binary packages on Linux or BSD; you can build from source on Linux or BSD. But the users seem to be biased differently, because the systems are biased differently, because the users are biased differently... it all dovetails.
I guess what's important here is to realize that the difference between ports and RPM's isn't just that ports compile and RPM's just install. Ports are designed to cover the full range of bits and pieces of installing stuff; encoding and tracking and installing depe
Do you think if, at the beggining of our conversation with the CSR, we told them that "for our mutual protection this conversation is being recorded" the CSR would have grounds to refuse talking to us? We could post the recordings to accompany personal accounts of customer service nightmares which the company would have a hard time refutting.
I wonder whether there are legal issues that could be raised to force us to take the recordings down?
Just my 0.02. I'd really love to do it but, just as I already learned the hard way, I don't want to test the waters unless I'm prepared to see the fight to the end. And, in many cases, for various reasons (including financial) us "little people" don't have the resources,time,sainty to see it to the very end.