That's very strange... I've been successfully using Linux emulation since the first time I got a graphical FreeBSD desktop going (around 2.2.2 I think). Even then, I had Wordperfect for Linux, RealPlayer, and the Linux version of ICQ all working.
Have you tried posting the specifics of your problems to the freebsd-emulation mailing list?
With Linux, you have an active common component: the kernel. This is the common denominator across Linux distributions. The distribution will take a certain version (more or less current) of the kernel, maybe tweak it a bit, surround it with userland tools of their choice, and now you have a complete OS distribution. Meanwhile, the common component (the kernel) continues separate development by Linus and crew. A new kernel is released, and later on you see updated versions of the distributions all based upon this new common code. And so on.
The relationship between the *BSDs however is purely historical. There is no ongoing common BSD kernel that is developed separate from each project which is then shared by all. As a result, you don't tend to here a *BSD user say they run "BSD" like a RH/Debian/Gentoo/SuSE user might say they run "Linux". Instead, they name the specific BSD they use. I don't run BSD, I run FreeBSD. Saying you run "BSD" is pretty meaningless. However, saying you run "Linux" defines you better as a Gentoo/whatever user as you share an ongoing common relationship with all other Linux distributions.
Many years ago, when I was doing computer repair for the masses as my job, a customer brought in a laptop they had dropped. I determined immediately before taking it apart that the only thing broken was the tiny thin flourescent tube that lit the backlight. The customer wasn't in any rush and was willing to wait as long as they didn't have to buy a new laptop. First I called the laptop manufacturer. They couldn't help me, but told me who manufactured the displays. I called them, and after some work got a smart person on the phone. They told me they didn't have the bulb, but they could have one sent over on the next shipment from Japan, and would sell it to me. I said go for it. So we waited... several months. One day, the bulb arrived. I put it in, wrapped it up, charged the customer the little bit for the part and my time, and everyone was happy. I don't remember the bill, but it was probably under $100.
Anyway, my question is this: How is FreeBSD as a desktop system?
Good! It's been my primary desktop at home for over a year now.
I no longer care much for WineX, and am far more interested in how well things like TV Tuners
Got a WinTV card for xmas, works great!
Digital Cameras
Haven't done this yet but will soon, have done some research though. At the very lest, you could get a separate media-reader and use it that way (which would be fastest). But there are programs like digikam and gtkam which provide a direct link.
USB
I have a USB mouse (Logitech) and laser printer (Laserjet 1012).
Disclaimer: I am not anti-Linux. However, here is why I like FreeBSD..
1) PORTS. FreeBSD could win on this point alone. The ports system is AWESOME. I have never used Linux, but I hear a lot of people bitch about RPMs and "dependency hell". FreeBSD has dependencies but the ports system tracks all that. Every file, every version, every port is noted. I can just go to a directory and type "make clean install" and everything will be downloaded, built to my tastes, along with all dependencies and their dependencies and built in the proper order, then registered in the database. Daily I sync my ports tree and see what's new. If I want it, I can upgrade it (along with dependencies) safely with one command. It just doesn't get better than this. Recently, FreeBSD pass the 10,000 ports mark. There's also a nice overview of the ports system at Arstechnica.
2) Stability. FreeBSD is notoriously stable. You can pick any Netcraft report (such as here, here, here, here, or here. ) for evidence of this.
3) Consolidation. There is only one "FreeBSD". If I have 5.2 and you have 5.2, we have the same OS. There is no one "Linux". In reality, Linux is a kernel, and when you add a userland then you have a distribution. FreeBSD is kernel + userland.
4) File organization. Linux seems to lay out its file hierarchy somewhat randomly, with no consistancy of where an installed executable binary might be placed or separation of base/user. FreeBSD has polished this and adheres rigidly to a formal structure. For example, I know my base system is under/usr/bin. When I install an app, I know it'll be beneath/usr/local/bin for console apps or/usr/X11R6/bin for X apps. Base config files are in/etc, while config files for stuff installed via ports is in/usr/local/etc.
5) Community. I find the FreeBSD community to be less fanatical and instead more disciplined and polite. I feel like I'm getting help from someone wearing a suit & tie (though I doubt they really are..:) ) instead of a "LINUX RULEZ!!!" kid.
6) Documentation. FreeBSD has EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION, which is helped by Reason #3. There are also a number of excellent books on FreeBSD, all of which in this list I own. Sure, there are a bazillion books on Linux, but FreeBSD doesn't need so many because there's just one FreeBSD, and once you get beyond the OS, the rest is specific to the application/server and is not OS-specific.
7) Performance. FreeBSD is notorious for performing well. In fact, sometimes applications under Linux-emulation (see #8) run better than on a native Linux box. FreeBSD's TCP/IP implementation is also well-known for being very fast.
8) Linux-emulation. Most stuff for Linux is available as open-source and can be compiled natively for FreeBSD (and is probably in the ports tree), but for the few binary-only things that aren't, FreeBSD can still run them. Some of the Linux stuff I run myself include RealPlayer, Acrobat Reader (although gpdf works well too), the Flash plugin (running in a native Firebird, btw), and maybe some other things I ca
Don't worry, I'm already with you there. Part of the reason I don't hate Linux, like I said. Linux's "technical merits" over Windows are astronomical and put the differences between Linux and FreeBSD to shame. The more penetration Linux gets, the more acclimated people become to this alternate mentality in-general, which is good for both camps.
It doesn't bug me that FreeBSD isn't ahead of Linux, or even that FreeBSD is behind Linux. What bugs me is how many people have never even heard of FreeBSD. This is why, when a positive FreeBSD press opportunity is created, and it is in-turn glossed over (when, like I said, if had been Linux instead of FreeBSD in the same press, people would've all over the same statistic), it bothers me so.
I wouldn't feel so bad if I didn't get the impression that FreeBSD doesn't get press because it's not Linux.
The/.article does not mention or try to compare Linux or ANY OS at all, it is not an even an attempt to imply any specific OS. It is about Apache.
I understand, it was not my intention to suggest this. My comment was derived from the more general point I was trying to make at that point, and the fact that Linux articles tend to make front-page news, while FreeBSD articles tend to get relagated to the separate BSD section. I can't help but feel that, if the Netcraft article had said "7 of the top 9 sites run Linux" then the crowd would've been all over that tidbit, but I can neither prove nor disprove this specifically.
I find it rather humorous that the poster of the article on Slashdot didn't dare mention the other software that was proven a winner by the Netcraft report. For those of you who haven't RTFA, 4th paragraph begins:
"Seven of the top nine sites run on FreeBSD." That's right, folks. NOT Linux. Don't get me wrong: I don't believe Linux sucks. But there's something to be said here by this data, and I don't feel Linux should get all the current press simply because Linux got all the past press. FreeBSD does amazing things, is used all over the place, has many technical merits not seen elsewhere, but Linux overshadows it because of inertia and the fact that Linux users yell louder. This is sad. Last I knew, Windows won out due to inertia as well, not technical reasons, and we condemn it for that. Must we be hypocritical a second time around?
I know this is Slashdot, but c'mon... would it kill you to put a positive article about FreeBSD on the front-page?;)
Netcraft confirms it: FreeBSD is quite alive and kicking.
427 here. Keep in-mind that's not necessarily 427 applications I have icons for or that are on my menus. Ports includes dependencies such as libraries and other obscure things. This allows version control, dependency control and proper maintenance for everything installed outside of the base OS.
In fact, everything on my system is either part of the base or was installed via ports. This includes perl CPAN modules, which have their own entries in the ports tree.
> And I popped my TV card into a RH9 box which auto-detected it
Which mine would've done too, if I had chosen to run with a bloated kernel which contained every conceivable driver already compiled in. Instead I chose to run a streamlined kernel which only contains the drivers for hardware I actually use, and leave certain things to dynamically-loadable modules.
>and then all I had to do was to start the TV application.
This would be because you already had the software on your computer. So if you had never had any intention of running a TV-in card, you would've had that software sitting on your computer, taking up space, never to be used. Which is the case for all these other RH9 users. And is the case for you too, as I would imagine then there are quite a few other programs already on your computer for stuff you'll never use. Personally, I see that as bloatware. I much prefer the FreeBSD method of letting you install only what you really want, and then making that install as absolutely painless as possible. Yes, I had to install software before I could run it, unlike you who could simply run the already-installed software, but this amounted to all of the following additional commands:
cd/usr/ports/multimedia/fxtv
make clean install
Which automatically handled downloading, patching, compiling, and installing, as well as all dependencies and their dependencies and so on. The beauty of FreeBSD ports.
Yeah I thought about that after. Oh well. I can't fix it myself. Maybe someone else can? Regardless, it's true even if it can be misinterpreted, and the proper meaning becomes apparent immediately in the first sentence... you don't even have to RTFA.;) (WA?)
But if a mod wants to tweak the title, I won't be offended.
As someone who has been using FreeBSD on his desktop for over a year (first 4.8, now 5.1, soon 5.2) I'm interested in why you don't like FreeBSD on the workstation.
The way I look at it, you get all the stability of FreeBSD's server skills, but on your desk. And the "polish" hasn't been an issue as Gnome looks the same on FreeBSD and Linux.
Heck, I got a TV-in card for xmas and installed it in just a few moments. Popped it in, used kldload to load the driver without touching the kernel, built fxtv from ports, and a min later I was watching CNN in a window on my desktop.
The following is from the October status report. A new one is due out soon as they are bi-monthly.
AMD64 Porting
Contact: Peter Wemm
The last known bug that prevented AMD64 machines completing a full
release has been fixed - one single character error that caused
ghostscript to crash during rendering diagrams. SMP work is nearing
completion and should be committed within the next few days. The SMP
code uses the ACPI MADT table based on John Baldwin's work-in-progress
there for i386. We need to spend some time on low level optimization
because there are several suboptimal places that have been ignored for
simplicity, context switching in particular. MTRR support has been
committed and XFree86 can use it. cvsup now works but the ezm3 port
has not been updated yet. The default data segment size limit is 8GB
instead of 512M, and the (primitive) i386 binary emulation support
knows how to lower the rlimits for executing 32 bit binaries.
Notable things missing still: Hardware debug register support needs to
be written; gdb is still being done as an external set of patches
relative to the not-yet-released FSF gdb tree; DDB does not
disassemble properly; DDB cannot do stack traces without
-fno-omit-frame-pointer - a stack unwinder is needed; i386 and amd64
linux binary emulation is needed, and the i386 FreeBSD binary
emulation still needs work - removing the stackgap code in particular.
The platform in general is very reliable although a couple of problems
have been reported over the last week. One appears to be a stuck
interrupt, but all that code has been redone for SMP support.
> the main purpose for encrypting messages in photographs is to avoid law enforcement.
What??? This is nonsense. Just like suddenly everyone who wears a trenchcoat was considered a potential murderer of their fellow classmates. No, the main purpose for encrypting messages in photographs is to disguise the location of private information from those who might look for it. Why paint a target on the file we store our passwords, bank account #s, etc in?
Just because something is a "very good" tool for some evil purpose doesn't mean that's its main purpose. You're taking a very narrow-minded view on this.
Hmmm... a rifle's primary purpose is killing. Killing humans is illegal. Killing anything else is HIGHLY restricted (seasons, limits, etc). And not everyone has the need or wish to kill. Compared to something designed to protect valuable private information. Something that isn't illegal, and which everyone NEEDS to do (whether they realize it or not). Someone might not feel their personal information should be protected... until they're the victim of identity fraud or electronic theft.
I don't see how this is a "better example."
So, just like I said, even though there could potentially be a tiny minority of people using this legitimately, it will get its highest usage, most likely, by terrorist, drug trafficers, extortionists, etc.
That's a very bizarre statement. I'd be interested in what basis you are using to make it.
Ok, so you're a law-abiding citizen. And you have no need. So obviously, no one else who is law-abiding has a need, and the only the Bad Guys do? C'mon.
You say you "fail to see legitimate uses". Very well. Would you have a legitimate use for a safe? I will assume "yes"... we all have valuables. So let me ask you this: does it make more sense to put the safe in the middle of a wide open room, standing out, maybe even with a sign that says "The safe is here!" Or maybe instead, hide it somewhere. At least in the closet. Or behind a fake wall panel. Buried in the basement? Recessed in the wall behind a dresser?
Steganography is the equivalent of hiding the safe somewhere where it wouldn't be located or expected. If I have passwords on my computer... even if I encrypt them, does it makes sense to store them in/home/scott/topsecret/passwords.tgz or instead in/home/scott/junk/pics/mycat.jpg ? If someone somehow accessed my account, they'd know exactly what file to grab and could then make a concentrated effort to crack into it. While if I disguise the file as something it isn't, they'll pass over it. Why isn't this a legitimate use?
Steganography is neither in itself good or bad. It's a tool which can be used for good or bad. Like a steak knife. Don't condemn it just because all you can think of are the bad uses.
Terrorists aren't the only ones who want encryption any more than shipping departments are the only ones who want box-cutters. Maybe we should blame the USPS and airlines for also aiding terrorism. Paper-shredder manufacturers too. They helped Enron break the law, didn't they?
Before you knock FreeBSD for supporting a form of encryption (encryption being something that every law-abiding citizen should be entitled to in order to protect his or her privacy), maybe you should tell us what OS YOU use so we can check to make sure it doesn't support encryption tools like the ones you're faulting FreeBSD for.
Funny.. this was just bugging me today too as I was reading about Nvu. Seems that instead of software being touted as "open-source" it gets only advertised as being "for Linux". There is nothing Linux-specific about Nvu. It's not closed-source binaries for Linux-only... it's fully open-source and should compile on all sorts of platforms, including mine (FreeBSD).
Imagine a car manufacturer advertising their car as being "the latest vehicle for New York!". Sure, NY is a fine state, but what's NY-specific about the car? Nothing. It'll drive fine in ME, VT, MA... Sorry, I just see it as being rather closed-minded for open-source projects.
Although it is the nature of things, I have a real problem with just the inertia of something blinding people to all other possibilities. It results in one member of a large group being catapulted to the spotlight at the top without any regard to its merits compared to the other contenders. This is the same effect that causes the general public to think that OS=Windows, browser=IE, word processor = MS Word. We don't accept it in the Microsoft world... why should we accept it in the open-source world?
I appeal to companies developing open-source projects: I applaud your efforts, but please be respectful when you promote your new application and correctly label it as being "open-source" and not just "for Linux". This can only help you. Linux users will already take notice of it, meanwhile users of other non-Linux open-source OSes won't be prone to passing you by, thinking that you've ignored them.
> That's true. FreeBSD is not for people who want to play games
That's not true. While I'm not a heavy gamer, I have a number of games going on my FreeBSD system. I DO know of people playing Unreal Tournament 2003 on FreeBSD systems though. My games include: FlightGear, Abuse, Cube, Falcon's Eye, FooBillard (beautiful!), FrozenBubble, glTron, as well as SNES games through emulation. And that's just a tiny number of the 576 games currently in the ports collection.
>> It cannot be used by my grandma.
> That's true.
Says who? I could set up a FreeBSD box that my grandma could use. She couldn't admin it any better than she could a Windows system though. If something broke with Windows or FreeBSD, she'd still be calling me. So what's the diff? "Hey grandma, to send email click here, type here, then click there." The simplest user is sufficiently abstracted from the OS enough that they are the BEST candidates for alternative OSes. And if you're going to stick a total newbie with something that they're going to call you everytime they have a problem on, why not give them something that doesn't crash all the time?
> That's true. The only graphical user interfaces for FreeBSD are those based on X11--including the atrocities KDE and Gnome. These are nothing more than curiosities.
While I suppose it's true technically, I don't see it as a bad thing. In fact, when it comes to servers, it's a good thing. And when it comes to desktops, choice is a good thing. Does it really matter that one team makes the OS and one team makes the GUI? They work well together, and countless people like myself use them. Do you complain about Windows because it doesn't come with a word processor? No, and if MS tried to bundle Word w/ Windows people would cry foul. So take that to another level. Just because some people can't fathom an OS and the GUI being separate, doesn't mean it's not a good idea. I don't want a GUI on the server, and I like having choices about what window-manager or desktop-environment to run. Yes, KDE and Gnome are pretty resource-intensive. So use xfce then... it's pretty slick. I happen to like Gnome, but I've used KDE too and I'm actually running xfce4 right now just for fun.
> That's true. FreeBSD is not for people who want to buy a support contract.
Wow, that is so not true I begin to wonder if you're a troll. Did you even bother checking the website before making that claim? Or about about here?
> That's half true. You do have to compile everything; that's what the "ports" system is.
That's 100% not true. FreeBSD gives you choice. If you want to compile, you can build ports. If you want to install precompiled binaries, you install packages. Once installed, they are registered in the database (with their dependencies) the same way and are managed in the same manner. A little reading of the FreeBSD ports and packages system would be in order.
I'm hoping you're not a troll as some of your answers were correct. However some are quite wrong.
Yeah, it's silly that there's so much crap about "FreeBSD is dying" when Netcraft reported in July that not only were there nearly 2 MILLION active websites running FreeBSD, but that FreeBSD "is the only other operating system that is gaining, rather than losing share of the active sites." Read the July report here.
More recently, out of the top 13 hosting providers in September (as far as failures goes), most (seven) ran FreeBSD (3 Win2K, 2 Linux, 1 Solaris). You can see that Netcraft data here.
There isn't a happy medium here. The trend for PDA's is driven by the need for usable (large enough) screens. With cell phones the trend is to make them smaller. All the cell-phone screen has to do is show you digits dialed and phone-book entries.
Convergence (with one exception) either leaves you with a PDA that's too small to be useful or a cell-phone that's too big for you to want to carry it around.
The REAL solution? A smartphone that you don't hold up to your ear, but that uses bluetooth to a stand-alone headset. I might be able to deal with that. MAYBE.
Not sure just how old this baby is, but I have an OmniKey/101 keyboard made by Northgate Computer Systems (do they even still exist? I can't find them). I think I may have had this way back on my 386 (it's now on a Athlon 1.2GHz running FreeBSD). Reasons I like it:
1) It's hefty, like the original IBM keyboard. Metal base, stays firmly in-place on the desk wherever you set it. Nice solid feel.
2) The letters will NEVER wear off, due to the way they're molded. The letters aren't painted on the keys... they are part of the plastic itself, molded all the way through. Awesome! I'm a fast and vigorous typer and not only wear letters off, but wear plastic down.
3) The keys remove for easy cleaning. In fact, I took the entire thing apart for a cleaning not too long ago. I still have the special light-blue Northgate key-removal tool.
4) Mechanical key-switches for that tactile feel.
5) Programmable... although I not longer remember how. There's a flip-up panel in the upper-left with an orange button and some DIP switches. Using the switches you could set it to come up always as Dvorak or do some other things. Using the orange button then pressing an F? key you could switch between QWERTY and Dvorak on the fly, as well as other stuff. You could also buy a set of Dvorak keycaps.
I'm getting to the point though where the noisiness of the keyboard is a problem. People get annoyed when they hear me typing while I'm on the phone. Oh well.
OS/2 still runs Nortel Norstar voicemail and ACD NAMs as far as I know. Certainly does ours. SOP for power-cycling is to yank the power cord, as there's no power switch:).
Slashdot Mirror
That's very strange... I've been successfully using Linux emulation since the first time I got a graphical FreeBSD desktop going (around 2.2.2 I think). Even then, I had Wordperfect for Linux, RealPlayer, and the Linux version of ICQ all working.
Have you tried posting the specifics of your problems to the freebsd-emulation mailing list?
Ok, I'll try and explain better.
With Linux, you have an active common component: the kernel. This is the common denominator across Linux distributions. The distribution will take a certain version (more or less current) of the kernel, maybe tweak it a bit, surround it with userland tools of their choice, and now you have a complete OS distribution. Meanwhile, the common component (the kernel) continues separate development by Linus and crew. A new kernel is released, and later on you see updated versions of the distributions all based upon this new common code. And so on.
The relationship between the *BSDs however is purely historical. There is no ongoing common BSD kernel that is developed separate from each project which is then shared by all. As a result, you don't tend to here a *BSD user say they run "BSD" like a RH/Debian/Gentoo/SuSE user might say they run "Linux". Instead, they name the specific BSD they use. I don't run BSD, I run FreeBSD. Saying you run "BSD" is pretty meaningless. However, saying you run "Linux" defines you better as a Gentoo/whatever user as you share an ongoing common relationship with all other Linux distributions.
Hopefully that makes more sense.
Many years ago, when I was doing computer repair for the masses as my job, a customer brought in a laptop they had dropped. I determined immediately before taking it apart that the only thing broken was the tiny thin flourescent tube that lit the backlight. The customer wasn't in any rush and was willing to wait as long as they didn't have to buy a new laptop. First I called the laptop manufacturer. They couldn't help me, but told me who manufactured the displays. I called them, and after some work got a smart person on the phone. They told me they didn't have the bulb, but they could have one sent over on the next shipment from Japan, and would sell it to me. I said go for it. So we waited... several months. One day, the bulb arrived. I put it in, wrapped it up, charged the customer the little bit for the part and my time, and everyone was happy. I don't remember the bill, but it was probably under $100.
Too bad this is not the norm.
Anyway, my question is this: How is FreeBSD as a desktop system?
Good! It's been my primary desktop at home for over a year now.
I no longer care much for WineX, and am far more interested in how well things like TV Tuners
Got a WinTV card for xmas, works great!
Digital Cameras
Haven't done this yet but will soon, have done some research though. At the very lest, you could get a separate media-reader and use it that way (which would be fastest). But there are programs like digikam and gtkam which provide a direct link.
USB
I have a USB mouse (Logitech) and laser printer (Laserjet 1012).
Firewire
Dunno, never used it.
Hope this helps!
Disclaimer: I am not anti-Linux. However, here is why I like FreeBSD..
/usr/bin. When I install an app, I know it'll be beneath /usr/local/bin for console apps or /usr/X11R6/bin for X apps. Base config files are in /etc, while config files for stuff installed via ports is in /usr/local/etc.
1) PORTS. FreeBSD could win on this point alone. The ports system is AWESOME. I have never used Linux, but I hear a lot of people bitch about RPMs and "dependency hell". FreeBSD has dependencies but the ports system tracks all that. Every file, every version, every port is noted. I can just go to a directory and type "make clean install" and everything will be downloaded, built to my tastes, along with all dependencies and their dependencies and built in the proper order, then registered in the database. Daily I sync my ports tree and see what's new. If I want it, I can upgrade it (along with dependencies) safely with one command. It just doesn't get better than this. Recently, FreeBSD pass the 10,000 ports mark. There's also a nice overview of the ports system at Arstechnica.
2) Stability. FreeBSD is notoriously stable. You can pick any Netcraft report (such as here, here, here, here, or here. ) for evidence of this.
3) Consolidation. There is only one "FreeBSD". If I have 5.2 and you have 5.2, we have the same OS. There is no one "Linux". In reality, Linux is a kernel, and when you add a userland then you have a distribution. FreeBSD is kernel + userland.
4) File organization. Linux seems to lay out its file hierarchy somewhat randomly, with no consistancy of where an installed executable binary might be placed or separation of base/user. FreeBSD has polished this and adheres rigidly to a formal structure. For example, I know my base system is under
5) Community. I find the FreeBSD community to be less fanatical and instead more disciplined and polite. I feel like I'm getting help from someone wearing a suit & tie (though I doubt they really are..:) ) instead of a "LINUX RULEZ!!!" kid.
6) Documentation. FreeBSD has EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION, which is helped by Reason #3. There are also a number of excellent books on FreeBSD, all of which in this list I own. Sure, there are a bazillion books on Linux, but FreeBSD doesn't need so many because there's just one FreeBSD, and once you get beyond the OS, the rest is specific to the application/server and is not OS-specific.
7) Performance. FreeBSD is notorious for performing well. In fact, sometimes applications under Linux-emulation (see #8) run better than on a native Linux box. FreeBSD's TCP/IP implementation is also well-known for being very fast.
8) Linux-emulation. Most stuff for Linux is available as open-source and can be compiled natively for FreeBSD (and is probably in the ports tree), but for the few binary-only things that aren't, FreeBSD can still run them. Some of the Linux stuff I run myself include RealPlayer, Acrobat Reader (although gpdf works well too), the Flash plugin (running in a native Firebird, btw), and maybe some other things I ca
Don't worry, I'm already with you there. Part of the reason I don't hate Linux, like I said. Linux's "technical merits" over Windows are astronomical and put the differences between Linux and FreeBSD to shame. The more penetration Linux gets, the more acclimated people become to this alternate mentality in-general, which is good for both camps.
It doesn't bug me that FreeBSD isn't ahead of Linux, or even that FreeBSD is behind Linux. What bugs me is how many people have never even heard of FreeBSD. This is why, when a positive FreeBSD press opportunity is created, and it is in-turn glossed over (when, like I said, if had been Linux instead of FreeBSD in the same press, people would've all over the same statistic), it bothers me so.
I wouldn't feel so bad if I didn't get the impression that FreeBSD doesn't get press because it's not Linux.
According to this, the current design uses a PC104 100MHz 486 board
And according to this they're not.
I understand, it was not my intention to suggest this. My comment was derived from the more general point I was trying to make at that point, and the fact that Linux articles tend to make front-page news, while FreeBSD articles tend to get relagated to the separate BSD section. I can't help but feel that, if the Netcraft article had said "7 of the top 9 sites run Linux" then the crowd would've been all over that tidbit, but I can neither prove nor disprove this specifically.
I find it rather humorous that the poster of the article on Slashdot didn't dare mention the other software that was proven a winner by the Netcraft report. For those of you who haven't RTFA, 4th paragraph begins:
;)
"Seven of the top nine sites run on FreeBSD." That's right, folks. NOT Linux. Don't get me wrong: I don't believe Linux sucks. But there's something to be said here by this data, and I don't feel Linux should get all the current press simply because Linux got all the past press. FreeBSD does amazing things, is used all over the place, has many technical merits not seen elsewhere, but Linux overshadows it because of inertia and the fact that Linux users yell louder. This is sad. Last I knew, Windows won out due to inertia as well, not technical reasons, and we condemn it for that. Must we be hypocritical a second time around?
I know this is Slashdot, but c'mon... would it kill you to put a positive article about FreeBSD on the front-page?
Netcraft confirms it: FreeBSD is quite alive and kicking.
In fact, everything on my system is either part of the base or was installed via ports. This includes perl CPAN modules, which have their own entries in the ports tree.
Freshports' categories list is a great way to browse the contents of the FreeBSD ports tree.
Which mine would've done too, if I had chosen to run with a bloated kernel which contained every conceivable driver already compiled in. Instead I chose to run a streamlined kernel which only contains the drivers for hardware I actually use, and leave certain things to dynamically-loadable modules.
>and then all I had to do was to start the TV application.
This would be because you already had the software on your computer. So if you had never had any intention of running a TV-in card, you would've had that software sitting on your computer, taking up space, never to be used. Which is the case for all these other RH9 users. And is the case for you too, as I would imagine then there are quite a few other programs already on your computer for stuff you'll never use. Personally, I see that as bloatware. I much prefer the FreeBSD method of letting you install only what you really want, and then making that install as absolutely painless as possible. Yes, I had to install software before I could run it, unlike you who could simply run the already-installed software, but this amounted to all of the following additional commands:
cd /usr/ports/multimedia/fxtv
make clean install
Which automatically handled downloading, patching, compiling, and installing, as well as all dependencies and their dependencies and so on. The beauty of FreeBSD ports.
Yeah I thought about that after. Oh well. I can't fix it myself. Maybe someone else can? Regardless, it's true even if it can be misinterpreted, and the proper meaning becomes apparent immediately in the first sentence... you don't even have to RTFA. ;) (WA?)
But if a mod wants to tweak the title, I won't be offended.
I have one already. Of course, it's running FreeBSD...
As someone who has been using FreeBSD on his desktop for over a year (first 4.8, now 5.1, soon 5.2) I'm interested in why you don't like FreeBSD on the workstation.
The way I look at it, you get all the stability of FreeBSD's server skills, but on your desk. And the "polish" hasn't been an issue as Gnome looks the same on FreeBSD and Linux.
Heck, I got a TV-in card for xmas and installed it in just a few moments. Popped it in, used kldload to load the driver without touching the kernel, built fxtv from ports, and a min later I was watching CNN in a window on my desktop.
The following is from the October status report. A new one is due out soon as they are bi-monthly.
AMD64 Porting
Contact: Peter Wemm
The last known bug that prevented AMD64 machines completing a full
release has been fixed - one single character error that caused
ghostscript to crash during rendering diagrams. SMP work is nearing
completion and should be committed within the next few days. The SMP
code uses the ACPI MADT table based on John Baldwin's work-in-progress
there for i386. We need to spend some time on low level optimization
because there are several suboptimal places that have been ignored for
simplicity, context switching in particular. MTRR support has been
committed and XFree86 can use it. cvsup now works but the ezm3 port
has not been updated yet. The default data segment size limit is 8GB
instead of 512M, and the (primitive) i386 binary emulation support
knows how to lower the rlimits for executing 32 bit binaries.
Notable things missing still: Hardware debug register support needs to
be written; gdb is still being done as an external set of patches
relative to the not-yet-released FSF gdb tree; DDB does not
disassemble properly; DDB cannot do stack traces without
-fno-omit-frame-pointer - a stack unwinder is needed; i386 and amd64
linux binary emulation is needed, and the i386 FreeBSD binary
emulation still needs work - removing the stackgap code in particular.
The platform in general is very reliable although a couple of problems
have been reported over the last week. One appears to be a stuck
interrupt, but all that code has been redone for SMP support.
What??? This is nonsense. Just like suddenly everyone who wears a trenchcoat was considered a potential murderer of their fellow classmates. No, the main purpose for encrypting messages in photographs is to disguise the location of private information from those who might look for it . Why paint a target on the file we store our passwords, bank account #s, etc in?
Just because something is a "very good" tool for some evil purpose doesn't mean that's its main purpose. You're taking a very narrow-minded view on this.
I think a better example is an AK-47 assult rifle
Hmmm... a rifle's primary purpose is killing. Killing humans is illegal. Killing anything else is HIGHLY restricted (seasons, limits, etc). And not everyone has the need or wish to kill. Compared to something designed to protect valuable private information. Something that isn't illegal, and which everyone NEEDS to do (whether they realize it or not). Someone might not feel their personal information should be protected... until they're the victim of identity fraud or electronic theft.
I don't see how this is a "better example."
So, just like I said, even though there could potentially be a tiny minority of people using this legitimately, it will get its highest usage, most likely, by terrorist, drug trafficers, extortionists, etc.
That's a very bizarre statement. I'd be interested in what basis you are using to make it.
Ok, so you're a law-abiding citizen. And you have no need. So obviously, no one else who is law-abiding has a need, and the only the Bad Guys do? C'mon.
/home/scott/topsecret/passwords.tgz or instead in /home/scott/junk/pics/mycat.jpg ? If someone somehow accessed my account, they'd know exactly what file to grab and could then make a concentrated effort to crack into it. While if I disguise the file as something it isn't, they'll pass over it. Why isn't this a legitimate use?
You say you "fail to see legitimate uses". Very well. Would you have a legitimate use for a safe? I will assume "yes"... we all have valuables. So let me ask you this: does it make more sense to put the safe in the middle of a wide open room, standing out, maybe even with a sign that says "The safe is here!" Or maybe instead, hide it somewhere. At least in the closet. Or behind a fake wall panel. Buried in the basement? Recessed in the wall behind a dresser?
Steganography is the equivalent of hiding the safe somewhere where it wouldn't be located or expected. If I have passwords on my computer... even if I encrypt them, does it makes sense to store them in
Steganography is neither in itself good or bad. It's a tool which can be used for good or bad. Like a steak knife. Don't condemn it just because all you can think of are the bad uses.
Terrorists aren't the only ones who want encryption any more than shipping departments are the only ones who want box-cutters. Maybe we should blame the USPS and airlines for also aiding terrorism. Paper-shredder manufacturers too. They helped Enron break the law, didn't they?
Before you knock FreeBSD for supporting a form of encryption (encryption being something that every law-abiding citizen should be entitled to in order to protect his or her privacy), maybe you should tell us what OS YOU use so we can check to make sure it doesn't support encryption tools like the ones you're faulting FreeBSD for.
Imagine a car manufacturer advertising their car as being "the latest vehicle for New York!". Sure, NY is a fine state, but what's NY-specific about the car? Nothing. It'll drive fine in ME, VT, MA... Sorry, I just see it as being rather closed-minded for open-source projects.
Although it is the nature of things, I have a real problem with just the inertia of something blinding people to all other possibilities. It results in one member of a large group being catapulted to the spotlight at the top without any regard to its merits compared to the other contenders. This is the same effect that causes the general public to think that OS=Windows, browser=IE, word processor = MS Word. We don't accept it in the Microsoft world... why should we accept it in the open-source world?
I appeal to companies developing open-source projects: I applaud your efforts, but please be respectful when you promote your new application and correctly label it as being "open-source" and not just "for Linux". This can only help you. Linux users will already take notice of it, meanwhile users of other non-Linux open-source OSes won't be prone to passing you by, thinking that you've ignored them.
Thanks
That's not true. While I'm not a heavy gamer, I have a number of games going on my FreeBSD system. I DO know of people playing Unreal Tournament 2003 on FreeBSD systems though. My games include: FlightGear, Abuse, Cube, Falcon's Eye, FooBillard (beautiful!), FrozenBubble, glTron, as well as SNES games through emulation. And that's just a tiny number of the 576 games currently in the ports collection.
>> It cannot be used by my grandma.
> That's true.
Says who? I could set up a FreeBSD box that my grandma could use. She couldn't admin it any better than she could a Windows system though. If something broke with Windows or FreeBSD, she'd still be calling me. So what's the diff? "Hey grandma, to send email click here, type here, then click there." The simplest user is sufficiently abstracted from the OS enough that they are the BEST candidates for alternative OSes. And if you're going to stick a total newbie with something that they're going to call you everytime they have a problem on, why not give them something that doesn't crash all the time?
> That's true. The only graphical user interfaces for FreeBSD are those based on X11--including the atrocities KDE and Gnome. These are nothing more than curiosities.
While I suppose it's true technically, I don't see it as a bad thing. In fact, when it comes to servers, it's a good thing. And when it comes to desktops, choice is a good thing. Does it really matter that one team makes the OS and one team makes the GUI? They work well together, and countless people like myself use them. Do you complain about Windows because it doesn't come with a word processor? No, and if MS tried to bundle Word w/ Windows people would cry foul. So take that to another level. Just because some people can't fathom an OS and the GUI being separate, doesn't mean it's not a good idea. I don't want a GUI on the server, and I like having choices about what window-manager or desktop-environment to run. Yes, KDE and Gnome are pretty resource-intensive. So use xfce then... it's pretty slick. I happen to like Gnome, but I've used KDE too and I'm actually running xfce4 right now just for fun.
> That's true. FreeBSD is not for people who want to buy a support contract.
Wow, that is so not true I begin to wonder if you're a troll. Did you even bother checking the website before making that claim? Or about about here?
> That's half true. You do have to compile everything; that's what the "ports" system is.
That's 100% not true. FreeBSD gives you choice. If you want to compile, you can build ports. If you want to install precompiled binaries, you install packages. Once installed, they are registered in the database (with their dependencies) the same way and are managed in the same manner. A little reading of the FreeBSD ports and packages system would be in order.
I'm hoping you're not a troll as some of your answers were correct. However some are quite wrong.
More recently, out of the top 13 hosting providers in September (as far as failures goes), most (seven) ran FreeBSD (3 Win2K, 2 Linux, 1 Solaris). You can see that Netcraft data here.
Hmmm... "dying" and "lost vigor" indeed. ;)
There isn't a happy medium here. The trend for PDA's is driven by the need for usable (large enough) screens. With cell phones the trend is to make them smaller. All the cell-phone screen has to do is show you digits dialed and phone-book entries.
Convergence (with one exception) either leaves you with a PDA that's too small to be useful or a cell-phone that's too big for you to want to carry it around.
The REAL solution? A smartphone that you don't hold up to your ear, but that uses bluetooth to a stand-alone headset. I might be able to deal with that. MAYBE.
Not sure just how old this baby is, but I have an OmniKey/101 keyboard made by Northgate Computer Systems (do they even still exist? I can't find them). I think I may have had this way back on my 386 (it's now on a Athlon 1.2GHz running FreeBSD). Reasons I like it:
1) It's hefty, like the original IBM keyboard. Metal base, stays firmly in-place on the desk wherever you set it. Nice solid feel.
2) The letters will NEVER wear off, due to the way they're molded. The letters aren't painted on the keys... they are part of the plastic itself, molded all the way through. Awesome! I'm a fast and vigorous typer and not only wear letters off, but wear plastic down.
3) The keys remove for easy cleaning. In fact, I took the entire thing apart for a cleaning not too long ago. I still have the special light-blue Northgate key-removal tool.
4) Mechanical key-switches for that tactile feel.
5) Programmable... although I not longer remember how. There's a flip-up panel in the upper-left with an orange button and some DIP switches. Using the switches you could set it to come up always as Dvorak or do some other things. Using the orange button then pressing an F? key you could switch between QWERTY and Dvorak on the fly, as well as other stuff. You could also buy a set of Dvorak keycaps.
I'm getting to the point though where the noisiness of the keyboard is a problem. People get annoyed when they hear me typing while I'm on the phone. Oh well.
OS/2 still runs Nortel Norstar voicemail and ACD NAMs as far as I know. Certainly does ours. SOP for power-cycling is to yank the power cord, as there's no power switch :).