Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 4th Nov 2005 23:45 UTC
FreeBSD The clocks have fallen back, the leaves are hitting the ground and new BSD releases are on the Net. Among all the noise and buzz created by Linux, it's important to remember that it's not the only open source variant of Unix. OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD are all still very much alive and kicking and have recently been released from their respective projects.
Order by: Score:
freebsd
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 00:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

i think i saw somewhere that the freebsd kernel is/was the most advanced kernel to the present day
is it true?

Reply Score: 0

RE: freebsd
by the_trapper on Sat 5th Nov 2005 00:08 UTC in reply to "freebsd"
the_trapper Member since:
2005-07-07

In some respects, yes FreeBSD is the most advanced kernel. However, in other respects Solaris and Linux are better. Even the Microsoft Windows NT family of kernels have their advantages from a purely technological perspective.

There is currently no "most advanced kernel" although FreeBSD has always been one of the top contenders.

Reply Score: 5

RE: freebsd
by jjezabek on Sat 5th Nov 2005 00:13 UTC in reply to "freebsd"
jjezabek Member since:
2005-08-07

Short answer: no.
Longer answer: depends on how you define 'most advanced kernel'. But still I doubt that using any sensible definition the FreeBSD kernel would turn out as the most advanced one. Windows, Linux, and probably every major commercial Unix variant (Solaris, AIX, maybe IRIX, HP-UX and UnixWare) are at least on par, and most probably more advanced. FreeBSD has only recently implemented proper SMP, but still lacks features found in Windows and Solaris for a long time. It still doesn't even have a journaling FS...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: freebsd
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 02:29 UTC in reply to "RE: freebsd"
Anonymous Member since:
---

And it doesn't need a journaling FS. Its alternative (soft updates & snapshots) provides a more sensiable alternative. Google for the relavent papers, there interesting and a worth while read. Journaling is, after all, a hack.

And it is perhaps worth noting that for a long time FreeBSD had far superior memory management to linux. When I switched from Linux to FreeBSD my loki games all ran noticablly faster on the same hardware. It got fine grained SMP support about the same time linux got proper memory managment.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: freebsd
by ma_d on Sat 5th Nov 2005 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: freebsd"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Yes, and I can tell you why... It's not as strict. When I used to code on fbsd I was always amazed at how I almost never seemed to have memory troubles. Then I tried the code on a Linux machine and found it crashing consistently at several spots which worked perfectly on fbsd.
This doesn't matter so much for users, but for developing: It really stinks. In fact, it's probably nice for users... Well, until the program corrupts its data so bad it can't save their work...
But, I can't imagine releasing something *that* messed up.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: freebsd
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 02:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: freebsd"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Journaling is, after all, a hack.

Actually, it's not. Softupdates is indeed very elegant, but it merely helps guarantee that there will be fewer/no inconsistencies that result in damage. It doesn't remove the need for a complete scan and validation of the metadata after an unexpected shutdown. This need for a 'fsck' is a liability since it means that system is still unusable for a time once you try to bring it back up. Imagine if you unplugged your TiVo and then had to wait 30 minutes to use it after you plugged it back in. Background fsck does try to hide this by allowing the system to run normally while a fsck goes on in the background, but it's never been as reliable as it should be and is thus not a good option for embedded or enterprise use.

Journalling, when done right, is very effective. No need for a fsck, just a quick linear replay of a relatively small bit of data. The potential performance loss from doubling writes through the journal is made up by making the accesses more linear and predictable for the drive. And while you might think it's a hack to encapsulate metadata changes into atomic operations, it's been incorporated into just about every filesystem written since the early-1990s.

UFS and Softupdates do perform well, but the need for journalling is inevitable.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: freebsd
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 03:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: freebsd"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"but the need for journalling is inevitable."

Last time I heard the team was working on UFS journaling. I'll have to find the article, but if I remember correctly Scott Long said it should be ready for 6.1.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: freebsd
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: freebsd"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Actually, you don't need to run fsck at all after a reboot, with softupdates. All background fsck does is reclaim unused space.

Also the advantage of doubling writes in journalling is not making accesses more linear and predictable. The real advantage is that it only requires you to only write the metadata synchronously, letting you safely delay the writing of the (non-metadata) data for longer, thus saving you several disk writes for data that is written often.

Softupdates also has this advantage (and in fact, needs even less synchronous writes than journalling, in most cases).

The real problem with softupdates is the code complexity, which is much higher than journaling.
Also, ATA disks often lie when they say something has been committed to disk, because of their write cache, which might introduce some unexpected inconsistencies in the filesystem if a crash happens at the wrong time. However, this also affects journaling.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: freebsd
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: freebsd"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"This need for a 'fsck' is a liability since it means that system is still unusable for a time once you try to bring it back up."

Actually, we've got background fsck for a very long time now. ie, the system isn't stuck doing the fsck on boot.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: freebsd
by Anonymous on Mon 7th Nov 2005 12:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: freebsd"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Right, journalling is a hack, that's why there's ongoing effort to add it to UFS2/3, and even the GEOM layer (http://www.freebsd.org/projects/summerofcode.html)

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: freebsd
by Mark Williamson on Sat 5th Nov 2005 13:44 UTC in reply to "RE: freebsd"
Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06

It does have softupdates though... Yes, softupdates are not journalling but they do fulfill some related goals. I don't know of any other OS that supports them, either.

Reply Score: 2

RE: freebsd
by Yoke on Sat 5th Nov 2005 13:17 UTC in reply to "freebsd"
Yoke Member since:
2005-08-28

Not in any way, shape, or form.

Linux scales higher, lower, and wider.

While Linux has spread it's wings in can be found on just about everything from handhelds to 512-CPU supercomputers, FreeBSD basically remains where it has always been, on the webserver.

There is quite simply a huge gap between the amount of resources put into Linux versus the amount of resources put into FreeBSD. It's simply not possible to overcome.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: freebsd
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 14:08 UTC in reply to "RE: freebsd"
RE[3]: freebsd
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: freebsd"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Wow, that's most funny comment I ever seen in OSNews. X-D

Nobody's stealing anybody's ideas in free software world. BSD is definitely _NOT_ some giant proprietary company like Microsoft. They both are _FREE_ in any common sense I can think of. (Forget about those pseudoreligiopolitical debates about GPLs and BSDL and such and such and such)

Also, Linux is not made by Linus: LINUX IS MADE BY ANYBODY. Linus is just one of Linux's whole bunch of great developers.

BTW, IMHO you should drop your star-worshipping habit and get back to the real world. Grow humans!

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: freebsd
by ulib on Sat 5th Nov 2005 15:14 UTC in reply to "RE: freebsd"
ulib Member since:
2005-07-07

There is quite simply a huge gap between the amount of resources put into Linux versus the amount of resources put into FreeBSD. It's simply not possible to overcome.

Rephrasing:
"There is quite simply a huge gap between the amount of resources put into Windows versus the amount of resources put into Linux. It's simply not possible to overcome." ;)

And about the "higher, lower and wider", I'd really suggest reading this recent article:
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=421896
The fact that Linux still has a *slightly* better scalability than FreeBSD is very far from automatically making it the best solution. A seriously pondered choice would take into account many other factors - and, I would say, security is among those with the highest importance.

So, your claiming the "superiority" of Linux versus FreeBSD is as poorly grounded as would be claiming the "superiority" of Windows versus Linux.
Besides, it is an unambiguous sign of zealot talk. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: freebsd
by Yoke on Sat 5th Nov 2005 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: freebsd"
Yoke Member since:
2005-08-28

Rephrasing: "There is quite simply a huge gap between the amount of resources put into Windows versus the amount of resources put into Linux. It's simply not possible to overcome." ;)

First off, I don't know that this is true, if we limit ourselves to the actual kernel. The vast majority of MS-developers have nothing to do with the core OS.

Secondly, having a large number of developers is one thing, but you also have to make it scale, and the Linux development process has undergone many changes over the years to reflect the continuous increase in contributors.

Thirdly, my statement was a reflection of the fact that the Linux kernel has been adapted to run in far my diverse circumstances than the FreeBSD kernel. Where are the people working on putting FreeBSD on big iron, on handhelds, or on massively parallel supercomputers? The simple fact of the matter is that FreeBSD isn't even a viable alternative on PPC yet.


And about the "higher, lower and wider", I'd really suggest reading this recent article:

Excuse me? How exactly is that (somewhat silly) article relevant to what I've written?


The fact that Linux still has a *slightly* better scalability than FreeBSD

Slightly? Are you just making things up as you go along? Many of the fastest computers in the world run Linux. Four of the top five on the Top 500 Supercomputer Sites list run Linux:
http://www.top500.org/lists/plists.php?Y=2005&M=06

Hell, almost three years ago SGI demonstrated Linux scaling superbly with 64 CPUs on a single system image: http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_releases/2003/januar... 14 months later, they demonstrated the same with 256 CPUs: http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_releases/2004/march/...

Do you have any benchmarks for FreeBSD?


is very far from automatically making it the best solution.

That I agree with. But all the world is not a webserver, and there are many areas requiring heavy lifting where FreeBSD simply cannot compete.


So, your claiming the "superiority" of Linux versus FreeBSD is as poorly grounded as would be claiming the "superiority" of Windows versus Linux.

Linux' 'superiority' (not a word that I would use) has been amply demonstrated to anyone who has been paying attention for the past few years.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: freebsd
by ulib on Sat 5th Nov 2005 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: freebsd"
ulib Member since:
2005-07-07

Everybody knows that SMP and architecture scalability are Linux' main (unique?) selling points, but it'd be really nice if you just stopped pretending that scalability is the whole deal (or even the main issue), like you're doing in *every single point* in your reply.
It simply isn't true.

Of course, on handhelds FreeBSD isn't an option (nor does it try to be! Check out NetBSD for those).
Of course, on 256-CPU machines FreeBSD isn't an option - today.

What you pretend not to know is that in the vast majority of scenarios the requirements are much closer to the ones of a web server (where FreeBSD excels) than to the ones of a handheld, or to the ones of a 256-CPU supercomputer.

In the vast majority of scenarios, what an actual professional considers in order to choose a sensible solution is very close to what's discussed in the recent article I linked (and that, not by chance, you quickly dismissed as "silly"...)
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=421896

In the vast majority of scenarios security is one of the main concerns: much more than scalability, that's for sure. And in those scenarios Linux' scalability, which isn't even remotely the main issue, is (as I said) simply *slightly* better than FreeBSD's.

While FreeBSD is my favourite OS, I'm not bashing the others. I'm simply saying that your perspective doesn't work in real world, because it's much closer to the one of a Linux salesman than to the one of a serious problem solver or solution provider.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: freebsd
by Yoke on Sat 5th Nov 2005 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: freebsd"
Yoke Member since:
2005-08-28

You're way off track. How about paying attention to the matter that I was responding to, namely "i think i saw somewhere that the freebsd kernel is/was the most advanced kernel to the present day". I adressed that question, nothing else.

As for pointing me to a substance-free boilerplate article when security issues are a matter of public record is beyond ridiculous.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: freebsd
by Anonymous on Sun 6th Nov 2005 01:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: freebsd"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The fact that Linux still has a *slightly* better scalability than FreeBSD is very far from automatically making it the best solution.

Err, Linux scalability utterly blows FreeBSD out of the water.

The last scalability benchmarks I have seen from the FreeBSD camp were this:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=freebsd-smp&m=111540468626257&w=2
Showing the VFS barely scales past 2 CPUs on this 12CPU system.


And this:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=freebsd-sparc64&m=111120677323505&w...
Showing it doesn't even scale to 4 CPUs on the same system when doing a parallel compile workload.

Now out of interest, a parallel compile is about the easiest possible task imaginable that can be scaled in the kernel. 2 or 3 years ago, we had IBM folks demonstrate a Linux kernel compile on a 32-way system complete in about 3 seconds. SGI has posted benchmarks of parallel compile jobs on its 512 CPU systems.

But nobody is really interested in parallel compiles or rudimentry VFS operations anymore in Linux. They are basically solved problems.

And lastly:
[i]Rephrasing:
"There is quite simply a huge gap between the amount of resources put into Windows versus the amount of resources put into Linux. It's simply not possible to overcome." ;) [i]

Err, the difference is that you are wrong and parent was right. Linux has people from IBM, SGI, SUSE, RedHat, HP, Intel, NEC, Fujitsu, Sony, Unisys, and others working on it full time. On just the kernel.
And that isn't counting all the embedded interests
that use the likes of ARM, MIPS, xtensa, cris, m32r, etc.

There is no huge gap at all, and if you actually have the Microsoft numbers, I'll try to come back with a reasonable estimate of kernel developers.

Reply Score: 0

Dabbled
by DittoBox on Sat 5th Nov 2005 00:12 UTC
DittoBox
Member since:
2005-07-08

I've dabbled some in FreeBSD. I installed it a few months ago (now that 6.0 is out I'm going to try it out again, if I can get my main desktop going again). I was very impressed with how professional it felt when I installed and used it. Now the new SMP standard stuff looks very interesting too.

I haven't tried the other BSDs but I'd like to give OpenBSD a try as a web/file/print/dns/dhcp server.

Just out curiosity why are they calling this "the return of BSDs?" Did linux really take that much interest away from the BSD UNIXs?

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Dabbled
by Tom K on Sat 5th Nov 2005 00:23 UTC in reply to "Dabbled"
RE[2]: Dabbled
by ma_d on Sat 5th Nov 2005 02:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Dabbled"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

And for every server there are how many desktops?

So, which news do you think interests more people... Desktop OS news, or server OS news? Not that freebsd is limited to the server, I'd certainly say no; but up until pcbsd it hasn't marketed itself to the typical desktop user like Ubuntu has...

Also, the Linux development model is notoriously more open, and thereby more friendly to [lazy] journalists.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Dabbled
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 06:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Dabbled"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Also, the Linux development model is notoriously more open, and thereby more friendly to [lazy] journalists."

Huh? Everything about the FreeBSD development model is open. If not more than Linux. You can easily grab the source for whichever version is being worked on vs having to wait for a half-assed kernel version to be released.

Doesn't change the fact that FreeBSD is poo.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Dabbled
by John Blink on Sat 5th Nov 2005 07:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Dabbled"
John Blink Member since:
2005-10-11

You must be Linux is poo's cousin

:B

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: Dabbled
by Tom K on Sat 5th Nov 2005 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Dabbled"
RE[5]: Dabbled
by dylansmrjones on Sun 6th Nov 2005 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Dabbled"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Go away LPO.

You always have nice things to say about Mac, *BSD and Windows.

And always, ALWAYS do you have to flame linux.

And never have you come up with any evidence.

You only flame flame flame.

You're so silly you remind me of Monty Python :p

Reply Score: 1

v RE[6]: Dabbled
by Tom K on Sun 6th Nov 2005 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Dabbled"
RE[5]: Dabbled
by Anonymous on Sun 6th Nov 2005 04:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Dabbled"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"I install a whole operating system that has been developed, tested, released, and supported as a whole, right?"

FreeBSD users use that one so much it's lost all meaning.

Sometimes, instead of wondering if these people will come up with a new argument, I wonder if they're mentally deficient. I mean, only a fanatic nut job uses Linux, so I'm pretty sure they know how it's developed.
So what's the point of repeating it over & over?

We won't go into the fact that paticular approach seems to work fine for Linux.

When was the last time I compiled a kernel? Probably the last time I used Genpoo.

Now I have a question for you;

is it the record or the player that's broken?

Because it's all the same crying from here.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Dabbled
by Mathman on Mon 7th Nov 2005 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Dabbled"
Mathman Member since:
2005-07-08

That's why when I "install FreeBSD" I install a whole operating system that has been developed, tested, released, and supported as a whole, right?

Sure. FreeBSD developers built gcc, apache, php, perl, etc, from the ground up, right?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Dabbled
by Anonymous on Mon 7th Nov 2005 01:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Dabbled"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Sure. FreeBSD developers built gcc, apache, php, perl, etc, from the ground up, right?

Of course, they were the easy ones. And they are much better and more secure and more scalable and better engineered and cleaner than the equivalently-named-but-crap versions that come with any Linux distro.

But wait, there's more. They also did XFree86/Xorg, KDE, GNOME, samba, exim/sendmail/etc, bind, firefox/mozilla/etc, ...

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Dabbled
by Tom K on Mon 7th Nov 2005 06:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Dabbled"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Only GCC comes with a standard installation of FreeBSD -- and that's been modified suitably for FreeBSD. However, FreeBSD releases are sync'ed with GCC releases, and the entire OS is released along with that version. It's as much tested and supported as it were if it was their own creation.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Dabbled
by Anonymous on Mon 7th Nov 2005 07:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Dabbled"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Only GCC comes with a standard installation of FreeBSD

I think you're confusing standard install with base packages. However you're still wrong - they include gnu make for example.

However, FreeBSD releases are sync'ed with GCC releases, and the entire OS is released along with that version.

Oh, what a brilliant concept! Wow how amazing that it never crossed the minds of any Linux distros to do the same thing! What morons ha ha. Hey, it is our little secret now - we wouldn't want crappy Linux to gain from such innovation by the FreeBSD wizards.

You stupid f--kstick.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Dabbled
by Mathman on Mon 7th Nov 2005 16:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Dabbled"
Mathman Member since:
2005-07-08

Only GCC comes with a standard installation of FreeBSD

Not perl even? I find that hard to believe. Perhaps I'm thinking of OpenBSD then? At any rate, in a whole lot of situations you'll need to rely on this cobbled together gpl'd software you seem to hate to make your BSD useful. So where's that leave you?

But then don't get me wrong. The modularization of both BSD's and Linux distributions is what attracts me, especially when combined with a powerful package manager along the lines of rpm, you can't go wrong.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Dabbled
by DigitalAxis on Sat 5th Nov 2005 01:58 UTC in reply to "Dabbled"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Well, in a way yes. Were it not for the AT&T versus Berkeley suit in the early 90's, everyone (probably including Linus) would have gone with the BSDs.

As it was, the BSDs were on shaky legal ground and those interested in a free open-source UNIX-derivative for IBM-compatible PCs couldn't persuade Dr. Tannenbaum to make Minix into an all-purpose OS. Into that environment came Linus Torvalds, who WAS interested in making a free all-purpose IBM-compatible UNIX (that he wanted to call Freax ["Free UNIX"?], apparently)...

By the time the AT&T versus BSD court case ended with a victory for BSD, Linux had already taken off.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Dabbled
by DittoBox on Sat 5th Nov 2005 02:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Dabbled"
DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

That's pretty informative, thanks!

Reply Score: 1

v bsd
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 00:24 UTC
Still behind for desktops
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 00:27 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Great distro for servers (although people needing Java may look elsewhere), but still behind in the desktop arena. 6 is finally catching up with Linux with features such as wireless networking, but popular tools like Skype or Gizmo are nowhere to be found.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Still behind for desktops
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 00:44 UTC in reply to "Still behind for desktops"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"but popular tools like Skype or Gizmo are nowhere to be found."


Actually dude skype is in the ports collection. Gizmo isn't, but that's just a matter of time.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Still behind for desktops
by Beryllium on Sat 5th Nov 2005 01:30 UTC in reply to "Still behind for desktops"
Beryllium Member since:
2005-07-08

I use FreeBSD on my desktop at work.

All the other employees use Fedora Core 2.

Interface-wise, they're equally desktop ready, the way we have it set up.

That is to say, any idiot could use it. But not any idiot could set it up the way we've got it set up. So, thankfully, we do it for them. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Still behind for desktops
by phoenix on Sat 5th Nov 2005 05:30 UTC in reply to "Still behind for desktops"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

6 is finally catching up with Linux with features such as wireless networking

Linux wireless networking is a hodpe-podge of crap that barely works together. Kernel 2.6.14 is the first kernel to even include a wireless network stack, and few of the wireless drivers in the kernel have been converted to use it. There's also a bazillion different tools needed to configure a wireless interface: iwconfig for some parts, ifconfig for others, iwpriv for others <NIC>control for still others. Then there's the bits needed to support roaming, WPA, and to keep track of multiple network configs.

Compare that to FreeBSD 6: ifconfig configures everything related to networking, including the wireless bits. wpa_supplicant handles auto-configuring based on various network settings (want to connect to a home network, and office network, and the local coffeeshop: put three network{} blocks in /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf and you're done). Most of the wireless drivers in FreeBSD 5+ have been converted to use the included wireless stack. In a word, wireless networking on FreeBSD is simple, straightforward, and logical.

Wireless networking on Linux is a horrid mess.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Still behind for desktops
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 07:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Still behind for desktops"
RE[2]: Still behind for desktops
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 10:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Still behind for desktops"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"In a word, wireless networking on FreeBSD is simple, straightforward, and logical.
Wireless networking on Linux is a horrid mess."

Well, one thing that matters to me is what can i use it for:

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=wi&sektion=4

"Lucent Hermes, Intersil PRISM and Spectrum24"

Hello? Anybody said something about _support_?

I won't use any proprietary Windows drivers (for obvious reasons).

And no, I'm not a Linux zealot, I like BSDs. The thing is, both Linux and BSDs have some shortcomings in this area.

Reply Score: 0

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=wi&sektion=4"
"Lucent Hermes, Intersil PRISM and Spectrum24"

That's not a fair query, wi isnt the only driver:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=802.11&apropos=1

Reply Score: 3

Anonymous Member since:
---

"That's not a fair query, wi isnt the only driver"

You got me (damn, i've agreed that i'm an ignorant, not good ;) ).

But returning to the previous comment, it's not that scary to use wireless on Linux (surely not a mess as it was suggested) and there is a way too big risk that the card you have won't work - either on Linux or *BSD.

rtl-8180 based thingy is working well with a decent driver on Linux but i'd rather blame manufacturers for the messy situation we have, not the implementators.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Still behind for desktops
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 14:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Still behind for desktops"
Anonymous Member since:
---

wireless networking on mandriva and ubuntu badger are very easy if you find the config tool. usuing the 2.6.12 kernel.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Still behind for desktops
by Wrawrat on Sat 5th Nov 2005 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still behind for desktops"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Depends on your needs. Ubuntu Badger doesn't support WPA out of the box since it doesn't include wpa_supplicant. You can find it in universe, but it's unsupported. Does it matter? Well, given that WEP can be broken in minutes, I would say yes...

In that aspect, I think FreeBSD got it right.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Still behind for desktops
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 10:09 UTC in reply to "Still behind for desktops"
Anonymous Member since:
---

herr... pkg_add -r skype <- so easy

Reply Score: 0

Cosmo
Member since:
2005-11-05

After people cut there teeth on linux they usually come to FreeBSD. gentoo users keep complaining that FreeBSD keeps stealing their users. (http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-137284-highlight-freebsd.html).
Also linux is not even on the list :-) http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
For the life of me I can't understand why FreeBSD is not the buzz instead of linux

Reply Score: 3

Anonymous Member since:
---

Probably because of better marketing/hype and the development model started by Linus.

-bytecoder

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

and the development model started by Linus.

Ok, this is just plain funny. Which development model? The one where hundreds of people sumbit patches directly to him, and he has to track them by hand and try to integrate them together, resolving conflicts for code that he didn't write and might not fully understand? The one where there was no public development tree, only the trees that Torvalds would toss out periodically? The one where it was impossible to track changes or history of code? Yeah, that had a very cool populist feel to it. But in reality, the 2.5/2.6 development really only took off when Torvalds acquieced to minimal engineering standards and adopted a source control system. It was actually pretty scary how efficient the development process became because of that. But those days are gone, and 2.6 development seems to have dramatically slowed again as a result. Oh well =-)

Reply Score: 5

Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

"
Ok, this is just plain funny. Which development model?"

Distributed development model instead of a centralised source


"But those days are gone, and 2.6 development seems to have dramatically slowed again as a result. Oh well =-)"


You are really sure? It seems pretty fast to me

http://wiki.kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

Distributed development model instead of a centralised source

Right, the distributed model where the development tree was kept on a private computer and only given out periodically when a single person felt like it? The one where no one except Torvalds could see the or review the minute-by-minute changes? Ya, that's pretty distributed. Too bad that CVS is such a closed, priate, elitist system =-)

Reply Score: 2

Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

"
Right, the distributed model where the development tree was kept on a private computer and only given out periodically when a single person felt like it?"

The patchsets were posted very often pre 2.5. The latest tree was hosted in bk from around the 2.5 days

Here is the current status using git

http://kernel.org/git

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Gee, you make it sound so glamorous ;) Have you read the
Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond? It's a bit on the lofty side, but it's still a good read nonetheless.

-bytecoder

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Sure, I've read it. You're referring to the model where one guy has ultimate authority over access and ultimate authority in development of the project, and where input to the development generally only reachable through a hierarchy of lieutenents, right? That's definitely the bazaar model. Allowing everone instant access to the development at all times and having a large group of developers with equal authority in the project is certainly the cathedral model. I understand perfectly. Or maybe I read the book upside down. Dunno. Either way, it's all good =-)

Reply Score: 0

martink Member since:
2005-07-06

"Also linux is not even on the list"

I have heard this from FreeBSD users so many times, that I wonder if they are just trolling, or they really can't read - http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#whichos

Reply Score: 3

Anonymous Member since:
---

LOL. Brilliant!

Reply Score: 0

Cosmo Member since:
2005-11-05

O sorry I missed ONE. did not see it, it was hidden in all the FreeBSDs

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

I think he/she meant for you to read the information on uptime measurement in some Linux systems. In a nutshell, it explains that Netcraft's results are limited and therefore don't show a Linux reality.

In other words, the results are skewed to the detriment of Linux.

Reply Score: 0

re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

I'll say right off the bat that I am a long time Gentoo user and a long time FreeBSD user, one is not better then the other. I prefer to use Gentoo on my Desktop systems, and FreeBSD or Arch Linux on my server boxes (with one exception)

No offense, I don't know the numbers but I bet there are more Gentoo Linux users then there are FreeBSD users, let alone other linux distros. I don't think Linux is better then FreeBSD, but I do think it is more bleeding edge, most of the time if a new techonolgy is implimented into the opensource world it goes into Linux first, then into the BSD's.

FreeBSD is an exceedingly stable os, is reasonably fast, can make a respectible desktop os, and an excellent server os.

Linux can also be fast, stable, a good desktop, and an awesome server....... the difference is in the distro, FreeBSD is FreeBSD, Linux is a kernel (a pretty decent one) but the distro that surrounds that kernel determines how viable the os is for various tasks.

My point is that Linux is far more flexable and bleeding edge then FreeBSD (not better), that is the reason linux is the BUZZ instead of FreeBSD.

Reply Score: 3

Anonymous Member since:
---

"I don't know the numbers but I bet there are more Gentoo Linux users then there are FreeBSD users"

No offense, I don't know the numbers, but I bet there are more made up statistics in this post than there are real statistics.

=-D

Reply Score: 1

RE: Still behind for desktops
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 00:56 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Sykpe needs the whole Linux compatibility layer, not the most convenient thing, but you're right it helps FreeBSD run more software since some ISV start to include Linux versions of their apps.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Still behind for desktops
by Dr_J on Sat 5th Nov 2005 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Still behind for desktops"
Dr_J Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh for heaven's sake. Having the Linux compatibility layer installed is far from inconvenient. Nearly EVERYONE who uses FreeBSD on the desktop has it installed. You just need it, even for things as simple as the Adobe Reader.

Reply Score: 4

Anonymous Member since:
---

am running pcbsd 8.3. of course you know this is freebsd 5.4. i am not running with the linux compat layer and mozilla does my browsing; kopete, instant messaging; thunderbird, email; mplayer, does c-span, ifilm, pbs news hour. i can use xpdf for pdf files. so far no need to install acrobat. the only time i have needed to "kldload linux" is when i run "find_ddos". maybe i will find other reasons down the road to run the linux.

just wanted to clarify that acrobat is not needed to read pdf.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Still behind for desktops
by Dr_J on Sat 5th Nov 2005 19:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Still behind for desktops"
Dr_J Member since:
2005-07-06

I never claimed that the Adobe Reader is the only way to read pdf files, but I find that acroread7 is a better alternative than the others (and I have a half-dozen or so installed). I merely cited it as a common, easy to understand example

So how is it you propose to enable Flash without Linux compatibility? And how do you propose to view some of the sites that use Flash that are difficult, and seem to work only with Linux Opera or Firefox?

I remain steadfast in recommending every FreeBSD user install the Linux compatibility layer. Even the PC-BSD crew have talked about installing this as part of the standard configuration.

DrJ

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

I remain steadfast in recommending every FreeBSD user install the Linux compatibility layer. Even the PC-BSD crew have talked about installing this as part of the standard configuration.

Install Linux compat? F that! If it's not native, then I don't f'ing want it. Basically, everything that's not native can be totally lived without.

Do I need flash? Not really, and sites shouldn't force it down our throats either. PDF? I can use xpdf. Hell, even KDE has an excellent PDF reader. I don't know Adobe Acrobat. There are alternatives.

It's not that I want everything Open Source (remember, I am a BSD user and not a Linux user - I do know how to live with commercial software) since I do use the native version of Opera on my FreeBSD box. It runs beautifully. I also run the NVidia driver binary.

Personally, accepting the linux compatibility layer in FreeBSD just makes it so that software vendors can have an excuse not to port to FreeBSD. They'll say, "Why port it when they can always just use Linux compat to run out software." But, that's just my opinion.

Reply Score: 1

isnt on the list?
by dizzey on Sat 5th Nov 2005 01:32 UTC
dizzey
Member since:
2005-10-15

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.max.html

i never had any stability isues with linux or bsd's.
i belive the uptime issues often depends on that there are few beginers bsd admins, linux is a bit hyped so people who havent touched it try to make a server with crappy hw.

Reply Score: 2

Stop ARGUING
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 01:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Oh stop arguing, FreeBSD and Linux users need to stop arguing. Friendly competition between developers, and friendly happy collaboration is what we need.

The users seem to flame war and flame war, whilst the developers (except perhaps Theo, head of OpenBSD, the idiot) don't care about such trivial things.

Both systems are free, open, and modern. They have advantages and disadvantages. The real "wars" should be Free OSS systems vs things like AIX or HP-UX, and of course, Windows Server.

Stop arguing and celebrate your use of a good operating system.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Stop ARGUING
by ma_d on Sat 5th Nov 2005 02:53 UTC in reply to "Stop ARGUING"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Theo is hardly an idiot. He runs his mouth off occasionally, but he's a very intelligent and TMK competent developer.
He really shouldn't get called an idiot for what he says... If you wanna call him a name, call him a jerk or something.

I see this all the time. I honestly think it's a superiority complex. It's one of the things that has kept me happy with Linux: I don't see the superiority complex as often as I do in BSD channels (by channel, I mean irc channel).

I get sick of the bickering as well. It's pretty pointless. I have yet to see an OS I'd call dramatically superior to the rest...
Just to give a list:
1.) FBSD: Ports is pathetic. I've wasted more time trying to fix Ports upgrading deps and not moving up the tree.... But their kernel build method, that's a work of art... Seriously, Linux' method isn't nearly so friendly. And their documentation is astounding...
2.) Gentoo: Too much work for one or two servers.
3.) ArchLinux: Pacman can't handle situations like filled hard disks (I actually ruined an install by running out of disk space during an update once).
4.) Ubuntu: Broken libpng in, I think, warty or hoary. Generically slow, maybe it's the 386 code? Seriously guys, who has a 386... (Debian, that goes for you too)
5.) Suse: Seriously slow... There's got to be something wrong with Yast, there just has to be.
6.) WinXP Pro: Slows over time.
7.) OS X: Lack of free vnc/rdp. (I know how much Mac remote desktop costs, it's ridiculous)
8.) RHEL4: Gtk 2.4, come on!
9.) NetBSD: Broken installer.

I'm sure I could list more, but I'm totally blanking on OS's I've used... Well, ones that are worth listing; I don't think anyone is going to argue with me on the status of Windows ME ;) .

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Stop ARGUING
by Wrawrat on Sat 5th Nov 2005 03:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Stop ARGUING"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Actually, Ubuntu and Debian packages are compiled for i486. To my knowledge, Debian can run on i386 because their kernel got emulation for three specific i486 instructions (bswap, xadd and cmpxchg).

Then perhaps it's the i486 code? Could be, but many Slackware users are satisfied by the speed of their distro... which was compiled for i486.

Frankly, it could only be a matter of under/over-optimisation. Debian and Ubuntu got a AMD64 version but I didn't got words on their performance (or their lack of).

Back on the BSDs, did they fixed the installer for NetBSD 2.1/3.0? I have installed FreeBSD 5.4 on my router because of that. I've got some weird "floating point exception" with the one from 2.02...

Corrected some typo.

Edited 2005-11-05 03:28

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Stop ARGUING
by Andrew Youll on Sat 5th Nov 2005 09:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Stop ARGUING"
Andrew Youll Member since:
2005-06-29

On OSX i use OSXVNC (Server) and ChickenVNC (Client) for my VNC needs both are free, ChickenVNC is available via SourceForge, and OSXVNC i can't recall where I downloaded that from.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Stop ARGUING
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Stop ARGUING"
Anonymous Member since:
---

FreeBSD ports collection is awesome. Cvsup/portupgrade in 30 min, depending on bandwidth, your packages are update (along with dependents). I frequently ssh to my server and show off the ports collection to some of my Ubuntu buddies. They are always impressed.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Stop ARGUING
by Anonymous on Sun 6th Nov 2005 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Stop ARGUING"
Anonymous Member since:
---

>> 7.) OS X: Lack of free vnc/rdp. (I know how much Mac remote desktop costs, it's ridiculous)

System Preferences => Sharing =>Click Apple Remote Desktop => Click "VNC viewers may control screen with password:"

An VNC viewer (i.e. client) you have to download yourself, Chicken of VNC is an excellent one, as stated before.

As for RDP, Microsoft provides with an RDP client.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Stop ARGUING
by Soulbender on Sat 5th Nov 2005 06:00 UTC in reply to "Stop ARGUING"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"(except perhaps Theo, head of OpenBSD, the idiot)"

Adding more imflammatory and incorrect statements to an argument doesnt stop it...

Reply Score: 2

"Return" ?
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 07:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Were BSDs dead at some point or have I missed something?

Reply Score: 0

v BSD are BACK !!! OH NOOOOOOO ...
by Moulinneuf on Sat 5th Nov 2005 07:24 UTC
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

Don't be a Moulinneuf. D'oh. Nevermind. It's a genetic. You apparently can't help it ;^)

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

"I am Moulinneuf and my genetics are killing BSD's , the lord of hell said so ..."

Ah, so the cat's out of the bag, you're an MS shill...

Reply Score: 0

japail Member since:
2005-06-30

I like how every time someone enjoys being a pest here, people starting suggesting they're paid shills of Microsoft. Moulinneuf doesn't just do this here, and he certainly doesn't do it for the benefit of Microsoft.

Just read a few posts from here: http://slashdot.org/~Moulinneuf

After doing so, I feel strangely compelled to buy Microsoft products. Or not.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

The suggestion was to be taken with a big ":-P". Just forgot to add it. :-P

Reply Score: 0

japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Ah, my bad.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Nah, our bad. :-D

Reply Score: 0

Some actual numbers
by ulib on Sat 5th Nov 2005 07:52 UTC
ulib
Member since:
2005-07-07

Indeed, the only "return" is the return of media attention, because as a matter of fact in all these years the BSDs (and especially FreeBSD) have always been there - and massively.
For some actual numbers:

FreeBSD serves 2.5 million websites and that's much more than *any* Linux distro (Redhat, notwithstanding the corporate push, stops at 1.6 millions).
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/06/07/nearly_25_million_acti...
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/03/14/fedora_makes_rapid_pro...

So, for those who don't blindly follow the commercial hype, there's actually no "return".. FreeBSD has always been there. ;)

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Some actual numbers
by Moulinneuf on Sat 5th Nov 2005 09:09 UTC in reply to "Some actual numbers"
RE: Some actual numbers
by dylansmrjones on Sun 6th Nov 2005 02:21 UTC in reply to "Some actual numbers"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Yeah... but don't forget the other Linux-distros ;)

However, FreeBSD is a great choice for a webserver. I've never understood why companies are using Windows when they ought to use a *BSD or a GNU/Linux distribution.

Another thing is:

Stop that f--king war between *BSD and GNU/Linux. When did it the whole f--king war start? It's extremely stupid.

*BSD aren't any better than GNU/Linux nor is the reverse true.

However, they're all better than Windows (though not necessarily easier).

Reply Score: 1

What a mess.
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 09:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Jesus, people.. When you stumble into a troll/FUDster, instead of feeding him/her/it thus helping him/her/it to pollute the discussion, why don't you use those f*cking modpoints. Isn't that the reason they're given for in the first place

Reply Score: 0

RE: What a mess.
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 09:43 UTC in reply to "What a mess."
Anonymous Member since:
---

You realise that the people on both sides of the argument are trolls, right?

So what you are doing is feeding them.

Reply Score: 0

I don't care about fights
by LraiseR on Sat 5th Nov 2005 10:45 UTC
LraiseR
Member since:
2005-07-12

I've been happily using NetBSD for the last 7 years on quite different architectures (alpha, i386, PPC, you name them) for different uses ({web,mail,file,whatever} server and yes, desktop too), and it's just a blessing that the system is coherent between them (expecially the packages system). Easy to understand, low bloat, readable kernel code, well documented, a helpful user base, POSIX & SUS compliant, developer-friendly license.

Would I go back to GNU/Linux? I experiment, from time to time. Too many different distros (many even incompatible between them!), too many crashes/instabilities (with my normal workload), too many different packages types (apt, emerge, rpm, hardly at the pkgsrc's level).
And the GPL license, I don't like it. At all.
No, I doubt I'll switch back.

And whoever thought the BSDs are not ready for desktops should think twice, as MacOS X's core (Darwin) actually is a BSD (derived)...

Reply Score: 3

No binary packages
by sweiss on Sat 5th Nov 2005 11:35 UTC
sweiss
Member since:
2005-10-01

For me it's a shame that FBSD does not have the latest ports in binary form, I really dislike compiling.

Reply Score: 1

RE: binary packages
by ulib on Sat 5th Nov 2005 15:42 UTC in reply to "No binary packages"
ulib Member since:
2005-07-07

Gimme a break.. there are *tons* of updated packages and getting them is as easy as typing pkg_add -r [packagename]:
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/packages/

The instructions:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/packages-...
Read it once before starting to install packages, especially about the setting of the PACKAGESITE variable! In order to get the updated packages in the future, you might want to point it to the packages-6-stable folder.

Reply Score: 1

Why did you..
by Joe User on Sat 5th Nov 2005 14:40 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

... switch the BSD mascott for the FreeBSD logo for all BSD-related articles? The FreeBSD logo is ugly, and applies only to FreeBSD articles, not to other BSDs.

Reply Score: 1

v freebsd rocks my joint
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 14:54 UTC
v something funny happened on the way....
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 15:06 UTC
Go BSD!
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 17:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The article doesn't say it but there's also a new release of DragonFlyBSD coming before Christmas. : )

I'm quite happy with my GNU/Linux system but I'm also glad that there are all these great BSD systems available as alternatives.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: binary packages
by sweiss on Sat 5th Nov 2005 18:38 UTC
sweiss
Member since:
2005-10-01

Hey, thanks a lot for your reply. But I'm a bit confused, are these sources updated on a regular basis or are they up to date because FBSD 6 was just released?

I've tried FBSD 5.4 on a VM not so long ago and I'm sure I've set the PACKAGESITE variable correctly, however when I tried running a binary update (after updating my ports tree) it couldn't find any fitting package so it had to built it all from source.

Thanks again for your input.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: binary packages
by ulib on Sat 5th Nov 2005 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: binary packages"
ulib Member since:
2005-07-07

Yw. While FreeBSD has a unique ports collection, it has different package trees:
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/

The ones associated with a -RELEASE (like packages-6.0-release) aren't meant to get updated (that's why you've got to change the PACKAGESITE variable). The ones who do get updated are the ones associated with -CURRENT and -STABLE branches (like packages-6-stable or packages-7-current) and they do about once a month.

Btw: I don't know if all the ports are available as packages, but I'm sure most of them are, since I can count more than 10,000 packages in the ftp folder I linked, and overall there are slightly more than 13,000 ports.
Enjoy ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: binary packages
by ulib on Sat 5th Nov 2005 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: binary packages"
ulib Member since:
2005-07-07

One more thing.. since I don't use packages myself, I'm not sure about FreeBSD's reaction when you try to install a package whose version is lower than the version in the ports tree (this might have been the problem you experienced).
If you had an issue about that, you might find an answer in the docs, or maybe on irc (##freebsd @ irc.freenode.net - I've always found them extremely friendly)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: binary packages
by sweiss on Sat 5th Nov 2005 20:35 UTC
sweiss
Member since:
2005-10-01

Thanks again ulib.

Reply Score: 1

*BSDs unified under pkgsrc
by Anonymous on Sat 5th Nov 2005 20:44 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

pkgsrc is the package management system from NetBSD that works with other BSD variants as well as Linux.

DragonFlyBSD is switching to pkgsrc in the upcoming 1.4 release.

If DragonFlyBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all adopt pkgsrc, then it improves the chances of catching up to the extensive number of FreeBSD ports and Debian's packages.

Ideally, I'd like to see all the BSD variants adopt pkgsrc.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

I wonder if the Kong company who makes dog toys knows of this new BSD logo?

One of their dog toys is a red, circular toy with what appears to be two horns on the top and looks very similar to the new BSD logo, the only difference between the two that I can see is the Kong dog toy has little legs under the circle part. Other than that, it looks the same.

I hope the person who came up with the new BSD logo didn't just look at one of his/her dog's toys and get the idea, I think I'll contact the manufacturer of the Kong dog toys and let them decide. Their website can be found by Googling, FWIW.

Reply Score: 0

openbsd
by Anonymous on Mon 7th Nov 2005 13:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

By no means is Theo the head of openbsd a idiot.
I have alot of respect for the guy. He founded openbsd
so I think he has right to call the shots. From what i hear openbsd is very very respected os. People got upset with the guy who started atheos now syllable.
I dont understand why. He created a os. He moved onto something new.


If your not smart enough to build a os. Please dont gripe about a person who can. Theo founded openbsd.
Theo is doing a verr very good job with openbsd.

Reply Score: 0