Moving/tmp around doesn't qualify as "easy". Have you ever tried moving/tmp on a workstation running X and ssh-agent, without shutting it all down and starting it up again? And even once I got the software installed, getting it to actually work was a further hassle.
The reason I got snarky is that I don't want to have to defend myself when I post a simple, obvious thing like "getting StarOffice working on FreeBSD can be a pain". It *was* a pain.
Oh, I also got snarky because you said I was wrong without even checking your facts -- I'm speaking here of the $TMPDIR thing.
Remember the context: I was explaining why FreeBSD's great Linux compatibility doesn't automatically make it as good a desktop OS as Linux for the users who want to escape Windows but don't want to get terribly technical. I didn't say that one can't get SO working on FreeBSD, I said that it doesn't work out of the box. Quit attacking a straw man.
Your argument boils down to "I hear more about Linux from more diverse sources, therefore it's more important than FreeBSD."
Think back a few years, and replace "Linux" with "Windows" and "FreeBSD" with "Linux" and the absurdity of this point of view becomes quite clear.
You know, your hero Linus would probably think you're barking up the wrong tree. Senior Linux developers, including Linus, have shown plenty of willingness to share ideas and code with the BSD projects, and the exchange has been reciprocal. Maybe the senior developers know something you don't.
Try learning the difference between an argument and a fact.
I tried setting $TMPDIR; StarOffice doesn't respect it.
And there's nothing wrong with my hardware; I believe I set/tmp to whatever size the FreeBSD install chose by default.
I did end up symlinking/tmp to/var/tmp, and eventually got StarOffice installed. But as a result of this problem, it took much longer than it should have, and a casual user probably would have given up. Which makes the problem I had relevant to the discussion, since we were talking about the relative merits of FreeBSD and Linux for non-power-users.
I'm getting really tired of hauling out my FreeBSD credentials to satisfy OS bigots every time I say something that doesn't make FreeBSD look good. It's just a @#$%ing OS. I like it as much as you do. But I'm not going to pretend I never have problems with it just to get rabid advocates like you off of my back.
Hi Jon, FreeBSD does indeed support NAT. Please see the appropriate FAQ entry. You can also get the same functionality on FreeBSD using Darren Reed's ipfilter program.
I also found _The Complete FreeBSD_ very helpful when I first started out with FreeBSD. I recommend it highly to anyone who is installing FreeBSD for the first time.
Brian, all that you say is true. However, I've found that despite the excellent Linux compatibility environment, some common Linux applications like StarOffice can be tricky to get working on FreeBSD. Also, distributions like Red Hat do a lot more hand-holding than FreeBSD does.
I didn't mean to imply that FreeBSD is a bad desktop OS; if I felt that way, I wouldn't be running it on my desktop (for four years now). As I said, when someone is fairly technically oriented, I don't hesitate to point them to FreeBSD.
Remember that the original questioner is already running Linux. If someone is running Linux on the desktop and not experiencing any problems that FreeBSD would solve, I see no point in trying to convert them to FreeBSD.
What is this about the BSD projects ignoring people? Don't you understand that it's possible and even occasionally beneficial for an OS project to focus on something other than supporting all PC hardware? The Linux people do the Linux thing well, there's no reason for the BSDs to try to be Linux too. They have their niches and it serves them well.
I think a lot of people around here need to take a chill pill and understand that operating systems are tools, and when choosing tools, the important thing is to pick the right tool for the job in question.
Silly Coward. I use FreeBSD on my desktop myself. I wouldn't run Linux if you paid me. But that doesn't mean I won't recommend it where I feel it's appropriate.
BTW, I'd appreciate it if you could provide me with a pointer to the post or posts where I accused the BSD crowd of being arrogant. But, uh, I won't hold my breath.
FreeBSD is probably not right for you, judging from your questions. I recommend FreeBSD to
-people running production network servers -people of a technical bent who are just getting into unix -people experienced with older BSD-derived systems who want to move up to something modern
Why? Well, the first is because the FreeBSD Project's focus is on production network servers, and they are very attentive to issues that affect such systems. The second is because I feel that FreeBSD has a cleaner layout and better documentation than Linux. And the third is because BSD people will find that FreeBSD looks like "home" to them.
I don't recommend FreeBSD to casual desktop users; they'll find more software for Linux, and more people to help them out.
Much too much is made of the licenses. Most people in my experience are more interested in working code than they are in the license.
Remember Linus' comment that were it not for that BSD lawsuit, he would never have started Linux. In other words, the difference between the licenses would not have been sufficient motivation to start Linux.
The operators where I work aren't overpaid drones. They are smart, motivated people, and many of them become sysadmins before too long.
People who put down sysadmins should be forced to wake up at 3 a.m. to fix an outage every couple of weeks until they retract their statement. If they never retract it, good, more sleep for everyone else. Hrmph.
I hope you don't work with real sysadmins, because 1) that would excuse your ignorance and 2) people who say things like that around real sysadmins often regret it later.
I think that Linux became more popular at first due to the legal uncertainties surrounding BSD at the time. The BSDs have carved out comfortable niches on the server side and tend to have neither the inclination nor the number of developers to compete with Linux for popularity on the desktop.
I believe FreeBSD runs GNOME and KDE just fine, though. So there isn't any technical impediment to using it on the desktop -- just less development momentum.
Personally (and in my capacity as another member of the StarMedia systems team), I like the unified distribution of FreeBSD. I like the way system updates can be done -- I can upgrade a system from say 3.1 to 3.4 using cvsup, make and mergemaster, and be quite confident that the system will still function the way I expect it to afterwards. I like the ports/packages system. I like the mailing lists, which enable to me keep track of what's going on almost effortlessly, and to make my voice heard when I have a suggestion.
Secret evil unix-foo technique: send them a text file with a name ending in ".doc". Word will open it, and the user need never know that they've been tricked into accepting a file in a secure, portable, lightweight format.
Slashdot Mirror
An out of the box FreeBSD install puts /tmp on the root partition, and makes a small root partition.
Moving /tmp around doesn't qualify as "easy". Have you ever tried moving /tmp on a workstation running X and ssh-agent, without shutting it all down and starting it up again? And even once I got the software installed, getting it to actually work was a further hassle.
The reason I got snarky is that I don't want to have to defend myself when I post a simple, obvious thing like "getting StarOffice working on FreeBSD can be a pain". It *was* a pain.
Oh, I also got snarky because you said I was wrong without even checking your facts -- I'm speaking here of the $TMPDIR thing.
Remember the context: I was explaining why FreeBSD's great Linux compatibility doesn't automatically make it as good a desktop OS as Linux for the users who want to escape Windows but don't want to get terribly technical. I didn't say that one can't get SO working on FreeBSD, I said that it doesn't work out of the box. Quit attacking a straw man.
Your argument boils down to "I hear more about Linux from more diverse sources, therefore it's more important than FreeBSD."
Think back a few years, and replace "Linux" with "Windows" and "FreeBSD" with "Linux" and the absurdity of this point of view becomes quite clear.
You know, your hero Linus would probably think you're barking up the wrong tree. Senior Linux developers, including Linus, have shown plenty of willingness to share ideas and code with the BSD projects, and the exchange has been reciprocal. Maybe the senior developers know something you don't.
Grow up.
Try learning the difference between an argument and a fact.
/tmp to whatever size the FreeBSD install chose by default.
/tmp to /var/tmp, and eventually got StarOffice installed. But as a result of this problem, it took much longer than it should have, and a casual user probably would have given up. Which makes the problem I had relevant to the discussion, since we were talking about the relative merits of FreeBSD and Linux for non-power-users.
I tried setting $TMPDIR; StarOffice doesn't respect it.
And there's nothing wrong with my hardware; I believe I set
I did end up symlinking
I'm getting really tired of hauling out my FreeBSD credentials to satisfy OS bigots every time I say something that doesn't make FreeBSD look good. It's just a @#$%ing OS. I like it as much as you do. But I'm not going to pretend I never have problems with it just to get rabid advocates like you off of my back.
Oh yes, I know, I just dropped the name because I figured it would be helpful to anyone actually looking to purchase the thing. ;-)
Yep, but if you don't have a large enough /tmp partition, that port won't install.
Hi Jon,
FreeBSD does indeed support NAT. Please see the appropriate FAQ entry.
You can also get the same functionality on FreeBSD using Darren Reed's ipfilter program.
I also found _The Complete FreeBSD_ very helpful when I first started out with FreeBSD. I recommend it highly to anyone who is installing FreeBSD for the first time.
Brian, all that you say is true. However, I've found that despite the excellent Linux compatibility environment, some common Linux applications like StarOffice can be tricky to get working on FreeBSD. Also, distributions like Red Hat do a lot more hand-holding than FreeBSD does.
I didn't mean to imply that FreeBSD is a bad desktop OS; if I felt that way, I wouldn't be running it on my desktop (for four years now). As I said, when someone is fairly technically oriented, I don't hesitate to point them to FreeBSD.
Remember that the original questioner is already running Linux. If someone is running Linux on the desktop and not experiencing any problems that FreeBSD would solve, I see no point in trying to convert them to FreeBSD.
If you supplied an email address, I would do so, through Virtual Crack. But you don't, so I can't.
If I attached my reply to the wrong post, I apologize. My sentiment stands, of course. ;-)
What is this about the BSD projects ignoring people? Don't you understand that it's possible and even occasionally beneficial for an OS project to focus on something other than supporting all PC hardware? The Linux people do the Linux thing well, there's no reason for the BSDs to try to be Linux too. They have their niches and it serves them well.
I think a lot of people around here need to take a chill pill and understand that operating systems are tools, and when choosing tools, the important thing is to pick the right tool for the job in question.
Silly Coward. I use FreeBSD on my desktop myself. I wouldn't run Linux if you paid me. But that doesn't mean I won't recommend it where I feel it's appropriate.
BTW, I'd appreciate it if you could provide me with a pointer to the post or posts where I accused the BSD crowd of being arrogant. But, uh, I won't hold my breath.
FreeBSD is probably not right for you, judging from your questions. I recommend FreeBSD to
-people running production network servers
-people of a technical bent who are just getting into unix
-people experienced with older BSD-derived systems who want to move up to something modern
Why? Well, the first is because the FreeBSD Project's focus is on production network servers, and they are very attentive to issues that affect such systems. The second is because I feel that FreeBSD has a cleaner layout and better documentation than Linux. And the third is because BSD people will find that FreeBSD looks like "home" to them.
I don't recommend FreeBSD to casual desktop users; they'll find more software for Linux, and more people to help them out.
Much too much is made of the licenses. Most people in my experience are more interested in working code than they are in the license.
Remember Linus' comment that were it not for that BSD lawsuit, he would never have started Linux. In other words, the difference between the licenses would not have been sufficient motivation to start Linux.
Bitwise and byte foolish?
The operators where I work aren't overpaid drones. They are smart, motivated people, and many of them become sysadmins before too long.
People who put down sysadmins should be forced to wake up at 3 a.m. to fix an outage every couple of weeks until they retract their statement. If they never retract it, good, more sleep for everyone else. Hrmph.
I hope you don't work with real sysadmins, because 1) that would excuse your ignorance and 2) people who say things like that around real sysadmins often regret it later.
I think that Linux became more popular at first due to the legal uncertainties surrounding BSD at the time. The BSDs have carved out comfortable niches on the server side and tend to have neither the inclination nor the number of developers to compete with Linux for popularity on the desktop.
I believe FreeBSD runs GNOME and KDE just fine, though. So there isn't any technical impediment to using it on the desktop -- just less development momentum.
Personally (and in my capacity as another member of the StarMedia systems team), I like the unified distribution of FreeBSD. I like the way system updates can be done -- I can upgrade a system from say 3.1 to 3.4 using cvsup, make and mergemaster, and be quite confident that the system will still function the way I expect it to afterwards. I like the ports/packages system. I like the mailing lists, which enable to me keep track of what's going on almost effortlessly, and to make my voice heard when I have a suggestion.
Secret evil unix-foo technique: send them a text file with a name ending in ".doc". Word will open it, and the user need never know that they've been tricked into accepting a file in a secure, portable, lightweight format.
Incorrect. This usage is considerably older than Linux.
;-)
If you're going to flame, check your fscts first.
> The OS the S/390 runs was unable to run on an > S/390 until someone ported it
;-)
I believe that the S/390 runs System/390.
As soon as I saw the word "Lesson's" in the title, I decided not to read the article. Did I miss anything useful? ;-)
I can't really elaborate, but let's just say I would not trust these people with my data, vital or otherwise. Rich Forman is a lying sack of sh*t.