Yes. I smelled free porn and clicked right away, but well, it wasn't the kind of porn I was expecting. I'll think these two minutes next time tho.
Re:What's the point in FreeBSD?
on
FreeBSD 5.4 Review
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"It looks like FreeBSD just tries to follow Linux, ie. make something that tries to do a bit everything without any focus."
FreeBSD is older than Linux.
"The software is the same. Running Gnome, KDE, Firefox or Emacs on FreeBSD or on Linux doesn't change anything, it's the same source code.
The common userland apps are the same. There are minor differences like "cp -a" that doesn't work on FreeBSD, but it doesn't really make any difference, the same things can be done the same way."
What's the point in running Linux ?
"So what? Stability? Well... my vanilla Ubuntu workstation never crashed so far. Gnome sometimes did odd things, but it's Gnome, the same odd things would happen on any operating system, running it on FreeBSD won't magically fix these bugs. So what would it change to run a FreeBSD kernel instead of a Linux kernel? Looking at the FreeBSD mailing-lists, I see people who are experiencing kernel panics, hangs, corruption and other badness. Just like on Linux mailing-lists, or just like on any operating system mailing-list in fact."
FreeBSD is faster on the desktop. FreeBSD can run linux apps faster than native Linux. Let's talk about servers. What's the difference between using the two different kernels? avoid being killed with fork(), not being owned 5 types by different coding errors on the same function, not having a root exploit on the kernel every month. That's the difference.
"Security? Looking at bugtraq, when a vulnerability is found in Unix software, it usually affects every operating system, FreeBSD is never an exception."
Really? Tell me how FreeBSD would be vulnerable to a bad implementation of linux's passwd, for example.
"Linux has some things to mitigate exploitation of these vulnerabilities like SELinux and grsecurity. I don't see anything similar in FreeBSD."
Have you looked at -CURRENT ?
"Linux has kernel vulnerabilities that allow root compromises. FreeBSD has the same weakness. Looking at bugtraq archives from 2003 to 2005, there have been even more kernel vulnerabilities (at least disclosed ones, and posted on bugtraq) in FreeBSD that in any other operating system and some were even remotely exploitable through the tcp/ip stack."
Sorry, again you're confusing. It was linux that was crasheable by bugs on the firewall they use.
"Another thing is that FreeBSD has almost no commercial support. Hardware vendors (like storage arrays) and closed-source software vendors usually support a few Linux distributions like RHES and Novell, but not much. And definitely not BSD. Well, sometimes, but it's rare compared to Linux."
in my country we say: 'I ask for forgiveness and leave.'
"So what? Performance? Everytime I've seen a FreeBSD vs Linux benchmark, Linux 2.6 was faster. Sometimes not a lot, but never slower. Except a special case of routing packets using a specific framework. But not in common cases like running Apache/MySQL/PHP or on a workstation."
You've been looking at the wrong benchmarks. Linux only recently beated FreeBSD on benchmarks, by very few points, stable kernel vs d
There are addictive games for consoles, and there are addictive games for PC. While it's true you can use the internet on a console nowdays, it's not the same thing. You have much more liberty while using the net on a pc, and more programs you can use (ie voice programs, chatting with friends). Plus, more and more people enjoy a good multiplayer game these days, and the PC will always win on that field. IMO, there is a market for both console and pc games; Personally, I play games on consoles that, because of the way they're played, require a joystick. Some games just can't be enjoyed as well as a console game by playing with the keyboard/mouse (true you also have joysticks for PC, but it's not the same..). Also, it's a lot of fun to play some fighting game against local friends, and PC games also can't beat that. But where consoles are strong, they are also weak. The joystick limits you a lot on a lot of games. Try to play a first person shooter aiming with a PS2 joystick, and you'll know what I'm talking about. Try a good RPG with a joystick, and you'll notice how better a keyboard/mouse combo is. For these reasons, I don't think the console market will kill the PC games, or vice versa. There are users and demands for each of these markets. I play PC games a lot more than console, and I'd say PC are superior gaming machines (specs, internet, keyboard/mouse). But I must admit it's a lot of fun to do some Dragon Ball Budokai 3 fighting with friends every couple of weeks:)
... when you can have a P200 with a wireless card running a flavour of BSD running pf+altq ? (or linux, for that matter), giving priority to gaming packets ?
And you are enough of an asshole to post a comment like that. Search some past activism from Theo/OpenBSD and you might come across something you seem to ignore.
pkgsrc is easier to work than ports?
I don't understand what could be easier than cd/usr/ports/category/portname ; make install clean
But that's just me..
6) no root exploits every month
7) decent codebase
8) organized filesystem layout
9) commits to the OS are closely monitored and quality-assured, unlike linux
10) an OS as a whole, not just a kernel.
That blog is from 2004.. Anyway, I've been using pass-PHRASES for years, on BSD systems and Windows 2000. My Windows 2000 password used to have 63 characters. Nobody believed me, because nobody realized it wasn't any kind of random junk, but two mixed sentences I could easily remember.
Really, don't try to argue about OpenBSD's security. It is indeed the most secure OS known to man. Very polished code, frequent audits, non-executable stack, and I think nobody mentioned this yet-- systrace. Combine all these and you get THE operating system for a secure environment. Personally, I think OpenBSD is still a lot slower (performance-wise) than FreeBSD or NetBSD. As NetBSD has systrace and non executable stack (on archs that support it), I'd say NetBSD is the combined choice of security and performance. I am a FreeBSD user (now this starts to sound like a BSD orgy lol), and it's still my favourite *BSD, but NetBSD 2.0 has grown a lot since the latest version and with the verified exec & systrace facilities, it's a very good security/performance combo.
I use FreeBSD as a desktop and I'm forced to use NVIDIA too.
NVIDIA drivers are really nice nowdays, I never had a crash or an instant reboot as I had with the first drivers they made for FreeBSD (back to 4.6 or 4.7-RELEASE)
NVIDIA drivers might not be open source, but I'd rather use a closed-source, working driver (NVIDIA) than a open-source, screwed up driver (ATI).
ATI only looses by not having good open source drivers, as more and more people switch to free operating system these days. Most of them also need to upgrade their system, so why not but NVIDIA along?
You actually shouldn't upgrade from 4.X to 5.X, it should cause a lot of trouble since 4.X and 5.X are VERY different. Even if it works, you'll end up with a lot of files that won't serve any purpose on 5.X. Better to reinstall 5.3 from CD, nice & clean.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. I smelled free porn and clicked right away, but well, it wasn't the kind of porn I was expecting. I'll think these two minutes next time tho.
"It looks like FreeBSD just tries to follow Linux, ie. make something that tries to do a bit everything without any focus."
...
/usr/ports/sysutils/aaccli
/usr/ports/sysutils/asr-utils
FreeBSD is older than Linux.
"The software is the same. Running Gnome, KDE, Firefox or Emacs on FreeBSD or on Linux doesn't change anything, it's the same source code.
The common userland apps are the same. There are minor differences like "cp -a" that doesn't work on FreeBSD, but it doesn't really make any difference, the same things can be done the same way."
What's the point in running Linux ?
"So what? Stability? Well... my vanilla Ubuntu workstation never crashed so far. Gnome sometimes did odd things, but it's Gnome, the same odd things would happen on any operating system, running it on FreeBSD won't magically fix these bugs. So what would it change to run a FreeBSD kernel instead of a Linux kernel? Looking at the FreeBSD mailing-lists, I see people who are experiencing kernel panics, hangs, corruption and other badness. Just like on Linux mailing-lists, or just like on any operating system mailing-list in fact."
FreeBSD is faster on the desktop. FreeBSD can run linux apps faster than native Linux. Let's talk about servers. What's the difference between using the two different kernels? avoid being killed with fork(), not being owned 5 types by different coding errors on the same function, not having a root exploit on the kernel every month. That's the difference.
"Security? Looking at bugtraq, when a vulnerability is found in Unix software, it usually affects every operating system, FreeBSD is never an exception."
Really? Tell me how FreeBSD would be vulnerable to a bad implementation of linux's passwd, for example.
"Linux has some things to mitigate exploitation of these vulnerabilities like SELinux and grsecurity. I don't see anything similar in FreeBSD."
Have you looked at -CURRENT ?
"Linux has kernel vulnerabilities that allow root compromises. FreeBSD has the same weakness. Looking at bugtraq archives from 2003 to 2005, there have been even more kernel vulnerabilities (at least disclosed ones, and posted on bugtraq) in FreeBSD that in any other operating system and some were even remotely exploitable through the tcp/ip stack."
keyword "FreeBSD" -->
Found: 76 Secunia Security Advisories, displaying 1-25
keyword "Linux" -->
Found: 3264 Secunia Security Advisories, displaying 1-25
outchie...
Sorry, again you're confusing. It was linux that was crasheable by bugs on the firewall they use.
"Another thing is that FreeBSD has almost no commercial support. Hardware vendors (like storage arrays) and closed-source software vendors usually support a few Linux distributions like RHES and Novell, but not much. And definitely not BSD. Well, sometimes, but it's rare compared to Linux."
$ make search key=adaptec
Port: aaccli-1.0
Path:
Info: Adaptec SCSI RAID administration tool
Maint: bms@FreeBSD.org
B-deps:
R-deps:
WWW: http://support.dell.com/
Port: asr-utils-3.04
Path:
Info: Adaptec ASR RAID Management Software
Maint: obrien@FreeBSD.org
B-deps: compat4x-i386-5.3 expat-1.95.8 fontconfig-2.2.3,1 freetype2-2.1.9 pkgconfig-0.15.0_1 xorg-libraries-6.8.2
R-deps: compat4x-i386-5.3 expat-1.95.8 fontconfig-2.2.3,1 freetype2-2.1.9 pkgconfig-0.15.0_1 xorg-libraries-6.8.2
WWW:
in my country we say: 'I ask for forgiveness and leave.'
"So what? Performance? Everytime I've seen a FreeBSD vs Linux benchmark, Linux 2.6 was faster. Sometimes not a lot, but never slower. Except a special case of routing packets using a specific framework. But not in common cases like running Apache/MySQL/PHP or on a workstation."
You've been looking at the wrong benchmarks. Linux only recently beated FreeBSD on benchmarks, by very few points, stable kernel vs d
There are addictive games for consoles, and there are addictive games for PC. While it's true you can use the internet on a console nowdays, it's not the same thing. You have much more liberty while using the net on a pc, and more programs you can use (ie voice programs, chatting with friends). Plus, more and more people enjoy a good multiplayer game these days, and the PC will always win on that field. IMO, there is a market for both console and pc games; Personally, I play games on consoles that, because of the way they're played, require a joystick. Some games just can't be enjoyed as well as a console game by playing with the keyboard/mouse (true you also have joysticks for PC, but it's not the same..). Also, it's a lot of fun to play some fighting game against local friends, and PC games also can't beat that. But where consoles are strong, they are also weak. The joystick limits you a lot on a lot of games. Try to play a first person shooter aiming with a PS2 joystick, and you'll know what I'm talking about. Try a good RPG with a joystick, and you'll notice how better a keyboard/mouse combo is. For these reasons, I don't think the console market will kill the PC games, or vice versa. There are users and demands for each of these markets. I play PC games a lot more than console, and I'd say PC are superior gaming machines (specs, internet, keyboard/mouse). But I must admit it's a lot of fun to do some Dragon Ball Budokai 3 fighting with friends every couple of weeks :)
... when you can have a P200 with a wireless card running a flavour of BSD running pf+altq ? (or linux, for that matter), giving priority to gaming packets ?
why the fuck do you keep saying fuck, for fucks sake ?
And you are enough of an asshole to post a comment like that. Search some past activism from Theo/OpenBSD and you might come across something you seem to ignore.
Many, actually. And if it gets supported on obsd, chances are it will be ported to free/net.
So, it's in everyone's best interests.
After smoking some good weed, I always see the flickering..
I subscribe too :)
pkgsrc is easier to work than ports? I don't understand what could be easier than cd /usr/ports/category/portname ; make install clean
But that's just me..
6) no root exploits every month 7) decent codebase 8) organized filesystem layout 9) commits to the OS are closely monitored and quality-assured, unlike linux 10) an OS as a whole, not just a kernel.
Are you saying the web is full of p0rn ? How dare you!!
That blog is from 2004.. Anyway, I've been using pass-PHRASES for years, on BSD systems and Windows 2000. My Windows 2000 password used to have 63 characters. Nobody believed me, because nobody realized it wasn't any kind of random junk, but two mixed sentences I could easily remember.
this patent stuff is going too far.. hopefully they'll mean nothing in europe
Really, don't try to argue about OpenBSD's security. It is indeed the most secure OS known to man. Very polished code, frequent audits, non-executable stack, and I think nobody mentioned this yet-- systrace. Combine all these and you get THE operating system for a secure environment. Personally, I think OpenBSD is still a lot slower (performance-wise) than FreeBSD or NetBSD. As NetBSD has systrace and non executable stack (on archs that support it), I'd say NetBSD is the combined choice of security and performance. I am a FreeBSD user (now this starts to sound like a BSD orgy lol), and it's still my favourite *BSD, but NetBSD 2.0 has grown a lot since the latest version and with the verified exec & systrace facilities, it's a very good security/performance combo.
Bill Gates unstable? You call this news ?
With so many root holes on Linux, it's natural the amount of bugs keep getting down as more and more are published.
Finally, a *BSD related discussion on /. that's constructive and objective, with people giving valid points of view and opinions.. Keep it up!
BSD has native NVIDIA drivers.
I use FreeBSD as a desktop and I'm forced to use NVIDIA too.
NVIDIA drivers are really nice nowdays, I never had a crash or an instant reboot as I had with the first drivers they made for FreeBSD (back to 4.6 or 4.7-RELEASE)
NVIDIA drivers might not be open source, but I'd rather use a closed-source, working driver (NVIDIA) than a open-source, screwed up driver (ATI).
ATI only looses by not having good open source drivers, as more and more people switch to free operating system these days. Most of them also need to upgrade their system, so why not but NVIDIA along?
OH SHIT
would have to be a long, long list
Because he probably thought a lot of ./ users use Firefox, so he asked our opinion. It doesn't take mozilla.org forums to get a public opinion, right?
heh, I want one of these.. At least now, I can pretend I have dinner on the table every night!
You actually shouldn't upgrade from 4.X to 5.X, it should cause a lot of trouble since 4.X and 5.X are VERY different. Even if it works, you'll end up with a lot of files that won't serve any purpose on 5.X. Better to reinstall 5.3 from CD, nice & clean.