"Here we are at the moment of truth for the FreeBSD operating system - the 7.0 release. This is what FreeBSD users and developers have been waiting for ever since the dark days of the 5.X series when the promises of superior performance, threading, and stability fell flat. Though each release in the FreeBSD 6.X series improved markedly in quality and performance, 7.0 has been widely anticipated as the release that FreeBSD fans can have confidence in. I wish I could say that FreeBSD 7.0 lived up to the hype."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-21
As soon as I read your comment I knew it had to be a Jem review, flipped to the tab where it was loading and so it was! Whelp, no need to read that sucker. While I consider him a useless wind-bag I guess its nice that OSNews at least informs you that he has posted more drivel should you wish to subject yourself to that.
I only take pity upon the poor reader who may read that review without such context. Each of his reviews has been controversial and is met with hostility on here by numerous people. Take whatever he says with at least a barrel of salt.
For those not reading the review just imagine someone repeating "this server software is not noob friendly enough" over and over again. "OMG, the people who make particle accelerators are teh sux, why can't they learn usability and ease-of-use from Apple?"
Member since:2006-07-15
No Jem Matzan doesn't even like Linux, he doesn't like anything but he likes ranting.
From Jems report:
>AMD64 release testing. FreeBSD has always had the most buggy and unstable AMD64 port of any operating system I've tested.
This for example is mere crap,okay it's not perfect, but there are many users (desktop/server) who are using AMD64 without any problems.
>Less hassle for the JDK and JRE.
He should really ask Sun first.
>I could detect no other significant changes in FreeBSD from an ordinary user's perspective.
Maybe he should actually start using it before badmouthing any he doesn't understand.
>It's probably going to be Linux and OpenBSD for me from here on in
Apropos OpenBSD, his installation guide (10 bucks from O'Reilly) was a mere joke. So much for his 'experience'.
Most weblogs/news-sites don't even link Jems 'reviews' anymore. Guess why? It's pure flamebait.
Member since:2005-07-11
Yes I agree.
The author does not know what he's talking about. he is just ranting left and right claiming instability without giving evidence.
What's wrong with the AMD64 port?
I am running multiple AMD64 servers without any problems. I have been using the RELENG_7 Branch since it ever existed and until today I have NOT seen a SINGLE crash!
Member since:2006-05-12
I've been forced to use CentOS for a LAMP stack at work now and I cry for FreeBSD. The defaults settings, documentation and general cleanliness of the CentOS install blows compared to FreeBSD. Not to mention that PF walks all over ipchains.
Yes, FreeBSD has some hardware issues. However, I run it on a laptop, desktop and multple servers at home without issue. The only thing I miss is Flash support.
The JDK issue is annoying, but not a big deal.
The installer is awesome. Custom install for base and the kernel only and then CVSUP stable and build world.
Command line works great. Learn how to setup your own shell init files and login scripts and you too can have color.
Yes, the defaults can be considered "basic" and it does lack the flash and pomp of Ubuntu. However, the target audience of FreeBSD are for the most part admins and the like. PC-BSD is the version targeted at more end users.
If Adobe released Flash for BSD and apps like vmware console were released for BSD I wouldn't touch Linux. As it is, I need to have a Linux terminal server setup in the basement to run vmware-server-console. *blegh*
Member since:2006-10-08
Same here. I think it just depends on the hardware. It's well known (at least I think it is so) that Linux has the best hardware support overall, but if you have standard compliant hardware, FreeBSD should run fine.
That's true. For basal support, you can of course use "Flash" for Linux via the Linux ABI, or gnash. This causes trouble in some cases. Or just leave "Flash" stuff aside. Personally, I don't miss it. :-)
It is, but once you have downloaded the needed files, you can transfer them to any new system you setup. (Or you transfer the complete system using dump and restore to transfer 1:1 partition-wise, followed by changing some few configuration files to support the changed hardware setting.)
The installer just does what it is intended to. It installs the operating system and, if you wish it to, it installs additional software, and configures your system in a dialog driven way (in opposite to editing files or using the respective command line tools).
Just put into your /etc/csh.cshrc (and look if local a .cshrc eventually overrides it):
setenv LSCOLORS ExGxdxdxCxDxDxBxBxegeg
set promptchars = "%#"
set prompt = "%n@%m:%~%# "
set autolist
There are even some more special character sequences that could give you a colored prompt (e. g. brown user name, blue system name, yellow path and green or red clearance prompt). As I mentioned, console mode applications support color (e. g. Midnight Commander or CenterICQ - or simply the sysinstall utility). And you can play around with the vidcontrol utility to make all the pretty colors. :-)
On the other hand, Linusi like Ubuntu are distributions containing the OS and much additional stuff, for example GUI system administration tools. This is not what the FreeBSD philosophy implies. You are free to add it, if you want, but it's not the default.
The same is true for security reasons: Services need to be enabled. Security barriers need to be abandoned manually (to increase comfortability, e. g. file permissions in /etc/devfs.conf or an automated login without password). This is well intended. In a multi user setting, you'll see that it makes sense not to allow anyone put USB sticks into the system and copy classified data, or install stuff on his own, or destroy data by doing nonsense (dd, combined with /dev/null and an arbitrary hard disk device come into mind).
PC-BSD and DesktopBSD are good solutions for users that are not interested in learning the basic stuff of UNIX system operations. They provide (mostly) what they already might know or like from Linux systems.
Member since:
2006-03-15
What a wasteful and stupid review. The guy is wrong on so many accounts it is not even funny. Obviously, the guy is a Linux user who tried BSD and did not like the fact that it was different. I was going to go one by one, shooting down each of the rants, but then I figured why bother. The guy claims to be writing a review but I do not see a review... just a long, amateurish rant. The guy is just trying to get attention by trashing a great, sleek OS that just happens to be out of his intelligence level.
Here is some honestly good advice for everyone out there trying to write a review:
1) Define the scope of your review
2) Compare product to previous versions
3) Compare product to other stuff on the market
4) Focus comparison on important stuff like manageability, security updates, upgrading, performance, scalability, ease-of-use, etc.
5) Don't bother to review something you are obviously not an expert in. Last thing anyone wants is someone's opinion on something they are relatively clueless in.