Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 09:35:17AM -0500, Chess Griffin wrote: Da Rock wrote: On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 23:56 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You need something that costs too much, breaks down a lot, and never uses standard parts if they can help it. Mercedes? :) Fits the first, dunno about the third. Certainly not the second -- Benz are some of the best-engineered and built cars in existence. Maybe BMW, aka Bunch-a Money Wasted or Bite My Wallet. I wouldn't insult a quality car like that. Ive heard nothing but good stories about them and it's something I'd buy myself. Very safe to drive... Ok. How about the new VW beetle? I've heard they're crap- not as good as the original, expensive, poorly designed, break down a lot, and driven by little teeny boppers with money to waste buying just for the frilly stuff. Does that fit the bill? We'll take a vote- all in favor say aye... :P Might I suggest a 1983 Renault Alliance? The first car I ever owned and it was ... what's the word I'm looking for ... ah yes: horrible! i would have traded it for a VW Beetle any day. :-) Actually (a bit late) . . . if you want something that costs too much, breaks down a lot, and never uses standard parts, you're looking for a Jaguar circa 1990 or earlier. I'm not sure about after that. They sure do look nice (Aero Glass), but there are better-looking cars out there that don't break down all the time (like Aqua and Compiz Fusion), and some of them even cost less. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Isaac Asimov: Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is completely programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 08:25 -0500, Robert Huff wrote: Da Rock writes: Mercedes? :) Fits the first, dunno about the third. Certainly not the second -- Benz are some of the best-engineered and built cars in existence. Maybe BMW, aka Bunch-a Money Wasted or Bite My Wallet. I wouldn't insult a quality car like that. I've heard nothing but good stories about them and it's something I'd buy myself. Very safe to drive... Quite possible. However, if one looks at Consumer Reports the well engineered German brands are in the lower (worse) half, and sometimes third, of the reliability ratings. Volkswagen is better, but not by great heaping gobs. Robert Huff I had an epiphany the other day- Range Rover! Big, expensive, and ALWAYS in the shop. I knew another fella who gave it up for another make after having no end of trouble with his. He was not the only one either... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Thursday 21 February 2008 23:03, D G Teed wrote: For example, no where in this have I heard a peep about backup software. Anyone serious about IT is serious about backup. Yet there is no support for EMC (Legato) Networker in FreeBSD, and this is why our organization is migrating away from this FreeBSD. Petty quibble: I suspect that you mean ``there is no support for FreeBSD in EMC Networker'' rather than the other way round. Picking a backup solution that can't back up some of your servers, and opting to fix the problem by getting rid of the servers, seems to me to be doing things the wrong way round - irrespective of which OS you're forcing yourself to get rid of. Of course, EMC Networker may be so much better than any other backup solution as to justify the work involved in moving working services to a different platform - I don't know Networker so I can't really comment, although I agree with most of what you said about making sure you pick a platform which supports what you're trying to do. I say most because my own feeling as a sysadmin is that you must have a very good reason to run more than the bare minimum range of operating systems you can - which is an argument for moving away from some platforms if you're already running several. I am in the process of moving from multiple platforms, ranging from Windows NT4, through e-smith (server-in-a-box based on Red Hat), Debian, and FreeBSD, from 4.8 up to date. We are aiming to end up with a bunch of FreeBSD boxes, all using a standard build from a central buildserver, plus one or two boxes running Windows Server 2003 supporting users, who are all running Windows desktops and applications, including apps which run on the server, with clients connecting over the network. It's taken a while but every time we get rid of an old box my workload in supporting the rest of the system drops a little. Note: I'm not saying everyone should standardise on FreeBSD - that's just what I'm most familiar with at the moment, and when I started to move things round we had more FreeBSD servers than anything else, so it made sense to pick that and bring the rest into line, where we were able to, especially because the other OSes were mainly running on hardware which was due for replacement soon anyway, so that the migration could be seen as being in the ordinary course of maintenance and not extra load on busy systems staff. (Sorry: when I realised I'd started my reply with a few lines which by accident were tapering off at the ends I couldn't resist trying to see how long I could keep it up. It's foolish, I know, but it is a fun exercise in picking your words carefully and yet still trying to make sense. If you aren't reading with a fixed width font, you may not be getting the effect of the layout anyway: so if you can't see it, I'm sorry for taking up yet more of your time, just to play about with line lengths and make up pretty patterns in your mail reader. I'll stop now or at least once I can taper down to the length of the given name I sign off with). Jonathan (Whew!) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
Yes! This is the best answer to this question so far. Just UNIX nothing more :-) --Oliver Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: by not being linux at all. FreeBSD is more a server than a desktop system. Ubuntu particularly is FreeBSD isn't both desktop or server system. it is just unix - it depends from the user how it's being used. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Every four seconds a woman has a baby. Our problem is to find this woman and stop her. pgpp7yyxmniKF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 23:56 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You need something that costs too much, breaks down a lot, and never uses standard parts if they can help it. Mercedes? :) Fits the first, dunno about the third. Certainly not the second -- Benz are some of the best-engineered and built cars in existence. Maybe BMW, aka Bunch-a Money Wasted or Bite My Wallet. I wouldn't insult a quality car like that. Ive heard nothing but good stories about them and it's something I'd buy myself. Very safe to drive... Ok. How about the new VW beetle? I've heard they're crap- not as good as the original, expensive, poorly designed, break down a lot, and driven by little teeny boppers with money to waste buying just for the frilly stuff. Does that fit the bill? We'll take a vote- all in favor say aye... :P ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
Da Rock wrote: On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 23:56 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You need something that costs too much, breaks down a lot, and never uses standard parts if they can help it. Mercedes? :) Fits the first, dunno about the third. Certainly not the second -- Benz are some of the best-engineered and built cars in existence. Maybe BMW, aka Bunch-a Money Wasted or Bite My Wallet. I wouldn't insult a quality car like that. Ive heard nothing but good stories about them and it's something I'd buy myself. Very safe to drive... Ok. How about the new VW beetle? I've heard they're crap- not as good as the original, expensive, poorly designed, break down a lot, and driven by little teeny boppers with money to waste buying just for the frilly stuff. Does that fit the bill? We'll take a vote- all in favor say aye... :P Might I suggest a 1983 Renault Alliance? The first car I ever owned and it was ... what's the word I'm looking for ... ah yes: horrible! i would have traded it for a VW Beetle any day. :-) -- Chess Griffin GPG Key: 0x0C7558C3 http://www.chessgriffin.com signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wojciech Puchar wrote: use as a desktop system. Contrary to that impression, I'm sending this what is desktop system and server system? AFAIK it just depends of software installed, and it can be both.. ___ FreeBSD as a desktop compared to other OS's? I think there are technical, community and attitude differences which prevent FreeBSD from competing as a desktop. There is at least very strong consensus in the OpenBSD community and much less in FreeBSD community that the systems are developed by developers for the developer and alike on the base of the technical merit not cheap tricks. I am as a non-developer just getting a free ride. FreeBSD is a free system and doesn't have customers to please. It is developed by the people in their spare time to the best possible for their needs. (They are not necessary the same as yours and mine) Those Desktop users that you want to attract would not benefit from FreeBSD nor FreeBSD community would benefit from them. I wasn't trying to attract users or change anything, just point out that in the context of FreeBSD the difference is not just the different software. It's the difference between what interests the FreeBSD developers and what the average computer user expects. The OP should be aware of this aspect of FreeBSD. Someone else suggested that 'workstation' would be a better word than 'desktop' for FreeBSD. Support for USB devices seems better in Linux too. The number of times people would come in and say why don't you use Linux and I would say FreeBSD is better and they would say well plug this USB ethernet adapter in and see if it works then, and it wouldn't. If you knew how to alter permissions and do auto-mount you would see too. No this is driver support. But yes if it was usb pen drive then devfs.rules, automounter, idesk etc does it. If you want to do video editing on FreeBSD you can't use the main free software application, Cinelerra. It's not ported to FreeBSD and from what I've read it won't be - something to do with ALSA drivers I believe. Please, do not even go there. ALSA vs OSS story is one of the darkest chapters in the Linux development. Read this before we go any further http://4front-tech.com/hannublog/?p=5 Also multimedia functionality generally is far more developed on Mac and windows. yes. So what? OS X is life style operating system. My friends in Apple are making living by pleasing their customers. That is exactly it - it seems FreeBSD people are not generally interested in multimedia, whereas many 'general public' are. Which is not a complaint, just to let the OP know what to expect from a FreeBSD desktop. I would be really interested to know how the FreeBSD kernel compares to the Linux realtime kernel. Are there any recent benchmarks? Something like Kris Kennaway's fantastic mySQL benchmarks presentation? What is your point? Your desktop computer is faster than mine? That is irrelevant for the discussion about FreeBSD on the desktop. Realtime refers to the ability of the computer to present an audio stream and a video stream synchronised in real time and apparently depends on how the kernel does processing, not just how fast your or my computer works. It's very relevant to people who want to work with music or video. By the way, I proudly say as mostly OpenBSD user that OpenBSD scales the worst out of all *nix operating systems. :) I'm sure none of these things are impossible, simply I get the impression they are not very interesting to the people who decide the direction of FreeBSD. There are other differences which I think come down to the overall size of the development community. I'm sure FreeBSD has all the components to allow a nice icon and directory window appear automagically on the desktop when you plug your removeable drive or camera in. It does on mine. You have to know how to configure the damn thing. Yeah. I personally can't be bothered but many people would be completely lost if it didn't. And the size of the development community in Linux and probably Microsoft and Apple allows that and all the other configuration to be done for you. I guess there must be some sort of similarity between the number of people doing Debian development and the number of people doing FreeBSD development. The difference with Linux is that there are hundreds of other dev communities taking Debian or whatever as a starting point and configuring it for different out-of-the-box use. Hence ubuntu and all the others. Hence the PC-BSD, DekstopBSD, TrueBSD, RuFreeSBIE, MidnightBSD and all the others. There are in total over 40 distros based on FreeBSD. At least 10 of them that I know of have as a stated goal to be customized easy to use FreeBSD installation on the Desktop. There are comparatively very few desktop development projects that take FreeBSD as a starting point. With all due
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 02:46:39PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 20:23 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When defining the differences to my clients as to windows, Linux, and FreeBSD I use a 60's model VW beetle for windows ... Sheesh! What did VW do to you to deserve an insult like that? I still see the occasional beetle on the roads. I doubt that would be the case if they had to be rebooted a couple of times a day. Do you have a better suggestion? I'd be happy to use it ;) Maybe a Sigma? How about that Trabant (I don't know the seplling) that was made in some eastern bloc country before the wall went down?You were lucky to get from the house to the store in one of those, especially if there was a stop along the way that would require restarting the dead engine because they would not idle. jerry ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:15:00AM +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Thursday 21 February 2008 23:03, D G Teed wrote: For example, no where in this have I heard a peep about backup software. Anyone serious about IT is serious about backup. Yet there is no support for EMC (Legato) Networker in FreeBSD, and this is why our organization is migrating away from this FreeBSD. Petty quibble: I suspect that you mean ``there is no support for FreeBSD in EMC Networker'' rather than the other way round. Picking a backup solution that can't back up some of your servers, and opting to fix the problem by getting rid of the servers, seems to me to be doing things the wrong way round - irrespective of which OS you're forcing yourself to get rid of. Of course, EMC Networker may be so much better than any other backup solution as to justify the work involved in moving working services to a different platform - I don't know Networker so I can't really comment, although I agree with most of what you said about making sure you pick a platform which supports what you're trying to do. I say most because my own feeling as a sysadmin is that you must have a very good reason to run more than the bare minimum range of operating systems you can - which is an argument for moving away from some platforms if you're already running several. I am in the process of moving from multiple platforms, ranging from Windows NT4, through e-smith (server-in-a-box based on Red Hat), Debian, and FreeBSD, from 4.8 up to date. We are aiming to end up with a bunch of FreeBSD boxes, all using a standard build from a central buildserver, plus one or two boxes running Windows Server 2003 supporting users, who are all running Windows desktops and applications, including apps which run on the server, with clients connecting over the network. It's taken a while but every time we get rid of an old box my workload in supporting the rest of the system drops a little. Note: I'm not saying everyone should standardise on FreeBSD - that's just what I'm most familiar with at the moment, and when I started to move things round we had more FreeBSD servers than anything else, so it made sense to pick that and bring the rest into line, where we were able to, especially because the other OSes were mainly running on hardware which was due for replacement soon anyway, so that the migration could be seen as being in the ordinary course of maintenance and not extra load on busy systems staff. (Sorry: when I realised I'd started my reply with a few lines which by accident were tapering off at the ends I couldn't resist trying to see how long I could keep it up. It's foolish, I know, but it is a fun exercise in picking your words carefully and yet still trying to make sense. If you aren't reading with a fixed width font, you may not be getting the effect of the layout anyway: so if you can't see it, I'm sorry for taking up yet more of your time, just to play about with line lengths and make up pretty patterns in your mail reader. I'll stop now or at least once I can taper down to the length of the given name I sign off with). Jonathan (Whew!) I'm impressed. jerry ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On 2/22/08, Jonathan McKeown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Petty quibble: I suspect that you mean ``there is no support for FreeBSD in EMC Networker'' rather than the other way round. Picking a backup solution that can't back up some of your servers, and opting to fix the problem by getting rid of the servers, seems to me to be doing things the wrong way round - irrespective of which OS you're forcing yourself to get rid of. Well, we are not going to ditch the Windows Servers, nor run 2 backup solutions, so FreeBSD must go. We do have the client that someone made for Legato 6.0 some time ago and we are using that. A bug report appeared that the default configure for the client was insecure. It wasn't fixed after a year and the FBSD resolution was to drop the client from FBSD packages. Legato didn't make that FBSD legato 6.0 client package. Someone clever from within the FreeBSD developers made it based on how the package for Linux worked. From the pattern that followed, it seems that developer or contributor didn't maintain it afterward. So from our perspective, FreeBSD dropped something we have relied on to make FreeBSD doable in our server room. I know, there are always people who will say: you can't complain, you go fix it, but I'm sorry I'm not able to spend the time on it. After all, not everyone who flies is a pilot, and no one builds a plane only for pilots. I don't hate BSD - at home I run a sparcstation with NetBSD. --Donald ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
Am Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2008 15:58:51 schrieb James Harrison: 8. Most extensive collection of third party software (over 18000 ) only second to Debian. Looking back at it, I'm surprised I didn't mention that. Gentoo has over 24 thousand ebuilds, where an ebuild is their equivalent of a port: Err, don't confuse ebuilds with packages. A package is a piece of software (which is the equivalent of a port), whereas an ebuild is an install script for a specific version of a package. Normally, there's more than one version of a package (more than one ebuild) available for a package, which makes the ebuild count higher than the FreeBSD ports count, but the package count lower (somewhere above 12000). This doesn't count slotted ebuilds: for example, Gentoo has just one gtk package, which contains several ebuilds for slot 12 which is gtk-1.2.x and several ebuilds for slot 20, which is gtk-2.x (different slots are treated as different packages by the system internally), whereas FreeBSD has a gtk12 and a gtk20 port, which installs the respective versions. So, basically whatever numbers you take, they can't be compared directly anyway, but I guess that the number of ports is still higher than the Gentoo amortized package count would be. -- Heiko Wundram Product Application Development ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
8. Most extensive collection of third party software (over 18000 ) only second to Debian. Looking back at it, I'm surprised I didn't mention that. Gentoo has over 24 thousand ebuilds, where an ebuild is their equivalent of a port: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebuild http://packages.gentoo.org/categories/ is the page that lists the current number of ebuilds. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
Heiko Wundram (Beenic) wrote: Am Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2008 15:58:51 schrieb James Harrison: 8. Most extensive collection of third party software (over 18000 ) only second to Debian. Looking back at it, I'm surprised I didn't mention that. Gentoo has over 24 thousand ebuilds, where an ebuild is their equivalent of a port: Err, don't confuse ebuilds with packages. A package is a piece of software (which is the equivalent of a port), whereas an ebuild is an install script for a specific version of a package. Normally, there's more than one version of a package (more than one ebuild) available for a package, which makes the ebuild count higher than the FreeBSD ports count, but the package count lower (somewhere above 12000). This doesn't count slotted ebuilds: for example, Gentoo has just one gtk package, which contains several ebuilds for slot 12 which is gtk-1.2.x and several ebuilds for slot 20, which is gtk-2.x (different slots are treated as different packages by the system internally), whereas FreeBSD has a gtk12 and a gtk20 port, which installs the respective versions. So, basically whatever numbers you take, they can't be compared directly anyway, but I guess that the number of ports is still higher than the Gentoo amortized package count would be. And also be aware that many utilities included in the FreeBSD base system are ebuilds in the Gentoo world. tcpdump and top are just two examples I can think of off the top of my head. Cheers, Drew ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
As a Sysadmin I have 2 cents to add to this discussion. I think the whole chest beating, king of the hill, stand taking, mantra repeating is juvenile. There is no superior OS. As I do my job I don't start out figuring how I can slide my favorite distro into the equation. The OS is not at the center of decision making. What we want to get done is at the center. The beginning point is typically the application or service, and sometimes the application and service combined with the given hardware. Given these requirements, then we find an OS which supports them. As far as stability is concerned, I can't remember the last time something konked out on me because of a kernel bug. If something goes weird these days I'm most often to find hardware is the problem. We currently run over a dozen of each of Redhat Linux, Solaris, and FreeBSD, and two Debian servers. If someone has high uptimes they just don't believe in kernel security updates - it is nothing to be proud of. I'd like to see a resource which promotes intelligent decision making coming from the point of view of supporting the application or hardware, as this is essentially the angle I believe a sysadmin is coming from. For example, no where in this have I heard a peep about backup software. Anyone serious about IT is serious about backup. Yet there is no support for EMC (Legato) Networker in FreeBSD, and this is why our organization is migrating away from this FreeBSD. So for example, you can outline what backup options are available compared to Linux. --Donald ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
D G Teed wrote: As a Sysadmin I have 2 cents to add to this discussion. I think the whole chest beating, king of the hill, stand taking, mantra repeating is juvenile. There is no superior OS. As I do my job I don't start out figuring how I can slide my favorite distro into the equation. The OS is not at the center of decision making. What we want to get done is at the center. The beginning point is typically the application or service, and sometimes the application and service combined with the given hardware. Given these requirements, then we find an OS which supports them. As far as stability is concerned, I can't remember the last time something konked out on me because of a kernel bug. If something goes weird these days I'm most often to find hardware is the problem. We currently run over a dozen of each of Redhat Linux, Solaris, and FreeBSD, and two Debian servers. If someone has high uptimes they just don't believe in kernel security updates - it is nothing to be proud of. I'd like to see a resource which promotes intelligent decision making coming from the point of view of supporting the application or hardware, as this is essentially the angle I believe a sysadmin is coming from. For example, no where in this have I heard a peep about backup software. Anyone serious about IT is serious about backup. Yet there is no support for EMC (Legato) Networker in FreeBSD, and this is why our organization is migrating away from this FreeBSD. So for example, you can outline what backup options are available compared to Linux. DTrace is in current 8.0 at least in the restricted version:-) I do not think that the kind of the people who are getting information from his web-site need DTrace, ZFS, or ULE. But it is good to have it. And of course you are right. Even Windows is an excellent OS if you need to run CAD and keep your computer away from the Internet:-) --Donald ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
And of course you are right. Even Windows is an excellent OS if you need to run CAD and keep your computer away from the Internet:-) probably because CAD software you use are windows only ;) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
Thus spoke Predrag Punosevac on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 at 19:24:01 -0700: Chad Perrin wrote: On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 01:27:49PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: Try to find on the internet couple of advocacy articles by Greg Lehey. They are very well-written. Greg's a legend! :P -- Cheers, Bikal KC (Please use: nepbababucxspamfree_at_yahoo DOT ca) Journal: http://nepbabu.livejournal.com || pubkey: see header Rule 6: There is no Rule 6. - Rob Pike Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. - François-Marie Arouet pgpbKZd4Hqt3R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
Wojciech Puchar wrote: use as a desktop system. Contrary to that impression, I'm sending this what is desktop system and server system? AFAIK it just depends of software installed, and it can be both.. ___ FreeBSD as a desktop compared to other OS's? I think there are technical, community and attitude differences which prevent FreeBSD from competing as a desktop. For some time I ran a small suite of FreeBSD desktops for general passing users (community center for alternative type people) and sometimes it was quite difficult to defend FreeBSD against requests for Linux. Some desktop functionality that is available for other OS's is simply not available to FreeBSD. Recent Debian, Windows and Mac all do hotplug USB for instance. The key point is that if you unplug without unmounting you don't get system crashes. I've read some of the threads that say it's not at all easy to write it into FreeBSD but it is an important difference and it shows up some community and attitude differences. Imagine if computers were cars. FreeBSD would be a super reliable car or maybe truck that gets built and maintained and used by people who like to spend most of their time hanging out in the workshop. You have to lift the bonnet and press a button to get it going but they see that as trivial. But the person who has to get the kids down to the supermarket and get the shopping done before hubby comes home for tea is really not going to understand that there is any comparison with the system where a key is within easy reach of the drivers seat. Nobody in the FreeBSD workshop can see the point of doing a quite intricate rewiring task because the truck works so fantastically well in other respects. Support for USB devices seems better in Linux too. The number of times people would come in and say why don't you use Linux and I would say FreeBSD is better and they would say well plug this USB ethernet adapter in and see if it works then, and it wouldn't. If you want to do video editing on FreeBSD you can't use the main free software application, Cinelerra. It's not ported to FreeBSD and from what I've read it won't be - something to do with ALSA drivers I believe. Also multimedia functionality generally is far more developed on Mac and windows. I would be really interested to know how the FreeBSD kernel compares to the Linux realtime kernel. Are there any recent benchmarks? Something like Kris Kennaway's fantastic mySQL benchmarks presentation? I'm sure none of these things are impossible, simply I get the impression they are not very interesting to the people who decide the direction of FreeBSD. There are other differences which I think come down to the overall size of the development community. I'm sure FreeBSD has all the components to allow a nice icon and directory window appear automagically on the desktop when you plug your removeable drive or camera in. I guess there must be some sort of similarity between the number of people doing Debian development and the number of people doing FreeBSD development. The difference with Linux is that there are hundreds of other dev communities taking Debian or whatever as a starting point and configuring it for different out-of-the-box use. Hence ubuntu and all the others. There are comparatively very few desktop development projects that take FreeBSD as a starting point. Hence rolling your own X and desktop setup in FreeBSD let alone automounter and a hundred other things. This is not meant to be an anti-FreeBSD rant, I love FreeBSD, it has some sort of quality and ease of use which I find hard to define, which is different to the 'ease of use' of windows or ubuntu (see I can't even give them capital letters) and which I wouldn't swap for anything. But I do think there is also some refusal or maybe just lack of resource to engage with a completely different view of what computers are for that the vast majority of the computer population has, an attitude exemplified by the comment that started me off on this rant. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
Wojciech Puchar wrote: use as a desktop system. Contrary to that impression, I'm sending this what is desktop system and server system? AFAIK it just depends of software installed, and it can be both.. ___ FreeBSD as a desktop compared to other OS's? I think there are technical, community and attitude differences which prevent FreeBSD from competing as a desktop. There is at least very strong consensus in the OpenBSD community and much less in FreeBSD community that the systems are developed by developers for the developer and alike on the base of the technical merit not cheap tricks. I am as a non-developer just getting a free ride. FreeBSD is a free system and doesn't have customers to please. It is developed by the people in their spare time to the best possible for their needs. (They are not necessary the same as yours and mine) Those Desktop users that you want to attract would not benefit from FreeBSD nor FreeBSD community would benefit from them. Support for USB devices seems better in Linux too. The number of times people would come in and say why don't you use Linux and I would say FreeBSD is better and they would say well plug this USB ethernet adapter in and see if it works then, and it wouldn't. If you knew how to alter permissions and do auto-mount you would see too. If you want to do video editing on FreeBSD you can't use the main free software application, Cinelerra. It's not ported to FreeBSD and from what I've read it won't be - something to do with ALSA drivers I believe. Please, do not even go there. ALSA vs OSS story is one of the darkest chapters in the Linux development. Read this before we go any further http://4front-tech.com/hannublog/?p=5 Also multimedia functionality generally is far more developed on Mac and windows. yes. So what? OS X is life style operating system. My friends in Apple are making living by pleasing their customers. I would be really interested to know how the FreeBSD kernel compares to the Linux realtime kernel. Are there any recent benchmarks? Something like Kris Kennaway's fantastic mySQL benchmarks presentation? What is your point? Your desktop computer is faster than mine? That is irrelevant for the discussion about FreeBSD on the desktop. By the way, I proudly say as mostly OpenBSD user that OpenBSD scales the worst out of all *nix operating systems. I'm sure none of these things are impossible, simply I get the impression they are not very interesting to the people who decide the direction of FreeBSD. There are other differences which I think come down to the overall size of the development community. I'm sure FreeBSD has all the components to allow a nice icon and directory window appear automagically on the desktop when you plug your removeable drive or camera in. It does on mine. You have to know how to configure the damn thing. I guess there must be some sort of similarity between the number of people doing Debian development and the number of people doing FreeBSD development. The difference with Linux is that there are hundreds of other dev communities taking Debian or whatever as a starting point and configuring it for different out-of-the-box use. Hence ubuntu and all the others. Hence the PC-BSD, DekstopBSD, TrueBSD, RuFreeSBIE, MidnightBSD and all the others. There are in total over 40 distros based on FreeBSD. At least 10 of them that I know of have as a stated goal to be customized easy to use FreeBSD installation on the Desktop. There are comparatively very few desktop development projects that take FreeBSD as a starting point. With all due respect you are just ill informed. Look the above. Sorry to burst your bubble but PC-BSD is much easier to install and run than your Ubuntu. If PC-BSD/FreeBSD had a native Flash supports and if they succeed to automatic creation of PBI for all 18000 ports PC-BSD would smoke the Ubuntu as the number one Grand Ma Milly OS by a mile. Cheers, Predrag P.S. I am not trying to participate in a flame war or a troll so this is going to be my last message on this thread. Hence rolling your own X and desktop setup in FreeBSD let alone automounter and a hundred other things. This is not meant to be an anti-FreeBSD rant, I love FreeBSD, it has some sort of quality and ease of use which I find hard to define, which is different to the 'ease of use' of windows or ubuntu (see I can't even give them capital letters) and which I wouldn't swap for anything. But I do think there is also some refusal or maybe just lack of resource to engage with a completely different view of what computers are for that the vast majority of the computer population has, an attitude exemplified by the comment that started me off on this rant. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 01:48 +, Chris Whitehouse wrote: Wojciech Puchar wrote: use as a desktop system. Contrary to that impression, I'm sending this what is desktop system and server system? AFAIK it just depends of software installed, and it can be both.. ___ FreeBSD as a desktop compared to other OS's? I think there are technical, community and attitude differences which prevent FreeBSD from competing as a desktop. For some time I ran a small suite of FreeBSD desktops for general passing users (community center for alternative type people) and sometimes it was quite difficult to defend FreeBSD against requests for Linux. Some desktop functionality that is available for other OS's is simply not available to FreeBSD. Recent Debian, Windows and Mac all do hotplug USB for instance. The key point is that if you unplug without unmounting you don't get system crashes. I've read some of the threads that say it's not at all easy to write it into FreeBSD but it is an important difference and it shows up some community and attitude differences. Imagine if computers were cars. FreeBSD would be a super reliable car or maybe truck that gets built and maintained and used by people who like to spend most of their time hanging out in the workshop. You have to lift the bonnet and press a button to get it going but they see that as trivial. But the person who has to get the kids down to the supermarket and get the shopping done before hubby comes home for tea is really not going to understand that there is any comparison with the system where a key is within easy reach of the drivers seat. Nobody in the FreeBSD workshop can see the point of doing a quite intricate rewiring task because the truck works so fantastically well in other respects. Support for USB devices seems better in Linux too. The number of times people would come in and say why don't you use Linux and I would say FreeBSD is better and they would say well plug this USB ethernet adapter in and see if it works then, and it wouldn't. If you want to do video editing on FreeBSD you can't use the main free software application, Cinelerra. It's not ported to FreeBSD and from what I've read it won't be - something to do with ALSA drivers I believe. Also multimedia functionality generally is far more developed on Mac and windows. I would be really interested to know how the FreeBSD kernel compares to the Linux realtime kernel. Are there any recent benchmarks? Something like Kris Kennaway's fantastic mySQL benchmarks presentation? I'm sure none of these things are impossible, simply I get the impression they are not very interesting to the people who decide the direction of FreeBSD. There are other differences which I think come down to the overall size of the development community. I'm sure FreeBSD has all the components to allow a nice icon and directory window appear automagically on the desktop when you plug your removeable drive or camera in. I guess there must be some sort of similarity between the number of people doing Debian development and the number of people doing FreeBSD development. The difference with Linux is that there are hundreds of other dev communities taking Debian or whatever as a starting point and configuring it for different out-of-the-box use. Hence ubuntu and all the others. There are comparatively very few desktop development projects that take FreeBSD as a starting point. Hence rolling your own X and desktop setup in FreeBSD let alone automounter and a hundred other things. This is not meant to be an anti-FreeBSD rant, I love FreeBSD, it has some sort of quality and ease of use which I find hard to define, which is different to the 'ease of use' of windows or ubuntu (see I can't even give them capital letters) and which I wouldn't swap for anything. But I do think there is also some refusal or maybe just lack of resource to engage with a completely different view of what computers are for that the vast majority of the computer population has, an attitude exemplified by the comment that started me off on this rant. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd agree with nearly all that is said here- for my 2c. It neatly epitomizes what I attempted to present. When defining the differences to my clients as to windows, Linux, and FreeBSD I use a 60's model VW beetle for windows, a tank for Linux, and Fort Knox for BSD systems... The reason for this is that I find BSD systems are hard to break, stable as hell, may never need to reboot if setup correctly and used right, and just do what they're told to do. Linux is secure- but not as much, will go for months
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 19:28 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wojciech Puchar wrote: use as a desktop system. Contrary to that impression, I'm sending this what is desktop system and server system? AFAIK it just depends of software installed, and it can be both.. ___ FreeBSD as a desktop compared to other OS's? I think there are technical, community and attitude differences which prevent FreeBSD from competing as a desktop. There is at least very strong consensus in the OpenBSD community and much less in FreeBSD community that the systems are developed by developers for the developer and alike on the base of the technical merit not cheap tricks. I am as a non-developer just getting a free ride. FreeBSD is a free system and doesn't have customers to please. It is developed by the people in their spare time to the best possible for their needs. (They are not necessary the same as yours and mine) Those Desktop users that you want to attract would not benefit from FreeBSD nor FreeBSD community would benefit from them. Support for USB devices seems better in Linux too. The number of times people would come in and say why don't you use Linux and I would say FreeBSD is better and they would say well plug this USB ethernet adapter in and see if it works then, and it wouldn't. If you knew how to alter permissions and do auto-mount you would see too. If you want to do video editing on FreeBSD you can't use the main free software application, Cinelerra. It's not ported to FreeBSD and from what I've read it won't be - something to do with ALSA drivers I believe. Please, do not even go there. ALSA vs OSS story is one of the darkest chapters in the Linux development. Read this before we go any further http://4front-tech.com/hannublog/?p=5 Also multimedia functionality generally is far more developed on Mac and windows. yes. So what? OS X is life style operating system. My friends in Apple are making living by pleasing their customers. I would be really interested to know how the FreeBSD kernel compares to the Linux realtime kernel. Are there any recent benchmarks? Something like Kris Kennaway's fantastic mySQL benchmarks presentation? What is your point? Your desktop computer is faster than mine? That is irrelevant for the discussion about FreeBSD on the desktop. By the way, I proudly say as mostly OpenBSD user that OpenBSD scales the worst out of all *nix operating systems. I'm sure none of these things are impossible, simply I get the impression they are not very interesting to the people who decide the direction of FreeBSD. There are other differences which I think come down to the overall size of the development community. I'm sure FreeBSD has all the components to allow a nice icon and directory window appear automagically on the desktop when you plug your removeable drive or camera in. It does on mine. You have to know how to configure the damn thing. I guess there must be some sort of similarity between the number of people doing Debian development and the number of people doing FreeBSD development. The difference with Linux is that there are hundreds of other dev communities taking Debian or whatever as a starting point and configuring it for different out-of-the-box use. Hence ubuntu and all the others. Hence the PC-BSD, DekstopBSD, TrueBSD, RuFreeSBIE, MidnightBSD and all the others. There are in total over 40 distros based on FreeBSD. At least 10 of them that I know of have as a stated goal to be customized easy to use FreeBSD installation on the Desktop. There are comparatively very few desktop development projects that take FreeBSD as a starting point. With all due respect you are just ill informed. Look the above. Sorry to burst your bubble but PC-BSD is much easier to install and run than your Ubuntu. If PC-BSD/FreeBSD had a native Flash supports and if they succeed to automatic creation of PBI for all 18000 ports PC-BSD would smoke the Ubuntu as the number one Grand Ma Milly OS by a mile. Cheers, Predrag I agree with that, but there in lies the point- they don't. Its a shame that the definition of systems revolves around piece of crap software that everyone else has, but there you have it. So by desktop we mean easy to use, off the shelf that does what people want which they can get elsewhere- a home system. Workstation is a machine for the office with real IT people administering them. Which is primarily what FreeBSD stands for atm. And I don't believe it should change either. P.S. I am not trying to participate in a flame war or a troll so this is going to be my last message on this thread. Hence rolling your own X and desktop setup in FreeBSD let alone automounter and a hundred other things. This is not meant to be an anti-FreeBSD rant, I love FreeBSD, it
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
When defining the differences to my clients as to windows, Linux, and FreeBSD I use a 60's model VW beetle for windows ... Sheesh! What did VW do to you to deserve an insult like that? I still see the occasional beetle on the roads. I doubt that would be the case if they had to be rebooted a couple of times a day. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 20:23 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When defining the differences to my clients as to windows, Linux, and FreeBSD I use a 60's model VW beetle for windows ... Sheesh! What did VW do to you to deserve an insult like that? I still see the occasional beetle on the roads. I doubt that would be the case if they had to be rebooted a couple of times a day. Do you have a better suggestion? I'd be happy to use it ;) Maybe a Sigma? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On 21/02/2008, Da Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 20:23 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When defining the differences to my clients as to windows, Linux, and FreeBSD I use a 60's model VW beetle for windows ... Sheesh! What did VW do to you to deserve an insult like that? I still see the occasional beetle on the roads. I doubt that would be the case if they had to be rebooted a couple of times a day. I've driven a 1967 1300. Rebooting would have been a pleasure. Upsides: never needed an oil change. Downsides: Kyoto protocols. Do you have a better suggestion? I'd be happy to use it ;) Maybe a Sigma? H2 with a Go C-hocks flag on the half-retracted FM antenna: Dan Ackroyd's mum being chauffeured by Gary Busey in a leo-pard print camisole. Obligatory Kerry/Edwards bumber(sic) stickon partially covering the rn Broke: Watch 4 Finger. A bit of everything to everyone, really. The Ho was left out in the interest of good taste and conformance to the Bishop Don Magic Juan standard. -- -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 21:37 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When defining the differences to my clients as to windows, Linux, and FreeBSD I use a 60's model VW beetle for windows ... Sheesh! What did VW do to you to deserve an insult like that? I still see the occasional beetle on the roads. I doubt that would be the case if they had to be rebooted a couple of times a day. Do you have a better suggestion? I'd be happy to use it ;) Maybe a Sigma? [dropping the list] Never heard of Sigma as a vehicle. You need something that costs too much, breaks down a lot, and never uses standard parts if they can help it. Mercedes? :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
AFAIK it just depends of software installed, and it can be both.. Yup. That be the case. I think the poster just meant that FreeBSD tends to get software FreeBSD DOES NOT TEND to install anything more than a base system, doesn't start any services than minimum too. everything else is up to user, which i OK that's all. FreeBSD is just an operating system. and fortunately nothing more. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:44:37AM +1000, Da Rock wrote: On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 08:49 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: The way you phrased it makes it sound like FreeBSD is simply unsuited to use as a desktop system. Contrary to that impression, I'm sending this from a Thinkpad laptop with FreeBSD on it, and it's by far the best desktop OS I've ever had the pleasure to use. Me too. But you have to be more enabled to get a lot of the software the is wanted on a desktop system working. Case in point: Gnome is not automatically installed (or kde or any other wm). Web browsing can be tricky because you have to get wrappers for plugins and so on. For you and me- we don't mind because we know the result will be fantastic, but others who just want to get on with it it can be a pain. More enabled . . . ? You have to be more enabled to use *anything* that isn't preinstalled by the hardware vendor. That basically means anything that isn't MS Windows or MacOS X. After all, Linux, FreeBSD, Plan 9 . . . none of them are automatically installed on any computer, with rare exceptions. Therefore, I'd say a desktop version of FreeBSD would be better described as a workstation. Considering we're comparing to Ubuntu, I'd say thats a fair statement. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] McCloctnick the Lucid: The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 16:50 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:44:37AM +1000, Da Rock wrote: On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 08:49 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: The way you phrased it makes it sound like FreeBSD is simply unsuited to use as a desktop system. Contrary to that impression, I'm sending this from a Thinkpad laptop with FreeBSD on it, and it's by far the best desktop OS I've ever had the pleasure to use. Me too. But you have to be more enabled to get a lot of the software the is wanted on a desktop system working. Case in point: Gnome is not automatically installed (or kde or any other wm). Web browsing can be tricky because you have to get wrappers for plugins and so on. For you and me- we don't mind because we know the result will be fantastic, but others who just want to get on with it it can be a pain. More enabled . . . ? You have to be more enabled to use *anything* that isn't preinstalled by the hardware vendor. That basically means anything that isn't MS Windows or MacOS X. After all, Linux, FreeBSD, Plan 9 . . . none of them are automatically installed on any computer, with rare exceptions. Considering the original question of the OP wouldn't you agree that this might be their background? Therefore, I'd say a desktop version of FreeBSD would be better described as a workstation. Considering we're comparing to Ubuntu, I'd say thats a fair statement. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 01:27:49PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:14:04AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: [ snip a bunch of stuff ] On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:36:34AM -0500, Jerry McAllister wrote: A good rundown of some of the differences. Maybe you can put this on a web page and get it added to lists of comparrisons. Sure. I'll polish it up and post it somewhere in that polished form, then reply here. If not today, I'll aim to get it done tomorrow. Okay, posted: http://arc.apotheon.org/freebsd/vs_linux.html If anyone has suggestions for how to fix it up further, let me know. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Paul Graham: Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to build programs out of the wrong concepts. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
Chad Perrin wrote: On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 01:27:49PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:14:04AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: [ snip a bunch of stuff ] On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:36:34AM -0500, Jerry McAllister wrote: A good rundown of some of the differences. Maybe you can put this on a web page and get it added to lists of comparrisons. Sure. I'll polish it up and post it somewhere in that polished form, then reply here. If not today, I'll aim to get it done tomorrow. Okay, posted: http://arc.apotheon.org/freebsd/vs_linux.html If anyone has suggestions for how to fix it up further, let me know. Hi Chad, Here is my honest opinion. I hope it will help you improve the post :-) I didn't like very much the tone of the article as well as some pejorative conclusion. If you are going to post something even as a FreeBSD advocacy the tone of the article should be neutral and all claims verifiable. Do not get me wrong. I do not like Linux and more over I have never used it in my life but I would have hard time to swallow some of your claims. How would you feel if I tell you that I use mostly OpenBSD because it is easier for work than FreeBSD and in my experience much more stable than FreeBSD. Those are my subjective feelings and probably have little to do with the reality. If anything statement like that are irritating and have no value to a person who is deciding between using OpenBSD or FreeBSD. Try to find on the internet couple of advocacy articles by Greg Lehey. They are very well-written. Example: Statement of the type BSD appears more stable than Linux is non-verifiable. Statement of the type FreeBSD is direct decedent of the BSD flavor of Unix started in mid seventies at the University of California Berkley while the Linux kernel is Unix clone started in 1993 based on the mixture of System V and BSD Unix is verifiable. Or 80% of all servers with longest up time run FreeBSD is something that can be verified. You should definitely address the following things 1. FreeBSD is longer in the development than Linux. 2. Probably 80% of the servers with the longest UP time run FreeBSD. Give a link. Easy to find. 3. FreeBSD is a COMPLETE operating system GNU/Linux is not. 4. It has different development and engineering process than Linux. 5. It has better quality control at least because Linux has no quality control at all. 6. The Largest FTP sever on the world run FreeBSD (your beloved freebsd.org) 7. FreeBSD has one of the best systems for the installation of the third party software (ports and do not forget packages as some people will jump at you and make a claim that Debian has better packaging system as it is more efficient than compiling things from ports) 8. Most extensive collection of third party software (over 18000 ) only second to Debian. 9. One of the best documented systems 10. Mention the advantage of the BSD license comparing to GPL for the commercial use. 11. It is philosophically different than most Linux distros as all services are turned of by default. 12. Unlike Linux it doesn't claim that is the best and most suitable for everything. If you need security then Open is better choice. If you need something for embedded devices probably Net is better choice. 13. More secure than Linux if for no other reason but for PF which is ported from OpenBSD. Note that PF is not ported for Linux. 14. Kernel security level concept doesn't exist in Linux. Try to disperse common myth that BSD doesn't support hardware but do not be shy to admit that lack support for things like video conferencing. Do not be shy to admit that virtualization is poor and maybe intensionally as quite of few people do not believe that putting somebody's else cra*p on the top of FreeBSD will not make that cra*p working better or be more secure. If you need Window's application run Windows. Does it make a good Desktop system? Depends what do you mean by that. If you need everything working out of box for your grandmother Mily probably not. If you need Flash and Java plug-ins probably not. But if you need ROCK solid workstation for academic work, occasional multimedia and want to be 100% in control of your computer like me it is the best desktop OS around. Most Kind Regards, Predrag ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 19:24 -0700, Predrag Punosevac wrote: Chad Perrin wrote: On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 01:27:49PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:14:04AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: [ snip a bunch of stuff ] On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:36:34AM -0500, Jerry McAllister wrote: A good rundown of some of the differences. Maybe you can put this on a web page and get it added to lists of comparrisons. Sure. I'll polish it up and post it somewhere in that polished form, then reply here. If not today, I'll aim to get it done tomorrow. Okay, posted: http://arc.apotheon.org/freebsd/vs_linux.html If anyone has suggestions for how to fix it up further, let me know. Hi Chad, Here is my honest opinion. I hope it will help you improve the post :-) I didn't like very much the tone of the article as well as some pejorative conclusion. If you are going to post something even as a FreeBSD advocacy the tone of the article should be neutral and all claims verifiable. Do not get me wrong. I do not like Linux and more over I have never used it in my life but I would have hard time to swallow some of your claims. How would you feel if I tell you that I use mostly OpenBSD because it is easier for work than FreeBSD and in my experience much more stable than FreeBSD. Those are my subjective feelings and probably have little to do with the reality. If anything statement like that are irritating and have no value to a person who is deciding between using OpenBSD or FreeBSD. Try to find on the internet couple of advocacy articles by Greg Lehey. They are very well-written. Example: Statement of the type BSD appears more stable than Linux is non-verifiable. Statement of the type FreeBSD is direct decedent of the BSD flavor of Unix started in mid seventies at the University of California Berkley while the Linux kernel is Unix clone started in 1993 based on the mixture of System V and BSD Unix is verifiable. Or 80% of all servers with longest up time run FreeBSD is something that can be verified. You should definitely address the following things 1. FreeBSD is longer in the development than Linux. 2. Probably 80% of the servers with the longest UP time run FreeBSD. Give a link. Easy to find. Just a note -- linux is often not included in the lists of longest uptime because it has a feature whereby the uptime counter resets itself after a period of time. http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#hz1000 3. FreeBSD is a COMPLETE operating system GNU/Linux is not. 4. It has different development and engineering process than Linux. 5. It has better quality control at least because Linux has no quality control at all. 6. The Largest FTP sever on the world run FreeBSD (your beloved freebsd.org) 7. FreeBSD has one of the best systems for the installation of the third party software (ports and do not forget packages as some people will jump at you and make a claim that Debian has better packaging system as it is more efficient than compiling things from ports) 8. Most extensive collection of third party software (over 18000 ) only second to Debian. 9. One of the best documented systems 10. Mention the advantage of the BSD license comparing to GPL for the commercial use. 11. It is philosophically different than most Linux distros as all services are turned of by default. 12. Unlike Linux it doesn't claim that is the best and most suitable for everything. If you need security then Open is better choice. If you need something for embedded devices probably Net is better choice. 13. More secure than Linux if for no other reason but for PF which is ported from OpenBSD. Note that PF is not ported for Linux. 14. Kernel security level concept doesn't exist in Linux. Try to disperse common myth that BSD doesn't support hardware but do not be shy to admit that lack support for things like video conferencing. Do not be shy to admit that virtualization is poor and maybe intensionally as quite of few people do not believe that putting somebody's else cra*p on the top of FreeBSD will not make that cra*p working better or be more secure. If you need Window's application run Windows. Does it make a good Desktop system? Depends what do you mean by that. If you need everything working out of box for your grandmother Mily probably not. If you need Flash and Java plug-ins probably not. But if you need ROCK solid workstation for academic work, occasional multimedia and want to be 100% in control of your computer like me it is the best desktop OS around. Most Kind Regards, Predrag ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
Lone Wolf wrote: Hi. How FreeBSD differ from any Linx distro like Ubuntu? Thanks. Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dreamed before. E.A Poe http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php kk -- I do desire we may be better strangers. -- William Shakespeare, As You Like It ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
Easy way to describe the differences between UNIX, Linux and BSD http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php -Sean ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 James wrote: On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 19:24 -0700, Predrag Punosevac wrote: 2. Probably 80% of the servers with the longest UP time run FreeBSD. Give a link. Easy to find. Just a note -- linux is often not included in the lists of longest uptime because it has a feature whereby the uptime counter resets itself after a period of time. http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#hz1000 So do some recent versions of FreeBSD. It depends on what the HZ setting is. Besides, any server that is left running continually for that length of time is a neglected, unmaintained server and nothing to boast about. If you want something to brag about, look at the availability stats for hosting companies. It's a much better indicator of overall reliability, and companies running FreeBSD are generally very well represented in the top 10 each month. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/02/12/swishmail_is_the_most_reliable_hosting_company_in_january_2008.html Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHvRrd8Mjk52CukIwRCKanAJ9wLnzsZyJhignCF1FmSOJn9dlOjgCbBcK2 TY2+Ghj9mbNQiVEqsq7K4LQ= =HDfk -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 07:24:01PM -0700, Predrag Punosevac wrote: Chad Perrin wrote: If anyone has suggestions for how to fix it up further, let me know. Hi Chad, Here is my honest opinion. I hope it will help you improve the post :-) I do too. I didn't like very much the tone of the article as well as some pejorative conclusion. If you are going to post something even as a FreeBSD advocacy the tone of the article should be neutral and all claims verifiable. Do not get me wrong. I do not like Linux and more over I have never used it in my life but I would have hard time to swallow some of your claims. How would you feel if I tell you that I use mostly OpenBSD because it is easier for work than FreeBSD and in my experience much more stable than FreeBSD. Those are my subjective feelings and probably have little to do with the reality. If anything statement like that are irritating and have no value to a person who is deciding between using OpenBSD or FreeBSD. Frankly, I might be inclined to believe you with regard to stability, based on what I know of OpenBSD. I'd also be likely to think your easier for work was either purely personal preference or based on a specific set of working conditions that might favor OpenBSD in particular. Try to find on the internet couple of advocacy articles by Greg Lehey. They are very well-written. Example: Statement of the type BSD appears more stable than Linux is non-verifiable. Statement of the type FreeBSD is direct decedent of the BSD flavor of Unix started in mid seventies at the University of California Berkley while the Linux kernel is Unix clone started in 1993 based on the mixture of System V and BSD Unix is verifiable. Or 80% of all servers with longest up time run FreeBSD is something that can be verified. Good point, re: uptime numbers. On the other hand, because of the limited uptime number problem with Linux, that doesn't really mean anything. There's no verifiable and useful uptime comparison I'm aware of. You should definitely address the following things 1. FreeBSD is longer in the development than Linux. 2. Probably 80% of the servers with the longest UP time run FreeBSD. Give a link. Easy to find. 3. FreeBSD is a COMPLETE operating system GNU/Linux is not. That's not much of an argument. A Linux distribution is a complete OS, even if the Linux kernel isn't. Saying something like FreeBSD is a complete OS, Linux isn't, would just sound like verbal trickery. I think I'll avoid that approach. 4. It has different development and engineering process than Linux. I addressed some of that. 5. It has better quality control at least because Linux has no quality control at all. Untrue -- unless you have different definitions of quality control or no than I have. 6. The Largest FTP sever on the world run FreeBSD (your beloved freebsd.org) 7. FreeBSD has one of the best systems for the installation of the third party software (ports and do not forget packages as some people will jump at you and make a claim that Debian has better packaging system as it is more efficient than compiling things from ports) I started discussing this in my original, and I intend to get into more detail at some point with an update of the page. 8. Most extensive collection of third party software (over 18000 ) only second to Debian. Looking back at it, I'm surprised I didn't mention that. 9. One of the best documented systems I'm pretty sure I mentioned that. 10. Mention the advantage of the BSD license comparing to GPL for the commercial use. That's a matter that should be addressed separately, in a philosophical sense. On the other hand, it might be relevant for purposes of discussing commercial use. I'll have to consider whether that's something I want to include on that page. 11. It is philosophically different than most Linux distros as all services are turned of by default. That's something that needs to be handled carefully -- but I think it's worth mentioning. 12. Unlike Linux it doesn't claim that is the best and most suitable for everything. If you need security then Open is better choice. If you need something for embedded devices probably Net is better choice. I don't think Linux claims such, either. Rather, some Linux advocates claim that -- as do some FreeBSD advocates. The fact that dramatically fewer FreeBSD advocates make claims like that, however, is part of the reason I referred to the fact that the FreeBSD community tends to be less crazy in its approach to OS advocacy, than the communities for most Linux distributions. 13. More secure than Linux if for no other reason but for PF which is ported from OpenBSD. Note that PF is not ported for Linux. . . . yet. I seem to recall reading about plans for such a thing, though now I can't find any mention of it. 14. Kernel security level concept
FreeBSD Linux distro
Hi. How FreeBSD differ from any Linx distro like Ubuntu? Thanks. Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dreamed before. E.A Poe - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
Hi. How FreeBSD differ from any Linx distro like Ubuntu? by not being linux at all. NTG ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 12:51 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: by not being linux at all. FreeBSD is more a server than a desktop system. Ubuntu particularly is FreeBSD isn't both desktop or server system. it is just unix - it depends from the user how it's being used. True. But looking at it from a newbie point of view the statement helps give it perspective. I have to translate for people all the time and I know this works. We all know that FreeBSD whoops linux's ass, but as to how it does this is beyond most newer users. :P ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 11:48 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: Hi. How FreeBSD differ from any Linx distro like Ubuntu? by not being linux at all. FreeBSD is more a server than a desktop system. Ubuntu particularly is more of a desktop. That said, because it is a server its a hell of a lot more stable. I know of an old server that was up for over a year and half without rebooting. That has its drawbacks in that the fancy software like in some multimedia takes longer to become available, but as an X box it'll run better than others. For reference, FreeBSD doesn't run linux software- it uses different software distributions. But it can run some using a built in emulator- but not off the bat, it has to be installed the BSD way. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
by not being linux at all. FreeBSD is more a server than a desktop system. Ubuntu particularly is FreeBSD isn't both desktop or server system. it is just unix - it depends from the user how it's being used. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
Lone Wolf pisze: Hi. How FreeBSD differ from any Linx distro like Ubuntu? Thanks. If you'd like use FreeBSD on desktop, try DesktopBSD[1]. I use FBSD on server last 8 years. On workstations also, but last time I tried DesktopBSD and I really like it :) If you would like try Freebsd without installation get Freesbie[2] (Live CD with FreeBSD) [1] http://www.desktopbsd.net/ [2] http://www.freesbie.org/ Regards Arek -- Arek Czereszewski UNIX allows me to work smarter, not harder. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
But according to Wikipedia, FreeBSD is able to run Linux compatible software without any problems (exception for Linux Kernel 2.6) I can't run Linux software on FreeBSD? Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. How FreeBSD differ from any Linx distro like Ubuntu? by not being linux at all. NTG Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dreamed before. E.A Poe - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
Lone Wolf wrote: Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. How FreeBSD differ from any Linx distro like Ubuntu? by not being linux at all. But according to Wikipedia, FreeBSD is able to run Linux compatible software without any problems (exception for Linux Kernel 2.6) I can't run Linux software on FreeBSD? You need to install a minimal Linux environment that contains the libraries your Linux software is linked to emulators/linux_base-fc4. You also need to load the Linux compatibility module: # kldload linux or for permanent use add: linux_load=YES to your /boot/loader.conf file. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
software without any problems (exception for Linux Kernel 2.6) I can't run Linux software on FreeBSD? _Running_ Linux software and _being_ Linux(-based) are two completely different things. FreeBSD runs (most) Linux (and glibc based) software, but is a completely different (and mostly unrelated) codebase wrt. to the libc and the kernel. The distinction is pretty much the same with Wine: Wine can run Windows binaries (mostly), but because of that it still isn't Windows. fortunately it isn't both windows and linux. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:39:26AM -0800, Lone Wolf wrote: Hi. How FreeBSD differ from any Linx distro like Ubuntu? Thanks. Others have answered this sufficiently, but I wonder if this shouldn't be made into a FAQ item. It's certainly asked enough. Erik ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:26:42AM -0600, Erik Osterholm wrote: On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:39:26AM -0800, Lone Wolf wrote: Hi. How FreeBSD differ from any Linx distro like Ubuntu? Thanks. Others have answered this sufficiently, but I wonder if this shouldn't be made into a FAQ item. It's certainly asked enough. There have been extensive articles on this subject. I don't have my links conveniently available at the moment, but a brief search should turn up several There are links on the FreeBSD site and Onlamp and other places have extensive notes - both from pro FreeBSD perspectives and even some more pro Linux. But most are pretty neutral, just giving information. So, do a little searching. jerry Erik ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 09:26 -0600, Erik Osterholm wrote: On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:39:26AM -0800, Lone Wolf wrote: Hi. How FreeBSD differ from any Linx distro like Ubuntu? Thanks. Others have answered this sufficiently, but I wonder if this shouldn't be made into a FAQ item. It's certainly asked enough. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/funnies.html#VERY-VERY-COOL Seems pretty authoritative. Erik ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:14:45 -0800 (PST) Lone Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But according to Wikipedia, FreeBSD is able to run Linux compatible software without any problems (exception for Linux Kernel 2.6) I can't run Linux software on FreeBSD? Linux emulation is for running Linux binaries - it's mostly used for proprietary closed-source software. Most so-called Linux software is really UNIX software and will run natively on FreeBSD. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:14:04AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: Chad, A good rundown of some of the differences. Maybe you can put this on a web page and get it added to lists of comparrisons. jerry On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 05:14:45AM -0800, Lone Wolf wrote: But according to Wikipedia, FreeBSD is able to run Linux compatible software without any problems (exception for Linux Kernel 2.6) I can't run Linux software on FreeBSD? Linux is technically the name of an OS kernel. FreeBSD has a different kernel -- the FreeBSD kernel. Various Linux distributions include different lineups of default basic userland software and OS infrastructure, but they tend to have a lot of the core stuff in common (in particular the GNU toolset). FreeBSD shares a few tools in common with most Linux systems (GCC, for instance), but many of the basic userland and other core system tools are developed in tandem with the FreeBSD kernel, and are specific to FreeBSD. Both Linux distributions and FreeBSD aspire (to varying degrees and in different ways) to a generalized Unix system design. FreeBSD is very much a descendant of the BSD Unix design (obviously) while Linux distributions tend more toward the SysV family of Unix. Because there is sort of a common Platonic ideal of Unix, however, they do tend to share a lot in common. Also, because Linux systems are not strictly descended from either the BSD Unix family or the SysV Unix family of operating systems, it differs from both approaches, and borrows a bit from both. It borrows a lot of code from the various BSD Unix systems, too, since three of the four major modern branches of BSD Unix are released under the BSD license. In my experience: FreeBSD tends to be more stable than Linux distributions. I'm sure some of this is attributable to the fact that the core OS is all developed as part of a greater whole, with exceptions for only a few of the core tools (like GCC). If those tools could be replaced with FreeBSD specific equivalents, or at least non-GNU equivalents, this might even improve further over Linux distributions, which are put together from collections of available software developed with no significant cooperation (other than the GNU toolset itself, whose development isn't even coordinated with Linux kernel development). FreeBSD tends to be easier to work with under the hood than Linux distributions. This is in large part due to the more unified design process of FreeBSD, but also seems to be a result of some other forces at work, since there are characteristics of FreeBSD system configuration and design that do not seem related to the fact it's more of a coordinated effort, but still contribute to greater ease of use. Most Linux distributions default to bash as the shell, while FreeBSD's default is (t)csh. This is a difference that occasionally catches new immigrants to FreeBSD from the Linux world off-guard. It's not a bad thing, though. For one thing, as far as I'm aware there are fewer dependencies for tcsh than for bash, so it's less likely to break if some underlying piece of software gets a bad update. Linux distributions, because they're basically just a kernel and a bunch of disparate pieces of software collected into a running whole, tend to include everything outside the kernel in a single software management system. FreeBSD differentiates between a core or base system and the ports system, which is the general software management system equivalent to the software management systems of Linux distributions. Because of this, your choice of software management system isn't so much a part of the identity of the OS you are using with FreeBSD, whereas with a Linux-based OS (aka distribution), your OS is differentiated from others of the same family by default install configuration, distribution project management of software archives, and the software management system. The FreeBSD community tends to be more knowledgeable and professional, and less crazy in its approach to OS advocacy, than the communities for most Linux distributions. FreeBSD documentation is some of the best OS documentation in the world. One of the reasons I made the switch is that I noticed I was actually using official FreeBSD documentation for working with my Linux-based systems as often as I was using the official documentation that came with, or from, my Linux distribution. The distro-specific documentation wasn't as good as the FreeBSD-specific documentation, and the distro-agnostic Linux-based system documentation wasn't as coherent as similar FreeBSD documentation -- even though the distro-agnostic documentation and FreeBSD's equivalent OS-nonspecific documentation was almost identical in terms of the sort of software it covered. Once in a while I miss the slightly greater manpage
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 05:14:45AM -0800, Lone Wolf wrote: But according to Wikipedia, FreeBSD is able to run Linux compatible software without any problems (exception for Linux Kernel 2.6) I can't run Linux software on FreeBSD? Linux is technically the name of an OS kernel. FreeBSD has a different kernel -- the FreeBSD kernel. Various Linux distributions include different lineups of default basic userland software and OS infrastructure, but they tend to have a lot of the core stuff in common (in particular the GNU toolset). FreeBSD shares a few tools in common with most Linux systems (GCC, for instance), but many of the basic userland and other core system tools are developed in tandem with the FreeBSD kernel, and are specific to FreeBSD. Both Linux distributions and FreeBSD aspire (to varying degrees and in different ways) to a generalized Unix system design. FreeBSD is very much a descendant of the BSD Unix design (obviously) while Linux distributions tend more toward the SysV family of Unix. Because there is sort of a common Platonic ideal of Unix, however, they do tend to share a lot in common. Also, because Linux systems are not strictly descended from either the BSD Unix family or the SysV Unix family of operating systems, it differs from both approaches, and borrows a bit from both. It borrows a lot of code from the various BSD Unix systems, too, since three of the four major modern branches of BSD Unix are released under the BSD license. In my experience: FreeBSD tends to be more stable than Linux distributions. I'm sure some of this is attributable to the fact that the core OS is all developed as part of a greater whole, with exceptions for only a few of the core tools (like GCC). If those tools could be replaced with FreeBSD specific equivalents, or at least non-GNU equivalents, this might even improve further over Linux distributions, which are put together from collections of available software developed with no significant cooperation (other than the GNU toolset itself, whose development isn't even coordinated with Linux kernel development). FreeBSD tends to be easier to work with under the hood than Linux distributions. This is in large part due to the more unified design process of FreeBSD, but also seems to be a result of some other forces at work, since there are characteristics of FreeBSD system configuration and design that do not seem related to the fact it's more of a coordinated effort, but still contribute to greater ease of use. Most Linux distributions default to bash as the shell, while FreeBSD's default is (t)csh. This is a difference that occasionally catches new immigrants to FreeBSD from the Linux world off-guard. It's not a bad thing, though. For one thing, as far as I'm aware there are fewer dependencies for tcsh than for bash, so it's less likely to break if some underlying piece of software gets a bad update. Linux distributions, because they're basically just a kernel and a bunch of disparate pieces of software collected into a running whole, tend to include everything outside the kernel in a single software management system. FreeBSD differentiates between a core or base system and the ports system, which is the general software management system equivalent to the software management systems of Linux distributions. Because of this, your choice of software management system isn't so much a part of the identity of the OS you are using with FreeBSD, whereas with a Linux-based OS (aka distribution), your OS is differentiated from others of the same family by default install configuration, distribution project management of software archives, and the software management system. The FreeBSD community tends to be more knowledgeable and professional, and less crazy in its approach to OS advocacy, than the communities for most Linux distributions. FreeBSD documentation is some of the best OS documentation in the world. One of the reasons I made the switch is that I noticed I was actually using official FreeBSD documentation for working with my Linux-based systems as often as I was using the official documentation that came with, or from, my Linux distribution. The distro-specific documentation wasn't as good as the FreeBSD-specific documentation, and the distro-agnostic Linux-based system documentation wasn't as coherent as similar FreeBSD documentation -- even though the distro-agnostic documentation and FreeBSD's equivalent OS-nonspecific documentation was almost identical in terms of the sort of software it covered. Once in a while I miss the slightly greater manpage coverage of Debian, but for the most part FreeBSD's documentation wins without breaking a sweat. The single most stable software management system in the Linux world that I've ever used was Debian's APT. It's slightly less stable than the FreeBSD ports system, and the
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:13:39PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 12:51 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: by not being linux at all. FreeBSD is more a server than a desktop system. Ubuntu particularly is FreeBSD isn't both desktop or server system. it is just unix - it depends from the user how it's being used. True. But looking at it from a newbie point of view the statement helps give it perspective. I have to translate for people all the time and I know this works. We all know that FreeBSD whoops linux's ass, but as to how it does this is beyond most newer users. :P The way you phrased it makes it sound like FreeBSD is simply unsuited to use as a desktop system. Contrary to that impression, I'm sending this from a Thinkpad laptop with FreeBSD on it, and it's by far the best desktop OS I've ever had the pleasure to use. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Thomas McCauley: The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
Chad Perrin wrote: On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:13:39PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 12:51 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: by not being linux at all. FreeBSD is more a server than a desktop system. Ubuntu particularly is FreeBSD isn't both desktop or server system. it is just unix - it depends from the user how it's being used. True. But looking at it from a newbie point of view the statement helps give it perspective. I have to translate for people all the time and I know this works. We all know that FreeBSD whoops linux's ass, but as to how it does this is beyond most newer users. :P The way you phrased it makes it sound like FreeBSD is simply unsuited to use as a desktop system. Contrary to that impression, I'm sending this from a Thinkpad laptop with FreeBSD on it, and it's by far the best desktop OS I've ever had the pleasure to use. Aloha, I use 3 FreeBSD Destops and 1 old Dell laptop, all with XFCE 3 GUI all the time. ~Al Plant - Honolulu, Hawaii - Phone: 808-284-2740 + http://hawaiidakine.com + http://freebsdinfo.org + [EMAIL PROTECTED] + + http://aloha50.net - Supporting - FreeBSD 6.* - 7.* + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others.- Lewis Carrol ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:23:56AM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: use as a desktop system. Contrary to that impression, I'm sending this what is desktop system and server system? AFAIK it just depends of software installed, and it can be both.. Yup. That be the case. I think the poster just meant that FreeBSD tends to get software loaded on it for server purposes more and Lunix tends to come bundled to be used as a desktop more. jerry ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:14:04AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: [ snip a bunch of stuff ] On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:36:34AM -0500, Jerry McAllister wrote: A good rundown of some of the differences. Maybe you can put this on a web page and get it added to lists of comparrisons. Sure. I'll polish it up and post it somewhere in that polished form, then reply here. If not today, I'll aim to get it done tomorrow. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Paul Graham: Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to build programs out of the wrong concepts. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
use as a desktop system. Contrary to that impression, I'm sending this what is desktop system and server system? AFAIK it just depends of software installed, and it can be both.. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD Linux distro
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 08:49 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:13:39PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 12:51 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: by not being linux at all. FreeBSD is more a server than a desktop system. Ubuntu particularly is FreeBSD isn't both desktop or server system. it is just unix - it depends from the user how it's being used. True. But looking at it from a newbie point of view the statement helps give it perspective. I have to translate for people all the time and I know this works. We all know that FreeBSD whoops linux's ass, but as to how it does this is beyond most newer users. :P The way you phrased it makes it sound like FreeBSD is simply unsuited to use as a desktop system. Contrary to that impression, I'm sending this from a Thinkpad laptop with FreeBSD on it, and it's by far the best desktop OS I've ever had the pleasure to use. Me too. But you have to be more enabled to get a lot of the software the is wanted on a desktop system working. Case in point: Gnome is not automatically installed (or kde or any other wm). Web browsing can be tricky because you have to get wrappers for plugins and so on. For you and me- we don't mind because we know the result will be fantastic, but others who just want to get on with it it can be a pain. Therefore, I'd say a desktop version of FreeBSD would be better described as a workstation. Considering we're comparing to Ubuntu, I'd say thats a fair statement. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
