Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 18 Jan 2006, at 17:17, Nikolas Britton wrote: On 1/17/06, Philip Hallstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The computer is currently without keyboard, mouse or monitor. I am adding applications to the computer via ssh while I work. As soon as I get openbox and tightvnc installed, I'll switch to tightvnc so I can disconnect without disrupting jobs. (Hmm, I wonder if I'll have to add a mouse or keyboard at that point.) /usr/ports/sysutils/screen Screen is a full-screen window manager that multiplexes a physical terminal between several processes (typically interactive shells). Each virtual terminal provides the functions of a DEC VT100 terminal and, in addition, several control functions from the ANSI X3.64 (ISO 6429) and ISO 2022 standards (e.g. insert/delete line and support for multiple character sets). There is a scrollback history buffer for each virtual terminal and a copy-and-paste mechanism that allows moving text regions between windows. nohup foobar ~/foobar.log tail -f ~/foobar.log If you think that is even vaguely equivalent to screen, then I cannot suggest strongly enough that you actually try it. Ceri -- That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all. -- Moliere PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -Original Message- From: Adam Nealis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:13 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Graham Bentley; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: FreeBSD vs Linux --- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you say to the people who want to do some research before putting the time into installing it? I would suggest going to http://www.freebsd.org/docs.html and reading the FAQ (especially section 1) and the handbook for a start. This should give you an idea of the approach and the level of technical awareness you will need. The community and support sections should help you get a feel for how the OS is actually received. And if you have questions that aren't answered there, what then? Then come to this list, or approach some other forum that looks like it might be able to help. I am pointing this out because the process of asking questions on the mailing list is a legitimate means of research. Not everyone I agree. wants to just spend the time installing it and then deciding if they like it. Some want to do some research first, and that involves asking questions on the mailing list. Framing the question as a is freebsd better than linux kind of question is perfectly legitimate. I disagree with that. The guidelines for using this list recommend searching it first for answers. As you probably know, a fairly standard guideline in internet mailing lists is for newcomers to lurk. I have seen the subject of this thread many, many times. It is reasonably assumed that responsible internet users know to read the guidelines first. The idea is to both reduce repetition of questions, and to help the newcomer/ lurker to determine if this question has already been answered to their satisfaction faster than by posting to the list. If we as the FreeBSD community cannot answer that question, then why are we wasting our time with it? The question is too general. There are too many answers. It depends on context and depends on what one views as better. It is very _subjective_. Adam. ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
-Original Message- From: Adam Nealis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 2:59 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Graham Bentley; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux I disagree with that. The guidelines for using this list recommend searching it first for answers. As you probably know, a fairly standard guideline in internet mailing lists is for newcomers to lurk. I have seen the subject of this thread many, many times. It is reasonably assumed that responsible internet users know to read the guidelines first. The idea is to both reduce repetition of questions, and to help the newcomer/ lurker to determine if this question has already been answered to their satisfaction faster than by posting to the list. Except that both FreeBSD and Linux are constantly changing. Problems that are cited in one discussion are often taken care of or become moot issues because of other changes. If both the FreeBSD and Linux distributions were static and never changed then you would be correct, the answer is in the archives, dig it out. But that is not the case. Frankly, arguments like Is abortion right or wrong are based on issues that are far, far, far more static than either FreeBSD or Linux, yet those constantly come up over and over again in the public eye. If we as the FreeBSD community cannot answer that question, then why are we wasting our time with it? The question is too general. There are too many answers. It depends on context and depends on what one views as better. It is very _subjective_. I didn't say it was a good question, I said it was a legitimate question. Big difference. If you have ever worked a technical support desk you would know the difference between these types of questions. If you want to offer support to a questioner asking which is better, you need to explain why the question needs to be narrowed down and the only way to do this is to engage in a 2-way dialog with the questioner to find out what he needs. I think the problem with the which is better question in the group is that in the past, far too often, it's been trolls asking this question. They ask then when people try to engage them in a 2-way discussion they remain silent, or reply with irrelevant or completely stupid and idiotic responses. And unfortunately, a lot of axe-grinders on the list like to respond to trolls. But you don't want to lose sight of the fact that sometimes, the poster is simply ignorant of FreeBSD and Linux, and is asking this question because they simply don't know any better. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
What do you say to the people who want to do some research before putting the time into installing it? Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Graham Bentley Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:28 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Damn, I just fell into the same old trap. This is a questions list about FreeBSD. I already use it (as well as other OS's) What do I care about the arguments for and against xy and z? Thinking about it now, if I was asking the same question and someone said Why not try out FreeBSD and make your own mind up! I may think they where being a tad dismissive however there can never be any substitue for hands on experience !! To that guy (wherever he is now) :- Download FreeBSD and get it installed, its great! Come back and ask if you have any problems or questions and we will do our best to help :)) Happy FreeBSD'ing !!! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.19/231 - Release Date: 1/16/2006 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
--- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you say to the people who want to do some research before putting the time into installing it? I would suggest going to http://www.freebsd.org/docs.html and reading the FAQ (especially section 1) and the handbook for a start. This should give you an idea of the approach and the level of technical awareness you will need. The community and support sections should help you get a feel for how the OS is actually received. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Graham Bentley Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:28 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Damn, I just fell into the same old trap. This is a questions list about FreeBSD. I already use it (as well as other OS's) What do I care about the arguments for and against xy and z? Thinking about it now, if I was asking the same question and someone said Why not try out FreeBSD and make your own mind up! I may think they where being a tad dismissive however there can never be any substitue for hands on experience !! To that guy (wherever he is now) :- Download FreeBSD and get it installed, its great! Come back and ask if you have any problems or questions and we will do our best to help :)) Happy FreeBSD'ing !!! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.19/231 - Release Date: 1/16/2006 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
What do you say to the people who want to do some research before putting the time into installing it? Ted http://www.freesbie.org/ ;-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 01:19:38 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you say to the people who want to do some research before putting the time into installing it? Ted http://www.freebsd.org/ http://www.freebsddiary.org/topics.php http://www.onlamp.com/bsd/ http://www.freebsdforums.org/forums/index.php? http://www.ixsystems.com/cgi-bin/store/bsdlive.html http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=freebsdbtnG=Google+Search and don't forget: Have Fun! Andrew Gould ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
--- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danial Thom Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:54 AM To: Dick Davies; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. Ok, what do you guys live in a shoe or something? For pete's sake, how can so many people be so patently clueless and still be able to find food and shelter? Do you really have no idea how things work? Are you really so brainwashed by the geeky liberals that you have lost your ability to think? MS doesn't have to pay vendors, you toad. Vendors write drivers for windows because the market is substantial Actually, it's a lot worse than that, most times. The vendors usually aren't the ones that write drivers, it is the chipset manufacturers that usually write a stock driver that they supply with the chipset, with the idea that the vendor is supposed to use this as an example of how the chipset it to be handled when they write their own driver. All to often, though, the vendor merely repackages the chipset manufacturer's example driver. More rambling, useless points from Ted. Whether its written from scratch or not is irrelevant. The point is that in order to produce a windows driver you have to buy the dev kit, and MS doesn't pay them to do it. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
-Original Message- From: Adam Nealis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:13 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Graham Bentley; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: FreeBSD vs Linux --- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you say to the people who want to do some research before putting the time into installing it? I would suggest going to http://www.freebsd.org/docs.html and reading the FAQ (especially section 1) and the handbook for a start. This should give you an idea of the approach and the level of technical awareness you will need. The community and support sections should help you get a feel for how the OS is actually received. And if you have questions that aren't answered there, what then? I am pointing this out because the process of asking questions on the mailing list is a legitimate means of research. Not everyone wants to just spend the time installing it and then deciding if they like it. Some want to do some research first, and that involves asking questions on the mailing list. Framing the question as a is freebsd better than linux kind of question is perfectly legitimate. If we as the FreeBSD community cannot answer that question, then why are we wasting our time with it? Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
-Original Message- From: Danial Thom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 12:36 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Dick Davies; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: FreeBSD vs Linux More rambling, useless points from Ted. Whether its written from scratch or not is irrelevant. The point is that in order to produce a windows driver you have to buy the dev kit, Danial, do your homework next time. This isn't true. See the following: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/ddk/orderddkcd.mspx The cost of the Microsoft DDK is for shipping and handling only. (about $15) You don't have to buy it. Of course it works best with the MS C tools. People have also written Kernel Mode Drivers under the Windows Driver Model using gcc, see the following: http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/en/index.html There's also 3rd parties like the following: http://www.computer-solutions.co.uk/chipdev/windriver.htm who produce software that they claim will create drivers without the DDK and MS doesn't pay them to do it. My point was that if you actually spend some serious coin on some decent hardware instead of the dumpster diving you seem to be recommending, Danial, that you won't find that many problems getting drivers for UNIX systems. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
is freebsd better than linux kind of question is perfectly legitimate. Is FreeBSD more suitible as a desktop system with a 200mHz pentium-pro and a 4 gigabyte hard-drive than windows 3.11 on dos 6.22 on vmware on top of Solaris 10? is perfectly legitimate. Is FreeBSD better than Slackware? is legitimate. Is FreeBSD better than a generic kernel stuck onto an unknown useland being packaged by a 14-year-old AOL subscriber? is probably legitimate. Is FreeBSD better than *? is not. If we as the FreeBSD community cannot answer that question, then why are we wasting our time with it? I think this is a false dichotomy. Either that or I'm going to die tomorrow. -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:13 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux is freebsd better than linux kind of question is perfectly legitimate. Is FreeBSD more suitible as a desktop system with a 200mHz pentium-pro and a 4 gigabyte hard-drive than windows 3.11 on dos 6.22 on vmware on top of Solaris 10? is perfectly legitimate. Is FreeBSD better than Slackware? is legitimate. Is FreeBSD better than a generic kernel stuck onto an unknown useland being packaged by a 14-year-old AOL subscriber? is probably legitimate. Is FreeBSD better than *? is not. Anyone asking the question has an idea of what ? is, so your next logical question in preparing an answer is what version of linux This is implied, of course. If we as the FreeBSD community cannot answer that question, then why are we wasting our time with it? I think this is a false dichotomy. Either that or I'm going to die tomorrow. I can answer that question for me. My question to you is, if you cannot tell me why you think FreeBSD is better than any Linux distribution, then why are you bothering with it? Do you seek out inferior products to use, perchance? Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 08:03:15PM +0100, Mathias Menzel-Nielsen wrote: My hardware is fully supported by FreeBSD and in fact some of it was supported earlier on FreeBSD than on Linux. For example, the Brooktree bktr(4) Video-Capture driver existed first on FreeBSD, also high-speed cd-burning was not possible on Linux without eating all available cpu-time, before kernel 2.6 -- at that time FreeBSD burned my cd's at 52x-speed without noticeable cpu-usage. Multimedia was always a glance on FreeBSD -- dvd-playback/record, xvid-encoding, tv-capturing, blender -- all ever worked like a champ. Additionally to that, i would never move back to a linux distro, simply because their archaic package-management is not half as reliable in day-to-day-use as the FreeBSD ports tree. I am running the same FreeBSD install since 4.9 and it was easy and non-problematic to update to even major release changes. Even if that criticism doesnt apply as much to gentoo, which has some good efforts to use a ports-tree under Linux, I just prefer the original :) Same here. Using FreeBSD as a multimedia workstation and very happy with it. There are still a few shortcomings though, like missing MIDI recording (not playback) functionality and no support for my Pinnacle DC10+ Zoran video capture card; but if I need that, I'd just dual-boot into gentoo (which *does* feel a lot like FreeBSD from an admin POV and the main reason I picked that distro, just to feel more at home), do whatever is needed, and then reboot into FreeBSD. Not ideal, but workable. Regards, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Damn, I just fell into the same old trap. This is a questions list about FreeBSD. I already use it (as well as other OS's) What do I care about the arguments for and against xy and z? Thinking about it now, if I was asking the same question and someone said Why not try out FreeBSD and make your own mind up! I may think they where being a tad dismissive however there can never be any substitue for hands on experience !! To that guy (wherever he is now) :- Download FreeBSD and get it installed, its great! Come back and ask if you have any problems or questions and we will do our best to help :)) Happy FreeBSD'ing !!! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danial Thom Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:54 AM To: Dick Davies; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. Ok, what do you guys live in a shoe or something? For pete's sake, how can so many people be so patently clueless and still be able to find food and shelter? Do you really have no idea how things work? Are you really so brainwashed by the geeky liberals that you have lost your ability to think? MS doesn't have to pay vendors, you toad. Vendors write drivers for windows because the market is substantial Actually, it's a lot worse than that, most times. The vendors usually aren't the ones that write drivers, it is the chipset manufacturers that usually write a stock driver that they supply with the chipset, with the idea that the vendor is supposed to use this as an example of how the chipset it to be handled when they write their own driver. All to often, though, the vendor merely repackages the chipset manufacturer's example driver. Vendors don't write drivers for freebsd because: 1) the market is too small 2) Some don't want to release source, as they'll lose more to taiwanese cloners than they will make selling to 'nix users. 3) X sucks, so why risk having people badmouth your cards? Some of this is true but most of the reason is merely that the chipset manufacturers don't write the drivers so there's nothing for the vendor to repackage. And the chipset manufacturers only write a single driver for the largest OS in market share simply because their customers (the card vendors) won't buy the chipsets if an example driver doesen't exist, and to the chipset manufacturer, every single scrap of time spent writing a driver is wasted effort, whether the driver is for Windows or some other OS. If you actually go out and buy decent quality hardware that costs more money, where the vendors do in fact just use the chipset maker-supplied driver as a base to work from, you will find drivers for lots of different non-Windows operating systems. But you won't find that hardware in the bargin bin at Fry's. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Windows almost runs everything Quite the opposite, try running some application from a few years back on windows 200 or XP, big chance it won't work. Unix has not matured yet to compete with Microsoft. Yeah, let's just forget that UNIX had stuff like network support before windows even existed... Windows has a few edged on Unix, DirectX for example, but on many points UNIX is really in the lead, the fact that you can't get a driver for some specific card doesn't have anything do to with maturing, but with commerce, Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, FreeBSD is non-profit and can't afford such things... Windows has crap driver management, where you can simply use the ICH driver for just about all Intel integrated sound chips, while you have to get(download) a different driver for all the different chips on windows... Who has matured? Unix community simply did not get their act together and try to build an OS for the masses. The main argument for Unix is it is Free, but compatibility and upgrade paths are different issues. Upgrading is a pain on windows, upgrading from 98 to 2000 more or less needs a format and clean install, while on FreeBSD you have much more flexibility, so you can upgrade much easy er. Let's not talk about the windows update site, and 15 reboots required.. Unix is for the masses, the only problem it has is a proper user friendly GUI. With Windows on the other hand, you *HAVE* to do things as the Microsoft programmers envisioned and liked things, and lacks a lot of flexibility that FreeBSD does have, which makes FreeBSD for the masses, it doesn't matter if your an average end-luser, or a nerd, or whatever, everyone can do what they want the way they want to do it, you really don't have that kind of flexibility with windows. Everyone should use whatever they prefer to use, but there a couple of very good arguments in favor of FreeBSD, and while there are also arguments in favor of windows they are fewer... Say whatever you want, but the Unix permission system is better than Window's, it much more simple and elegant, which means less headache's, less mistakes and more security. The same goes for window's configuration, the registry, it's not a bad idea, but horribly failed, now you have a huge file with a lot of data, half of it redundant, and the worst is that it's undocumented. FreeBSD simply has a set of configuration files, mostly in /etc and /usr/local/etc most of them have a man page, and an example file in /usr/share/examples/etc This again is simpler, which, again, means less headaches, less mistakes and better security, performance etc. There are tons of examples like this, the fact that windows XP is 1.3 GB in size (Minimal!) is enough to know that windows is loaded with complicated shit, while the much simpler and elegant approach in FreeBSD works better. It's same as physics or biology really, I came across this quote recently: If you encounter a formula more that a quarter of a page long, then forget it, nature doesn't make things that complicated. Nature has been In development for billions of years, and learned that simplicity is the key, why do anything different with computers? Windows does... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
[Let me first point out I've seen about 4 different 'unix/windows is teh gayz0r' threads on completely unrelated mailing lists in the last 24 hours. If I sound bored rigid with the whole subject that might be why.] Can we please stop comparing *NIX to windows. They're nothing like each other. Like all software, they bothsuck in their own unique ways, it's just that BSD sucks in areas I mainly don't care about, and windows sucks at most of the things I do care about. On 18/01/06, Martin Tournoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Windows almost runs everything Quite the opposite, try running some application from a few years back on windows 200 or XP, big chance it won't work. So what? That's exactly the same for FreeBSD, even it's core apps. And vendors rush to support MS' new OSes. Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. Upgrading is a pain on windows, upgrading from 98 to 2000 more or less needs a format and clean install, while on FreeBSD you have much more flexibility, so you can upgrade much easy er. Have you ever brought 4.x up to 6.x? It doesn't sound like it. There are tools to solve this for windows, and there has been for a long time. Try updating 200 FreeBSD boxes, then try the same with a decent imaging system for windows. Unix is for the masses, the only problem it has is a proper user friendly GUI. Then it isn't for the masses. Deal with it. With Windows on the other hand, you *HAVE* to do things as the Microsoft programmers envisioned and liked things, and lacks a lot of flexibility that FreeBSD does have Can you justify that at all? If what you're saying boils down to 'you have the source' then I don't think that applies to 99% of users. Say whatever you want, but the Unix permission system is better than Window's, it much more simple It's also very outdated and has been reinvented several times. RBAC, SeLinux and MAC would indicate it's not flexible enough for most people. The same goes for window's configuration, the registry, it's not a bad idea, but horribly failed, now you have a huge file with a lot of data, half of it redundant, and the worst is that it's undocumented. FreeBSD simply has a set of configuration files, mostly in /etc and /usr/local/etc most of them have a man page, and an example file in /usr/share/examples/etc That's not in itself a good thing. As I understand it, the registry is a central place for storing configuration details. /etc has nothing like that. Think of something simple like a webserver docroot. Apache obviously needs to know about that, so might your ftp server, your backup/mirror scripts and so on. If you ever change that directories location, you'll have to update everything that references that path. That's a pain in the arse, and it's only one of dozens of annoyances with /etc. The arguments you're making above equally apply to 4.x /etc, and I don't think you'd argue that rcNG is a vast improvement. Have a look at things like Solaris SMF and you realise that rcNG isn't as good as it could be either. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Greetings Greg ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give a look at gentoo it's inspired by FreeBSD, and is linux as well the portage system works great... and as a personal opinion: Use gentoo for Home / Desktop / Office use use FreeBSD For web/ftp/file/ etc.. Servers. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 2006-01-18 16:55, Matias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Give a look at gentoo it's inspired by FreeBSD, and is linux as well the portage system works great... and as a personal opinion: Use gentoo for Home / Desktop / Office use use FreeBSD For web/ftp/file/ etc.. Servers. Nah. Why use something that is BSD-like when you can get the Real Thing(TM) for free? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Jan 18, 2006, at 10:55 AM, Matias wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Greetings Greg ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give a look at gentoo it's inspired by FreeBSD, and is linux as well the portage system works great... and as a personal opinion: Use gentoo for Home / Desktop / Office use use FreeBSD For web/ftp/file/ etc.. Servers. What the heck? No one has mentioned how Plan 9 TROUNCES FreeBSD AND Linux! In EVERYTHING! I've installed it on my notebook, my home server, three workstations, my Palm Pilot, telephone, coffeemaker, and my GE Refrigerator's ice maker. We had a power hiccup three days ago and my house became sentient! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. Ok, what do you guys live in a shoe or something? For pete's sake, how can so many people be so patently clueless and still be able to find food and shelter? Do you really have no idea how things work? Are you really so brainwashed by the geeky liberals that you have lost your ability to think? MS doesn't have to pay vendors, you toad. Vendors write drivers for windows because the market is substantial and because if they don't write drivers no-one who runs windows will buy their cards. Like DUH!. In fact, you have to PAY MS to get the devkit to build drivers for windows. Vendors don't write drivers for freebsd because: 1) the market is too small 2) Some don't want to release source, as they'll lose more to taiwanese cloners than they will make selling to 'nix users. 3) X sucks, so why risk having people badmouth your cards? If vendors are going to support a *nix, they'll support linux. The market is much larger. dt __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 18/01/06, Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. Ok, what do you guys live in a shoe or something? MS doesn't have to pay vendors, you toad. Did you read what I just typed Daniel? Because you're coming across as a bit of an ignorant twat. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 1/17/06, Philip Hallstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The computer is currently without keyboard, mouse or monitor. I am adding applications to the computer via ssh while I work. As soon as I get openbox and tightvnc installed, I'll switch to tightvnc so I can disconnect without disrupting jobs. (Hmm, I wonder if I'll have to add a mouse or keyboard at that point.) /usr/ports/sysutils/screen Screen is a full-screen window manager that multiplexes a physical terminal between several processes (typically interactive shells). Each virtual terminal provides the functions of a DEC VT100 terminal and, in addition, several control functions from the ANSI X3.64 (ISO 6429) and ISO 2022 standards (e.g. insert/delete line and support for multiple character sets). There is a scrollback history buffer for each virtual terminal and a copy-and-paste mechanism that allows moving text regions between windows. nohup foobar ~/foobar.log tail -f ~/foobar.log ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matias Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:55 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? You seem to have never used FreeBSD before. The answer to this question is huge. Your best friend is the internet (i.e. google.com) as people already mentioned. For example imagine that people may understand technical differences!!! Of course even if at the beginning looks like a good post to snob, between thousands of people this subject might have very good results. First: Whether Linux or FreeBSD is better, is totally subjective. I can install FreeBSD and start editing and building a custom kernel in 30 mins. When I sit on a Slackware (pcs in uni), I can use it of course, but I found difficult to build a custom kernel in it and to be honest before I search too much I went back to my FreeBSD. Some commands are slightly different! NO! I refuseAs long as it is available to me, I am sorry I want my FreeBSD mate! In the other hand I find knoppix the ultimate tool. The most impressing *nix like I have ever seen! I cannot go on holidays without my knoppix cd lately! That's because --I-- like it! Second: FreeBSD is everywhere...In computing... Remember this while reading, studying, googling for computers in the future! Now that I said googling what about http://www.google.com/bsd After typing your question to google as other people recommended, I recommend you type it to the above link too :) Third: UNIX was before Linux. --- I would like to ask two different questions on top of yours to complicate or maybe make things more interesting. Why there are many(!) Linux distos out there: http://www.linux.org/dist/list.html but only one freebsd? What is stopping people from making their own UNIX distributions, similar to FreeBSD? What are the differences between FreeBSD and SCO UNIXR? Greetings Greg ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give a look at gentoo it's inspired by FreeBSD, and is linux as well the portage system works great... and as a personal opinion: Use gentoo for Home / Desktop / Office use use FreeBSD For web/ftp/file/ etc.. Servers. Just want to say that I believe freebsd can be used for a very large list of things. Every time I perform something new using freebsd I realize that are other, the Operating Systems that cannot do some things...or they are just doing them really simply! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [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 vs Linux
Dick Davies = Sorry for sending you this mail twice, accidently pressed enter...(shoudn't eat and write e-mails at the same time...) So what? That's exactly the same for FreeBSD, even it's core apps. And vendors rush to support MS' new OSes. There's a very big dump of unmaintained software, whenever I want to play an old classic game like cc, x-com or even system shock 2(which is from '99) I have serious problems, and have to resort to emulation software (which is quite different from compat4x for example, which is compatibility and not emulation) I've never had a problem with old software on FreeBSD, there are probably many but much less. Have you ever brought 4.x up to 6.x? It doesn't sound like it. Nope, but I've been reading this mailing list long enough to know it's a real pain, but I'm quite sure it is possible. Note that I used much easy er and not easy There are tools to solve this for windows, and there has been for a long time. Yet another third-party hack? Try updating 200 FreeBSD boxes, then try the same with a decent imaging system for windows. Shell script...? Unix is for the masses, the only problem it has is a proper user friendly GUI. Then it isn't for the masses. Deal with it. This really wasn't my point, what I tried to say was that UNIX isn't the big user-unfriendly beast some people like you to believe, and that it can serve as user-friendly desktop just as well as Windows can (MacOS is a good example of this) It's also very outdated and has been reinvented several times. RBAC, SeLinux and MAC would indicate it's not flexible enough for most people. Not flexible enough for some people that is, not most, every system has it's ups and downs, and the standard permissions work for just about all desktop PCs and most hobby-servers That's not in itself a good thing. As I understand it, the registry is a central place for storing configuration details. More or less, however, it sucks, open regedit and browse through it and you'll know what I mean, names are cryptic and non-descriptive, the hierarchy doesn't make sense, and worst, it's undocumented.. Which means that hacking the registry is something similair to hacking sendmail.cf Editing ten diffrent files to change one thing is easyer, quicker and leads to less heacache then changing something in the registry... Have a look at things like Solaris SMF and you realise that rcNG isn't as good as it could be either. Never used Solaris so I can't say anything about their SMF, a (very) quick glance reminded me of linux... Anyway, rc isn't perfect, but it works for me, it atleast makes sense... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 18/01/06, Martin Tournoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what? That's exactly the same for FreeBSD, even it's core apps. And vendors rush to support MS' new OSes. There's a very big dump of unmaintained software, whenever I want to play an old classic game like cc, x-com or even system shock 2(which is from '99) I have serious problems, and have to resort to emulation software (which is quite different from compat4x for example, which is compatibility and not emulation) I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying rebuilding world so top still works with a new kernel might not be that much of a leap forward. [Incidentally, breaking backwards compatibilty was a conscious decision by MS, according to: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html (briefly, they'd always tried hard to support older apps, which is where a lot of windows 'bloat' comes from. They dropped that fairly recently, and people (developers) are very unhappy about it) Have you ever brought 4.x up to 6.x? It doesn't sound like it. Note that I used much easy er and not easy :) All I'm saying is these are universal problems. Try updating 200 FreeBSD boxes, then try the same with a decent imaging system for windows. Shell script...? as in: 'a simple matter of programming'? :) My point is you need to write it, whereas you can get a supported solution for MS off the shelf. That sort of thing matters to an IT manager/director, and they decide the budgets. Unix is for the masses, the only problem it has is a proper user friendly GUI. Then it isn't for the masses. Deal with it. This really wasn't my point, what I tried to say was that UNIX isn't the big user-unfriendly beast some people like you to believe, and that it can serve as user-friendly desktop just as well as Windows can (MacOS is a good example of this) True, but OSX doesn't expose the CLI to the same extent BSD does. I wonder how many OSX users have subsequently started using BSD. RBAC, SeLinux and MAC would indicate it's not flexible enough for most people. Not flexible enough for some people that is, not most, every system has it's ups and downs, and the standard permissions work for just about all desktop PCs and most hobby-servers But there is a need for that sort of granularity in many cases. (I for one dislike running webservers as root just so they can open port 80, for instance). It could be (and is) done better elsewhere, but 'good enough' stops it becoming widespread. Never used Solaris so I can't say anything about their SMF, a (very) quick glance reminded me of linux... check docs.sun.com when you have a spare few hours, you'll be surprised. Anyway, rc isn't perfect, but it works for me, it atleast makes sense... Yeah, I much prefer it to the sysvinit nonsense shudder. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
--- Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18/01/06, Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. Ok, what do you guys live in a shoe or something? MS doesn't have to pay vendors, you toad. Did you read what I just typed Daniel? Because you're coming across as a bit of an ignorant twat. Sorry, but I find it impossible that people don't know that vendors pay microsoft to write drivers. And you clearly weren't certain of your answer. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 18:15 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? I have been following this thread (and similar ones over the past few weeks) and would like to offer my perspective on the FreeBSD versus Linux discussion. FWIW, this isn't a troll, so my apologies if it upsets some of the more precious people on this list (and having read the list for the past couple of months you are definitely out there). To explain some background, I used/administered/programmed under Unix throughout the 1980s and 1990s (SysVR3, BSD4.2, Ultrix...), and I have been using Linux (RedHat/Fedora) for the past couple of years. I have recently been using/evaluating FreeBSD. I have no particular axe to grind in favour of either system. It's reasonable to assume that the sorts of people asking a question like what's the difference... or which is better... aren't designing brand-new top-end data centres. They are a lot more likely to be contemplating a move from MS Windows or perhaps have dabbled with Linux and are curious. I would also suggest that a better question than what's better is what is more appropriate. So, that preamble out of the way, my $0.02 is this. The distinction Linux is a kernel; FreeBSD is an O/S is - frankly - the sort of jesuitical sophistry that gets UseNet a bad name. The important things are: EASE OF USE AND INSTALLATION Linux is a much, much easier system to install and configure. No contest. Stick the disks in, it'll pretty much recognise any sound-card and video interface and will work out of the box without pissing about configuring X-windows or recompiling the kernel. I'm sure if you persevere for long enough with FreeBSD it's possible to get a quite usable desktop, with most of the applications that come bundled with a release of Linux. The FreeBSD installation process is like some sort of time-warp back to the 1980s. The argument that most FreeBSD installations are server, so don't require mice etc. is a circular/self-fulfilling one. People - frankly - aren't going to be bothered messing around getting FreeBSD working. Get used to it. COMMUNITY The Linux community is much larger than the FreeBSD one. I have noted certain comments in this mailing list about wanting to stay select, like some sort of digital Albania. To be honest, it's highly likely that your wish will come true. Fortunately there is this mailing list. And a couple of books, although when I went to my local bookstores (large ones, with big sections on computing) each had an entire shelf of Linux books, but none on FreeBSD. Thank goodness for Amazon, so I could get Lehey - which is excellent. The relative size of the communities means two things: there's much more support for Linux and also more applications are ready for Linux. Just like if I compare Linux with Windows. This list relies on a small number of dedicated experts who are generous enough with their time to answer a lot of questions over and over again. However, the FreeBSD community resembles some sort of religious cult at times. If FreeBSD wants to be anything other than a small footnote in the history of computing then it needs to engage a bit more with the 99.99% of the world who neither know - nor care - what it is; and who regard re-compiling a kernel as less of a God-given right and more of a tedious chore. HARDWARE SUPPORT I'd have to say that the hardware support in FreeBSD is probably better than that in Linux. Certainly it is on the hardware I've tested. But, for most people it's still a pain. SERVER APPLICATIONS All the tests I have done, and all I have read suggests that FreeBSD is superb for server applications. Once I have convinced myself of its support for SMB and a couple of other things, then it is highly likely I will be migrating my own servers over to FreeBSD: that's the best recommendation you can get. DESKTOP APPLICATIONS I love FreeBSD's pkg_add etc. and the ports collection is quite cool. But, pretty much all the stuff I want to port or add is there in most Linux distros. Lots of stuff also just doesn't work out of the box like it should. I have to force pkg_add to do strange stuff or there are other strange dependencies. If you're prepared to work on it, then you can get most applications running on FreeBSD, but it's still easier on Linux. SUMMARY IF you are prepared to work on it, FreeBSD looks like a great server operating system. If you're just an ordinary joe who wants a Unix-style OS then Linux is much easier to install, configure etc., has more desktop type applications which work first time etc. If you are building a data-centre which requires highly available servers then FreeBSD is better than Linux. But if you are in that sort of market you already know that, and are probably intending to wait a couple of months until Solaris goes open-source. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 18/01/06, Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18/01/06, Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (actually, no he didn't. your mail clients quoting is insane) (some guy:) Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, (me:) I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. (danial:) Ok, what do you guys live in a shoe or something? MS doesn't have to pay vendors, you toad. (me:) Did you read what I just typed Daniel? Because you're coming across as a bit of an ignorant twat. (danial:) Sorry, but I find it impossible that people don't know that vendors pay microsoft to write drivers. Maybe he meant 'it pays to write drivers for MS' or something? I didn't feel the need to call him names over it. And you clearly weren't certain of your answer. Yeah, I probably should have said something about his mother to help clarify things. sheesh :) -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2006-01-18 16:55, Matias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Give a look at gentoo it's inspired by FreeBSD, and is linux as well the portage system works great... and as a personal opinion: Use gentoo for Home / Desktop / Office use use FreeBSD For web/ftp/file/ etc.. Servers. Nah. Why use something that is BSD-like when you can get the Real Thing(TM) for free? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's just another option. I like very much both of them. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:00:59 + Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Let me first point out I've seen about 4 different 'unix/windows is teh gayz0r' threads on completely unrelated mailing lists in the last 24 hours. If I sound bored rigid with the whole subject that might be why.] Can we please stop comparing *NIX to windows. They're nothing like each other. Like all software, they bothsuck in their own unique ways, it's just that BSD sucks in areas I mainly don't care about, and windows sucks at most of the things I do care about. On 18/01/06, Martin Tournoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Windows almost runs everything Quite the opposite, try running some application from a few years back on windows 200 or XP, big chance it won't work. So what? That's exactly the same for FreeBSD, even it's core apps. And vendors rush to support MS' new OSes. And stuff is updated on other OSes as well. This part all around seems over blown... better APIs come and old ones slowly go away. Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. Upgrading is a pain on windows, upgrading from 98 to 2000 more or less needs a format and clean install, while on FreeBSD you have much more flexibility, so you can upgrade much easy er. Have you ever brought 4.x up to 6.x? It doesn't sound like it. My vote is to backup and reinstall, on major version bumps. I feel the same regardless of the OS. There are tools to solve this for windows, and there has been for a long time. Try updating 200 FreeBSD boxes, then try the same with a decent imaging system for windows. man 1 dd Unix is for the masses, the only problem it has is a proper user friendly GUI. Then it isn't for the masses. Deal with it. It is not a problem with the interface, but one of a problem with the users. Unix is what ever you want it to be and most people don't know what they want. If some one does not know what they want or what they are doing, they are pretty much screwed regardless of the interface. With Windows on the other hand, you *HAVE* to do things as the Microsoft programmers envisioned and liked things, and lacks a lot of flexibility that FreeBSD does have Can you justify that at all? If what you're saying boils down to 'you have the source' then I don't think that applies to 99% of users. I feel focusing on what the average moron would do and following in line in ones hardware/software/etc decisions in all around a bad move. Use what works and what you like. Say whatever you want, but the Unix permission system is better than Window's, it much more simple It's also very outdated and has been reinvented several times. RBAC, SeLinux and MAC would indicate it's not flexible enough for most people. Nah, it just proves it has been updated in multiple ways. I do agree, what we have currently works nicely. The same goes for window's configuration, the registry, it's not a bad idea, but horribly failed, now you have a huge file with a lot of data, half of it redundant, and the worst is that it's undocumented. FreeBSD simply has a set of configuration files, mostly in /etc and /usr/local/etc most of them have a man page, and an example file in /usr/share/examples/etc That's not in itself a good thing. As I understand it, the registry is a central place for storing configuration details. /etc has nothing like that. Think of something simple like a webserver docroot. Apache obviously needs to know about that, so might your ftp server, your backup/mirror scripts and so on. If you ever change that directories location, you'll have to update everything that references that path. That's a pain in the arse, and it's only one of dozens of annoyances with /etc. The arguments you're making above equally apply to 4.x /etc, and I don't think you'd argue that rcNG is a vast improvement. Have a look at things like Solaris SMF and you realise that rcNG isn't as good as it could be either. The only problem with rcNG is it can't currently handle a dynamic config. I honestly feel this problem of /etc and /usr/local/etc is vastly over stated. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:15:15 + Tim Greening-Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 18:15 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? I have been following this thread (and similar ones over the past few weeks) and would like to offer my perspective on the FreeBSD versus Linux discussion. FWIW, this isn't a troll, so my apologies if it upsets some of the more precious people on this list (and having read the list for the past couple of months you are definitely out there). To explain some background, I used/administered/programmed under Unix throughout the 1980s and 1990s (SysVR3, BSD4.2, Ultrix...), and I have been using Linux (RedHat/Fedora) for the past couple of years. I have recently been using/evaluating FreeBSD. I have no particular axe to grind in favour of either system. Nearly entirely FreeBSD since I started using unix a 5 years ago. I work with Redhat and Fedora a nice bit at work though. It's reasonable to assume that the sorts of people asking a question like what's the difference... or which is better... aren't designing brand-new top-end data centres. They are a lot more likely to be contemplating a move from MS Windows or perhaps have dabbled with Linux and are curious. I would also suggest that a better question than what's better is what is more appropriate. So, that preamble out of the way, my $0.02 is this. The distinction Linux is a kernel; FreeBSD is an O/S is - frankly - the sort of jesuitical sophistry that gets UseNet a bad name. The important things are: EASE OF USE AND INSTALLATION Linux is a much, much easier system to install and configure. No contest. Stick the disks in, it'll pretty much recognise any sound-card and video interface and will work out of the box without pissing about configuring X-windows or recompiling the kernel. I'm sure if you persevere for long enough with FreeBSD it's possible to get a quite usable desktop, with most of the applications that come bundled with a release of Linux. The FreeBSD installation process is like some sort of time-warp back to the 1980s. The argument that most FreeBSD installations are server, so don't require mice etc. is a circular/self-fulfilling one. People - frankly - aren't going to be bothered messing around getting FreeBSD working. Get used to it. Any time you need to start a X server to run the install, you have something drastically wrong with the installer. Nothing happens during the install that requires graphics... does not make a difference if it is FreeBSD or Fedora. Any one who is serious about using unix as a desktop, really needs to be able to configure X for them selves. BTW FreeBSD recognizes the sound card on all my hardware upon a fresh install. COMMUNITY The Linux community is much larger than the FreeBSD one. I have noted certain comments in this mailing list about wanting to stay select, like some sort of digital Albania. To be honest, it's highly likely that your wish will come true. Not been paying to close of attention, but I missed this part... other than the ranting of one or two idiots back there. Fortunately there is this mailing list. And a couple of books, although when I went to my local bookstores (large ones, with big sections on computing) each had an entire shelf of Linux books, but none on FreeBSD. Thank goodness for Amazon, so I could get Lehey - which is excellent. The relative size of the communities means two things: there's much more support for Linux and also more applications are ready for Linux. Just like if I compare Linux with Windows. This list relies on a small number of dedicated experts who are generous enough with their time to answer a lot of questions over and over again. However, the FreeBSD community resembles some sort of religious cult at times. If FreeBSD wants to be anything other than a small footnote in the history of computing then it needs to engage a bit more with the 99.99% of the world who neither know - nor care - what it is; and who regard re-compiling a kernel as less of a God-given right and more of a tedious chore. BAH! If one does not bother to be bloody selective one will find brain dead cult like mentality around all OSes. Yeah, that is what kernel modules are for... Crap like this pisses me off... why the hell should FreeBSD be the OS the does it all for you... what do you get when you want something to do that? crap... If enough FreeBSD users feel the need for this or want it, they will fix it. Hence open source. It is designed to provide a base system to build upon. This is what most people forget when they start demanding it do everything for them. That is not it's job, that would properly be the job of either a port or a seperate distribution that uses FreeBSD as the base. HARDWARE SUPPORT I'd have to say that the hardware support in FreeBSD is probably better
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Greetings Greg ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php Fabian -- http://www.fabiankeil.de/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
hi, kernel is one of the differences ;) freebsd uses generic kernel. and one other important difference is freebsd doest not support my intel high definition audio card :( so no sound for years :'( [other distros debian, suse ... support my card.] instead of yum or apt-get, you have ports in freebsd.[ which is more efficient! this is my opinion of course ;)] fedora, debian or suse can be used as an OS for PCs, but freebsd mostly used as a server. not much suitable for PC usage. . . . bla bla bla. regards, bye. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Linux is just kernel only. FreeBSD is complete operating system. FreeBSD and Linux have almost similar performance. There are much already discussed about it, a google search will give you more info. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Greetings Greg Whats the difference between a wheelbarrow and a dumptruck? You can't compare things without stating the intended use. They're both operating systems. Thats about where it ends without specifics. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
--- FlashWebHost.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linux is just kernel only. FreeBSD is complete operating system. FreeBSD and Linux have almost similar performance. There are much already discussed about it, a google search will give you more info. Nothing personal, but thats about the dumbest and most wrong (wrongest???) answer that one could possibly contemplate. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 18:42, Mehmet Fatih AKBULUT wrote: but freebsd mostly used as a server. not much suitable for PC usage. I really dislike this canard, I have run FreeBSD on a laptop since 3.4 and support for the hardware has generally been adequate, I guess it depends what you want to use it for. I wouldn't choose FreeBSD as an operating system for a media centre. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
i use freebsd at home too :) [as the only o.s. for my pc] that was 'my opinion'. [dont have sound :'( but still use it :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 vs Linux
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:07:25AM -0800, Danial Thom wrote: --- FlashWebHost.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linux is just kernel only. FreeBSD is complete operating system. FreeBSD and Linux have almost similar performance. There are much already discussed about it, a google search will give you more info. Nothing personal, but thats about the dumbest and most wrong (wrongest???) answer that one could possibly contemplate. DT Actually he's not too far off, Linux really is a kernel, it's not so much of an operating system until you get all the GNU tools to go along with it. Luckily there are distributions that do that for you, or you can go the LFS or DIY route I suppose and download everything yourself. As far as similar performance... well performance has a lot to do with the hardware and applications in question, but I must say there are no major differences between running kde on linux and kde on freebsd on my home pc. So although the answer is incomplete for sure, I certainly wouldn't say that it's the dumbest and/or wrongest reply that could have been given. Of course if the OP would have just googled this could have all been avoided to begin with ;) Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
At the risk of getting flamed...someone somewhere in the Usenet universe summed linux as the most self-incompatible OS. It's one of the unfortunate side-effects of the myriad of different distributions. And a lot of work must be done to compile apps from source in linux if you can't find an rpm bundle. On the other hand, with BSD, when it comes to apps, BSD either can't do it at all or BSD does it VERY well...better than just about any freely available OS. Of course, that depends on your definition of apps. That being said, I use both linux and BSD. At home, I use BSD for things like a firewall, website, fileserver, sendmail...common network applications where I want stability and simplicity. For playing around I use linux...cause if I break it, I can re-install from CD/DVD quickly. So, at home I use BSD for production systems, but linux for more desktop like stuff. At work, its the opposite. We use RHEL3 or 4 for production systems and use Fedora and SuSE for desktop. That's primarily because support comes from an identifiable (call-able) source such as Redhat or Novell and patching of the systems is easy. Not to mention the hardware vendor guarantee's compatibility (mention BSD to them and they look at you funny). Also, some commercial enterprise applications like Oracle database don't run natively on BSD. However, I do use the BSD's for custom things like firewalls and utility systems (cd/dvd burning, etc). --PJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Greetings Greg ___ 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 vs Linux
--- Mike Hernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:07:25AM -0800, Danial Thom wrote: --- FlashWebHost.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linux is just kernel only. FreeBSD is complete operating system. FreeBSD and Linux have almost similar performance. There are much already discussed about it, a google search will give you more info. Nothing personal, but thats about the dumbest and most wrong (wrongest???) answer that one could possibly contemplate. DT Actually he's not too far off, Linux really is a kernel, it's not so much of an operating system until you get all the GNU tools to go along with it. Luckily there are distributions that do that for you, or you can go the LFS or DIY route I suppose and download everything yourself. As far as similar performance... well performance has a lot to do with the hardware and applications in question, but I must say there are no major differences between running kde on linux and kde on freebsd on my home pc. So although the answer is incomplete for sure, I certainly wouldn't say that it's the dumbest and/or wrongest reply that could have been given. Of course if the OP would have just googled this could have all been avoided to begin with ;) No, thats ridiculous. Linux has multiple distributions that use the same kernel. The fact that freebsd only has one distribution doesn't make it any more complete. Performance is markedly different as well. If you only need to do trivial things, then both are suitable. So is Windows or Solaris. Otherwise you just have no idea what you're talking about. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 1/17/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Just google for it, there are plenty of comparisons. Mike -- Michael P. Soulier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. --Albert Einstein ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:38:24AM -0800, Danial Thom wrote: No, thats ridiculous. Linux has multiple distributions that use the same kernel. The fact that freebsd only has one distribution doesn't make it any more complete. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in a combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU, with Linux functioning as its kernel. http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html Google for linux is a kernel. Doesn't make FreeBSD better. Just means that when you say FreeBSD you refer to an entire OS and when you say Linux you refer to a kernel. Mike PS we all know the most important difference anyway: linux has a penguin. ;) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Mehmet Fatih AKBULUT wrote: hi, kernel is one of the differences ;) freebsd uses generic kernel. and one other important difference is freebsd doest not support my intel high definition audio card :( so no sound for years :'( [other distros debian, suse ... support my card.] instead of yum or apt-get, you have ports in freebsd.[ which is more efficient! this is my opinion of course ;)] fedora, debian or suse can be used as an OS for PCs, but freebsd mostly used as a server. not much suitable for PC usage. . . . bla bla bla. regards, bye. imho the seperation of Linux=Multimedia-Home-Use, FreeBSD=Server is no longer valid these days... My hardware is fully supported by FreeBSD and in fact some of it was supported earlier on FreeBSD than on Linux. For example, the Brooktree bktr(4) Video-Capture driver existed first on FreeBSD, also high-speed cd-burning was not possible on Linux without eating all available cpu-time, before kernel 2.6 -- at that time FreeBSD burned my cd's at 52x-speed without noticeable cpu-usage. Multimedia was always a glance on FreeBSD -- dvd-playback/record, xvid-encoding, tv-capturing, blender -- all ever worked like a champ. Additionally to that, i would never move back to a linux distro, simply because their archaic package-management is not half as reliable in day-to-day-use as the FreeBSD ports tree. I am running the same FreeBSD install since 4.9 and it was easy and non-problematic to update to even major release changes. Even if that criticism doesnt apply as much to gentoo, which has some good efforts to use a ports-tree under Linux, I just prefer the original :) in the end, the old question of the best OS is a waste in any case -- just take the os wich suits your needs and makes you feel comfortable. But pushing FreeBSD in the Server-OS -- No multimedia possible-corner does not represents its current state. Sorry, I dont want to start a FreeBSD vs. Linux Discussion -- just giving my 2 cents... greetings Matze ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
any idea when i'll be able to use my sound card on freebsd ;) ? [high definition audio :p] changing the topic ;) missed listening to music :'( [my speakers will get rot soon, dont even know if they still work :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 vs Linux
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:32:30PM +0200, Mehmet Fatih AKBULUT wrote: any idea when i'll be able to use my sound card on freebsd ;) ? [high definition audio :p] changing the topic ;) missed listening to music :'( [my speakers will get rot soon, dont even know if they still work :p] You know it could be worse, you could be using OpenBSD and then you'd never even have a chance at getting a proprietary driver to work. ;) In the meantime why don't you spend $5 and get a cheap sound card to give you something to do while you wait?:) OpenBSD vs. FreeBSD vs. Linux opens up a new old can of worms... or is that an new can of old worms? Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Have similar performance hah Linux is just kernel only. FreeBSD is complete operating system. FreeBSD and Linux have almost similar performance. There are much already discussed about it, a google search will give you more info. ___ 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 vs Linux
On Jan 17, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Danial Thom wrote: No, thats ridiculous. Linux has multiple distributions that use the same kernel. The fact that freebsd only has one distribution doesn't make it any more complete. Actually it is spot on. Linux is a kernel. The various distributions add a ueserland and tools to it but if you go look at the actual definition of Linux you will find it is just a kernel. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Jan 17, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Mehmet Fatih AKBULUT wrote: any idea when i'll be able to use my sound card on freebsd ;) ? [high definition audio :p] changing the topic ;) missed listening to music :'( [my speakers will get rot soon, dont even know if they still work :p] Just get a different sound card. There are lotsof inexpensive sounds cards that are probably supported by FreeBSD for just a few (10-30) $ Btw, this problem happens with Windows, Mac OS X, etc as well. I have been trying to put an extra USB/Firewire card in my G5, and they work, but with weird side effects like hanging IO. My dad had some sound card issues on Windows with supported cards. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux/ vs. OpenBSD
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:02:31 -0500 Mike Hernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:32:30PM +0200, Mehmet Fatih AKBULUT wrote: any idea when i'll be able to use my sound card on freebsd ;) ? [high definition audio :p] changing the topic ;) missed listening to music :'( [my speakers will get rot soon, dont even know if they still work :p] You know it could be worse, you could be using OpenBSD and then you'd never even have a chance at getting a proprietary driver to work. ;) In the meantime why don't you spend $5 and get a cheap sound card to give you something to do while you wait?:) OpenBSD vs. FreeBSD vs. Linux opens up a new old can of worms... or is that an new can of old worms? Mike Hi, My experience with FreeBSD on the laptop has been very good. And even OpenBSD isn't too bad for a laptop these days. Their generic kernel picks up most of the hardware. Rob Lytle -- http://home.comcast.net/~europa100 Rob Lytle Home Page ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
A FreeBSD vs Linux anecdote: I've read several articles over the years talking about how Linux can breathe new life into old computers. After the last couple of weeks, I don't buy it. After combining the hardware from 2 old computers (circa 1996 and 1998 -- anyone remember ISA cards, serial mice and AT cases?) I went through the process of finding a good operating system for it. The computer has a Pentium II 333MHz chip and 384MB RAM; so it's definitely worth keeping. I was unable to successfully install Fedora Core 4, SUSE Linux Professional 9.3, or Ubuntu 5.10. I was given the advice to try old versions of Linux; but how, then, does one deal with security issues? FreeBSD 6.0 and NetBSD 3.0 installed without any problems. The onboard sound chip was dead; so I swapped out the ISA modem for an ISA sound card, which was supported by both *BSD's. The onboard video is supported by both XFree86 and xorg. There are 3 PCI slots, so I added a D-Link Atheros wireless card and a USB2 card to get around most of the motherboard's limitations. For example, the hard drives connected via IDE are limited to ~8GB partitions; however, the computer seems to deal with a 60GB external, USB2 hard drive without problems. The computer is currently without keyboard, mouse or monitor. I am adding applications to the computer via ssh while I work. As soon as I get openbox and tightvnc installed, I'll switch to tightvnc so I can disconnect without disrupting jobs. (Hmm, I wonder if I'll have to add a mouse or keyboard at that point.) Andrew Gould ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
The computer is currently without keyboard, mouse or monitor. I am adding applications to the computer via ssh while I work. As soon as I get openbox and tightvnc installed, I'll switch to tightvnc so I can disconnect without disrupting jobs. (Hmm, I wonder if I'll have to add a mouse or keyboard at that point.) /usr/ports/sysutils/screen Screen is a full-screen window manager that multiplexes a physical terminal between several processes (typically interactive shells). Each virtual terminal provides the functions of a DEC VT100 terminal and, in addition, several control functions from the ANSI X3.64 (ISO 6429) and ISO 2022 standards (e.g. insert/delete line and support for multiple character sets). There is a scrollback history buffer for each virtual terminal and a copy-and-paste mechanism that allows moving text regions between windows. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:57:04 -0700 Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 17, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Danial Thom wrote: No, thats ridiculous. Linux has multiple distributions that use the same kernel. The fact that freebsd only has one distribution doesn't make it any more complete. Actually it is spot on. Linux is a kernel. The various distributions add a ueserland and tools to it but if you go look at the actual definition of Linux you will find it is just a kernel. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net I think the kernel vs OS difference is very important. Linux has a reputation of being very stable. If you survey the many (many, many) Linux distributions, however, I don't think you can justify one reputation for all of them. Advising someone to switch to Linux is dangerous because the advice is horribly incomplete. The advice needs to include information about specific distributions. Linux distributions can differ significantly. At this point, the decision process becomes much more complicated. This also explains why experienced Linux users are tired of hearing newbies ask Which Linux is best? Which distribution should I use? I enjoyed my time using Linux. There are still days when I miss Caldera's eDesktop 2.4. (What other OS let you play pacman _during_ the OS installation?!) I still try Linux distros every now and then for driver support; but greener grass seems to come with taller weeds. Andrew Gould ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:32:30 -0800 (PST) Philip Hallstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The computer is currently without keyboard, mouse or monitor. I am adding applications to the computer via ssh while I work. As soon as I get openbox and tightvnc installed, I'll switch to tightvnc so I can disconnect without disrupting jobs. (Hmm, I wonder if I'll have to add a mouse or keyboard at that point.) /usr/ports/sysutils/screen Screen is a full-screen window manager that multiplexes a physical terminal between several processes (typically interactive shells). Each virtual terminal provides the functions of a DEC VT100 terminal and, in addition, several control functions from the ANSI X3.64 (ISO 6429) and ISO 2022 standards (e.g. insert/delete line and support for multiple character sets). There is a scrollback history buffer for each virtual terminal and a copy-and-paste mechanism that allows moving text regions between windows. Thanks! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Using sound on a Unix box will not give you the same support for that then on a windows box if the sound card problem is with all major os'es then i would think your sound card is ready to be changed out i have a audigy Z2 in my unix box and i have had no errors so fare freebsd doesnt support high definition sound it barely support surround sound using OSS so dont expect to much as of now On Jan 17, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Mehmet Fatih AKBULUT wrote: any idea when i'll be able to use my sound card on freebsd ;) ? [high definition audio :p] changing the topic ;) missed listening to music :'( [my speakers will get rot soon, dont even know if they still work :p] Just get a different sound card. There are lotsof inexpensive sounds cards that are probably supported by FreeBSD for just a few (10-30) $ Btw, this problem happens with Windows, Mac OS X, etc as well. I have been trying to put an extra USB/Firewire card in my G5, and they work, but with weird side effects like hanging IO. My dad had some sound card issues on Windows with supported cards. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ 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 vs Linux
Just get a different sound card. There are lotsof inexpensive sounds cards that are probably supported by FreeBSD for just a few (10-30) $ Btw, this problem happens with Windows, Mac OS X, etc as well. I have been trying to put an extra USB/Firewire card in my G5, and they work, but with weird side effects like hanging IO. My dad had some sound card issues on Windows with supported cards. Chad Oh come on, I've been working with all Linux, FreeBSD and Windows. Getting a different card is not the solution. It is actually an absurd suggestion which goes to prove further that Unix has not matured yet to compete with Microsoft. If you are looking for compatibility, Windows is the answer. You are looking for security and stable releases, FreeBSD is the answer If you are seeking *free* OS with largest compatibility, Linux is the answer If you are seeking performance, FreeBSD is the answer. Windows almost runs everything, FreeBSD is stable, good performance but it is behind Linux when it comes to releasing drivers (example, zero-channel RAID cards weren't supported until very recently and still not quite official). The Linux OS has a much larger community than FreeBSD and hence has more development in it. In my opinion, I think the Unix world had missed the boat on trying to take over MSFT. The new Windows coming out are as stable as the Unix servers. With the Vista Windows, and a dramatic reduction of GUI, you can expect much better OS. Unix community simply did not get their act together and try to build an OS for the masses. The main argument for Unix is it is Free, but compatibility and upgrade paths are different issues. These are my two cents! Tamouh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:00:26PM -0500, Tamouh H. wrote: Just get a different sound card. There are lotsof inexpensive sounds cards that are probably supported by FreeBSD for just a few (10-30) $ Oh come on, I've been working with all Linux, FreeBSD and Windows. Getting a different card is not the solution. It is actually an absurd suggestion which goes to prove further that Unix has not matured yet to compete with Microsoft. That or the user(s). Microsoft doesn't write any sound card drivers, they make manufacturers do it then pay and beg to be included on the master distribution CD/DVD. For a device to work in FreeBSD someone who wants it bad enough to do the work has to have the skills and want it bad enough to do it. Of course wanting is no small part of how such skills are developed. Someone has an unsupported sound card with a Linux example. All the tough details about the hardware are spelled out in the Linux driver. Plenty of FreeBSD drivers have been ported to Linux and vice versa. In the early days of FreeBSD if one wanted a reliable CDROM then it had to be SCSI. Those who were doing the work liked SCSI, SCSI drives were much more consistant between makes and models than non-SCSI. So that was about the only choice one had in FreeBSD. Linux was very IDE-centric. Tuned around mass storage devices which were single-tasking. Resulting in Linux kernels which had an awful time dealing with SCSI devices which could queue multiple requests which might not respond in the exact same order as asked. SCSI was a four letter word in Linux camp. Today FreeBSD does an excellent job of supporting ATAPI, EIDE, and ATA devices. I don't know but expect Linux has matured and handles SCSI much better than in the past as features of ATA devices today closely resemble SCSI. The FreeBSD 6.0 kernel has a wrapper for using binary Windows device drivers. IIRC the main motivator (see above) was for broad WiFi hardware support. Might be able to use Windows sound card drivers for all I know. -- David Kelly N4HHE, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 17/01/06, David Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone has an unsupported sound card with a Linux example. All the tough details about the hardware are spelled out in the Linux driver. Plenty of FreeBSD drivers have been ported to Linux and vice versa. Danger Will Robinson! The GPL can make Linux - FreeBSD copying^W inspiration very tricksy indeed. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Andrew L. Gould wrote: A FreeBSD vs Linux anecdote: I've read several articles over the years talking about how Linux can breathe new life into old computers. After the last couple of weeks, I don't buy it. After combining the hardware from 2 old computers (circa 1996 and 1998 -- anyone remember ISA cards, serial mice and AT cases?) I went through the process of finding a good operating system for it. The computer has a Pentium II 333MHz chip and 384MB RAM; so it's definitely worth keeping. I was unable to successfully install Fedora Core 4, SUSE Linux Professional 9.3, or Ubuntu 5.10. I was given the advice to try old versions of Linux; but how, then, does one deal with security issues? FreeBSD 6.0 and NetBSD 3.0 installed without any problems. The onboard sound chip was dead; so I swapped out the ISA modem for an ISA sound card, which was supported by both *BSD's. The onboard video is supported by both XFree86 and xorg. There are 3 PCI slots, so I added a D-Link Atheros wireless card and a USB2 card to get around most of the motherboard's limitations. For example, the hard drives connected via IDE are limited to ~8GB partitions; however, the computer seems to deal with a 60GB external, USB2 hard drive without problems. The computer is currently without keyboard, mouse or monitor. I am adding applications to the computer via ssh while I work. As soon as I get openbox and tightvnc installed, I'll switch to tightvnc so I can disconnect without disrupting jobs. (Hmm, I wonder if I'll have to add a mouse or keyboard at that point.) Andrew Gould You probably didn't get past the GUI end of Linux distros. Most distros are tailored to end users nowadays so you have to grind your way through the mucky X junk they require to be installed in order to get to the guts of the distro. Depending on what you are trying to accomplish though, you should use whatever tools best fit the job at hand. Me? I hate FreeBSD desktop use (tried it for 1.5-2 years, but didn't like the means of updating), so I'm sticking with Gentoo for that purpose. My server however? It's a lower end Celeron with FreeBSD on it, and I like it that way because it has just enough tools to share my files between my 2 PCs via NFS and Samba, as well as it's fairly secure and doesn't demand a lot of CPU cycles for compiling stuff necessarily like Gentoo does (even though I schedule it for portupgrade via cron every once in a while). For everything else? My iBook serves as my portable link because Apple makes pretty solid hardware and software, given other hardware vendors and software makers on the market. It's the perfect mix between proprietary and non-proprietary/open-source software (available via Fink and other Cocoa/Carbon developer's sites). So, is there really one perfect solution? No... if there was then everyone would use the same thing. Are there good solutions for particular applications? Yes, and that is why you need to define your goals and expectations before asking others about what you want to accomplish. -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Tamouh H. wrote: Just get a different sound card. There are lotsof inexpensive sounds cards that are probably supported by FreeBSD for just a few (10-30) $ Btw, this problem happens with Windows, Mac OS X, etc as well. I have been trying to put an extra USB/Firewire card in my G5, and they work, but with weird side effects like hanging IO. My dad had some sound card issues on Windows with supported cards. Chad Oh come on, I've been working with all Linux, FreeBSD and Windows. Getting a different card is not the solution. It is actually an absurd suggestion which goes to prove further that Unix has not matured yet to compete with Microsoft. If you are looking for compatibility, Windows is the answer. You are looking for security and stable releases, FreeBSD is the answer If you are seeking *free* OS with largest compatibility, Linux is the answer If you are seeking performance, FreeBSD is the answer. Windows almost runs everything, FreeBSD is stable, good performance but it is behind Linux when it comes to releasing drivers (example, zero-channel RAID cards weren't supported until very recently and still not quite official). The Linux OS has a much larger community than FreeBSD and hence has more development in it. In my opinion, I think the Unix world had missed the boat on trying to take over MSFT. The new Windows coming out are as stable as the Unix servers. With the Vista Windows, and a dramatic reduction of GUI, you can expect much better OS. Where did you read that about Vista? I've seen the beta versions of Vista and they all require cadillac machines with spiffy OpenGL cards, etc, in order to function without a lot of lag and hiccups. And when you turn all the bells and whistles off, Vista is nothing more than a graphics enhanced versions of XP with additional security features, such as required administrator logins, etc like Unix has been doing for years and Mac has been doing for a while. Windows Vista will no doubt require lots of RAM in comparison to XP because the developers/business team will add more features than users can shake a stick at. Yet, sadly enough I do not deny the fact that Windows is required given the software development model and noting where the money lies in software and hardware support. Heck, if Windows didn't exist I doubt I would have a job =D. -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
David Kelly wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:00:26PM -0500, Tamouh H. wrote: Just get a different sound card. There are lotsof inexpensive sounds cards that are probably supported by FreeBSD for just a few (10-30) $ Oh come on, I've been working with all Linux, FreeBSD and Windows. Getting a different card is not the solution. It is actually an absurd suggestion which goes to prove further that Unix has not matured yet to compete with Microsoft. [snip] The FreeBSD 6.0 kernel has a wrapper for using binary Windows device drivers. IIRC the main motivator (see above) was for broad WiFi hardware support. Might be able to use Windows sound card drivers for all I know. I don't think so... wireless cards have a specific grand unified interface called NDIS, whereas I'm 99.9% sure that different vendors have different interfaces for sound cards. Read: http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net/ for more info on NDIS. -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
That or the user(s). Microsoft doesn't write any sound card drivers, they make manufacturers do it then pay and beg to be included on the master distribution CD/DVD. For a device to work in FreeBSD someone who wants it bad enough to do the work has to have the skills and want it bad enough to do it. Of course wanting is no small part of how such skills are developed. Someone has an unsupported sound card with a Linux example. All the tough details about the hardware are spelled out in the Linux driver. Plenty of FreeBSD drivers have been ported to Linux and vice versa. Still Microsoft has the upper hand! How about this for an idea, sponsored drivers ? Why not allow such service that if an organization or individual wishes to have a driver written they can sponsor a FreeBSD developer to do it? Where did you read that about Vista? I've seen the beta versions of Vista and they all require cadillac machines with spiffy OpenGL cards, etc, in order to function without a lot of lag and hiccups. And when you turn all the bells and whistles off, Vista is nothing more than a graphics enhanced versions of XP with additional security features, such as required administrator logins, etc like Unix has been doing for years and Mac has been doing for a while. Windows Vista will no doubt require lots of RAM in comparison to XP because the developers/business team will add more features than users can shake a stick at. Yet, sadly enough I do not deny the fact that Windows is required given the software development model and noting where the money lies in software and hardware support. Heck, if Windows didn't exist I doubt I would have a job =D. -Garrett Sorry, I wanted to mean LongHorn server, not the desktop version, for info about windows non-gui: http://www.entmag.com/reports/article.asp?EditorialsID=93 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Jan 17, 2006, at 6:16 PM, Tamouh H. wrote: Still Microsoft has the upper hand! How about this for an idea, sponsored drivers ? Why not allow such service that if an organization or individual wishes to have a driver written they can sponsor a FreeBSD developer to do it? How is that in any way new? The problem is that squeaky wheels are expecting their soundcard to be supported instantly and for free. Yet for some reason they hang around FreeBSD in spite of the soundcard driver deficiency. -- David Kelly N4HHE, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Jan 17, 2006, at 4:31 PM, Dick Davies wrote: On 17/01/06, David Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone has an unsupported sound card with a Linux example. All the tough details about the hardware are spelled out in the Linux driver. Plenty of FreeBSD drivers have been ported to Linux and vice versa. Danger Will Robinson! The GPL can make Linux - FreeBSD copying^W inspiration very tricksy indeed. Its a road already traveled. See: /usr/src/sys/gnu/dev/sound/pci/ -- David Kelly N4HHE, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:32:30 +0200 Mehmet Fatih AKBULUT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any idea when i'll be able to use my sound card on freebsd ;) ? [high definition audio :p] changing the topic ;) missed listening to music :'( [my speakers will get rot soon, dont even know if they still work :p] Try OSS. No clue if the chipset is support, but it is worth a shot. Also that is why I all am picky when picking hardware. I do agree with Matze though. FreeBSD makes a truely awesome multimedia experience. I've not seen any thing as impressive as FreeBSD running fluxbox, the nvidia driver, and and xdesktopwaves. It is pleasantly and graphically pleasing from all perspectives. I use FreeBSD for everything but running a few games and it does all I need nicely. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:00:26 -0500 Tamouh H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just get a different sound card. There are lotsof inexpensive sounds cards that are probably supported by FreeBSD for just a few (10-30) $ Btw, this problem happens with Windows, Mac OS X, etc as well. I have been trying to put an extra USB/Firewire card in my G5, and they work, but with weird side effects like hanging IO. My dad had some sound card issues on Windows with supported cards. Chad Oh come on, I've been working with all Linux, FreeBSD and Windows. Getting a different card is not the solution. It is actually an absurd suggestion which goes to prove further that Unix has not matured yet to compete with Microsoft. It is easily good enought to compete with Microsoft. Most hardware out there is generally crappy and low end and that does not change regardless of OS. I say it is a good suggestion if they bought the hardware, without checking what is supported. If you are looking for compatibility, Windows is the answer. You are looking for security and stable releases, FreeBSD is the answer If you are seeking *free* OS with largest compatibility, Linux is the answer With the list that FreeBSD supports I've rarely found it a problem to find hardware that works nicely. If you are seeking performance, FreeBSD is the answer. Windows almost runs everything, FreeBSD is stable, good performance but it is behind Linux when it comes to releasing drivers (example, zero-channel RAID cards weren't supported until very recently and still not quite official). The Linux OS has a much larger community than FreeBSD and hence has more development in it. Larger, but I am not really seeing any thing that interesting going on it. In my opinion, I think the Unix world had missed the boat on trying to take over MSFT. The new Windows coming out are as stable as the Unix servers. With the Vista Windows, and a dramatic reduction of GUI, you can expect much better OS. When was FreeBSD trying to take over MSFT? That really seems more likely something assorted linux projects were trying to do by making those OS idiot proof. Unix community simply did not get their act together and try to build an OS for the masses. The main argument for Unix is it is Free, but compatibility and upgrade paths are different issues. I've never had any compatibility problems or problems with upgrade paths with FreeBSD. Any one that bases hardware decisions on what what has most support is going to screw themselves, if they think they can go that route so they can buy any thing. Yes, you can run nearly any thing with XP, but if you don't pay close attention to what you buy, it is still going to majorly suck. Open source unix is not a OS for the masses, but one for those who need it and want it. I use it because all around it is more economical for me. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Jan 17, 2006, at 3:00 PM, Tamouh H. wrote: Just get a different sound card. There are lotsof inexpensive sounds cards that are probably supported by FreeBSD for just a few (10-30) $ Btw, this problem happens with Windows, Mac OS X, etc as well. I have been trying to put an extra USB/Firewire card in my G5, and they work, but with weird side effects like hanging IO. My dad had some sound card issues on Windows with supported cards. Chad Oh come on, I've been working with all Linux, FreeBSD and Windows. Getting a different card is not the solution. It is actually an absurd suggestion which goes to prove further that Unix has not matured yet to compete with Microsoft. You misunderstood what I said. Sure there are lots of sound cards out there for Windows and they are ALL compatible as Windows is the target that they are all developed against. My point was that Windows drivers often don't work the way they are advertised, or require a specific version of Windows that is 5 years old, or are not that stable. The problem of not having a driver for your specific version of Windows or having an unstable driver exists on Windows just like it exists on FreeBSD. There may be more choices on Windows but that doesn't mean you don't have problems with HW and drivers. Just ask my dad. He has had to rebuild his Windows machine a few times (software reinstall) when things get totally screwed up and a wrong driver gets installed by accident and hoses everything and it won't boot at all and the repair disks won't repair it. If you are looking for compatibility, Windows is the answer. Compatibility with what? All my HW is FreeBSD compatible. --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
*Some* reasonable and balanced points for a questions list :) My laptop distro www.zenwalk.org My rack server www.trustix.org My webserver www.freebsd.org (of course:) For very boring locked in accounts work W2K Using the appropraite tool for the job seems to be the best advice I have had on this list :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
koen de wijs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I want to try out Linux. I heard it is more user friendly and the basic stuff will be set up during installation. The definition of user friendly is hardly set in stone. I for one do not equate Microsoft style demoability with user frienliness, at least for this user. I strongly suspect that in most cases, user friendly is really just another way of saying just like what I'm used to. Quite a few, if not all, the major packaged Linuxes out there come with installers which will in all but a few weird cases figure out what your graphics hardware and mouse are and give you some sort of workable mode for both. That apparently makes the experience a lot less scary for a large chunk of those-who-install-Linux-for-the-first-time. Some of the packages even try to grab a network setup for you via DHCP. FreeBSD sysinstall on the other hand, will let you configure X if you choose during the install, and will configure your network the way you choose. I really don't like the sysinstall menu. It is really unlogically. Why isn't there a desktop and a server installation? This reminds me of somebody who turned up quite frustrated on the BLUG mailing list a while back complaining essentially that choosing the server option during NamedAfterComicstripMagician install gave him a Samba and web server, not the firewall with some extras he had in mind. Essentially there are too many definitions of desktop and server out there to make any real sense. The FreeBSD installer and related tools let you pick exactly the stuff you need, not some stranger's idea of what would be nice for you to prune back and swear at later. Could anyone give me a good site that describes the differences between FreeBSD and Linux? Google is your friend (or perhaps not in this particular case). I enjoy reading Daemon News (http://daemonnews.org) for a variety of reasons, and I vaguely remember some sensible articles on this very topic there. That URL also takes you within clicking distance of a good number of useful BSD sites. -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/ First, we kill all the spammers The Usenet Bard, Twice-forwarded tales ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Apr 20, 2005, at 3:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: koen de wijs wrote: Hello folks, I'm new to unix. This year I tried FreeBSD. Some friend of mine adviced FreeBSD. I think it works great. Only one thing that I don't like is that you will need to know a lot to setup a lot of basic stuff. Yeah, this is unix my friend, that mean you have to get dirty AND LEARN a lot in the process. There are a million sites discussing this, it's a flamebait, and no one wants to have that start up, so what you are doing is being (possible innocently, but I wonder) very very impolite. I totally agree, stop whining and begin to read, read, read a lot, Do you want the easy way? go with linux, btw, i think windows xp is the rigth choice to you ;-) , you dont want to read and learn, dont even touch a unix terminal I'm afraid after playing with both FreeBSD and some different distros of Linux, that easy way isn't necessarily Linux either. If anything it can get to be much more complex if used on the desktop when it comes to installing and updating software unless you only stick to that distro's way of installing new software. And if you set it up to do more complex tasks it still takes every bit as much understanding and altering of files as FreeBSD does! :-) The only easy way to go with installing things on a computer would have to be Windows (in the Intel world), since it is most often just a matter of clickclickclickclick done. Windows will usually run for several weeks while gathering glut and goo in the registry, in temporary directories, screwing up various things in the background. It has to be easy to set up because you end up having to reinstall when it starts acting weird :-) Really though; with Windows, it's a matter of I want a web server...down load web server...click click license yeah yeah click... oooh! Web server! (don't know what it has open in the background or what scripts are enabled or disabled or...but who cares...web server!) With a Unix system it's I want a web server...googlehmm...Apache looks like it should work...search through portsmake installedit config file...what's this do?...oh...googlegoogle...neat!...edit config...what's this directive?...googleokay...edit...save...apachectl start...web server with X, Y, Z enabled, ,listening on port X, logging to Y, with virtual host Z. WEB SERVER! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Apr 21, 2005, at 7:48 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bart Silverstrim Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 4:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux I'm afraid after playing with both FreeBSD and some different distros of Linux, that easy way isn't necessarily Linux either. If anything it can get to be much more complex if used on the desktop when it comes to installing and updating software unless you only stick to that distro's way of installing new software. And if you set it up to do more complex tasks it still takes every bit as much understanding and altering of files as FreeBSD does! :-) One of the sloppy kinds of talk that helps these wars rapidly degenerate is the continual mixing up of the operating system, FreeBSD, with the applications that people want to run on them. Technically correct. Practically speaking, most people don't care enough anymore. It's like the continual fight to enlighten users about security. They don't care because it seems to work without all that complicated stuff that idiot computer people throw at them to *GASP* learn! If companies want to sell things, they have to dumb them down for the market. Thus the perception to the end user is...application? Operating system? Whazzat? Every sysadmin has been greeted with Microsoft as an answer to questions like, What operating system are you running?, What word processor crashed?, What program was it?. Today you assume the answer since it's the monopoly, but I still remember when once in awhile you'd have to pry enough clues from them to find out that it was WordPerfect or what exact version of Windows it was... I just didn't think we'd be getting into a semantics war on this kind of topic...I wrongly assumed that it was understood that they wanted to use the computer to do something, not just discussing the installation process of the OS. In that case, Linux wins hands down with the most LiveCD options out there! :-) The only easy way to go with installing things on a computer would have to be Windows (in the Intel world), since it is most often just a matter of clickclickclickclick done. Ah, but you have to know what to click. And it is quite easy to click the wrong thing and get yourself backed into a corner. Setup.exe, then anything that says Next or Finish, unless it's grayed out in which case you mentally stumble, look up for an I agree radio button, then keep clickclickclick on next's, until it's grayed out again and you look up to see some kind of 30 digit keycode, you have to stop for twenty seconds to fumble with that keycode then double check it because having to RE ENTER it is such a frustration, then clickclickclickclick and it works magically again. Drol Really though; with Windows, it's a matter of I want a web server...down load web server...click click license yeah yeah click... oooh! Web server! (don't know what it has open in the background or what scripts are enabled or disabled or...but who cares...web server!) With a Unix system it's I want a web server...googlehmm...Apache looks like it should work...search through portsmake installedit config file...what's this do?...oh...googlegoogle...neat!...edit config...what's this directive?...googleokay...edit...save...apachectl start...web server with X, Y, Z enabled, ,listening on port X, logging to Y, with virtual host Z. WEB SERVER! Yeah, this is the procedure if you want a webserver for an internal network at your house that's behind a firewall. But if your planning on setting the server up on the Internet, you have omitted a whole series of steps that you have to follow for both OSs to lock down the server and keep it from being broken into. Did you miss the part about (don't know what it has open in the background or what scripts are enabled or disabled or...but who cares...web server!)? Not always, but having to go through the config files and googling often helps in the security part. If you do it right it will at LEAST open your eyes to some of the possibilities. And you'll have a better idea of what's going on than with the point-n-drool approach. It won't fix it entirely, but you're at least on the right track with the UNIX way. When those steps are followed, your looking at a good 4-5 hours of labor for either system. Sure, you can get a Windows box up and running faster, but with a public server, getting it running is only the first step in a long series of steps. You really have to understand both systems throughly if you put them online. With FreeBSD, you have to understand it throughly to get it to run, so the only real difference between them is that your FreeBSD system will get running near the end of this 4 hour block, your Windows system will get running at the beginning of this 4 hour block. But you still have to spend 4 hours on each
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Hi, I think FreeBSD is the easiest decent operating system that i have ever used(i have used windows and linux distros too). To install a webserver under freebsd u dont have to run here and there, just go to ports and make install clean. You dont need a bunch of buttons for that. And freebsd's documentation is the best in the world. But u will only understand that if u have spend some time on reading freebsd handbook. I installed my webserver just using the handbook. For me freebsd is not hard to use. Good luck with freebsd and enjoy. :) Cheers, Cyto - Original Message - From: Bart Silverstrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 12:32 PM Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux On Apr 20, 2005, at 3:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: koen de wijs wrote: Hello folks, I'm new to unix. This year I tried FreeBSD. Some friend of mine adviced FreeBSD. I think it works great. Only one thing that I don't like is that you will need to know a lot to setup a lot of basic stuff. Yeah, this is unix my friend, that mean you have to get dirty AND LEARN a lot in the process. There are a million sites discussing this, it's a flamebait, and no one wants to have that start up, so what you are doing is being (possible innocently, but I wonder) very very impolite. I totally agree, stop whining and begin to read, read, read a lot, Do you want the easy way? go with linux, btw, i think windows xp is the rigth choice to you ;-) , you dont want to read and learn, dont even touch a unix terminal I'm afraid after playing with both FreeBSD and some different distros of Linux, that easy way isn't necessarily Linux either. If anything it can get to be much more complex if used on the desktop when it comes to installing and updating software unless you only stick to that distro's way of installing new software. And if you set it up to do more complex tasks it still takes every bit as much understanding and altering of files as FreeBSD does! :-) The only easy way to go with installing things on a computer would have to be Windows (in the Intel world), since it is most often just a matter of clickclickclickclick done. Windows will usually run for several weeks while gathering glut and goo in the registry, in temporary directories, screwing up various things in the background. It has to be easy to set up because you end up having to reinstall when it starts acting weird :-) Really though; with Windows, it's a matter of I want a web server...down load web server...click click license yeah yeah click... oooh! Web server! (don't know what it has open in the background or what scripts are enabled or disabled or...but who cares...web server!) With a Unix system it's I want a web server...googlehmm...Apache looks like it should work...search through portsmake installedit config file...what's this do?...oh...googlegoogle...neat!...edit config...what's this directive?...googleokay...edit...save...apachectl start...web server with X, Y, Z enabled, ,listening on port X, logging to Y, with virtual host Z. WEB SERVER! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
koen de wijs wrote: Hello folks, I'm new to unix. This year I tried FreeBSD. Some friend of mine adviced FreeBSD. I think it works great. Only one thing that I don't like is that you will need to know a lot to setup a lot of basic stuff. I want to try out Linux. I heard it is more user friendly and the basic stuff will be set up during installation. I really don't like the sysinstall menu. It is really unlogically. Why isn't there a desktop and a server installation? Could anyone give me a good site that describes the differences between FreeBSD and Linux? Koen (I don't want to start a flame war, only some good sites) If you are not finding FreeBSD suitable based on what you have said, then FreeBSD is NOT for you. The developers are not here to design an OS that is to en compus the users that want everything done for you. You have to have a certain level of knowledge to do FreeBSD, and to do it well. If you want easy (numbingly boring) then both Windows and Linux (some distros - not all) are for you. Don't expect things to change just because they seem to inconvenience YOU. Either YOU adapt, or YOU move on. Just like if you hear a song on the radio - if you don't like, you change the station. Pretty simple. Now - as to the differences - go a Google search on FreeBSD vs Linux. -- Best regards, Chris The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
koen de wijs wrote: Hello folks, I'm new to unix. This year I tried FreeBSD. Some friend of mine adviced FreeBSD. I think it works great. Only one thing that I don't like is that you will need to know a lot to setup a lot of basic stuff. I want to try out Linux. I heard it is more user friendly and the basic stuff will be set up during installation. I really don't like the sysinstall menu. It is really unlogically. Why isn't there a desktop and a server installation? Could anyone give me a good site that describes the differences between FreeBSD and Linux? There are a million sites discussing this, it's a flamebait, and no one wants to have that start up, so what you are doing is being (possible innocently, but I wonder) very very impolite. If you want to protect your reputation, drop Linux vs. FreeBSD as a subject right this minute. Otherwise, depending on if you answer this, most of the world is going to put you on their kill list for email blocking. You have been warned. If you have a specific FreeBSD question though, trot it out, you'll be amazed how good the support is. Koen (I don't want to start a flame war, only some good sites) ___ 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 vs Linux
At 11:43 4/20/2005, koen de wijs wrote: Hello folks, I'm new to unix. This year I tried FreeBSD. Some friend of mine adviced FreeBSD. I think it works great. Only one thing that I don't like is that you will need to know a lot to setup a lot of basic stuff. I want to try out Linux. I heard it is more user friendly and the basic stuff will be set up during installation. I really don't like the sysinstall menu. It is really unlogically. Why isn't there a desktop and a server installation? Could anyone give me a good site that describes the differences between FreeBSD and Linux? There are some significant differences especially where servers are concerned--some links below. As far as the desktop environment goes, supposedly most anything that compiles on Linux, should compile on FreeBSD. http://tinyurl.com/2f8np http://www.offmyserver.com/cgi-bin/store/news/techtv_090303.html http://tinyurl.com/6xhrz http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux8.php http://www.InternetWeek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=12800936 http://Search.Yahoo.com/search?p=%22FreeBSD+vs.+Linux%22 http://www.Google.com/search?q=%22FreeBSD+vs.+Linux%22 Much of what runs on Linux also runs on FreeBSD, either 'natively' or using Linux emulation. http://www.Google.com/search?q=FreeBSD+features+Linux Here is an installation how-to that I've worked up: http://www.US-Webmasters.com/FreeBSD/Install/ Start Here to Find It Fast! - http://www.US-Webmasters.com/best-start-page/ $8.77 Domain Names - http://domains.us-webmasters.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
koen de wijs wrote: Hello folks, I'm new to unix. This year I tried FreeBSD. Some friend of mine adviced FreeBSD. I think it works great. Only one thing that I don't like is that you will need to know a lot to setup a lot of basic stuff. I want to try out Linux. I heard it is more user friendly and the basic stuff will be set up during installation. I really don't like the sysinstall menu. It is really unlogically. Why isn't there a desktop and a server installation? The above is a matter of taste, so I can't really do much other than share my personal experience. There is also a link closer the bottom if you want to skip my rant and get an answer to your second question. I use (i.e. administer) FreeBSD, OpenBSD, GNU/Linux (Debian), Solaris and Microsoft Windows Servers on a daily basis, so I have seen my share of different installation methods throughout the years. I started in the Windows world a few years ago and moved to the UNIX world around 1995 (Windows95 was a bit too much for my 486DX2-66 with 4MB of RAM to handle, so I gave Redhat a spin). I've personally found sysinstall(8), to be a rather straight forward and logical mechanism for configuring all of my basic stuff, eg: - disk partitioning - network configuration - pkg-installation [1] - input devices (e.g. keyboard/mouse) - console configuration - Xwindows configuration I admit that printing and sound are not configured out of the box, however getting them up and running is not incredibly difficult. My positive experience with sysinstall(8) may be due to the fact that I spent a few minutes to go over the instructions provided in the handbook, which is available in multiple languages (including, what I am assuming is your native tongue, German): http://www.freebsd.org/doc/ If your complaint is that FreeBSD and the community around it expect you too read some documentation, then FreeBSD probably is not the right OS for you. This is not to say that either you or FreeBSD are deficient, rather simply incompatible. There are UNIX like operating systems that allow you to have the instant gratification of a (usually) mostly working install out of the box without much reading (e.g. Mandriva (or OS formerly known as Mandrake), Suse, Fedora Core, etc...), so perhaps you would be more comfortable using one of those. Personally, I'm OK with the FreeBSD way of doing things so that's what I've been running as my primary desktop/workstation for the last few years. I do keep a GNU/Linux install (Currently Suse 9.2) on a laptop that I occasionally use so I remain up to date on the desktop side of GNU/Linux. If you are looking for a relatively inexpensive and easy to configure desktop only machine, but want still to play around with some UNIXy stuff, then perhaps Windows XP + (Cygwin [2] or Microsoft Services For Unix [3]) is a better route for you. Could anyone give me a good site that describes the differences between FreeBSD and Linux? This is a good place to start: http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php Koen (I don't want to start a flame war, only some good sites) Unfortunately, due to the tone of your e-mail, you may find yourself getting flamed a bit. Hopefully, your e-mail was sincere and you get some helpful answers. If you're trolling with that e-mail, then I hope no one takes the bait. In any case, I hope you find a solution that works for you. -Ash [1] I admit that I haven't used sysinstall(8) for this purpose in years, as I prefer to cvsup base and ports after installing a bare system and go from there. [2] http://www.cygwin.com/ [3] http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
koen de wijs wrote: Hello folks, I'm new to unix. This year I tried FreeBSD. Some friend of mine adviced FreeBSD. I think it works great. Only one thing that I don't like is that you will need to know a lot to setup a lot of basic stuff. Yeah, this is unix my friend, that mean you have to get dirty AND LEARN a lot in the process. There are a million sites discussing this, it's a flamebait, and no one wants to have that start up, so what you are doing is being (possible innocently, but I wonder) very very impolite. I totally agree, stop whining and begin to read, read, read a lot, Do you want the easy way? go with linux, btw, i think windows xp is the rigth choice to you ;-) , you dont want to read and learn, dont even touch a unix terminal ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Ash wrote: koen de wijs wrote: Could anyone give me a good site that describes the differences between FreeBSD and Linux? This is a good place to start: http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php That's an excellent article, and I wonder if the Powers That Be couldn't simply put the mail through one more script that would simply send that link (and then refuse further deliver) to any one of the 2 to 4 dozen people per month who post with such a subject line to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyway, thank you Matt, for taking time to write that one. To the O.P.: I get 3/4 of a million returns from your subject line when I enter it at www.google.com. There are some classics there that you should definitely look into, including Jeremy Zawodny's comparison using MySQLon both OS's, the TechTV episode with Matt Olander and Murray Stokely, and a paper Murray has/had at his freebsd.org webspace. Many of these are also archived mailing list threads, some (many!) from these lists, so you can see just what kind of can of worms you have attempted to open ;-) (regardless of intent; I bear no ill wil either; etc.; etc.; YMMV; include #disclaimer.h; ...). snip In any case, I hope you find a solution that works for you. -Ash I'll hope so, too. To the O.P., grandad used to say that anything worth having is worth working for ...; however, I understand the potential issues involved, I think. Use what makes you happiest, if happiness comes from such a trivial thing as O.S. choice. I would suggest that you'll spend more time and effort trying to ascertain how much time and effort you'll save with one vs. the other than if you just picked one or the other and installed it. But that can depend on what it is exactly you do. If you are an efficiency expert, feel free to publish a whitepaper; one more fellow harping on TCO should be just about right, I think ;-) [1] I admit that I haven't used sysinstall(8) for this purpose in years, as I prefer to cvsup base and ports after installing a bare system and go from there. After using sysinstall for the base system, with a little reading up on shell scripting, you can set up your own install wizard and run it from a floppy, cross a reboot and take a day off while the server/desktop/whatever box sets itself up I'm trying it, myself. Kevin Kinsey ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Apr 20, 2005, at 3:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: koen de wijs wrote: Hello folks, I'm new to unix. This year I tried FreeBSD. Some friend of mine adviced FreeBSD. I think it works great. Only one thing that I don't like is that you will need to know a lot to setup a lot of basic stuff. Yeah, this is unix my friend, that mean you have to get dirty AND LEARN a lot in the process. There are a million sites discussing this, it's a flamebait, and no one wants to have that start up, so what you are doing is being (possible innocently, but I wonder) very very impolite. I totally agree, stop whining and begin to read, read, read a lot, Do you want the easy way? go with linux, btw, i think windows xp is the rigth choice to you ;-) , you dont want to read and learn, dont even touch a unix terminal I'm afraid after playing with both FreeBSD and some different distros of Linux, that easy way isn't necessarily Linux either. If anything it can get to be much more complex if used on the desktop when it comes to installing and updating software unless you only stick to that distro's way of installing new software. And if you set it up to do more complex tasks it still takes every bit as much understanding and altering of files as FreeBSD does! :-) The only easy way to go with installing things on a computer would have to be Windows (in the Intel world), since it is most often just a matter of clickclickclickclick done. Windows will usually run for several weeks while gathering glut and goo in the registry, in temporary directories, screwing up various things in the background. It has to be easy to set up because you end up having to reinstall when it starts acting weird :-) Really though; with Windows, it's a matter of I want a web server...down load web server...click click license yeah yeah click... oooh! Web server! (don't know what it has open in the background or what scripts are enabled or disabled or...but who cares...web server!) With a Unix system it's I want a web server...googlehmm...Apache looks like it should work...search through portsmake installedit config file...what's this do?...oh...googlegoogle...neat!...edit config...what's this directive?...googleokay...edit...save...apachectl start...web server with X, Y, Z enabled, ,listening on port X, logging to Y, with virtual host Z. WEB SERVER! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 06:43:14PM +0200, koen de wijs wrote: I'm new to unix. This year I tried FreeBSD. Some friend of mine adviced FreeBSD. I think it works great. Only one thing that I don't like is that you will need to know a lot to setup a lot of basic stuff. I want to try out Linux. I heard it is more user friendly and the basic stuff will be set up during installation. Hi Koen, comparing Linux to FreeBSD is a touchy topic here, not because of the comparison per se (both are very good), but because it's regularly being abused by trolls as the most likely flamebait. Anyway: both systems are Unix-like, and almost all programs that you know from Linux run natively under FreeBSD as well. It's just a matter of installing the appropriate port or meta-port. The internals however are different: it's a totally different kernel, a different userland, ... but also a different approach regarding code contributions and project management. But that doesn't matter (much) to the end user. There are some comparisons between Linux and FreeBSD out there regarding performance, but if you look at it from a bird's view, both are roughly comparable and doing just well. Unless you run a big, very high load server, you won't notice much difference at all. Ease of administration is also an important topic, esp. if you have to manage your own (set of) machine(s). Here, you can't compare FreeBSD to Linux, at best FreeBSD to specific Linux distros (which all vary widely w.r.t. admin philosophy). FreeBSD is extremely easy to configure and manage. Not necessarily with flashy GUI yast-like frontends, but by setting config variables in plain old text files like /etc/rc.conf and putting scripts in /etc/rc.d, /usr/local/etc/rc.d. Keeping up to date is also extremely convenient with cvsup/make buildworld... [gentoo borrowed its philosophy from the BSD ports and source code driven updating]. I really don't like the sysinstall menu. It is really unlogically. Why isn't there a desktop and a server installation? What do you thing is illogical in the current sysinstall? sysinstall is not the kind of program that you would spend a lot of time using. Once the system is installed, you don't need it anymore and can simply edit things in /etc/rc.conf yourself. Of course, nothing prevents you from writing a GUIfied install program once you're not a newbie anymore. But you'll probably then decide that it is not really such a big deal or worth the effort. ;-) Could anyone give me a good site that describes the differences between FreeBSD and Linux? See previous postings. Just give them all a try, and stick to the OS you like the best. You can always re-evaluate later when you've acquired more Unix knowledge. Koen (I don't want to start a flame war, only some good sites) Cheers, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
At 15:20 4/20/2005, Kevin Kinsey wrote: SNIP After using sysinstall for the base system, with a little reading up on shell scripting, you can set up your own install wizard and run it from a floppy, cross a reboot and take a day off while the server/desktop/whatever box sets itself up I'm trying it, myself. Would you please let us know what you come up with? Kevin Kinsey ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Start Here to Find It Fast! - http://www.US-Webmasters.com/best-start-page/ $8.77 Domain Names - http://domains.us-webmasters.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
koen de wijs writes: I'm new to unix. This year I tried FreeBSD. Some friend of mine adviced FreeBSD. I think it works great. Only one thing that I don't like is that you will need to know a lot to setup a lot of basic stuff. That is the nature of UNIX. I want to try out Linux. I heard it is more user friendly and the basic stuff will be set up during installation. Some distributions are. If you want to use UNIX without knowing how it works, Linux is a good choice. I really don't like the sysinstall menu. It is really unlogically. Why isn't there a desktop and a server installation? Because FreeBSD, like most other versions of UNIX, is intended for people who are familiar with UNIX. Additionally, FreeBSD, like most other versions of UNIX, works best as a server. If you want a desktop, Linux is probably a better choice. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Bart Silverstrim writes: I'm afraid after playing with both FreeBSD and some different distros of Linux, that easy way isn't necessarily Linux either. Some of them are apparently much closer to the plug-and-play environment of Windows than are any versions of UNIX. Logically anyone who wants Windows will install Windows, instead of Linux, of course, but logic isn't always the deciding factor. The only easy way to go with installing things on a computer would have to be Windows (in the Intel world), since it is most often just a matter of clickclickclickclick done. Yes. And if an Intel platform is not mandatory, the Mac is even easier to install and use--but it is more expensive, and it restricts the user to a single vendor for both OS software and hardware, and the range of available applications is much smaller. Windows will usually run for several weeks ... Current versions of Windows will run for years without a reboot. It has to be easy to set up because you end up having to reinstall when it starts acting weird :-) It doesn't start acting weird unless you contaminate it with spyware and viruses, which are easy enough to avoid. Really though; with Windows, it's a matter of I want a web server...down load web server...click click license yeah yeah click... oooh! Web server! I wouldn't use Windows for a Web server, personally, but a server version of the OS with IIS will get the job done. The point-and-click interface hides a lot of complexity, though, and while this isn't such a bad thing on the desktop, it can be dangerous on a server. On servers it's really important to know exactly what's running on the machine, what it's doing, and how the machine is interacting with the Net. With a Unix system it's I want a web server...googlehmm...Apache looks like it should work...search through portsmake installedit config file...what's this do?...oh...googlegoogle...neat!...edit config...what's this directive?...googleokay...edit...save...apachectl start...web server with X, Y, Z enabled, ,listening on port X, logging to Y, with virtual host Z. WEB SERVER! Far too complex for many newbies, but for those who stay the course, FreeBSD and Apache are the best possible combination for Web servers today. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
W. D. wrote: At 15:20 4/20/2005, Kevin Kinsey wrote: SNIP After using sysinstall for the base system, with a little reading up on shell scripting, you can set up your own install wizard and run it from a floppy, cross a reboot and take a day off while the server/desktop/whatever box sets itself up I'm trying it, myself. Would you please let us know what you come up with? Nothing spectacular, to be sure. I simply noticed that I have done a lot of things to set up a server or whatever, and they can easily be scripted. I'm certainly no shell scripting expert (A month ago I would have tried this in PHP, but there's a little chicken/egg problem there, and /bin/sh is really made for this stuff). Here's the rough outline: 1. Install a base system manually with sysinstall. Make sure that a source tree and ports tree exists by some manual means (like the aforementioned sysinstall). Make sure in BIOS that the system will boot with a floppy in the drive (priority to HD). 2. On a floppy I have three scripts, we'll call 'em install, setup1, setup2; and supfiles for -STABLE and ports. Mount the floppy and run install with a $SERVERTYPE argument 3. install copies the supfiles from floppy to a location on the machine's filesystem. It then copies setup1 and setup2 to /tmp/ and makes sure that they are executable. Having received an argument that tells the script what type of machine we're setting up, it calls /tmp/setup1 with that argument 4. setup1 checks for the existence of the ports tree, then builds cvsup-without-gui from ports. (This seems to be one Achilles tendon). It then runs cvsup on the src tree, builds world, builds a generic kernel, installs it, copies root's crontab to /tmp/ and adds an @reboot command pointing to /tmp/setup2 with the server type argument to the root crontab. It then calls shutdown -r. 5. When the machine comes back up on the new kernel, cron calls setup2, which sleeps a little (?maybe?) and then does some checks and installs the newly created world. I've not decided how to handle mergemaster. Setup2 adjusts make.conf and builds a list of ports to be installed based on the command line argument. The ports tree gets cvsupped, and each port is installed in turn. The backup copy of root's crontab is restored to its proper place so that the script isn't called anymore. The scripts deletes as much of my stuff as possible, and exits. That's about the size of it. My code isn't pretty, as I'm not real experienced with /bin/sh, but after some testing I might get it out for viewing, although it seems simple enough (to me) that anyone could follow this outline and make it happen for themselves...IOW, I can't believe that somebody out there doesn't have something like this already, and I'm quite sure that they do, (unless maybe they just image HD's instead?) And I see no reason why it couldn't be expanded to do a lot of other stuff as well. Scripting is just doing what you'd do yourself in code, so you can do something else, after all...I used to sit at terminals and watch buildworld happen ... now I'm generally past that ;-) although I've not yet been brave enough to have my buildworld scripts call shutdown for themselves on my production boxes Kevin Kinsey ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Kevin Kinsey writes: And I see no reason why it couldn't be expanded to do a lot of other stuff as well. Scripting is just doing what you'd do yourself in code, so you can do something else, after all... Keep in mind that flexibility and automation are always mutually exclusive. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
At 09:23 PM 4/20/2005, Kevin Kinsey wrote: Nothing spectacular, to be sure. I simply noticed that I have done a lot of things to set up a server or whatever, and they can easily be scripted. I'm certainly no shell scripting expert (A month ago I would have tried this in PHP, but there's a little chicken/egg problem there, and /bin/sh is really made for this stuff). Here's the rough outline: 1. Install a base system manually with sysinstall. Make sure that a source tree and ports tree exists by some manual means (like the aforementioned sysinstall). Make sure in BIOS that the system will boot with a floppy in the drive (priority to HD). 2. On a floppy I have three scripts, we'll call 'em install, setup1, setup2; and supfiles for -STABLE and ports. Mount the floppy and run install with a $SERVERTYPE argument 3. install copies the supfiles from floppy to a location on the machine's filesystem. It then copies setup1 and setup2 to /tmp/ and makes sure that they are executable. Having received an argument that tells the script what type of machine we're setting up, it calls /tmp/setup1 with that argument 4. setup1 checks for the existence of the ports tree, then builds cvsup-without-gui from ports. (This seems to be one Achilles tendon). It then runs cvsup on the src tree, builds world, builds a generic kernel, installs it, copies root's crontab to /tmp/ and adds an @reboot command pointing to /tmp/setup2 with the server type argument to the root crontab. It then calls shutdown -r. 5. When the machine comes back up on the new kernel, cron calls setup2, which sleeps a little (?maybe?) and then does some checks and installs the newly created world. I've not decided how to handle mergemaster. Setup2 adjusts make.conf and builds a list of ports to be installed based on the command line argument. The ports tree gets cvsupped, and each port is installed in turn. The backup copy of root's crontab is restored to its proper place so that the script isn't called anymore. The scripts deletes as much of my stuff as possible, and exits. That's about the size of it. My code isn't pretty, as I'm not real experienced with /bin/sh, but after some testing I might get it out for viewing, although it seems simple enough (to me) that anyone could follow this outline and make it happen for themselves...IOW, I can't believe that somebody out there doesn't have something like this already, and I'm quite sure that they do, (unless maybe they just image HD's instead?) And I see no reason why it couldn't be expanded to do a lot of other stuff as well. Scripting is just doing what you'd do yourself in code, so you can do something else, after all...I used to sit at terminals and watch buildworld happen ... now I'm generally past that ;-) although I've not yet been brave enough to have my buildworld scripts call shutdown for themselves on my production boxes Most of this seems like it could be much more easily handled with something like cfengine (/usr/ports/sysutils/cfengine, and http://www.cfengine.org/). Especially when adding machines to an existing network with similarly configured systems. -Glenn Kevin Kinsey ___ 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: X on a server Re: Freebsd vs. linux
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 09:53:12AM +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: You can install the X libraries and client apps on your server -- this works fine at secure level 3 and does not require kernel configurations changes or special daemons or anything. What it allows you to do is then link software against the X libraries and then redirect the display to your workstations X server. This meets your criteria and can be handy for certain things. Your apps still run in userland only and there is no HW touching stuff. You are not running the X Server on your FBSD Server machine. I'll consider it, although it still sounds complicated. What do I gain from X that I don't already have with remote terminal sessions like those created with SecureCRT? I know it looks pretty, but what server-related things can I do with X that I cannot do with ordinary terminals? I'm not aware of anything right now; it seems that everything can be done from a command line (thank goodness--working with Windows is a nightmare precisely _because_ so many things cannot be done from a command line). Ethereal vs. tcpdump. This is the biggest reason why I have X libraries on my firewall. I don't actually run an X server on it or even have a screen on it, but I forward X11 over ssh to the client I'm working on. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I sense much NT in you. NT leads to Bluescreen. Bluescreen leads to downtime. Downtime leads to suffering. NT is the path to the darkside. Powerful Unix is. Public Key: ftp://ftp.tallye.com/pub/lorenl_pubkey.asc Fingerprint: CEE1 AAE2 F66C 59B5 34CA C415 6D35 E847 0118 A3D2 pgprC4BusCk5Q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freebsd vs. linux
On Feb 15, 2005, at 12:40 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Bart Silverstrim writes: It's not part of the OS! Fine. Will MS let me buy just the kernel? No, but you don't have to buy or install most of the drivers. If you run with only required default drivers, the system will be stable. Let's pretend I'm working on a system for the good old days, see if that will help make sense for a minute... *THE ISSUE BEING ADDRESSED HERE WAS THE DRIVERS INCLUDED WITH THE OS ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE OS. IF THE DRIVERS ARE THIRD PARTY BUT INCLUDED ON THE DEFAULT, AS-PURCHASED CD, 99% OF SANE PEOPLE OUT THERE IN THE REAL WORLD CONSIDER IT PART OF THE OS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GO OUT AND JUMP THROUGH HOOPS TO INSTALL IT. THE OS DETECTED THE DEVICE AND INSTALLED THE DRIVER, THIRD PARTY OR NOT, BECAUSE IT WAS WITH THEIR CD. AS I RECALL BUT THE QUOTE HAS BEEN SNIPPED, SOMEONE SAID THEY HAD BEEN RUNNING THE DEFAULT DRIVERS AND THE DRIVER WAS CRAP SO THE OS STILL CRASHED. WITH A DEFAULT, INCLUDED, DETECTED AND OS-INSTALLED DRIVER.* Extend it a little more, even MS argued that Internet Explorer was part of the operating system and could not be unbundled. For their product definition, it was part of the OS. Technically, it was not. Practically, it was. They tried very hard to make it part of the OS, which was a serious mistake, but they were very taken with the whole idea of web-everything at the time. That *DOESN'T MATTER*. The fact is they did it. Of course it was a bloody mistake. The fact is they marketed and in court testified that it was PART OF the OS. For all practical purposes, they bundled it as part of the OS. Technically speaking it isn't. I don't CARE what the justification is. They did it. End of story. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd vs. linux
On Feb 15, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Bart Silverstrim writes: They were an outside team that worked on VMS. They started NT before Windows became a marketing drone's dream. The Windows subsystem became the default subsystem after Windows 3.x took off. Originally it wasn't going to have a GUI. Oh well ... it's a bit late to dream about what could have been. As I recall, this is what caused Microsoft and IBM to part ways. IBM was to collaborate on the NT project. But IBM wanted a CLI, like DOS or OS/2, whereas Microsoft insisted that a GUI was the wave of the future on the desktop. As it turned out, Microsoft was right. Um, no. OS/2 had the Presentation Manager layer on it for the GUI. They parted ways because MS was working on the Windows-centric version of NT behind IBM's back, realizing they had a new cash cow out of Windows 3.x. IBM was schnookered hook, line and sinker, and realized it only after MS was presenting more and more updates to their project with Windows API's instead of OS/2. MS wanted to split from Big Blue because of cultural differences and MS wanted independence from IBM, knowing full well that that dependence on OS/2 would be a hindrance to their market engine. Read ShowStopper!. It's an excellent history of the background of NT (and Cutler). You can also read the Why I Hate Microsoft rant posted at http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html . I find it an excellent read for the history in it. (And do NOT turn this into a OS-bashing thread. I am posting this because it has history in it and was well written with history and footnotes. So everyone stick to the facts and do NOT start the bashing crap). The GUI still requires destabilizing code in the kernel. It still takes up space and resources. I'll agree there. And, worst of all, on a GUI-oriented server like Windows, you cannot administer the machine without using the GUI. True to a point. Just because you have a GUI as the primary interface it doesn't mean that the OS *must* have crappy administration tools. It is just the tendency because of the low variety of popular server OS's out there. The Mac is primarily GUI driven for it's audience and uses a primarily GUI paradigm, but CLI admin tools are very much available (and many of the Apple GUI tools act as front ends to the CLI tools). It's a question of design. Xserves, etc. They're off the radar for servers. The only people who install Apple servers are people who are already in love with Apple desktops. They're kind of the inverse of people who fall in love with server operating systems and then insist on forcing them onto the desktop as well. Wrong-o. Xserves are wonderful for people that want integration of OS and hardware while at the same time are familiar with UNIX. Yes, there's a lot of point and click, but 90% of their tools are mirrored in CLI tools as well. Do more reading on how OS X works. Don't want the GUI, then install Darwin. Want GUI and remote admin/monitoring tools, use OS X Server. Don't log into it, and it'll swap out most of the GUI stuff to disk. Why not just install FreeBSD? Because we were discussing at that particular point Apple, their GUI, their OS. OS X = Darwin + Aqua. Don't need the proprietary layer, then strip out Aqua/Finder/Apple tools, you've got Darwin. If you want to install something else, be my guest. I personally don't care what you're running, I was just pointing out if you want Apple stuff and want to keep parity with OS X without their tools, use Darwin. They most certainly profit from MCSEs. Yes, by training and certifying them. But after that, they're on their own, and out of Microsoft's revenue stream. Then once again, they profit from them and continue to profit by their recertification. They are human advertisements, they are MS evangelists by proxy, they reinforce market position, and they are brainwashed into MS-centric solutions for everything thus encouraging more purchases by the companies they work for/in from MS. SO that would mean MS profits from them and their existence and their having to get re-certified for their new OS's periodically. End of story. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd vs. linux
Bart Silverstrim writes: Um, no. OS/2 had the Presentation Manager layer on it for the GUI. Presentation Manager was an afterthought, once they realized how far they had gone astray. True to a point. Just because you have a GUI as the primary interface it doesn't mean that the OS *must* have crappy administration tools. True. But in the case of Windows, that's exactly the situation. I had to administer servers with pcAnywhere. Have you ever used pcAnywhere over a dial-up line? Because we were discussing at that particular point Apple, their GUI, their OS. OS X = Darwin + Aqua. Let's return to discussion of FreeBSD, then. Then once again, they profit from them and continue to profit by their recertification. If they bother to recertify. They are human advertisements, they are MS evangelists by proxy, they reinforce market position, and they are brainwashed into MS-centric solutions for everything thus encouraging more purchases by the companies they work for/in from MS. They are not brainwashed by MS. They were that way long before they became MCSEs, otherwise they would not have become MCSEs. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd vs. linux
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote: Read ShowStopper!. It's an excellent history of the background of NT (and Cutler). You can also read the Why I Hate Microsoft rant posted at http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html . I find it an excellent read for the history in it. Thanks for that URL. It's a wonderful article. -- Kids can get a free PlayStation 2! http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0104/ps2.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd vs. linux
On Feb 16, 2005, at 12:22 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Bart Silverstrim writes: Um, no. OS/2 had the Presentation Manager layer on it for the GUI. Presentation Manager was an afterthought, once they realized how far they had gone astray. anthony: But IBM wanted a CLI, like DOS or OS/2, whereas Microsoft insisted that a GUI was the wave of the future on the desktop. As it turned out, Microsoft was right. They added a GUI on OS/2 when machines could start handling a GUI without knuckling under. Point is, OS/2 was graphical, and PM was out before Program Manager on NT. Because we were discussing at that particular point Apple, their GUI, their OS. OS X = Darwin + Aqua. Let's return to discussion of FreeBSD, then. Fine, then it's agreed that Apple's OS isn't necessarily married to the GUI, just as FreeBSD isn't married to X. If you want their tools, however, you take the good with the bad. Otherwise get handy with the command line on Darwin. Then once again, they profit from them and continue to profit by their recertification. If they bother to recertify. Irrelevant. They (MS) still profit in every other way I mentioned. And if these are corporate techs that survive in the world of certs by having as many acronyms as possible on their resume', they recertify. They are human advertisements, they are MS evangelists by proxy, they reinforce market position, and they are brainwashed into MS-centric solutions for everything thus encouraging more purchases by the companies they work for/in from MS. They are not brainwashed by MS. They were that way long before they became MCSEs, otherwise they would not have become MCSEs. I made the mistake of taking a swipe at the popularity of the cert programs out there. Any cert test it seems (except maybe A+) is aimed at pushing the product you cert on. I thought you'd catch what I was implying. And you're over-categorizing. Many people get MCSE because their boss or business requires it or pays for it along the way, not because they want to use Windows as a solution for everything short of running their expresso machine. How many BSD admins have a cert around somewhere? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd vs. linux
On Feb 14, 2005, at 7:43 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Eric Kjeldergaard writes: Well, no that's not entirely true...First off, there's the claim by Windows itself that it's not drivers. The OS itself never identifies problems as being within the drivers. Driver code is assimilated with the kernel while it is running. You've read the code (as you say) and know that Windows wouldn't possibly lie about the fact that it's not the drivers. Sure it would. Most error messages are generic; few programmers are conscientious enough to put in extremely detailed and specific error messages. And in some cases the OS doesn't really know what happened, especially for faults in the kernel (or the drivers, which are assimilated with the kernel, as I've said). And then there's the thing where since one is including drivers along with an operating system, they are part of the operating system even if they were written by a third party. They are not part of the operating system. You spend a lot of time arguing...Let's look at it this way. It's not part of the OS! Fine. Will MS let me buy just the kernel? Didn't think so. It's all or nothing. While that's the technical way of looking at it (not part of the OS) they ARE part of the distribution, and for practicality's sake, and for the definition of any reasonable person, they ARE part of the OS. If it comes with the average CD installation, it's part of the OS. I don't hunt the @#$$% driver down, I don't run a separate installer, I don't jump through hoops to install it, the OS detects the device and installs the driver then for all purposes of the rest of the sane Earth it's part of the OS. Why? I bought Windows, I installed it, and it installed the [EMAIL PROTECTED] driver without intervention. Extend it a little more, even MS argued that Internet Explorer was part of the operating system and could not be unbundled. For their product definition, it was part of the OS. Technically, it was not. Practically, it was. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd vs. linux
On Feb 15, 2005, at 12:40 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Microsoft doesn't understand servers very well. Most people at Microsoft grew up using microcomputers, and that's all they know (sound familiar?). They truly have no idea of some of the constraints that apply to the server world. As a result, they don't build ideal server software. The closest they've come has been with the early versions of Windows NT, which had a very solid kernel. They were an outside team that worked on VMS. They started NT before Windows became a marketing drone's dream. The Windows subsystem became the default subsystem after Windows 3.x took off. Originally it wasn't going to have a GUI. A GUI always detracts from a server's function. Nobody is sitting in front of a server, Three of ours are sitting right behind me. That has never been an objective of Microsoft. Their servers have elaborate GUIs because the operating systems come from the desktop world, and won't function without a GUI. They have GUIs because they thought it was easier to market. They have GUIs because they're easier for novices to use as servers. They have GUIs because MS started trying to market servers to the workgroup and not corporate markets. They have GUIs because NT was a new kid on the block, people were familiar with Windows, and they were able to help marketing-wise slip some sales in because it was a lower learning curve. They have GUIs because believe it or not, sometimes you don't need the strict definition of a Server in order to serve files to a couple other computers in your home network and that Server can, in fact, do double duty. One of the most serious criticisms made of Windows in the server world is that you cannot run a Windows server without a GUI, and remote administration is an unbelievably awkward nightmare. That's two criticisms, and at this point, I really think most people don't give a rat's behind about the GUI in a server, since the OS should be paging out unused pages to swap if the server settles down. Remote administration sucks, yes I'd agree. You have to jump through hoops to find decent tools for reigning in Windows in many situations. Apple is smart enough to pull it off ... Apple has no advantage over Microsoft in this respect. They are locking their own OS into a GUI, too. But they probably realize that their future is in desktops, not servers. That surely explains their sales of XServes and RAID servers. Don't want the GUI, then install Darwin. Want GUI and remote admin/monitoring tools, use OS X Server. Don't log into it, and it'll swap out most of the GUI stuff to disk. ... but all Microsoft has done is continue to guarantee employment for MSCE's who continue to exclusively recommend any and everything Microsoft who in turn continually ensures these champions stay employed. As I've said, Microsoft doesn't care about employment of MCSEs. They most certainly profit from MCSEs. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd vs. linux
In a message dated 2/12/2005 2:41:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, darren kirby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: quoth the David Kelly: Look closely at the Linux community and you'll find its mostly ex-Windows users focused on what Microsoft is doing. The desire is to one-up Microsoft at Microsoft's own game. Their definition of computer and human interface was written by Microsoft and still can't think outside of that box. I think your interpretation here is a tad glib. Sure there are thousands of people coming to Linux because they 'hate' MS. Sure they don't know gcc from ppc but I don't think it is fair to call them the 'community', rather a small subset. Do you think these people are writing any software? Are they designing programming interfaces? Do they have a damn thing to do with the development of Linux or any of its supporting software? Hell no. They are just users clogging up the message boards and mailing lists with stupid questions. Human Interface? Am I missing something? Can you please tell me where the much superior FreeBSD human interface can be downloaded? In the console they are pretty much the same keystroke for keystroke, and on the desktop it is all the same software... I run FreeBSD and Linux, and I love them both. I am trying to point out that when you slam Linux developers with pettiness and name calling that you are no better than all the lusers slamming MS, and thinking they're leet because they installed Fedora? I have noticed a lot of this on FreeBSD lists, and I think it is counterproductive because it is unprofessional and in the end more people using Linux means more people running free software which benefits _all_ of us...and besides, it is offensive to people like me that just like playing with 'nix boxes and run both. Why can't you just run your FreeBSD and feel superior, silently? Look closely at the BSD community and you'll find those who are working at creating a better tool to serve their needs. Much debate about exactly what constitutes better so there is also quite a bit of experimenting. What you won't find is Microsoft as the yardstick by which BSD's measure. I think you are all just plain off the mark. People use what they use because it suits their needs best. If you can't program then source code is useless, and if you don't know much about networking you might not be able to get linux or any unix to work at all. You don't generally hear secretaries whining about not having source; they just want the thing to work. In all walks of life, people choose what suits them best. Just because someone is a republican doesn't mean he's a right-wing anti-abortionist. It just means that it suits him better than the other choices. I suspect the same goes for your choice of an O/S. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd vs. linux
In a message dated 2/12/2005 2:41:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, darren kirby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: quoth the David Kelly: Look closely at the Linux community and you'll find its mostly ex-Windows users focused on what Microsoft is doing. The desire is to one-up Microsoft at Microsoft's own game. Their definition of computer and human interface was written by Microsoft and still can't think outside of that box. I think your interpretation here is a tad glib. Sure there are thousands of people coming to Linux because they 'hate' MS. Sure they don't know gcc from ppc but I don't think it is fair to call them the 'community', rather a small subset. Do you think these people are writing any software? Are they designing programming interfaces? Do they have a damn thing to do with the development of Linux or any of its supporting software? Hell no. They are just users clogging up the message boards and mailing lists with stupid questions. Human Interface? Am I missing something? Can you please tell me where the much superior FreeBSD human interface can be downloaded? In the console they are pretty much the same keystroke for keystroke, and on the desktop it is all the same software... I run FreeBSD and Linux, and I love them both. I am trying to point out that when you slam Linux developers with pettiness and name calling that you are no better than all the lusers slamming MS, and thinking they're leet because they installed Fedora? I have noticed a lot of this on FreeBSD lists, and I think it is counterproductive because it is unprofessional and in the end more people using Linux means more people running free software which benefits _all_ of us...and besides, it is offensive to people like me that just like playing with 'nix boxes and run both. Why can't you just run your FreeBSD and feel superior, silently? Look closely at the BSD community and you'll find those who are working at creating a better tool to serve their needs. Much debate about exactly what constitutes better so there is also quite a bit of experimenting. What you won't find is Microsoft as the yardstick by which BSD's measure. I think you are all just plain off the mark. People use what they use because it suits their needs best. If you can't program then source code is useless, and if you don't know much about networking you might not be able to get linux or any unix to work at all. You don't generally hear secretaries whining about not having source; they just want the thing to work. In all walks of life, people choose what suits them best. Just because someone is a republican doesn't mean he's a right-wing anti-abortionist. It just means that it suits him better than the other choices. I suspect the same goes for your choice of an O/S. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd vs. linux
Bart Silverstrim writes: It's not part of the OS! Fine. Will MS let me buy just the kernel? No, but you don't have to buy or install most of the drivers. If you run with only required default drivers, the system will be stable. Extend it a little more, even MS argued that Internet Explorer was part of the operating system and could not be unbundled. For their product definition, it was part of the OS. Technically, it was not. Practically, it was. They tried very hard to make it part of the OS, which was a serious mistake, but they were very taken with the whole idea of web-everything at the time. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freebsd vs. linux
Bart Silverstrim writes: They were an outside team that worked on VMS. They started NT before Windows became a marketing drone's dream. The Windows subsystem became the default subsystem after Windows 3.x took off. Originally it wasn't going to have a GUI. Oh well ... it's a bit late to dream about what could have been. As I recall, this is what caused Microsoft and IBM to part ways. IBM was to collaborate on the NT project. But IBM wanted a CLI, like DOS or OS/2, whereas Microsoft insisted that a GUI was the wave of the future on the desktop. As it turned out, Microsoft was right. Three of ours are sitting right behind me. Unless you have eyes in the back of your head, then, you aren't looking at their screens. I have my FreeBSD server running right next to me. The console always has top running, just to give me an idea of what the server is doing. Sometimes I just turn the monitor off. If I need to talk to the machine, I start a ssh session from my Windows desktop. I often have one or more ssh and sftp sessions open. They have GUIs because they thought it was easier to market. They have GUIs because they're easier for novices to use as servers. They have GUIs because MS started trying to market servers to the workgroup and not corporate markets. They have GUIs because NT was a new kid on the block, people were familiar with Windows, and they were able to help marketing-wise slip some sales in because it was a lower learning curve. They have GUIs because believe it or not, sometimes you don't need the strict definition of a Server in order to serve files to a couple other computers in your home network and that Server can, in fact, do double duty. Right. That's two criticisms, and at this point, I really think most people don't give a rat's behind about the GUI in a server, since the OS should be paging out unused pages to swap if the server settles down. The GUI still requires destabilizing code in the kernel. It still takes up space and resources. And, worst of all, on a GUI-oriented server like Windows, you cannot administer the machine without using the GUI. Remote administration sucks, yes I'd agree. You have to jump through hoops to find decent tools for reigning in Windows in many situations. As far as I know, only a tiny fraction of all necessary administration functions for Windows have ever been provided for in CLI interfaces. Most of the time, you _must_ point and click. That surely explains their sales of XServes and RAID servers. They're off the radar for servers. The only people who install Apple servers are people who are already in love with Apple desktops. They're kind of the inverse of people who fall in love with server operating systems and then insist on forcing them onto the desktop as well. Don't want the GUI, then install Darwin. Want GUI and remote admin/monitoring tools, use OS X Server. Don't log into it, and it'll swap out most of the GUI stuff to disk. Why not just install FreeBSD? They most certainly profit from MCSEs. Yes, by training and certifying them. But after that, they're on their own, and out of Microsoft's revenue stream. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
