To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Actually, he's if anything an OpenBSD commie, Jem regularly sides with OpenBSD in his opinion pieces.
Be honest, FreeBSD doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of competing with Ubuntu - or any other major Linux distribution - FreeBSD lacks the backing of a community and the focus of actual leadership.
For more than 4 years now when people ask me to describe FreeBSD, you know how I've done it? "The BSD Linux," do you know why? Because FreeBSD has been seeking functional parity with the Linuxes, rather than doing their own thing they've been trying to compete with Linux.
Know how FreeBSD used to be described? "The Good BSD," you know what changed? FreeBSD stopped being FreeBSD, I don't know how it managed to do it, but somewhere along the line FreeBSD stopped looking to the future and started looking to what Linux is doing now. And as a Linux, FreeBSD isn't all that good, it lacks a lot of the functionality of your run-of-the-mill Linux roll and has all kinds of different commands than Linux.
When FreeBSD starts being FreeBSD again it may have a reason to be used, but there is greater functionality in other Linux distributions. It hasn't even decided on a single firewall solution like OpenBSD has, and has that not long been the BSD way? A single tool for a problem?
You really have a lot of opinion without substance. If you actually read the handbook, you'll find why there are multiple firewalls on FreeBSD (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/firewalls...). So, according to you, choices are bad - even if its important, for stategy sake, to have the possibility of upgrading from 4.x without having to rethink the firewall rules on a new syntax.
Btw, I'd suggest you to investigate why OpenBSD changed to PF in the first place. And, while you're at it, see how long is the timespan of their legacy releases.





Member since:
2005-11-14
another "GNU/Linux" commie