OSNews

Would you mind e-mailing me? I want to ask you something about your post, but I don't want to get into a public "debate" over it.

bslpiaxmemle at gmail

You don't need to recompile the kernel to get K3B to work. As long as you're using 6.0, you can add this line atapicam_load="YES" to your /boot/loader.conf file.

Yes, but atapicam is not the only thing that's needed, you also need scbus, pass and da, and I don't think those are available as kernel modules.

Scbus,pass,and da are all in the generic kernel, so the atapicam module is all you need to get K3B to run.

Ah, right, my apologies.

That has bothered me about reviews for a really long time: most of them just suck. They mostly cover installation and almost never concentrate on usage, which is very unfortunate since one is very likely to spend more time using an OS than installing it (unless one is still runs Win98).

I've found that it is generally better to read discussions in forums to get an impression of an OS than to read reviews. Reviews just suck, and maybe it would help if highly frequented sites like this one stopped posting shallow reviews.

That has bothered me about reviews for a really long time: most of them just suck. They mostly cover installation and almost never concentrate on usage, which is very unfortunate since one is very likely to spend more time using an OS than installing it (unless one is still runs Win98).

I've found that it is generally better to read discussions in forums to get an impression of an OS than to read reviews. Reviews just suck, and maybe it would help if highly frequented sites like this one stopped posting shallow reviews.

Took the words from my mouth...

I couldn't agree with you more. I switched to FreeBSD back in the early 4.x days because it was easy to install and it just made sense. Not only is are the docs there, but the filesystem lay out is standardized and just makes sense...

Edited 2006-01-18 23:32

Shocked...again.
Well, isn't gentoo gnu/linux a customizable operatingsystem?

Anyway, Gnu/Linux is the most userfriendly secure desktop operatingsystem out there.
But for geeks it maybe doesn't turn out to be good.

Btw, I am n00b when it comes to FreeBSD. I have not much experience. I know there is something called linux binary support. I do code quite much with the Qt4 toolkit and are somewhat dependent on that. Is it enjoyable to code/use it with FreeBSD?

One more thing. You seem not to like gnu/linux or the linux kernel at all - do you argue that the whole gnu/linux, linux community is living a lie? I mean do you think it is a joke? Don't you respect Linus Torvalds and other big players who has done things around gnu/linux? Hope you don't get mad

I don't want to personally jump on you - I am so curious. Cause you seem to be so HARD on this question.

Most user-friendly secure desktop operating system out there? I think not. Ever play with OS X?

Anyway, if you're a Linux guy switching to FreeBSD, you won't have too hard a time as long as you've spent time in the terminal before. If you're a clickety-click Ubuntu/Fedora/Mandrake/etc. guy, you will hate FreeBSD, so don't even bother. There are differences, like where some files are kept, how configuration of the system is accomplished, how compilation of kernels is done, but once you read the handbook, it all makes sense, and you will find yourself preferring the BSD way over the Linux way. Where Linux feels like a mish-mash of methods with no thought about organization, FreeBSD is organized through-and-through.

Linux binary support in FreeBSD is basically a stripped-down set of Redhat libraries/configuration files, and a kernel component, that allow you to run most Linux binaries on your FreeBSD system.

And no, I do not like Linux very much. I could write an essay about why I don't, but it can be more or less summarized with "lacks direction, lacks organization, lacks a concrete set of specifications as to where what should go". What I hate more is the fanboys who don't see anything past Linux. They claim it's the greatest thing on Earth, all while ignoring the downfalls. I hate these people.

And no, I do not like Linux very much. I could write an essay about why I don't, but it can be more or less summarized with "lacks direction, lacks organization, lacks a concrete set of specifications as to where what should go". What I hate more is the fanboys who don't see anything past Linux. They claim it's the greatest thing on Earth, all while ignoring the downfalls. I hate these people.

Every operating system has its positive qualities and negative qualities. Some people value organization over choice, some don't. Linux is much more modular in the sense that there are many more options in the kernel and even in a lot of gnu userspace programs. With so many choices and so many new technologies inserted into the kernel at such a rapid pace things can get a bit more disorganized. The benefit is that you can switch out filesystems, schedulers, sound systems, security models, etc. at will. There are also a myriad of different distributions that have their own way of solving problems in different and unique ways. There are a lot of us out there who value these choices. Some of us are not content with "traditional" Unix and these additional options are what draws us to Linux.

You are the same as any Linux zeolot, the only difference being your opinion but in the end flamebait is flamebait, no matter what you're advocating for.

You usually don't accept facts when they go against your opionions and intentions

I will concede if proven wrong with cold, hard facts.

Anyone who doesn't use "alternative" OSes as a hobby will value FreeBSD's organization over Linux's "choices".

That's your opinion, which you always mistake for fact. It's a ridiculous opinion too considering how much more Linux is used in enterprise than FreeBSD.

I could go on about how it's no use having lots of choices when they're all poor

You could, but again that would be your opinion and one that is obviously not shared by a lot of people considering Linux's usage. This is a typical pattern for you on this site, you spout off a whole bunch of nonsense without backing any of it up. You claim everything you say is fact when it is not.

Well, you're exactly right. Linux completely and utterly lacks direction. I mean, on the one hand you have firewall distros along the lines of IPCop. On the other you have clustering distros along the lines of Rocks. You have Windows clones like Xandros. You have embedded distros like Monte Vista. There are security minded distros like EnGarde. Not to mention live cds like Knoppix. Where's the direction??? Linux as a whole is just going absolutely nowhere. Heck, my high performance Linux cluster is just a nightmare to set up and maintain. My Linux firewall never does what I set it up to do, not for years and years and years. Now that I think about it, my Linux firewall doesn't even have an IP address. And my desktop systems? Compared to FreeBSD? Forget about it.

So screw Linux. BSD is where it's at. When it comes to BSDs, you're exactly right. No software at all in any BSD is anything other than what the BSD developers created all by their very lonesome. Not some mish mash of applications from all over the world as is the case with Linux. BSDs aren't so stupid as to borrow things from other BSDs like Linux distros do. And don't even get me started on BSD ports. I mean, it's literally thousands of applications that BSD developers created all by theirselves.

And once again you hit the nail on the head when it comes to ease of use. Those clickety-click tools like Yast and the Mandriva Control Center are just buggy pieces of trash that just get in the way. There's just no way you can learn how to use them. But with BSD it's just so simple. Once you spend hours and hours learning things the hard way and doing away with basic common sense computer concepts like abstraction, you're set.

So right. I hate those Linux people too. We should all do the world a favor and kill the next Linux zealot we encounter. Linux is just pure trash after all.

the ports is thousands of applications that the BSD developers created themselves......

um did you wake up and eat a bowl of crazy this morning
when did you ever have to learn abstraction to use freebsd????

hhaha silly trollllllll, please go to bed before your mom smacks you up a bit.. wait dont go to bed just yet.

Apparently you don't understand the word opinion. That's all it was, it was his opinion on linux. There was no need for such a childish post. I'd like to point out it's people like you, that drove me away from the linux community after 8 years. Just the pure adolescent behavior of alot of linux users, finally got to me. Not to say that FreeBSD doesn't have some childish users, but they aren't as prevalent. Can't some of you just learn to act like adults?

Before anyone else flys off the handle here, I'd just like to state for the record that I have nothing but respect for the people putting out FreeBSD and the various other BSD operating systems. They are quite wonderful pieces of work in my opinion.

All I can say, you must be new here sticking up for lippy like that.

Listen I'm glad you have respect for the BSD's, I have the utmost respect for linux. But I'm not sticking up for anybody, but it was just his opinion. The way you came off in your post was to me very adolescent. It's as I stated before stuff like that, that made me leave linux after 8 years. I wouldn't of said anything, if you would of used a little class and maturity to defeat his argument. It's it to much to ask for, that we have mature debates about FreeBSD and linux. Both are world class Oses and deserve respect, but the zealotry has to stop. If you don't have something constructive to add to the debate, then don't say anything.

Except that it wasn't an opinion, but merely a statement meant to start a flamewar. He succeded, as usual. As a (mostly) Mac user, he's under protection from them above.

His comment read like satire to me. Your comment on the other hand seems slightly more self-descriptive.

It read like smug elitism. He completely misinterpreted my statements and turned it into a BSD vs. GNU war.

Typical reply by a childish Linux zealot.

That's rich coming from the likes of you.

It's called an opinion. You didn't agree with mine, so you resorted to deliberately misinterpreting it and taking it as an attack on your beloved religion.

Ok, I see. You claim Linux lacks direction. Yet I could point out all day the countless distros that are entirely focused on one specific area. Granted Linux as a whole may not have a particular focus, but that's not the point. You also claim BSDs are so much more organized, while I would argue they don't really differ all that much, especially when it comes to this mish mash of packages you speak of. So I misinterpreted things how again?

You are the problem with Linux and its users. You are a prime example of the kind of user that I said I hate. You think you're advocating Linux, but what you're doing is driving others away because of your elitist, deliberately narrow-minded, and deliberately blind attitude.

F***ing morons. *shakes head*

No, it's just at this point I have absolutely no respect for you LIP. So don't expect me to treat you with respect.

- Is there a real kernel development timeline anywhere? A place where the devs/users can look to and think "Oh, right around that release, we can expect to have stabilized ____ and ____ drivers, and this feature should more or less be out of testing", or does kernel development go more along the lines of "Hey, let's just do whatever we feel like doing for this release, and if some guy comes along with a new driver or feature, we'll throw it in and see what happens."

The BSDs follow a strict development plan, and you can go to their respective websites and see what bugs are outstanding and planned to be fixed by the next minor release, what features are still incomplete and scheduled to be complete in the next minor release, what the major new features planned for the next major release are, etc.

- Can you point me to a standardized configuration of Linux system components? Let's say along the lines of "all the major distros released in 2006 should contain kernel version X, glibc version X, X.org version X, supporting libraries versions X, Y, Z, etc." I don't see one. Right now, each distro maker can mix and match *any* set of components. You call that choice ... I call that disorganization. How can Linux expect the backing of big-name software developers and hardware manufacturers when almost every distro contains a different set of core components, and is configured differently in terms of binary/library locations with conf files scattered all over the place?

FreeBSD is an operating system. Linux is just a kernel, with extra GNU baggage of anyone's choosing. The core difference is that when you download FreeBSD 6.0, you are downloading the FreeBSD 6.0 release of compilers, shells, C libraries, the kernel, and everything else that makes up the base system.

- Let's talk about base systems again. In FreeBSD, the seperation between base system and user-installed software is very distinct. Any seasoned BSD user will be able to tell you with ease whether something is in /bin-/sbin-/lib, or /usr/bin-/usr/sbin-/usr/lib. All user-supplied software goes under its corresponding locations in /usr/local. The last time I used a modern Linux distribution, I was disgusted to find that this is still a problem in the Linux world. Not only are there binaries that shouldn't be there in the root directories, but /usr/local goes completely unused, meaning that you'll find 1,000 (and possibly more) binaries just dumped straight into /usr/bin. I was hoping that binaries in RPM installations would go to /usr/local, but even THOSE got dumped into /usr/bin -- a management and organizational *nightmare*.

- About ports: Ports is all about user choice. Once you've got the base system installed and configured, you can begin adding software by heading over to the ports collection and make install'ing to your heart's content. *Nothing* you install from ports will ever mingle with the base system. This is called organization. You can take an aged FreeBSD installation, rm -rf /usr/local, and have a virtually virgin FreeBSD install yet again. Can I do that with Linux? Not a chance in hell.

You are completely wrong when you say that Linux as a whole lacking organization is not the point. That is entirely the point. Right now, anyone can grab any version of the Linux kernel and *any* version of anything else, package it together, and call it a distro.

That's why we have hundreds of them, and they all suck, precisely because when I learn one, I can't be reasonably certain that I'll be able to efficiently use, fix, or administer another one. No software/hardware house can rely on anything being a particular version or being in a particular location.

Linux distros are mish-mashy patchwork-quilts, and nothing more. The BSDs are operating systems with a real direction and sense of organization.

You are the problem with Linux and its users. You are a prime example of the kind of user that I said I hate. You think you're advocating Linux, but what you're doing is driving others away because of your elitist, deliberately narrow-minded, and deliberately blind attitude.

F***ing morons. *shakes head*


Pot calling the kettle black...

Well I know about Mac OS X - but I was talking about cheap software. Gnu/Linux is free.

Right, so now you're changing your argument.

That works.

I don't get it...
I did that comment, cause you sad "Never heard of Mac OS X"...But when I meant "Gnu/Linux is the most userfriendly secure desktop operatingsystem out there" - I forget to write, *free*.

Anyway...
I've been using Gnu/Linux cause, it just happened to stand on the library book shelf for 6 years ago.
So maybe my argument is rather, "I am stuck here, why move?".

The thing I cannot understand, is that you don't seem to respect the work the Gnu/Linux community has done?

I mean a Gnu/Linux operatingsystem today, is the most powerful *FREE* desktop system.
You got HAL, D-BUS and other good core components that makes your work smoothier.
And there are something kalled Freedesktop standards.
Anyway, isn't the gnu core tools, binutils etc -
arent it good software?

And sometimes you seem like you are a Windows fanboy, then I sometimes think you where the one who took FreeBSD to the Microsoft Server Halls in the 90'ies.

I don't know who I am going to trust now?

There are bashing people on all areas(Linux Community, Micrososft, *BSD).
But your comments are rather taking my mind to use FreeBSD.

Go ahead, write that article.
Show the world that linux users is living a lie - if it is what you mean.

You make very little sense, but you also make blanket statements. Saying that Linux is "the most powerful free desktop system" is extremely narrow-minded.

I don't suppose I have a chance of enlightening you.

I suppose you have the same chance I have of enlightening you

Drugs don't work on me. Be gone! :-P

Don't you see I having D-BUS and HAL in the argument.

Please answer my questions...I honestly want to know, who I should trust.

I'd like to point out that FreeBSD has D-BUS and HAL is in the middle of being ported.

That's nice to hear. A another victory for the OSS community. If you want something, theye port it to you.

"lacks direction, lacks organization, lacks a concrete set of specifications as to where what should go"


Yup, I agree, that is why linux will never win in the desktop.

That's true, the FreeBSD Handbook is a fantastic piece of documentation (and back when I was still using OpenBSD, I found their FAQ an excellent source of information, too).

Anyways, I would just like to add that while the Handbook really is of great help, there's a nice crew of BSD veterans, power users and normal mortals like me that are more than glad to help when one is stuck.

That was supposed to read "...a nice crew of BSD veterans, power users and normal mortals like me over at http://www.bsdforums.org"

Honestly, it's a very patient and helpful community, and you very rarely get a "RTFM, n00b!" that's unfortunately become so frequent on Linux support forums.

FreeBSD Handbook...
Gentoo Handbook
Gentoo/FreeBSD vs. Gentoo/Linux

Hmm... The difference isn't that big.

It would be better for all of us, if you didn't try to use FreeBSD as a hostage in your zealot-campaign against a certain Gnu/kernel kombination.

FreeBSD is too good to be compromised by your unethical behaviour.

The Gentoo handbook doesn't even begin to compare to the FreeBSD handbook. Why don't you give both of them a read?

I think that what makes FreeBSD such a joy to use is that when you want to do something but don't know how to do it, you are not left out in the cold, armed with only a web browser and Google on your spare Windows-running PC. What I'm referring to, of course, is the FreeBSD Handbook.

This is what FreeBSD's release engineer Scott Long had to say about the FreeBSD Handbook about a month ago:

"3. Full review and update of the install docs, handbook, FAQ, etc. There are sections that are embarrassingly out of date (one section of the handbook apparently states that we only support a single brand of wifi cards). A co-worker of mine tried to install 6.0 using just the handbook install guide, and discovered that it really doesn't match reality anymore, in both big and small ways."

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.freebsd.devel.hackers/22949

All documentation will have times where it lags behind the product -- but at the very least the handbook is a *complete* piece of documentation, as opposed to the scraps of broken man pages, forums, and HOWTOs that the Linux world suffers from.

as opposed to the scraps of broken man pages, forums, and HOWTOs that the Linux world suffers from.

Rubbish.

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

And what good does supposedly complete documentation do if the parts you are interested in are, and I quote, 'embarrassingly out of date'?

Anyway, as someone who actually reads FreeBSD mailing lists on a regular basis, you're view of the OS is a hell of lot rosier than that of the people who actually work on it.

Powernow is supported in FreeBSD 6.0. See the cpufreq manpage and the powernow driver: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=cpufreq&apropos=0&sektion=...

too bad. throttling on my thinkpad pentium4Mobile with cpufreq works.... so give it a try and welcome back.

Great news! Welcome back aboard.