Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 11th Dec 2005 12:57 UTC, submitted by I_dont_have_an_osnew....
FreeBSD "FreeBSD is an enterprise-grade operating system that leaves little to be desired. Most people have tried Linux by now, but a surprisingly large number of people have not yet taken FreeBSD for a spin. Now may well be the optimal time to take the plunge, as FreeBSD 6.0 provides the same rock-solid stability for which FreeBSD is known, and also implements some outstanding new features."
Order by: Score:
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

"Oh please. The problem with FreeBSD is the same problem
that the Amiga and BE OS ran into which is that their userbases are comprised mostly of self-rightous *JACKASSES* like the "author" of this article.
"

Heh. The exact same can be said about anything, OS related or otherwise.

Grow up.

Reply Score: 5

Anonymous Member since:
---

Untill it's GUI install is not so ugly then people will get it for a spin. I have longed to use this FreeBSD all me life, but never could install it. Now installing Linux is all right.. I have all tryed pcBSD and It don't have what I'm looking for. You might read this and think " hhhmmm well just wot are you looking for in an OS sys? " I'm looking for UFS and not as much to the LFS.. I know that FreeBSD has it. why.. well lets say some of my friends works for NASA and NASA use's FreeBSD. I'm a waiting on the day that FreeBSD will be GUI install. or that the MAC OS X will be ported to the PC.

Your friend.

Reply Score: 0

Chreo Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm sad to say but if that is what you need to try FreeBSD then FreeBSD is not for you. FreeBSD is not for average Joe/Jane that must have a clickety interface. FreeBSD is not hard but all unix-related OSes (xept MacOS X) is rough around the edges when hardware is unsupported/buggy. And if you need a graphical GUI then you clearly will not be the target for FreeBSD for quite some years. This have nothing to do with elitism but everything to do with developer focus. The focus is not on hiding a crappy backend with pretty GUIs. The focus is providing a completely free and rock solid experience as a "server".

FreeBSD will quite soon have a new clickety GUI installer but since you have such animosity against non clickety GUIs and since FreeBSD still requires a commandline occasionally then Mac OS is your best hope.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

First of all, after reading your post I came to the conclusion that you know nothing about FreeBSD at all. Just because you don't like FreeBSD (I really doubt that you ever used it!) doesn't give you the right of calling it's users "self-rightous *JACKASSES*".
As far as I'm concerned FreeBSD _IS_ enterprise-grade and rock-solid. You know why I say this? Because I USE FreeBSD for my everyday work and I'm pleased about it.

Got get a life!...

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

>"Oh please. The problem with FreeBSD is the same problem
>that the Amiga and BE OS ran into which is that their >userbases are comprised mostly of self-rightous >*JACKASSES* like the "author" of this article."

Hmm... I guess since it doesn't run on your Playstation or run Mario Brothers, you don't understand it.

Maybe you should stick to game consoles, do your homework each night and pay attention in school. Let the adults discuss this matter and don't interfere.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

"Maybe you should stick to game consoles, do your homework each night and pay attention in school. Let the adults discuss this matter and don't interfere"

Seems that the first poster was right about the FreeBSD users ;) Time to get serious though. FreeBSD an enteprise-grade system? Oh pleeeease! Rock solid maybe. But still it lacks many features and software to be called something like that.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Call me when i DON'T need to reboot a PC just to patch a kernel... Until then, Linux is hardly "enterprise-grade".

Reply Score: 0

Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

"Yeah I ll call you. By the way call me when FreeBSD supports 512 processors and 24TB mem in one instance ok?"

Show me a vanilla Linux kernel that can do the same.

*shrug*

EDIT: Oops. I've offended a Linux user. I've been modded down for a legitimate comment made while replying to an idiot.

Edited 2005-12-11 15:32

Reply Score: 4

Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

My point was that SGI could have started with either Linux or FreeBSD and ended up with a system that could scale as their modified Linux-based oe does.

Niether FreeBSD, nor Linux proper can scale anywhere near that well, and since most kernel developers for both projects do not have access to the hardware that allows for such rediculous scalability, this fact is not going to change any time soon.

Smart enough comment for you kiddo?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Looks like SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 supports 512 CPUs.
http://www.sgi.com/products/software/linux/suse.html

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

If you know what you are doing, you don't have to reboot your machine to patch your Linux kernel. What's your number and I'll give you a call.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

can you pleacse post a url toa relevant howto? With the frequent kernel updates of fc4 the "kernel upgrade reboots" realy killss the uptime.

Reply Score: 0

bn-7bc Member since:
2005-09-04

that last post was mine, sorry for posting anon, forgot to log in.
Note to self: pay atention you lazy ba.....

Reply Score: 1

JamesTRexx Member since:
2005-11-06

What features and software is it lacking then?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Well, just so you know, FreeBSD exclusively power the F-root servers for the internet. It's basically a large cluster of FreeBSD machines running BIND with extremely high availability to power DNS requests from around the world. That sounds like Enterprise-Grade to me. Linux is also enterprise-grade.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

"Well, just so you know, FreeBSD exclusively power the F-root servers for the internet. It's basically a large cluster of FreeBSD machines running BIND with extremely high availability to power DNS requests from around the world. That sounds like Enterprise-Grade to me. Linux is also enterprise-grade."

Can you give us some evidence?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Quote from http://www.bsdatwork.com/2004/06/11/freebsd_stealth_growth_project/

Paul Vixie is lead engineer at the ISC (Internet systems consortium), the organisation that wrote the DNS server BIND and maintains large portions of the internet infrastructure. Vixie's been around forever, since the beginning of networked computers basically.

[Start Blockquote]
FreeBSD does, however, remain a factor in the infrastructure of the Internet itself, at least according to the founder of the ISC, the group that produces BIND, the dominant DNS tool of the Internet.
"On the one hand we applaud Linux for coming out of nowhere so late in the game and creating a robust industry based on open source concepts," said Paul Vixie, board chairman for ISC. "Furthermore, ISC hosts the main Linux kernel distribution server [kernel.org] as our way of helping the Linux community continue to thrive," he said.
"On the other hand we use FreeBSD exclusively for f-root (in 21 cities now, usually with three servers per city) and all of our other servers and internal development," Vixie explained. "We like the age of the platform. BSD has existed since the late 1970's and modern FreeBSD is extremely refined and mature."
The ISC also hosts the entire NetBSD project as well as an OpenBSD mirror and the only Ipv6-accessible FreeBSD mirror. In short, FreeBSD remains a critical part of the ISC's infrastructure.
"ISC could not exist in our current form without being able to leverage FreeBSD's strengths as we do," Vixie added.
[End Blockquote]

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous. Member since:
2005-12-04

> I guess since it doesn't run on your Playstation or run Mario Brothers, you don't understand it.
just thought i'd point out that i just played mario brothers (in an nes emulator) on freebsd a couple hours ago...

Reply Score: 2

aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

"Hmm... I guess since it doesn't run on your Playstation or run Mario Brothers, you don't understand it."

Or install NetBSD/emulators.

Reply Score: 1

Puff piece
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

FreeBSD 6.0 provides the same rock-solid stability for which FreeBSD is known

On what basis can this claim be made?


Interestingly, Linux implemented a constant-time scheduler at roughly the same time as FreeBSD.

Ingo Molnar's 0(1) scheduler pre-dates ULE. Beyond that, one major difference between them is that Molnar's scheduler has been properly debugged and in production use for over three years now.


With more than 13,000 open source software packages in reach, none rivals FreeBSD's ports system.

~ % apt-cache dumpavail| grep ^Package:|wc -l
17452

Reply Score: 1

RE: Puff piece
by Haicube on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:10 UTC in reply to "Puff piece"
Haicube Member since:
2005-08-06

So be it, but still FreeBSD owns the free scene since 6.0 release... and for most it has owned the scene for longer than that.

The real competitor to FreeBSD is not Linux, it's Solaris though so it's odd comparing them.

Linux is the first stage for FreeBSD users when they come from Windows. But like I said, Solaris is the real competitor, since freebsd users tend to be very quality oriented, and Solaris outperforms FreeBSD I'd say..

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Puff piece
by dylansmrjones on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Puff piece"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Haicube, jump back to haiku-os.org instead of spreading flamebait here.

Use your system resources to give TeamHaiku a better placement at seventeenorbust.com ;)

You're spreading nonsense and it's embarrasing to see a fellow Haiku fan doing such a thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Puff piece
by Haicube on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Puff piece"
Haicube Member since:
2005-08-06

Dude I'm crunching more than you can imagine ;P

Reply Score: 0

RE: Puff piece
by Hugo on Sun 11th Dec 2005 17:47 UTC in reply to "Puff piece"
Hugo Member since:
2005-07-06

"Ingo Molnar's 0(1) scheduler pre-dates ULE. Beyond that, one major difference between them is that Molnar's scheduler has been properly debugged and in production use for over three years now"

and the windows NT kernel has an O(1) scheduler since 1989, so what's your point?

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Puff piece
by Anonymous on Mon 12th Dec 2005 01:02 UTC in reply to "Puff piece"
FreeBSD is Rock solid
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I've been using FreeBSD on servers for years. I used to use Linux on my desktop as an alternative to windoze. Now I also use FreeBSD on my desktop.

I'm not neither part of the FreeBSD or Linux developing teams. I'm just a user and system administrator who is very happy to work with such a reliable system.

I like and work Linux and BSD based systems. Linux has a great advantage on the desktop when it comes to multimedia applications like TV viewing applications. Linux has more drivers. I had to wait a full year before I could use wifi on my FreeBSD laptop. The power management of FreeBSD is better disabled because it can cause crashes.

FreeBSD rocks when it comes to stability and management. When I worked with bloated suse linux, I had to try it yast application many times before I could get half an upgrade. With freebsd all I have to do to upgrade all applications is a cvsup and type "portupgrade -a". Upgrading the core system isn't much more complicated either. Both can be done without any graphical user interfaces. I've done many full system upgrades on remote FreeBSD production server. The down time was minimal.

FreeBSD doesn't crash often. I had a couple of crashes (like once per month using the system 16 hours per day) with versions 5.3 and 5.4 when I ran multimedia applications and someone aimed me at the same time. This problems seems to have gone with version 6.0. Even the least stable production version of FreeBSD, version 5.3, has been running on one of my servers that does about daily 30k visitors for almost 230 days since last reboot.

FreeBSD also has the best documentation I have found so far. There are free books that are regularly updated about general use, programming, architecture... All these books are reviewed by teams and are very well done and very consistant. I couldn't find such great documentation for any other free OS link Linux or even other *BSD.

FreeBSD can run more Linux applications than any single Linux distro! About 13k applications have been ported. To install them all there is to do is to enter a directory and type "make install clean". FreeBSD will then download them, check their checksums, patch them, compile them and install them. About all well known free applications, like KDE, Gnome, openoffice, apache 1.3, 2.0, 2.2; Mysql 3.*, 4*, 5.*... have been ported. Even most binary Linux application can run on FreeBSD thanks to a compatibility layer.

I think FreeBSD is the most mature system I have used so far. I has the best of the BSD and the best GNU tools in one package. It gives me very little trouble. It saves me a lot of timethanks to its great documentation, great stability and easy management. It is very enterprise ready!

btw: I live in Belgium. I would like to find a *BSD user group there. Language is not a problem, beside English I also speak and read the 3 Belgian languages quite fluently.

E.d'Aubignosc
eba@upsylon.com

Reply Score: 5

RE: FreeBSD is Rock solid
by Yoke on Sun 11th Dec 2005 20:15 UTC in reply to "FreeBSD is Rock solid"
Yoke Member since:
2005-08-28

I've been using FreeBSD on servers for years.

Sure. But the claim in the article was made specifically with regard to 6.0. 4.x had a reputation as being rock stable, 5.x most certainly did not. And as the FreeBSD developers themselves have pointed out, 6.x is basically a continuation of 5.x (as opposed to a big jump wrt new features), and the version bumping was done largely to get away from the stigma of the 5.x series.


When I worked with bloated suse linux, I had to try it yast application many times before I could get half an upgrade.

Either Suse is complete garbage (never used it myself), or you were mixing official and unofficial repositories, and perhaps even repositories not aimed at your distribution? The double edged sword of RPM.


FreeBSD doesn't crash often. I had a couple of crashes (like once per month using the system 16 hours per day) with versions 5.3 and 5.4 when I ran multimedia applications and someone aimed me at the same time.

I give you two thumbs up for your honesty.


FreeBSD can run more Linux applications than any single Linux distro!

Rubbish, but if your point is that as far as applications are concerned, FreeBSD is not at much of a disadvantage vis-à-vis Linux, you are of course correct. That said, there are certain things you have to jump through hoops to get working, like fpr instance Java (or is that fixed now?) and misc. browser plugins.


I couldn't find such great documentation for any other free OS link Linux or even other *BSD.

Have you looked?

http://www.debian.org/doc
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/index.xml
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/
http://wwwnew.mandriva.com/en/community/users/documentation

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: FreeBSD is Rock solid
by Chreo on Sun 11th Dec 2005 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE: FreeBSD is Rock solid"
Chreo Member since:
2005-07-06

And as the FreeBSD developers themselves have pointed out, 6.x is basically a continuation of 5.x (as opposed to a big jump wrt new features), and the version bumping was done largely to get away from the stigma of the 5.x series.

Completely wrong. 6 is a continuation of 5 with regards to that it builds upon the same codebase for SMP as 5 (whereas 4 used BGL for SMP). However the VFS is redone to the new SMP arch in 6 and other changes have been made that required changes to both API and ABI. THAT is what made them change to a new major version no. Contrary to many other free OSes, FreeBSD keeps API/ABI compatability for each major version i.e. you do not have to recompile 3rd party programs between minor or STABLE version upgrades, unless security patches force API/ABI changes (extremely rare).

5.5 will come out and I'm sure it will have just as good stability as 6 (depending upon which patches have been MFC/MF6).

5.0-5.2 was a mixed bag but then those where not production releases of a STABLE branch. 5.3 still had some issues on some hardware but with 5.4 you had to have badly supported/buggy (mostly bad ACPI implementations in hardware) hardware to experience regular crashes.

That said, there are certain things you have to jump through hoops to get working, like fpr instance Java (or is that fixed now?) and misc. browser plugins.

Java is a license issue that unfortunately still force you to manually downoad the sources to build Suns Java. If you care about browser plugs then I sincerely suggest you switch to Win/Mac. For the content that matters and that requires plugs, they are there for both Linux/FreeBSD.

Have you looked?

Those are NOWHERE near as good as the FreeBSD docs. Documentation exist for them but quality is often questionable and rarely good. The BSDs are reknowned for their excellent docs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: FreeBSD is Rock solid
by Yoke on Mon 12th Dec 2005 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FreeBSD is Rock solid"
Yoke Member since:
2005-08-28

Completely wrong. 6 is a continuation of 5 with regards to that it builds upon the same codebase for SMP as 5 (whereas 4 used BGL for SMP). However the VFS is redone to the new SMP arch in 6 and other changes have been made that required changes to both API and ABI.

Ok, I probably overstated my claim a little. But I formed that impression by reading responses from FreeBSD developers to questions like "is it safe to upgrade to 6.0" and "I have problem [...] with FreeBSD 5.x" where the answers are almost invariably that 6.0 is not really a new technology release but more of a bugfixed and stabilzed 5.x, and almost everybody should upgrade to
it.


If you care about browser plugs then I sincerely suggest you switch to Win/Mac. For the content that matters and that requires plugs, they are there for both Linux/FreeBSD.

Why are you conflating Linux and FreeBSD here? One requires hoop-jumping to gets things running, the other does not.


Those are NOWHERE near as good as the FreeBSD docs. Documentation exist for them but quality is often questionable and rarely good.

Is that so? Could you be specific?

Also, notice that all these Linux systems provides documentation in multiple languages. FreeBSD, as far as I can tell, doesn't.

That doesn't make a lick of difference to me, but it does to a lot of people.


The BSDs are reknowned for their excellent docs.

Yes, and it's an excellent example of a successful meme. The more people repeat it, the more people repeat it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: FreeBSD is Rock solid
by Anonymous on Mon 12th Dec 2005 20:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: FreeBSD is Rock solid"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Also, notice that all these Linux systems provides documentation in multiple languages. FreeBSD, as far as I can tell, doesn't.

Not true.

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/

But anyway - I can't see any reason of non-english documentation. If you don't know english, you can't survive in IT world. (english is not my native language, btw).

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: FreeBSD is Rock solid
by Yoke on Mon 12th Dec 2005 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: FreeBSD is Rock solid"
Yoke Member since:
2005-08-28

Ok, I see that atleast the handbook seems to be available in multiple languages. I wasn't able to find them by following the "Documentation" link from the front page though, perhaps they should add a link.

Reply Score: 1

Why...
by dylansmrjones on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:09 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

...this hatred between *BSD users and GNU/Linux users?

I really don't get it. Personally I have a hard time deciding which one I like best. Gentoo with Con Kolivas' kernel patches or FreeBSD.

There is tendency for *BSD users to attack the Linux kernel whenever they open their mouth, which results in furious counter attacks from GNU/Linux users, which results in furious counter attacks from *BSD users, which results in furious conuter attacks from GNU/Linux users which ... you get the idea right?

The funny thing is that there is no such hatred on developer level, and most GNU/Linux users are actually fond of *BSD. I yet have to find a Gentoo user or LFS user not fond of or interested in *BSD (especially FreeBSD).

So why this hatred against GNU/Linux users?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why...
by Lazarus on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:14 UTC in reply to "Why..."
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

"There is tendency for *BSD users to attack the Linux kernel whenever they open their mouth, which results in furious counter attacks from GNU/Linux users"

Hate to burst your bubble buddy, but the first shot in this thread was fired by some idiot attacking FreeBSD users. Seriously, it's not difficult to see which came first here.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why...
by dylansmrjones on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Why..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, the first poster was attacking the author, and rightfully so (to a certain extent).

Windows powerusers in here are generally very non tolerant, while the small OS'es generally have the most tolerant users.

I've seen many threads and articles here with *BSD fans attacking GNU/Linux and misciting *BSD developers so the latter seemed to support their attacks.

Attacks on *BSD are almost always (including this thread) of the counter attack type, and could easily be avoided if people would just be happy to have choices instead of beating other people with what exact choice to take.

According to tests in Alt Om Data (AOD.DK) RHEL has a clearly better scheduler than FreeBSD, and FreeBSD has a clearly better TCP/IP stack.

When looking at Gentoo and FreeBSD I personally cannot decide which one is best.
Linspire and FreeBSD and FreeBSD rules bigtime.
Fedora can be useful after many tweaks - it's not exactly a multimedia distro as standard (unless you consider losing too many frames in MPlayer a good thing).

If just users could have the same view at things as devs... that would be much nicer ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why...
by Lazarus on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why..."
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

"When looking at Gentoo and FreeBSD I personally cannot decide which one is best."

Best for what? =^)

I guess you could always dual-boot. I'd personally feel silly dual-booting between to essentially identical systems myself...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Why...
by dylansmrjones on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Allround use. I'm using me home PC as a desktop and as a server - webserver, counter strike server whenever my classmates are getting itchy ;) - editing videos (like fixing bugs in the bitstream in Star Wreck - In The Pirkinning), sound editing, running as a FTP-server, and doing some font work.
Since a computer can do a lot of different things it might as well do so ;) - and preferredly at the same time.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why...
by JamesTRexx on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:22 UTC in reply to "Why..."
JamesTRexx Member since:
2005-11-06

I doubt there's much hate coming from the *BSD users. I found those users often more tolerant than the Linux and Windows crowd, but that might depend on the distro as well. I'm a long time FreeBSD user, and I've been looking into Debian and Gentoo for setting up a multimedia pc (only because it has a Terratec card not supported by FreeBSD) because I get the same feel as FreeBSD gives me, a mature distro that's not about being flashy.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why...
by Anonymous on Mon 12th Dec 2005 09:24 UTC in reply to "Why..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Interestingly enough it's very rare to see Freebsd users bash other systems (or other systems' users) whereas Linux users are bashing almost constantly.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Why...
by dylansmrjones on Mon 12th Dec 2005 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Why..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Not true.

You will generally find Linux users praising the 3 big *BSD's and only getting aggressive when one of the stupid fanboys like the author here (Charlie Schluting) and others are attacking.

Seems to me that certain *BSD users can't handle how much media coverage Linux is getting. I've seen an interview with an OpenBSD developer being used as a reason to attack Linux despite the fact that there was nothing in the article actually bashing Linux at all.

But certain BSD-users turned the statements around, miscited him, and cited him out of context and combined this to attack Linux. Instead of just being happy that they had a good system to use.

The author here is spreading false information, perhaps because he doesn't know better. But the article was sad; had expected something deeper. But okay, we're getting many of these small snacks at OSN at the moment.

Reply Score: 1

Documentation
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I used FreeBSD for years, and all this talk about "the best documentation" really isn't true anymore. Red Hat/Fedora (I also use Red Hat), Debian (which I've worked with), and Gentoo, to name a few, has as good docs, if not better in some areas as FreeBSD.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Documentation
by Anonymous on Mon 12th Dec 2005 10:33 UTC in reply to "Documentation"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"I used FreeBSD for years, and all this talk about "the best documentation" really isn't true anymore. Red Hat/Fedora (I also use Red Hat), Debian (which I've worked with), and Gentoo, to name a few, has as good docs, if not better in some areas as FreeBSD."

I think you misunderstood what is ment by documentation, it means that all the system programs and libraries, devices, kernel functions, etc. all have up-to-date and useful _man pages_. This is certainly not true for the Linux systems I use...

Reply Score: 1

warning
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:34 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Two times kiddo in a row, I guess my usage of 'sonny' and 'kiddo' are catching on.

But anyway, folks, calm down or I'll do some rigourous modding. Be warned. Be nice and you may get a cookie.

Reply Score: 5

RE: warning
by dylansmrjones on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:51 UTC in reply to "warning"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

What kind of cookie?

Some boring standard brownies or some with extra chocolate? ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: warning
by JamesTRexx on Sun 11th Dec 2005 17:28 UTC in reply to "warning"
JamesTRexx Member since:
2005-11-06

COOKIE! *drool*

Reply Score: 1

freebsd windows linux
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I am a netadmin of a small group of health clinics and we use FreeBSD as our Intranet web server. I love it's simplicity and ease of use. Understanding the layout of the filesystem/config files is dead easy. It is my favorite server to manage of them all (others include Meditech, Win2k, Win2003). I just recently set up OpenVPN on my FreeBSD box and it works like a charm. What I like...sysinstall, ports, pkg_*, config file layout.

Reply Score: 1

Multimedia support
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The multimedia support could be a lot better. There's no webcam infrastructure (like V4L2). Also most of the sound device drivers do not support enabling the TOSLINK. That means no digital output, good 5.1 sounds.

Only certain drivers for certain cards allow you to enable the toslink on Freebsd. Users of the integrated ADI1980 solutions etc are just plain ducked.

Not very "ready" OS imho before I can really watch my DVDs and listen to music with it.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Multimedia support
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:52 UTC in reply to "Multimedia support"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Not very "ready" OS imho before I can really watch my DVDs and listen to music with it.

That's the whole thing: FreeBSD isnt really made for powering everyone's desktop. It is a server operating system, period.

As a comparison, try playing a DVD, or using 5.1 sound, on a stock Server 2003 install. Exactly: you can't (the sound service winaudio is disabled by default on Server 2003, you need to activate it with services.msc).

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Multimedia support
by dylansmrjones on Sun 11th Dec 2005 15:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Multimedia support"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Depends on which version of Windows 2003 Server you are using.

I did not have to activate winaudio nor directX on my machine (Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition).

However the Enterprise Edition is a different matter.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Multimedia support
by Tom K on Sun 11th Dec 2005 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Multimedia support"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Not exactly. Standard and Enterprise are virtually the same thing. I use Server 2003 Standard as my regular desktop OS on my Athlon 64, and I still had to enable DirectX/the Windows Audio service.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Multimedia support
by dylansmrjones on Sun 11th Dec 2005 22:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Multimedia support"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Weird.

I have Win2K3 Server Standard as my (now) secondary Desktop OS (Gentoo being primary for the moment), and I didn't have to enable DirectX nor the Windows Audio service. I did have to replace the graphic drivers after updating to SP1, and manually installing quite a few drivers, but that is to be expected from a server OS.

I don't know how you got yours, by I downloaded the ISO via MSDN AA. I doubt there would be any differences (perhaps apart from minor settings).

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Multimedia support
by Tom K on Mon 12th Dec 2005 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Multimedia support"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

I got mine through MSDN AA as well.

Maybe the installation of some of your drivers automatically enabled those options. I've got a Soundblaster Audigy ZS 7.1 and some lower-end Radeon in mine currently (I sold the X800 XT PE as I don't play games anymore).

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Multimedia support
by dylansmrjones on Mon 12th Dec 2005 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Multimedia support"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Sort of the same idea I got. Just to late though.

It might have been enabled during installation of graphic drivers and sound drivers after installing SP1 (first thing I did after installing drivers for my netcard. No. The first thing was installing a firewall.)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Multimedia support
by Lazarus on Sun 11th Dec 2005 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Multimedia support"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

"That's the whole thing: FreeBSD isnt really made for powering everyone's desktop. It is a server operating system, period."

I agreed with you up until the point that I've bolded. It's a general purpose operating system that just happens to make a better server than a multimedia desktop.

"As a comparison, try playing a DVD"

Try that on a stock Windows XP Home or Pro. You can't, as they don't come with DVD players ;^)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Multimedia support
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 11th Dec 2005 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Multimedia support"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Lazarus, don't nitpick, it's the general idea that matters ;) .

Well, I do think FreeBSD *can* make a decent desktop operating system (PC-BSD is, in some respects (esp. app handling), much easier-to-use than *many* Linux distributions), however, the stock, ordinary, plain FreeBSD is a server operating system.

Agreed?

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Multimedia support
by Lazarus on Sun 11th Dec 2005 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Multimedia support"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

"Agreed?"

As long as I'm not allowed to nitpick, yes ;^)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Multimedia support
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 16:04 UTC in reply to "Multimedia support"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I'm watching my DVDs under FreeBSD! I can even rip them! I also listen to music on FreeBSD. It all works very well.

The only problem is with TV application. There are 2 TV applications (and only one I could get to work in a usable way). None of them is really that good. I think the TV tuner drivers are not compatible with the Linux drivers and that's why none of the good Linux TV apps have been ported

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Multimedia support
by Anonymous on Mon 12th Dec 2005 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Multimedia support"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Did you try mplayer for watching TV? Check the newsgroups, it's hard to set up but works great.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Multimedia support
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 21:28 UTC in reply to "Multimedia support"
Anonymous Member since:
---

What sort of Enterprise solution are you implementing?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Multimedia support
by aliquis on Mon 12th Dec 2005 23:24 UTC in reply to "Multimedia support"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

"The multimedia support could be a lot better. There's no webcam infrastructure (like V4L2). Also most of the sound device drivers do not support enabling the TOSLINK. That means no digital output, good 5.1 sounds."

Install OSS.

Reply Score: 1

Two Words: Hardware support
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 16:03 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Until FreeBSD improves its hardware support and driver database, it hasn't got a chance at wide-spread usage--at least on the desktop.

Linux has too much of a head start for the BSD's to emerge from the data center.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Two Words: Hardware support
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 22:12 UTC in reply to "Two Words: Hardware support"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You could have saved those two words and posted more quickly. Or added some words in order to actually make a point instead of a vague insinuation. What Enerprise hardware support did you have in mind that FBSD is lacking. You failed to mention any specifics.

Until FreeBSD improves its hardware support and driver database, it hasn't got a chance at wide-spread usage--at least on the desktop.

Kinda like Solaris, eh? Some people do use it as a desktop system though. Solaris now has more drivers since the deal they did with SCO. Smart move, eh? Well, time will tell.

Linux has too much of a head start for the BSD's to emerge from the data center.

You forgot to prefix your post as OT. But since you brought it up, why would it want to leave the datacenter? I take it that Linux is now completely Desktop ready? I use Slackware for my Desktop system. You may find that not everyone agrees that Linux is good for more than a server system. But I like it. Of course I like to fiddle with my system and settings...

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

quote>>But since you brought it up, why would it want to leave the datacenter?<<quote

You misunderstood the word "emerge." To emerge from something does not mean to leave the thing emerged from; it means to grow from or extend influence from something but NOT to leave it.

For instance, Linux has emerged from the data center to become a contender on the desktop but is it or is it not still in the data center? Who in their right mind would want to remove it?

Could of saved a few words yourself, eh?

And my post does not reference the enterprise but only home or SOHO use. And I make the same declaration: Until FreeBSD gets better driver and hardware support, it will lag far behind Linux.

And I did take note of your using S/Lackware.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Two Words: Hardware support
by aliquis on Mon 12th Dec 2005 23:26 UTC in reply to "Two Words: Hardware support"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

"Until FreeBSD improves its hardware support and driver database, it hasn't got a chance at wide-spread usage--at least on the desktop."

And you know this because you've USED freebsd? I have never had any troubles with the bsds which linux would have solved.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

I wouldn't have made the statement if I hadn't of used it on my desktop.

Come on...give me a break...

Reply Score: 0

Popularity
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 16:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

In my opinion FreeBSD is the best open source OS. It is unknown to most of computer users because it never had the popularity of Linux. I remember in late 90’s most computer magazines included a CD with some kind of Linux distribution every month and when they started posting open source related articles they only wrote and still do about the “wonderful” of Linux, never mention other free open source OS.

Reply Score: 1

Installation problem
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 16:56 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I attempted to install FreeBSD out of curiousity but unfortunately there seems to be a problem with my hard drive ... FreeBSD kept on complaining that my HD geometry was incorrect eventhough I checked it in my BIOS and on the WD website. I tried to look this problem up online and found that several other people had the same problem but no solution ... back to Debian for me.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Installation problem
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 17:11 UTC in reply to "Installation problem"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I'm getting that all the time on almost machines. Just ignore it as it is going to work despite that warning.

Reply Score: 0

32-bit linux compat on amd64?
by cybrjackle on Sun 11th Dec 2005 17:27 UTC
cybrjackle
Member since:
2005-11-20

I've been using 6.0 since it came out on my amd64, but I choose to use the i386 version, because I hadn't heard a lot of problems in the past with 64bit freebsd.

Does anyone know if I can run some of the linux-* 32bit packages on the 64 bit version? Like the et games, flash and stuff like that? Or am I better off to stick with the 32 bit version.

I also tri-boot with fedora(rawhide) 64 and solaris nv_27a 64 bit. I like all 3, not flames for either OS's. There all good!

Reply Score: 1

RE: 32-bit linux compat on amd64?
by Anonymous. on Mon 12th Dec 2005 04:14 UTC in reply to "32-bit linux compat on amd64?"
Anonymous. Member since:
2005-12-04

> Does anyone know if I can run some of the linux-* 32bit packages on the 64 bit version? Like the et games, flash and stuff like that? Or am I better off to stick with the 32 bit version.
i'm running 32-bit linux opera, macromedia flash player, java, and skype on freebsd 6.0 amd64 with no problems whatsoever.

Reply Score: 3

32-bit
by cybrjackle on Sun 11th Dec 2005 17:34 UTC
cybrjackle
Member since:
2005-11-20

I've been googling all morning, and found this now from

http://www.bsdforums.org/forums/showthread.php?t=35212


Support for AMD64 is also greatly improved. Many motherboards that cannot boot 5.4 (at least not without a lot of hacks) run perfectly on 6.0. Support for 32bit FreeBSD and Linux apps is also greatly improved. It is now becoming very viable to use it in a production environment where a migration from old 32bit apps is important.


I'd still be interested in what other freebsd 6.0 amd64 users think, as far as a desktop system.

THanks,

Reply Score: 2

RE: 32-bit
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 18:44 UTC in reply to "32-bit"
Anonymous Member since:
---

ug

root@pillar# make install
===> linux-enemyterritory-2.60_1 is only for i386, and you are running amd64.



Anyone know if there is a way round this, other than booting into my i386 6.0?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: 32-bit
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE: 32-bit"
Anonymous Member since:
---


justin@pillar:/usr/src/tools/lib32> cat README
# $FreeBSD: src/tools/lib32/README,v 1.2 2004/11/25 04:25:21 peter Exp $

Set WITH_LIB32=yes in /etc/make.conf and do a buildworld/installworld.

Alternatively, if you have just done a buildworld/installworld, you
might be able to 'make build32' and 'make install32' in the top of the
/usr/src tree.



Is this in the release notes and I missed it?

Time to rebuild world....

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: 32-bit
by Anonymous. on Mon 12th Dec 2005 04:19 UTC in reply to "RE: 32-bit"
Anonymous. Member since:
2005-12-04

you could try editing the makefile like i did for linux_dri (required by skype)...
just replace "ONLY_FOR_ARCHS= i386" with "ONLY_FOR_ARCHS= i386 amd64"... this may or may not work, tho...

Reply Score: 1

FreeBSD not as good as Linux...
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 18:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

As someone that has been using FreeBSD and Linux for many, many years (over 10), I still prefer Linux. And, my favorite Linux distro has historically been the most "BSD" of the lot -- Slackware.

Linux 2.6 and FreeBSD 6 both have lots of problems working on older hardware - however, Linux works more often than FreeBSD.

If you take older hardware out of the equation, the two are more equal. However, I am rather disappointed at how easily I've been able to crash FreeBSD boxes used as routers/firewalls. Linux router/firewalls on the same physical hardware do not have problems crashing. So, something that FreeBSD 6 is doing is not quite there yet.

All other things being equal, I do prefer FreeBSD's firewall to Linux.

As with anything, there will be places where FreeBSD will be better than Linux, and Linux will be better than FreeBSD. So far, in my experience, especially with FreeBSD 6, Linux is better, especially in general terms, simply because it has proven itself to be more stable. [Recent hardware used: Dell 750, SATA HD, 1 to 4 G memory, 2 or 4 NICs; old hardare tested: K62-266 generic white box, Compaq deskpro 2000 w/Pentium 133 - both with 48 to 64 meg RAM, IDE HD, 1 to 4 NICs.]

Reply Score: 0

OS Wars
by Anonymous on Sun 11th Dec 2005 19:03 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

to each his/her own as they say.

Use what you think is best - offer constructive critism , point is to advance os technology whether it is windows, solaris, *BSD, or Linux distros. Right now Linux has mindshare because of the support of major corporations, FreeBSD needs some of that - major corporate support, i.e red hat's linux, novell's suse. Yes their is Yahoo - but a OS corp is needed.

Peace

Reply Score: 0

*BSD + Linux = Arch
by monodeldiablo on Sun 11th Dec 2005 20:15 UTC
monodeldiablo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Perhaps the best part of the *BSD experience for me was the ease of use and configurability. As an end user (of sorts), I really don't get to see the differences in integral OS parts (kernel, etc.). Thus, when I first installed Arch Linux and had the same rc.conf-based *BSD-style configuration, I was a happy little clam. And their packages system (pacman) is as good as (if not better than) ports/pkg_add. I look forward to more of this kind of cross-polination, as it makes both communities stronger.

Reply Score: 1

Enterprise Grade?
by elsewhere on Sun 11th Dec 2005 21:49 UTC
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

I don't doubt *BSD's suitability as a versatile platform, I respect it's heritage and I know that most engineers I deal with in my work that know anything beyond Windows will praise *BSD for how well it works in a network/server environment. I know too that some major network players, like Cisco and Nokia, are using proprietary network-based OSes based on *BSD.

Having said that, I don't know that I would call it "enterprise grade". To me, enterprise grade implies not only security and stability, but the availability of enterprise-level support and centralized management tools, among other things.

You can deploy linux in a datacenter, and choose to have a company like Red Hat, Novell, IBM or HP provding 7x24 support if something goes wrong or something breaks. From my limited experience, Red Hat seems to be the de facto standard for "linux support" when it comes to third-party management/auditing tools, and Novell has a strong play as well with their Netware heritage and Zenworks. You can also purchase server hardware from virtually all of the major players certified to work with linux, something that is important in enterprise decision making.

That's not to say that RH or Novell linux can do anything better or more effectively than Debian (to name another distro) or one of the *BSD's, it's just that enterprises find the decision making easier knowing that their is an established third-party company with a proper support infrastructure backing them up.

I'm not aware of any major services company offering enterprise-level support on *BSD (although I could be wrong, I'll admit I haven't really researched the issue), and I think that would be a serious obstacle to wide-spread *BSD adoption outside of specialized applications like web serving.

I also think, at the risk of turning this into a ridiculous debate, that the GPL is the reason linux has garnered far more support from the major technology companies. This is speculation on my part, so don't take it as preaching, but it seems to me that if I'm a company like IBM or HP looking to contribute my technology to advance an alternate OS technology, I'd see the GPL as more inviting since my technology wouldn't be turned around and locked into a proprietary OS by one of my competitors. Apple obviously comes to mind, having built a powerful OS on top of *BSD, yet I don't see what the *BSD community has received back in exchange for their work, particularly in light of how successful OS X became. Why contribute patented or proprietary technologies to a BSD license if they will just be scooped up and locked up by a proprietary competitor? I don't see where the gain is, and of course I'm thinking in terms of ultimate dollars and cents and not philisophy.

I understand the fundamental differences and philosophies between BSD "free" and GPL "free", and sure in an ideal world everything would be BSD. But this isn't an ideal world, and it seems to me that GPL offers the best compromise to garner major technology support from third-parties. GPL'd technology remains open. Because of that I'm not sure that *BSD will ever be able to reach Linux's current enterprise acceptance, let alone any future adoption rates.

Understand that I'm not knocking or deriding the *BSD's, there's no denying what an effective platform they are. The only thing I'm questioning is their ultimate relevance to enteprises, I'm not sure I see how they can fit in with current business models and requirements.

However, if anyone sees it differently, I'm open to listening to alternate opinions. I'm somewhat fascinated by the *BSD's and would be interested in seeing how they can prosper in enterprise environments. I just can't see how myself.

Just my 2c...?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Enterprise Grade? (OT)
by Chreo on Sun 11th Dec 2005 23:52 UTC in reply to "Enterprise Grade?"
Chreo Member since:
2005-07-06

This is speculation on my part, so don't take it as preaching, but it seems to me that if I'm a company like IBM or HP looking to contribute my technology to advance an alternate OS technology, I'd see the GPL as more inviting since my technology wouldn't be turned around and locked into a proprietary OS by one of my competitors.

Yes, you speculate and yes you say you understand the differences between GPL and BSD licenses, yet you come to this conclusion? Any code that is BSD licensed is completely free, forever, period. The same goes for GPL:d code albeit with some additional restrictions with regards to derived code.

Given that, I can take your BSD licensed code and put it in my closed source OS "FoOS". However, your code is still free and BSD licensed and your friend BadAzz can put it in his OSS OS "FineOS" without any restrictions. If I make any improvments to your code then I don't have to release those changes but if those changes are significant then it is only a question of time before someone modifies your free code and releases the changes under a BSD license.

Given this and given how corporations work, then I'm very surprised that GPL is still used they way it is. I'm quite sure that Linux only got the attention from companies because of the momentum it had. FreeBSD is gaining momentum very fast now (very obvious if you've been tracking FreeBSD for a while). If I was head of a BigEvilCorporation and was opensourcing some code then it would not matter to me if that code was GPL or BSD. Someone is going to take that code and make money with it in their free/closed OS anyway.

Very few techs of significance have been given under GPL from companies that does not involve changes in the Linux kernel (a notable exception is OpenOffice/StarOffice which was GPLed before Sun took over StarOffice IIRC).

This was off topic but had to be adressed since you started on it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Enterprise Grade? (OT)
by elsewhere on Mon 12th Dec 2005 00:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Enterprise Grade? (OT)"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Yes, you speculate and yes you say you understand the differences between GPL and BSD licenses, yet you come to this conclusion? Any code that is BSD licensed is completely free, forever, period. The same goes for GPL:d code albeit with some additional restrictions with regards to derived code.

Given that, I can take your BSD licensed code and put it in my closed source OS "FoOS". However, your code is still free and BSD licensed and your friend BadAzz can put it in his OSS OS "FineOS" without any restrictions. If I make any improvments to your code then I don't have to release those changes but if those changes are significant then it is only a question of time before someone modifies your free code and releases the changes under a BSD license.


I understand, but in the real world where is the incentive for a commercial company to release BSD code? Companies that are otherwise competitors are collaborating on linux development; regardless of the actual technology being donated, why would IBM release code that HP could turn around and incorporate into their own proprietary product? Or Sun? Or Microsoft? At least by releasing GPL code IBM is ensuring that as the project matures and develops, they at least stand to directly or indirectly see a benefit. Or Red Hat can release OpenLDAP as GPL knowing that any improvements the community makes are fed back into the community and a competitor cannot take the technology, improve it and lock it into a proprietary license for competitive gain.

I think it's idealistic to assume that someone will inevitably improve BSD code and re-release it as BSD just because another company made those same improvements and locked it. Again, I keep thinking of OS X. For all the work that went into FreeBSD, Apple comes along and builds on top of it and profits substantially from it. I can't see commercial companies willingly donating or contributing technology under that model unless for philosophical or philanthropical (ie. educational) reasons.

Very few techs of significance have been given under GPL from companies that does not involve changes in the Linux kernel (a notable exception is OpenOffice/StarOffice which was GPLed before Sun took over StarOffice IIRC).

Those kernel technologies are not insignificant given the kernel is the core component of GNU/Linux, my understanding is that the kernel could not have progressed to the point it has reached without some of those key technologies and patent-relief being donated by companies like IBM (just to name one). But would IBM have donated those necessary patented technologies if someone else could have simply taken them and incorporated them into their own proprietary OS?

Also, I'm pretty sure Sun GPL'd Star Office to create OpenOffice after the acquisition (I seem to recall quite a bit of hoopla about it at the time), I think StarOffice was under a different "free" license, but your point is taken. Still, any technology contributed large or small is invaluable to progress.

Anyways, I'm looking at things strictly from a commercial point of view, the article was about the *BSDs being enterprise-grade. If OSS is going to gain enterprise acceptance it will need participation from commercial vendors, I can see where the GPL draws some sort of a balance that can prevent a company's technology from being directly used against them, but by that same token I don't see how BSD is commercially viable. So tying into my original argument, as viable a platform as the *BSDs may be, I'm just wondering if they stand a fair chance of garnering the kind of commercial vendor support it will require to be considered enterprise-ready for wide-spread deployment and general acceptance? I'm just saying I'm not sure if the license will help it or hamper it in gaining that enterprise cred.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Enterprise Grade? (OT)
by Yoke on Mon 12th Dec 2005 18:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Enterprise Grade? (OT)"
Yoke Member since:
2005-08-28

It's interesting to note that well-known BSD-contributors like Eric Allman of Sendmail and Keith Bostic of Sleepycat (Berkeley DB) decided to use a GPL-like license (that is, a license that requires you to provide source if you distribute a binary) when they decided to set up a software business.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Enterprise Grade? (OT)
by Yoke on Mon 12th Dec 2005 18:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Enterprise Grade? (OT)"
Yoke Member since:
2005-08-28

FreeBSD is gaining momentum very fast now (very obvious if you've been tracking FreeBSD for a while).

Instead of just saying it's 'very obvious', show us.

Reply Score: 1

Question about FBSD
by dsmogor on Mon 12th Dec 2005 00:22 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

Hey, I'd like to use the opportunity of presence of many FBSD users here and ask a technical question.

What is the fbsd team stance wrt API/ABI stability?
Specifically:
1. Is app level abi (libc, kernel api) being actively preserved within and between major releases?
2. Is kernel extensions abi being actively preserved within and between major releases?

Are 1 and 2 true wrt just to api?

Thanks in advance

Reply Score: 1

RE: Question about FBSD
by eMagius on Mon 12th Dec 2005 17:54 UTC in reply to "Question about FBSD"
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

Both the API and ABI (kernel and userland) are preserved across point releases (6.0, 6.1, 6.2, etc.), but are not guaranteed across major release versions (5.x vs. 6.x). Additionally, app-level ABIs and APIs are generally preserved across even major releases by use of transparent compatibility layers (that are installed and operational by default).

Reply Score: 1

My FBSD Feelings
by ma_d on Mon 12th Dec 2005 00:32 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

To date ... fBSD is the only BSD I've used. I tried NetBSD twice, but what I did never qualified as use, user or administrative.
I've run fBSD on an old PII which I did c development on, and on a 500 Alpha. So, here's my experience with fBSD:
1.) Ports: Terrible. I see why people like it; it's source, simple, pretty reliable. Well, unless you're using a odd.x release and you do an update. Maybe I did something wrong, but upon updating GTK I had to manually upgrade up the dependency tree: In the source world, dependency trees are bi-directional guys.
2.) Running Code: For a user, nice. For a developer, terrible. Let me just refer to fBSD's memory management as "liberal." I worked on a project for about 3-6 months on that machine and found my code stable. I moved to Linux to try it, boom crash. Popped up valgrind and sure enough I had tons of memory errors. Of course, memory errors are my own fault; but I, as a developer, prefer it to crash ASAP and not just let them go by. Obviously ASAP isn't gonna happen, but I can say programs will run a lot more stably on fBSD when they have memory issues than Linux.
3.) Portability: Bleh. One version of Apache builds on Alpha. One version of Mozilla (I think it was Mozilla, not firefox) builds on Alpha. There's nothing for binaries (and building on Alpha's is a long wait, I won't get into why).

Now, overall, fBSD is a decent system. I'm not bashing it, just pointing out some areas you won't hear in a shining review. I agree with people who refer to fBSD as the linux of the BSD world...
One of these days I need to try Net or open more. I'd have used Net on the Alpha, but their installer was too broken to finish the install.

I really don't like it when people worship ports. It's not a very ideal system. I'm not sure there is an ideal build system, but if there is it's not Ports! It's fine for casual use, but you'd better have time and know how if you intend to update your system with it!

I'm sure fBSD 6 has greatly improved over 5.x.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Puff piece
by ma_d on Mon 12th Dec 2005 00:34 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

How do you know?

Reply Score: 1

desktop
by jtrapp on Mon 12th Dec 2005 02:21 UTC
jtrapp
Member since:
2005-07-06

I used to think that fBSD was only good for transforming old hardware into nifty network appliances. Today I installed the derivative PCBSD on an old Pentium 2. The font rendering is excellent and the computer is much more responsive than pretty much any other OS I've put on that machine. I was all prepared to find it lacking, but it left me quite impressed...I certainly had never thought of the BSDs as desktop material....

Reply Score: 3

pcbsd
by Anonymous on Mon 12th Dec 2005 04:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

i have the latest pcbsd including recent patch.

have installed all my apps using ports.

mplayer with "mozilla" works with npr, c-span, pbs and i-film and atomfilms. HOWEVER mozilla has been going through several upgrades lately and have had to adjust plugins, for instance flash7 was working at hotmail but now flash7 crashes hotmail.

burncd has burned my .iso files flawlessly and easily.

is it called qcamview? anyway, it sees my quickcam.

i can mount my digital camera through the usb, an olympus, and grab those pix.

streamtuner has radio and the associated ripper.

i can watch my dvd's.

xmms is cool like winamp with associated visuals.

i see that something is going on with mozilla and openvrml but i have not experemented with it yet.

f-prot, clamscan, find_ddos, rkhunter and chkrootkit all work.

i can mount my usb memory card.

of course kmail and koppete work flawlessly for email and instant messaging.

there is ktorrent(sp) working.

there is giFT and gnutella for playing with sharing.

not to mention centericq, mp3blaster, links -g, zgv, fethyahoo and gotmail for instant messaging, playing mp3, graphical browsing, picture viewing and e-mail fetching on the command line respectively.

sounds like more than a desktop to me.

javajazz.

ps the last time i looked java works too.

Reply Score: 2

Yeah, but why?
by mcrbids on Mon 12th Dec 2005 08:40 UTC
mcrbids
Member since:
2005-10-25

*BSD is decent. It took a day or two for me to get it to install properly, but I got it working eventually.

And, when I was done, I ended up with a *nix system. Much like the RedHat I've been using forever, only not quite the same. Stuff wasn't where I'm used to it, so I found it a bit frustrating. Not BSD's fault, but not to its advantage, either.

At the end of the day, I ran out of time to "try it out" and I went back to my busy, heavily used production servers running RedHat Linux. Uptimes > 100 days is typical, even when heavy loads are experienced. (there's only rarely a correlation between system load and uptime)

So, it comes down to: Why should I switch? Yes, *BSD is good, solid, reliable, etc. But I use those exact adjectives to describe my RedHat AS servers!

OpenBSD has perhaps the best security record. But I can come reasonably close (and commercially viable) using some basic rules of security best practices, including frequent and regular patching, which takes all of 5 minutes or less. And, virtually everywhere I go, I find that tech support that is RedHat certified, MCSE, but nothing else.

So, I've tried *BSD, and was impressed. But not enough to put out the effort and pain to switch some 25 servers from RedHat derivatives over to *BSD. Give me a compelling reason, and I might consider it. Untill then, Linux is my platform of choice!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Yeah, but why?
by eMagius on Mon 12th Dec 2005 17:56 UTC in reply to "Yeah, but why? "
eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think anyone (sane) is trying to convince you to switch from what you're happily using to FreeBSD (or OpenBSD or NetBSD, etc.), merely to consider it if you haven't yet dedicated your shop to another OS.

If what you've got works for you, great!

Reply Score: 1

My FreeBSD experience
by Anonymous on Mon 12th Dec 2005 11:57 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I've used FreeBSD 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 5.2.1, 5.3, 5.4 and 6.0. I'm now using Ubuntu Breezy. I'm not sure that FreeBSD (at least with GNOME) is that reliable. It seems that the GNOME applications on FreeBSD tend to core-dump rather frequently, especially the multimedia ones. Since moving to ubuntu, I've noticed that this happens a lot less (but still happens). KDE does it too. Its a bit annoying. I suppose FreeBSD is supposed to be a server OS and these ports may not be tested to the same degree as others.

The other issues with desktop usage are :

1. ACPI suspend/resume is still not perfect on my fairly generic HP/Compaq Presario laptop - sometimes it works, and sometimes the screen scrambles up. There is no pattern to this.

2. No DRI support for i810

This is a pity as I just like the cleanness and good documentation of the underlying OS as well as the security. Sysctl is fantastic as is rc.conf in terms of administration. Whether its any faster, I don't know, but Guess I'll have to just try the next release out to see if these issues are sorted.

Reply Score: 0

Enterprise-grade? Of course it is!
by Anonymous on Mon 12th Dec 2005 19:26 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why do you think Microsoft uses FreeBSD and Solaris? ;)
(Only for their mission critical segment of their network)...Although, it does say something about Microsoft.

Reply Score: 0

Yoke Member since:
2005-08-28

Why do you think Microsoft uses FreeBSD and Solaris? ;) (Only for their mission critical segment of their network)...Although, it does say something about Microsoft.

Evidence, please.

When Microsoft bought Hotmail, it ran FreeBSD on the frontend and Solaris on the backend. What it runs on the backend today, we don't know, but we do know that they use their own OS on the frontend.

Oth, Microsoft is a good customer of Akamai: http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=.microsoft.com

Reply Score: 1

wow
by Anonymous on Tue 13th Dec 2005 02:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

is this like nirvana, becoming one with the infrastructure.

Browser: ELinks/0.10.5 (textmode; FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE i386; 80x25-0)

Reply Score: 0