The OSNews mailbox has already been flooded with submissions that the FreeBSD 5.0-Release is already present on many mirrors around the world (i386 USA mirror, Europe one), but the CDs are not present to all mirrors as we type this. 5.0-Release is the next-big-thing for FreeBSD as it includes great new features (some not even found on other OSes) like SMPng, KSE, UFS2, GEOM, MAC etc. Read here for a quick explanation on what is what. The release has two CDs, and for the minimalistic, there is a mini-distro (225 MB) with only the essential tools in it (e.g. no X11). This version will also see FreeBSD supporting more platforms, like the IA64, SPARC-64 etc.
FreeBSD 5.0-Release is Being Uploaded to the Mirrors
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Time to tinker!!! Happy happy!
I just want to point out a few things to reduce confusion:
This is just the first official release from the FreeBSD 5.x branch. There is no STABLE branch yet. You most likely _do not_ want to employ this on your servers. Not all the features are complete and there are bound to be many bugs.
There won’t be a 5.x STABLE branch until around the 5.2 or 5.3 Release so if you need reliability stick with FreeBSD 4.7
Let me just re-iterate myself here: FreeBSD 5.0 is not ready for a production enviroment. Do not come on here complaining that it’s terribly buggy and broke all your servers.
I wouldn’t advise using it unless you’re a developer or somebody who just wants to tinker.
You have been warned.
Step aside unix-wanabee-OSs, take off your hats and bow down your heads. The real thing is getting way.
i will put it on all the production servers we run!! MUWHAHA
if someone actually does that they dont deserve to use freebsd, or be in any position that deals with servers of importance.
I have an empty 8 GB partition on my dual Celeron machine waiting for 10 months now the release of FreeBSD 5.0. I usually reuse my (many) partitions, as I need to install many OSes all the time for review purposes. But I never installed anything in that one partition, that was really meant for FreeBSD 5.x.
I used FreeBSD 4.4 in the past and I was happy to see that it was actually faster than Linux at the time on X/KDE operations (1 year ago). Now, I am even more excited to check out FreeBSD 5.x.
I’m just waiting for someone to make a Mandrake version of one of the BSD’s that runs on i386. That may sound lame to BSD experts, but look at how good OS X is and how users rave about it. Many BSD users say it makes as good a desktop as Linux, but until it has a nice easy GUI install and GUI tools ala Redhat, Mandrake or Suse I don’t think it will ever gain widespread acceptance out of the server market. Note this isn’t an invitation for BSD users to nitpick flaws in any of the distros I mentioned, its just something that would undoubtably attract more users. If you don’t see the logic in that then your hopelessly biased. This also isn’t the time to say “code it yourself”. I’m just stating what the vast majority of people want in a modern OS, I’m not saying the current BSD’s suck or anything. There is a reason why Debian, Slackware, and Gentoo have 1/10th of the market share of Redhat, Mandrake, and Suse. Anyway it would be great to have nice easy to use alternative to Windows, Linux, and OS X.
>Anyway it would be great to have nice easy to use alternative to Windows, Linux, and OS X.
Sure, but that won’t happen by putting Mandrake on top of anything.
Mac users don’t rave about having “BSD” per se when it comes to desktops. They rave about the Apple ability to take apart Mach and BSD, change them, modify them on their needs, and create a brand new platform out of them (with a brand new UI and integration policies). Pulling Mandrake or whatever on top of BSD or anything else, won’t make that happen, simply because there is no such integration on Mandrake. It doesn’t even come close to a “platform” (as the Mac is). It is a just a distro (“throw free stuff on 3 CDs and write a few tools to easily configure SOME stuff – oh, write a new (bloated) installer too”). That doesn’t work well when you want to bring FreeBSD or Linux or _whatever_ else to the desktop.
Funny I am writting this here. I had the exact same conversation on IM just half an hour ago. It seems that I should be writing an editorial about it explaining some more.
Please, take a note that if there is no announcement signed with RE team member’s PGP key to [email protected], there is no release. There can be probably last-minute changes.
And please, do not download from unofficial mirrors.
Also, please read, what Murray Stokely told to those, who announce -RELEASE, while there is no -RELEASE yet.
Err, forgot the link:
http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/10/222250&mode=thread&…
I wish that freebsd supported sparc32…
I agree with that Eugenia.
Heheh. I think if there weren’t so many different linux projects re-inventing the wheel we’d likely have a more viable desktop by now.
The problem is partly with Unix config. It sucks. If the configuration system was more intuitive and standard there wouldn’t be so many problems — BUT — writing hack scripts and software to hide this mess will bite you in the ass sooner or later! Whenever something breaks on Mandrake that’s beyond the realm of the “magic-config-stuff” then you’re in for a bumpy ride. This is where Mac OS X comes out in front — They’re not using traditional Unix config (not unless entirely necessary).
Don’t even get me started on configuring FreeBSD as a desktop machine. I spent the entire of my x-mas break trying to setup a FreeBSD desktop box. It was like having teeth pulled. Setting up gnome (now I wish I went with KDE) was a nightmare — But the worst of all — OpenOffice — Which requires java — Try installing java on FreeBSD. It requires _extreme_ patience. The process was so ugly I don’t even want to think about it.
This is an interesting reading:
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/1571431
James, have you ever heard of ports and have you read handbook?
How did you installed GNOME and java? I think not from ports, because from ports it is straitforward.
Please, take a note that if there is no announcement signed with RE team member’s PGP key to [email protected], there is no release. There can be probably last-minute changes.
Oh please, we’ve been over this a million times. Furthermore, the article doesn’t say it’s released, it says FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE is being uploaded to the mirrors.
As for bugs, I’m still running into issues with background fsck hanging the system, namely when working with a UFS1 vinum volume. So yeah, FreeBSD 5.0 isn’t ready for the prime time yet, so give it a few more releases.
You got me confused! The official release has bugs and won’t be STABLE until the next two or three releases? Why do they even bother to make it official release? Why not squashing all the bugs before making it the official release?
I understand the concept of there is no such thing as 100% bug free, but I always thought the official release means it’s stable enough for deployment.
5.0-release is a developmental branch unfortunately, similar to Linux’s odd number kernel releases (2.5x, 2.3x, etc)
5.0 is rewrite of many major parts. The people who wrote it think it is stable, but it has not been tested in the real world as the 4.x series. So it is probably stable, but no one is going to announce that until they have had people using this codebase, and verified that is is in fact, or fixed any bugs found.
Because the rate at which bugs are discovered greatly increases with the number of people who are using it. This is a release aimed at early adopters who are willing to help iron out some of the few remaining bugs. When these last remaining bugs have been ironed out, a -STABLE release will be made. This one is what you should install on your production servers.
You got me confused! The official release has bugs and won’t be STABLE until the next two or three releases? Why do they even bother to make it official release? Why not squashing all the bugs before making it the official release?
I understand the concept of there is no such thing as 100% bug free, but I always thought the official release means it’s stable enough for deployment.
Please, don’t be so native. Just read the article that Eugenia has provided. -> http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/1571431 It answered to your questions as well.
Anyway, I have been using FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT for long time by now. Right now, I must say it’s pretty stable so far as for desktop. I am using Gnome 2.2rc1 on FreeBSD with LighthouseBlue theme. There has very small issue on LighthouseBlue, but hard to notice. Sometime, I use Bluecurve theme too. 🙂
Quan: Because the 5.0 Release has already been postponed a couple times and they don’t want to do it again. The basic infrastructure is in place. Why are they releasing it now? Because they want people testing it on lots of different configurations. The more people testing it the more bugs will be found. Also because the basic features are in place third party developers can start developing for 5.x before it is actually fully complete. Lets remember that the change from 4.x to 5.x is a major change — huge portions of the underlying system have been restructured and replaced. This isn’t really a big deal really. They state quite clearly that users like you should wait until the 5.2 or 5.3 releases.
Alexander: I used ports. Unfortunately to install JDK you have to manually go to the Sun website — sign up — and then download the source. After this you have to go back and download the linux binary. The process is rather annoying and involves clicking through a lot of licensing agreements crap. It is _not_ automagical like most port installs.
OK, so from a curious users POV why should I use FreeBSD over Linux? What does it have Linux doesn’t? Ignore ports (you can get that with gentoo) and the licensing (which I don’t agree is a good idea) – technically what is there that makes FreeBSD so special?
OK, so from a curious users POV why should I use FreeBSD over Linux? What does it have Linux doesn’t? Ignore ports (you can get that with gentoo) and the licensing (which I don’t agree is a good idea) – technically what is there that makes FreeBSD so special?
A lot of Linux users that who haven’t tried BSD always never understand. You will have to try it to understand or not. I just love FreeBSD, because it has more solid standard than Linux. Also, it’s just much faster than Linux even thought I don’t use the fancy optimize flags such as “-O3 -pipe fomit-frame-pointer -xxxx” But, I can’t comment on Linux kernel 2.5xx, newer glib, prelink and etc, because I haven’t touch them.
Also, it’s more stable than Linux from my experience. FreeBSD just is very hard to fail and crash on me, when I want to poke it harder.
Yes, you should manually download them. Sorry, it is not FreeBSD fault. It is only licensing from Sun.
“Sure, but that won’t happen by putting Mandrake on top of anything.
Mac users don’t rave about having “BSD” per se when it comes to desktops. They rave about the Apple ability to take apart Mach and BSD, change them, modify them on their needs, and create a brand new platform out of them (with a brand new UI and integration policies). Pulling Mandrake or whatever on top of BSD or anything else, won’t make that happen, simply because there is no such integration on Mandrake. ”
Eugenia you misunderstood me. I’m not talking about literally putting Mandrake on top of a BSD, I’m talking about someone taking one of the BSD’s and making it as easy to use as Mandrake or Suse etc. Mandrake is just an example of how a vendor has taken linux and made is accessible for non-techies. This like I pointed out is the opposite of what say Debian does.
Sun owns Java and the JDK/JRE that you tried to add to your system James. They can’t make it automagical from ports because you have to click OK and agree to the terms.
I never really thought of downloading a file from the web and placing it into /usr/ports/distfiles as a trip to the dentist, then again maybe i have more patience than you for getting my systems setup. Anyhow, the process is as streamlined as is legally allowed and I don’t think you can ask for anything more since the product is free.
” Also, it’s just much faster than Linux even thought I don’t use the fancy optimize flags such as “-O3 -pipe fomit-frame-pointer -xxxx”
Proof please. Proper benchmarks etc. Blanket statements like that are never right.
“Also, it’s more stable than Linux from my experience”
They are both very stable in my experience.
OK, so from a curious users POV why should I use FreeBSD over Linux? What does it have Linux doesn’t? Ignore ports (you can get that with gentoo) and the licensing (which I don’t agree is a good idea) – technically what is there that makes FreeBSD so special?
The main difference is a conceptual one, which is traditionally expressed through ESR’s metaphor of the cathedral and the bazaar.
FreeBSD is, of course, the cathedral. The entire OS exists as a single distribution maintained by a single group which maintains all aspects of the software: the kernel, the system libraries, the userspace
Linux is the bazaar. Different groups work on different parts of the OS. Sometimes their motivations are not entirely the same, and sometimes when a problem arises a great deal of finger goes on. Still another group picks and chooses these parts and assembles them into a distribution.
There are a number of small details which set FreeBSD apart from Linux from a technical standpoint, such as the FreeBSD VMM. I’m in the process of writing a small test suite for benchmarking VMM/heap performance in various conditions, and my initial numbers show FreeBSD still maintains a competative edge over Linux in this area, especially when large numbers of processes are attempting to change their data segment size simultaneously.
There’s a number of other idiosyncracies which set FreeBSD apart such as the ease of /etc/rc.conf and the sysctl interface. There’s also the kqueue interface which provides stateful, thread safe event notification.
Hopefully we’ll get some benchmarks on SMPng versus Linux 2.4. I would not be surprised if for now FreeBSD is the winner in terms of SMP performance. Of course, it remains to be seen if there will be a 5.x-STABLE release before Linux 2.6 is released.
OK, so from a curious users POV why should I use FreeBSD over Linux? What does it have Linux doesn’t? Ignore ports (you can get that with gentoo) and the licensing (which I don’t agree is a good idea) – technically what is there that makes FreeBSD so special?
DOCUMENTATION! The good thorough kind. I’m not talking about just man pages either. The FreeBSD Handbook is one of the most valuable assets of FreeBSD. I haven’t seen any documentation that is so complete for any linux distro yet.
I wont even bother to start explaining the ports system either.
Just download and try it. Trust me.
Only reason I might not use the 5.0 dics I just downloaded is because 4.7 has nVIDIA drivers…
“I haven’t seen any documentation that is so complete for any linux distro yet.”
http://www.amazon.com or your local bookseller. I imagine the ratio of linux to BSD books available to help its users is literally in the neighborhood of 1000 to 1. Of course you could always use your vendors docs. Like for example Redhat’s http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/ Have glance at these, I think you’ll be surprised. Honestly and without gloating, from a documentation standpoint Linux has BSD beat in spades.
I’d also like to point out that without any documentation at all, most users could pop in any of several linux distros and have a fully usuable system installed in no time at all. The situation is vastly different with any of the BSD’s.
I am NOT against BSD advocacy and I am NOT saying Linux is *better* than any of the BSD’s. I’m just tired of seeing FUD from both camps. So I do apologize if my comment comes of as combative. Like I pointed out in my other posts, I’m the one who wants BSD to be moron proof. I think its a good server OS, but as a desktop its really lacking.
In addition to whats already been said – for me FreeBSD is cleaner (system & user stuff nicely separated with /usr/local/ being used for what it’s actually there in the first place, ports do not want to mess with /usr/bin), infinitely more manageable (things actually work without you changing or upgrading libs every now and then) and it’s configuration files actually make sense. And of course – ORGANIZED DOCUMENTATION. Not just any documentation heaps you’ll find on every other www.*linux*.* site but neatly organized ones.
Last but not least – FreeBSD online community is one of the friendliest I’ve ever seen. Those folks do not choose their systems according to benchmarks (oooh, gentoo is like 6% faster than debian on my box, ooohh!). It’s entirely different attitude. Building things that work. AND letting other use whatever they want, without need to dominate the world.
Linux is nice, I have Linux on my desktop. But my servers will stay FreeBSD for all forseeable future. Gives me better sleep
“I haven’t seen any documentation that is so complete for any linux distro yet.”
http://www.amazon.com or your local bookseller. I imagine the ratio of linux to BSD books available to help its users is literally in the neighborhood of 1000 to 1. Of course you could always use your vendors docs. Like for example Redhat’s http://www.redhat.com /docs/manuals/linux/ Have glance at these, I think you’ll be surprised. Honestly and without gloating, from a documentation standpoint Linux has BSD beat in spades.
It’s not like hundreds of linux-for-dummies books has anything to do with complete and exact quality documentation.
DOCUMENTATION! The good thorough kind. I’m not talking about just man pages either. The FreeBSD Handbook is one of the most valuable assets of FreeBSD. I haven’t seen any documentation that is so complete for any linux distro yet.
I can’t speak for the other distros, but Debian is very well documented: http://www.debian.org/doc/
None: Proof please. Proper benchmarks etc. Blanket statements like that are never right.
No, I will not. You will _have_ to install FreeBSD on the test box to _find_ it out. MPlayer on Linux is pretty slower than what’s in FreeBSD, which I compile with the very same exactly options and box. It just lags in Linux, but not on FreeBSD in the 464Mhz machine. I find the proof on my own, I ain’t ask someone to believe me. Not, until you actually try it. As you see, it’s same as what Eugenia said that she thinks FreeBSD is faster than Linux when she tried last year. Do _not_ whine for the proof, just _try_ it.
Yet, I already stated that I haven’t tried Linux kernel 2.5 (and few new patches for 2.4), newest glib, prelink and etc. This might be change, but I can’t make any of comment on it.
Kevein Meier: Only reason I might not use the 5.0 dics I just downloaded is because 4.7 has nVIDIA drivers…
I am using Nvidia driver in 5.0-CURRENT right now, it works fine. Of course, you will have to edit one file to make it works correct. 😉
Hopefully we’ll get some benchmarks on SMPng versus Linux 2.4. I would not be surprised if for now FreeBSD is the winner in terms of SMP performance.
Hmm, from what I’ve read, SMPng isn’t even close to being done yet (the same goes for KSE). But please, bring on the benchmarks.
[i]technically what is there that makes FreeBSD so special?
[/i ]
Altough good documentation is not a technical difference it’s one of the most important aspects of an Operating System. FreeBSD has a well writen, right to the point
(e.g. no 5 pages of ‘About this faq’ and 2 pages about the ‘subject’
and totally updated handbook. And specific BSD documentation.
Technically you just have to install and compile the kernel of FreeBSD to see the *major* difference and compare it to a Linux kernel compilation. You will notice a technical superiority then. I do.
Also, you just need to edit one or two text files to config the main aspects and boot parameters of the OS.
My only downside was/is the setup of a printer on FreeBSD (it’s too much work for an average user – like me, I guess, but it works).
No, I will not. You will _have_ to install FreeBSD on the test box to _find_ it out. MPlayer on Linux is pretty slower than what’s in FreeBSD, which I compile with the very same exactly options and box. It just lags in Linux, but not on FreeBSD in the 464Mhz machine. I find the proof on my own, I ain’t ask someone to believe me.
What nonsense. MPlayer should perform pretty much the same on both systems. Last time I checked, FreeBSD used both GCC and XFree86, just like all the Linux distributions. mplayer -vo xv uses practically no CPU on my system (though it varies depending on the codec in use).
Perhaps your disk(s) where running in PIO mode under Linux?
Technically you just have to install and compile the kernel of FreeBSD to see the *major* difference and compare it to a Linux kernel compilation. You will notice a technical superiority then. I do.
Also, you just need to edit one or two text files to config the main aspects and boot parameters of the OS.
I can’t help but chuckle at stuff like this. It’s pretty obvious that FreeBSD has attracted quite a following of poseurs, now that Linux isn’t ‘alternative’ enough anymore. You know, like the ones who always pipe up with “Slackware!” in discussions regarding ‘best Linux distribution’ on Usenet, yet 4 out 5 times are posting with a MS client.
What nonsense. MPlayer should perform pretty much the same on both systems. Last time I checked, FreeBSD used both GCC and XFree86, just like all the Linux distributions. mplayer -vo xv uses practically no CPU on my system (though it varies depending on the codec in use).
Perhaps your disk(s) where running in PIO mode under Linux?
No, they aren’t same at all. When, you compile it in the Linux and you have to use Linux emulator in FreeBSD to make it has the ability to run. If you create binary in FreeBSD and it will not work in Linux as well. Therefore, they aren’t same. Winex, Gnome, KDE, MPlayer, Xine, CrossOver Plugin, Mozilla and etc just run faster on FreeBSD without getting the lag (hog the system).
I use “mplayer -vo xv” too, but with “-gui”. I tried the same exactly movie, codec, compile options and etc. It just run faster on FreeBSD than Linux. Most Linux users don’t understand when they haven’t tried FreeBSD and use it as desktop.
I can’t help but chuckle at stuff like this. It’s pretty obvious that FreeBSD has attracted quite a following of poseurs, now that Linux isn’t ‘alternative’ enough anymore. You know, like the ones who always pipe up with “Slackware!” in discussions regarding ‘best Linux distribution’ on Usenet, yet 4 out 5 times are posting with a MS client.
Besides your intention of being an ass whole you didn’t said why you are calling me poseur ?
(If I am inteligent enough to understand your post).
I don’t really care if it’s alternative or not, if I want to test it and use it over Linux I will; so go f…
As for using an MS client, if it’s better for browsing and I want to use it I will use it. It’s nothing that could interest you.
mplayer -vo xv uses practically no CPU on my system (though it varies depending on the codec in use).
Do I notice a contradition in terms here ?
It seems pretty obvious to me that you’ve been running a Linux system with the disks in PIO mode. I’d suggest taking a look at /sbin/hdparm.
Sometimes their motivations are not entirely the same, and sometimes when a problem arises a great deal of finger goes on.
Whoops, that should be “finger pointing”. And I thought with the great number of unsubstantiated claims floating around in this thread, I better at least post some documentation:
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2001-31/0264.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-01/msg00085.html
mplayer -vo xv uses practically no CPU on my system (though it varies depending on the codec in use).
Do I notice a contradition in terms here ?
Is that so? If you think labelling both ~1% CPU overhead and ~3% CPU overhead (running fullscreen on a 1600×1200 display) as ‘uses practically no CPU’ is a contradiction in terms, sure.
I am under the impression that you never gave FreeBSD a try. Am I right?
“Only reason I might not use the 5.0 dics I just downloaded is because 4.7 has nVIDIA drivers…”
I’ve got some happy news for you: the official nVidia drivers work fine in 5.0. You just have to comment out the part in the source (in src/nv-freebsd.h, to be more precise) that says that it won’t compile in 5, and add the <sys/filedesc.h> header to it. Have fun!
Wonder how soon until Opera releases a FreeBSD 5.0 native Opera built using the gcc 3.2 C++ ABI. Until then I’ll have to stick to the gimpy statically linked FreeBSD 4.x version of Opera.
Before answering your question, I’d like to ask you a couple:
a) What exactly gave you that impression?
b) What difference does it make wrt anything I’ve written here?
First @ James
I have no idea wha you do man. I decided to try on my home box FreeBSD with UFS2 so I had to wipe HDD ( by the way that was FBSD current)
No I allways do very simple install and later I am adding “stuff”. So now after four hours I have fast desktop. I just supped the latest and while reading OSNEWS I am doing buildworld/build custom kernel. So full install plus upgrade to current took me about 6 hours.
Now I still do not understand why you need JAVA for OO.org. I just installed Office without Java. (But I still need java for other things)
Now selling FBSD: try this:
Install on linux and FBSD latest KDE , then from the desktop run some type of heavy compiling . You will notice that while KDE on FBSD is even not avare of heavy task in the background, linux is choking: flakey mouse, menus and so on. When you set up sendmail, then under heavy load you will have to re-boot linux after one month or so, but not FBSD. I do like FBSD I do like NetBSD iI do not like Open (stability subpar when compared to Net which is much better as gateway/firewall) but I think that you can find plenty of args for linux and against FBSD. So try it optimize it and then chose wisely (I mean install Free).
MP
None, I totally agree with you. I would also like to add my opinion.
BSD is a great platform. It is very fast and very stable. In response to some other’s comments regarding these two items, I use both BSD and Linux and have not seen a noticible difference between them in these regards.
Of the available BSDs, FreeBSD is by far the easiest for new users to configure; however, by “easy” I mean if you use the handbook at http://www.freebsd.org it may be possible. By no means download FreeBSD and expect to be up and running in 30 minutes like you can with Mandrake, RedHat, SuSE, SCO, etc. To give people who have never used BSD an idea of what they are in for, I think FreeBSD is easier to install than Gentoo, but harder to install and configure than Debian.
To give people who have never used BSD an idea of what they are in for, I think FreeBSD is easier to install than Gentoo, but harder to install and configure than Debian.
I dunno, I ran FreeBSD for a year around when 4.0 was new, and I think that it was much easier to use than Debian. I don’t know why, but for someone who had used linux for years before that (Red Hat), FBSD was easier to use/set up/install than Debian.
a) Your re: mplayer and your first re: chicobaud. It gives the impression that you can’t accept the possibility that FreeBSD may be faster than Linux, even for some tasks.
b) Nothing. But if you had tried FreeBSD you probably wouldn’t have asked for a benchmark, and would have, like Eugenia and the other guy, the feeling that it was faster, at least under the conditions they said. 😉
I was wondering whether FreeBSD SMPng will be feature complete by 5.3 (or whatever release they deem STABLE). When I check http://www.freebsd.org/smp lots of features (including full preemptive kernel) remain open. And I remember a couple of threads in freebsd-current mailing list blaming J. Baldwin for being lazy… Now with the Nvidia drivers complete and icc ported (for perfect IA-64 support), nothing can make me (personally) use Linux. It’s not only about the features but also about the mentality and the quality of the developers. I’m more of an elitist in nature than populist. I tend to believe anything that is popular (like Windoze or even Linux) is susceptible to being flawed. That’s why I like FreeBSD better because I like UNIX/C and I think FreeBSD provides me a better UNIX experience (with its tools, bsd flavor) etc. And their development system makes more sense to me. And this won’t change even if all the companies forget about BSDs and everyone has Linux at their homes. On top of it I don’t usually like Linus ranting (about IA-64 or microkernels (remember Tanenbaum discussion)), I think he usually makes a fool of himself. Although he’s a capable coder and Linux owes a lot to him, he’s blatantly ignorant in some of such discussions. These are my humble personal reasons to prefer BSDs.
I don’t know, ports just started installing JDK as a dependancy for Open Office, why should I assume it doesn’t really need it?
Why are you making any excuses for this? The fact that I’ve got to go sign up on Sun’s website and piss around clicking through license agreements and downloading stuff is outragious. Obviously it’s not FreeBSD’s fault. I’m not saying it is. I’m saying this is one of the reasons it’s a bitch to set FreeBSD up as a Desktop OS. This isn’t the only nuisance — setting up gnome’s gdm was kind of a huge pain in the ass as well… and has anyone tried configuring XFree86 on FreeBSD?
These are things the average user isn’t going to want to muck around with. I’m not attacking FreeBSD and if you read my previous messages you would see I was pointing out the shortcomings of the Unix config system.
a) Your re: mplayer
Considering that he’s running the same program, under the same window system, both compiled by (presumably the same version of) GCC, using the same output driver (-vo xv, which shouldn’t tax the CPU much), and keeping in mind that MPlayer reads a lot from disk, and then when he also talks about how Gnome, KDE, Xine, and so on ‘hog the system’, that has ‘harddisks in PIO mode’ written all over it. IOW, I don’t doubt that his experiences are genuine. But his problem could have been very easily solved.
But hey, good thing FreeBSD gained another quality user!
and your first re: chicobaud.
A great example of the new breed of FreeBSD users.
It gives the impression that you can’t accept the possibility that FreeBSD may be faster than Linux, even for some tasks.
Of course I can. But that won’t stop me from countering false claims when I see them.
b) Nothing. But if you had tried FreeBSD you probably wouldn’t have asked for a benchmark, and would have, like Eugenia and the other guy, the feeling that it was faster, at least under the conditions they said. 😉
As a skeptic, I am well aware of how easily people can deceive themselves. I find stuff like “but it feels faster to me!!1” quite unconvincing. Reproducible benchmarks oth…
I was using FreeBSD 4.5 -> 4.7 on my main router/firewall box, and recently switched over to slackware-current. Maybe I’ll give FreeBSD 5 a shot once it hits -STABLE.
Hopefully we’ll get some benchmarks on SMPng versus Linux 2.4. I would not be surprised if for now FreeBSD is the winner in terms of SMP performance.
Six weeks ago, John Baldwin had this to say on the matter:
Except that we are actually probably slower on SMP systems for kernel intensive things right now. SMPng is far from complete at this point. One thing that should be clear is that 5.0 is not going to be as fast as 4.x, and people need to weigh that against 5.0’s new features when making their decision.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=91498+96896+/usr/local/…
You really do not need java for OO.org. But if one has to install java one will have to do exactly what you did. I did installed java and I had to manually download binaries from Sun. This is real advantage of linux hype. Sun’s licensing is such that ones have to get java from their site if installed on FBSD. I am not implying that install is breeze… if ones not read the manuals on line. I have seen enough failed attempts of linux install reviewed by the people who does not read before installation. If you consider that any Unix-like OS is harder to install than Windows or Mac OS (I do not think Mac is Unix) then you have to admitt that reading should go first. That would make ones experience more pleasurable.
So it might be that linux desktop install is easier as you know it well.
MP
I’m saying this is one of the reasons it’s a bitch to set FreeBSD up as a Desktop OS.
No comment, I kind of agree with you; it’s not easy for the newbie.
This isn’t the only nuisance — setting up gnome’s gdm was kind of a huge pain in the ass as well.
Pain in ass? I find it’s too easy. All you have to do is install it from the ports. Then, go to /usr/X11R6/etc/rc.d/ and rename from gdm.sh.sample to gdm.sh. That’s it, reboot and gdm2 will be right there to login. I did the test for Gnome2.1.xx and 2.2rc1 on FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT.
has anyone tried configuring XFree86 on FreeBSD?
Yes, I do. ‘XFree86 -configure’, ‘echo “exec xxxxx” > ~/.xinitrc” and very very small tweak in /etc/X11/XF86Config for the resolution size and mouse, that’s it. There even have the how-to/FAQ in the handbook, which the newbie really can follow it.
FreeBSD is way easier than Linux for me, it’s easy to control and being as a sysadmin on it. 😉
@samb: Manik and I already said it all, which you have to try FreeBSD on some test/junk box if you have any. But, thanks for give me the hint about PIO, I will looking into it when I ever think of play with Linux (btw: want to try Gentoo) again. It has been noted. 🙂
Errr. I feel like I am flogging a dead horse here.
I do _not_ know the linux install. I don’t actively (or currently) run linux and I don’t know what might have given you that impression.
FYI I am not a BSD newbie. For a couple years I even ran OpenBSD exclusively on my main workstation (sort of an experiment).
It’s obvious you do not understand the point I was trying to make. This is quite offtopic and I don’t really care to further add to it’s irrelevance. Read my earlier posts in this forum. If you still do not understand what I was saying then feel free to e-mail me.
I installed gnome from packages. This wasn’t version 2. I didn’t think the machine was powerful enough to handle 2.
I don’t understand why the gdm.sample file wasn’t simply installed as the gdm default config in the first place. It’s not like anything needed changing.
Furthermore gdm is goofy and cannot(should not) be started from /etc/ttys unlike xdm & kdm. There was no sample rc script installed to remedy this problem. I had to write my own.
And what about the sendmail fiasco? The machine I was installing to doesn’t have a real domain, etc. Sendmail tries a dns lookup and on boot and hangs the system temporarily. I found all sorts of useful information on this in the handbook and on the interner: NOT. The general consensus on this was “hand pick through the sendmail code and change it” or “setup a local dns server”.. right, like I want to piss around doing all that stuff. While I’m at it maybe I should stop to ponder the true meaning of life; Or maye I could solve a 2000 piece jig-saw puzzle.
Let me make something clear. I didn’t find these configurations difficult but rather time consuming. I want things to work without a lot of messing around. As for the XFree86 config — XFree86 4 is silly to configure. The graphical utility provided for the configuration would always exit with an error claiming that it had failed.
All of my prior postings were related to my initial opinion that mandrake’s magic config system would eventually lead to a breakdown in system configuration that would be quite hard to fix. Unix configuration is inconsistent and unoptimal. You can’t simply lump together a bunch of config scripts to hide this mess without the risk of something going seriously wrong. Eventually you are forced to look under the hood and deal with the mess that’s hiding under there.
So, in conclusion: I don’t think making a mandrake BSD is the right answer. Make a new configuration system, then try for a userfriendly desktop release.
Okay I’m done ranting now. Please don’t reply to this. I don’t want to have to clarify or rebut any part of this post. If you don’t understand goto 10 and keep reading the darn thing until it makes sence.
In *my* experiences the performance of FreeBSD in comparison to Linux is awefully close. Now comparing 3.x FreeBSD and on up to Linux 2.0.x or 2.2.x would be silly – FreeBSD is faster. But Linux 2.4 was quite an improvement. I’ve played with FreeBSD since 3.3 but only gave it a real thorough run through with 4.5. I’ve also installed and ran 5.0 DP2. The VM does seem somewhat smoother, but considering I have quite a lot of RAM as is it rarely swaps in either platform. Disk performance seems slightly faster in FreeBSD with networking performance, as a dekstop user with a cable modem, feels the same. It seems that the scheduler for FreeBSD is worse then Linux (my distros use the 1(0) scheduler patch) – not tremendously so, but I’ve noticed more mouse stutters under compiles with FreeBSD then Linux. (on my system I’ve had the load soar up to 6 under Red Hat 8 while retaining responsiveness, some lag – but nothing like what Windows gives me)
Perhaps its my fault, perhaps I mistweaked something. Some areas of FreeBSD do seem well polished and quite fast – but nothing is so jaw dropping that I’ll convert away from Red Hat. Red Hat 8 has me hooked – its flawed, but its the closest thing to perfect (as far as distros go) I’ve run yet. Font support, easy printer setup, easy cheesy updates, apt-get installed, etc. I could set up my printer just as well with *BSD, but it wouldn’t be near as fast and painless. I’m sure that as a server FreeBSD is dandy and in the right hands it makes a kick ass desktop – but I’m a Linux guy I guess. Oh – and I did *love* the ports collection. Yum.
Alot of the discussion has gone toward speed performance. I’m not qualified to go there. Personally, as far as speed goes, I “feel” like they are about the same.
So, why should you use FreeBSD? The real answer is going to depend on if you are using Windows, Linux or MAC and looking for an alternative desktop OS. Or, you might be running one of those and looking for a replacement server. My point is that “selling” you on FreeBSD without knowing those details is a little difficult.
Back to the question, again. I’d say the best reasons for using FreeBSD are the sames reasons that I use it. First of all, it’s easier to configure than Linux. I like the BSD style init. The System V is way too complicated. Like some others have mentioned, the documentation is top notch. And, furthermore, often times that documentation is where you need it (in the config file). The config files are very well documented. Other times, you will get messages like “to change this …. run /stand/sysinstall”. So, you know where to go to get more help. Finally, and I think this is the most overlooked reason, Linux is not one thing. It is Gentoo, RH, Mandrake, Slackware and on and on. FreeBSD is just FreeBSD. That makes FreeBSD feel more complete. The documentation for FreeBSD covers FreeBSD 100% correctly. Software designed to run on FreeBSD runs perfectly. FreeBSD is not a moving target. In contrast, if you try to install a more complex piece of software for Linux, you have to take into consideration what distro you are running. Libraries are not all the same version and in the same place. That’s not true with FreeBSD.
So, the reasons that I use FreeBSD is because I like it. But, I don’t use it on the desktop. It’s a hobby server for me.
Darren
I’m saying this is one of the reasons it’s a bitch to set FreeBSD up as a Desktop OS. [i]
It is.
And after setup you should only upgrade it if it’s really necessary (e.g. a new gcc version)
[i]I don’t know, ports just started installing JDK as a dependancy for Open Office, why should I assume it doesn’t really need it?
http://www.freebsd.org/java
AsFarAsIKonow –
You need a JRE to completely install OOffice, like you needed a JRE to completely install StarOffice on linux.
But, it works without a JRE; you just don’t have an email account and some html export or the use of the internal web browser.
______________
and your first re: chicobaud.
A great example of the new breed of FreeBSD users.
You must think you are a *guru* of Linux and FreeBSD.
Pfff !!
BTW – since you were the only person mentioning Debian documentation …
I’ll think you are the poseur around this this thread.
You are really pittyful.
I doubt there are significant performance differences between the Linux and FreeBSD kernels for the majority of tasks, except when it comes to special cases like SMP, NUMA and stuff of the kind. I had been hanging around on LKML for about two years previously and it’s evident that there are a sizable number of talented kernel hackers tuning and optimizing the Linux kernel to death, people like Ingo Molnar, Dave Miller and Andrew Morton. The arrival on the Linux scene of IBM brought about quite an army of very capable and dedicated programmers too.
Where I believe FreeBSD is superior is in the libc used. Glibc, used in nearly every Linux distro out there, is an acknowledged bloated mess of a libc. It suffers from trying to port itself out to anything that wants a libc, and has been witnessed employing unsightly hacks and true voodoo to try to support platforms as ancient as Linux 2.0.36. FreeBSD’s is far leaner and probably significantly faster too.
I’d like to see somebody build a distro out a lean libc like Uclibc, or port one the BSDs’ libc to Linux.
Im tired of seeing comments about freebsd not being a “desktop os” or, not having an installer gui. or being “hard to use”
all i can say is that freebsd is great for a certain caliber of user. It does not want dumbing down into the sterile fastfood mentality of an increasing number of linux distros. It does not need the user base of fools that microsoft and an increasing number of “commercial” linux distros feed upon.
so, i use mac os x, that is based on freebsd. does these feature of version 5 go in future implementation of mac os? tia and sorry for very bad english
I see a huge misconception among many posters. The FreeBSD CVS-branch STABLE does NOT mean that this one is the production-level release. STABLE is a development branch, and only when such a branch starts on a particular major version like 5.x will the -RELEASE version be ready for deployment.
So yes, you have to wait for the 5.x-STABLE branch to be created, but you will want to download 5.x-RELEASE then, not -STABLE since that’s a development branch that is a little behind the cutting edge from -CURRENT.
I am the master of the LABIA!
This is group that is ‘Leetest And Better In All.
You are the ones who are the stupid-heads. Running your silly FreeLSD’s, and Linumesses. Haha, I laugh at your stupidness and inability to be as Leet as me, for I am the Leetest of them all. There are none who are as Leet as me.
LeetOS is the best OS in the world. I like it better than all the other stupid-OS because it has the nicest pixels. It is so much more faster than other stupid-OS because it is Leeter than them. I like having the power to individually program each pixel on the proton emitter box. Furthermore I enjoy interacting directly with the disk driver interface to ensure each and every bit is copied with precision and care. Obviously it is not meant for stupid-heads like you who will never be Leet enough to use it. It will never dumb down to your stupid-non-leetness level! Go away non-leet idiots. Go back to your stupid FreeLins and BDSuxes.
So in the future do not come on to tell me LeetOS is to hard for you. It is not LeetOS that is hard, it is you who is the one who is hard. Hard for your momma. har har har har.
Where I believe FreeBSD is superior is in the libc used. Glibc, used in nearly every Linux distro out there, is an acknowledged bloated mess of a libc. It suffers from trying to port itself out to anything that wants a libc, and has been witnessed employing unsightly hacks and true voodoo to try to support platforms as ancient as Linux 2.0.36. FreeBSD’s is far leaner and probably significantly faster too.
Perhaps, but perhaps not.
In a post comparing the FreeBSD libm to the Apple libm, FreeBSD hacker Bruce Evans added this regarding the glibc libm:
By contrast, the glibc libm is overwhelming. It has assembler versions for almost everything on several machines, including ones with long double precision…
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=58304+61880+/usr/local/…
A couple of years ago FreeBSD has a better virtual memory manager than Linux. Last year Linux was better at handling I/O cache but FreeBSD was more efficient at handling processes. Generally *BSDs better in server uptime for the last couple of years. With new VM engine in linux 2.4.x things look different. Linux handles stress loads better compared to FreeBSD. OSX is a looser compared with Linux even in their own hardware. Search for these on Google for yourselves.
Lets wait and see some benchmarks on Linux 2.6.x vs FreeBSD 5.x
aherm: Good to see you can read slashdot. The general consensus on that benchmark was that the author of that article was most likely benchmarking other aspects of the system, NOT just the vmm.
Everything you say about the VMM in linux vs FreeBSD is erroneous because of this.
The FreeBSD VMM scales really well, the Linux VMM in 2.4.x doesn’t (or most certainly didn’t). The VMM in Linux 2.5.x will likely be more on par with the FreeBSD VMM when it is finished and working right.
Just to note that there isn’t FreeBSD 5.0-STABLE at the moment and there won’t be for at least a couple of months. Currently there are several branches: 4.7-STABLE, 5.0-RELEASE and 5.0-CURRENT aka HEAD but not 5.0-STABLE
Probably. But not in the near future.
While Molnar is a Linux kernel hacker, and thus perhaps a bit biased, his take on the state of the VMs in the two systems is still interesting:
JA: What areas of the Linux kernel do you think still lags behind FreeBSD?
Ingo Molnar: there were two areas where i think we used to lag, the VM and the block IO subsystem – both have been significantly reworked in 2.5. Whether the VM got better than FreeBSD’s remains to be seen (via actual use), but the Linux VM already has features that FreeBSD does not have, eg. support for more than 4 GB RAM on x86 (here i guess i’m biased, i wrote much of that code). But FreeBSD’s core VM logic itself, ie. the state machine that decides what to throw out under memory pressure, how to swap and how to do IO, is top-notch. I think with Andrew Morton’s and Jens Axobe’s latest VM and IO work we are top-notch as well (with a few extras perhaps).
There’s also an interesting VM project in the making, Arjan van de Ven’s O(1) VM code. [without doubt i do appear to have a sweet spot for O(1) code 🙂 ] Rik van Riel has merged Arjan’s code a couple of days ago. The code converts every important VM algorithm (laundering, aging) to a O(1) algorithm while still keeping the fundamentals – this is quite nontrivial for things like page aging. It’s in essence the VM overhead reduction work that Andrea Arcangeli has started in 2.4.10, brought to the extreme. I have run Arjan’s O(1) VM under high memory pressure, and it’s really impressive – kswapd (the central VM housekeeping kernel thread), which used to eat up lots of CPU time under VM load, has almost vanished from the CPU usage chart.
I do have the impression that the Linux VM is close to a conceptual breakthrough – with all the dots connected we now have something that is the next level of quality. The 2.5 VM has merged all the seemingly conflicting VM branches that fought it out in 2.4, and the many complex subsystems involved suddenly started playing in concert and produce something really nice.
http://www.kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=517
No. Mac OS X uses a completely different kernel. It’s the userland tools that are derived from (an old version of) FreeBSD.
My bad. You’re right. In fact I just wanted to say that Apple would sync with the 5.x serie later. I should have made the observation, instead of interpreting what he said.
No. Mac OS X uses a completely different kernel. It’s the userland tools that are derived from (an old version of) FreeBSD.
The current MacOS X (Drawin) is based on FreeBSD 4.4.. The MacOS X 10.0 was based on like FreeBSD 3.x or older, which I don’t remember.
No, he is right. Mac OS X kernel, XNU, is based on Mach. The rest of the system is based on FreeBSD.
I am new’ish to the whole Linux/FreeBSD thing, but have been following developments and trying various distro’s for a couple of years now. Personally I found the whole Linux thing to be too messy and fragmented, software too hard to install, and documentation fragmented.
I found FreeBSD pretty easy to install – I have it on three machines here. Two have Win2K also on them (Win2K installed first, then FreeBSD second with no bootloader problems, no MBR’s getting wiped, and it just works!)
The FreeBSD manual easily explained to me how to recompile the kernal (step by step) to get sound working. Worked perfectly. KDE installed flawlessly and I was on the internet via KPPP really quickly.
As for all the speed arguments…do they really matter that much with the current pricing for CPUs and memory etc. being so low?
Lastly, Apache and MySQL installed fine via the ports system. I could not get PHP to work, so if anyone wishes to help there, it would be appreciated.
Linux works very well with up to 32 processors (at least they
said it was when the 2.4 kernel was released).FreeBSD works
very good with a great number of processors too.Why the hell
do we need all those weird things like NUMA , SMPng , etc.
On ordinary computers the only thing they do is to slow down
everything (see comments made by FreeBSD developers above).
If you want further proof just have a look at Solaris.How
many machines (even in demanding environmens ) have more than
32 processors?
Is all this happening just because big companies infuence
the way Operating Systems evolve?
It works like that:
Money comes from big companies. Big companies ask for big things (e.g. 32+ CPU support). Linux is mostly developed by these companies these days (companies commit most of the code, not Joe Developers from their bedroom). Therefore, they get to do what these companies need to do for their business. And Linus doesn’t have any objections as long as they do their job.
FreeBSD works very good with a great number of processors too
No, it doesn’t. FreeBSD 4 scales absolutely terribly, largely because the kernel is protected by a single spinlock (Giant is still present but used much less in 5.0, despite what some of the FBSD zealots on this site will have you believe), critical subsystems aren’t multithreaded and there is no kernel threading support at all.
Linux works very well with up to 32 processors
Late 2.4 with a few patches scales fairly well up to 64 processors (see the Altix for an example – SGI are using a stock 2.4.19 with some scalability patches).
Why the hell do we need all those weird things like NUMA , SMPng , etc.
Most large machines are NUMA devices. These have different performance characteristics to straight SMP systems – you have to be very carful about which nodes you migrate processes to, for example. Whilst adding these features can impact performance on low end boxes, it’s possible to make the impact fairly small. Linux 2.5 exhibits slightly lower throughput than 2.4 on UP machines (on the order of a few percent), but this is more than offset by higher responsiveness.
The problem with FBSD5 is that a lot of this work isn’t anywhere near finished – they haven’t even completed implementing the new features, let alone optimising them.
some not even found on other OSes
Like what?
“Six weeks ago, John Baldwin had this to say on the matter:”
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=91498+96896+/usr/local/…
Very interesting read… looks like FreeBSD will remain a clear loser in the SMP department for awhile yet.
Where I believe FreeBSD is superior is in the libc used. Glibc, used in nearly every Linux distro out there, is an acknowledged bloated mess of a libc. It suffers from trying to port itself out to anything that wants a libc, and has been witnessed employing unsightly hacks and true voodoo to try to support platforms as ancient as Linux 2.0.36. FreeBSD’s is far leaner and probably significantly faster too.
This is very true, especially of the FreeBSD libc heap management, as I have verified for myself through my own benchmarking programs. glibc stores a linked list of free chunks, and every time this list is iterated these chunks of memory, most likely paged out, are then faulted into primary memory. This can dramatically increase the number of page faults within a process.
FreeBSD’s malloc() and free() also provide a great deal of cosistency checking per default. Because of this, the possibility of a system compromise through a double free() or other such odd behaviour (as was seen in zlib not so long ago) is completely averted.
“5.0-STABLE will NOT be ‘stable’!!!”
I think you’re confusing -RELEASE and -STABLE
“In a post comparing the FreeBSD libm to the Apple libm, FreeBSD hacker Bruce Evans added this regarding the glibc libm:
By contrast, the glibc libm is overwhelming. It has assembler versions for almost everything on several machines, including ones with long double precision…”
Well, that’s nice, but I’d be more concerned about the heap management code’s performance than libm, as virtually every application will use the heap and many are rather heap bound, as opposed to libm which is used by a fraction of applications.
“With new VM engine in linux 2.4.x things look different. Linux handles stress loads better compared to FreeBSD.
Well, I’m afraid I can only counter your unsubstantiated comment with one of my own. I don’t feel ready to release my heap/VMM benchmarking code yet, but I’ll mention this: Linux’s VMM crumples when there are large numbers of processes simultaneously requesting segment size changes.
“No, he is right. Mac OS X kernel, XNU, is based on Mach. The rest of the system is based on FreeBSD.”
Actually, XNU is made out of both Mach and FreeBSD components. XNU isn’t really a microkernel architecture… the entire kernel operates in a monolithic manner. Typically services which one wouldn’t consider necessary to the core functionality of a kernel (i.e. VFS, networking) are offloaded onto servers in Mach. Unfortunately, due to all the context switching required (user mode to kernel mode back to user mode) this results in relatively low performance, as can be seen through Be.
Apple’s solution was to replace the functionality of Mach servers with FreeBSD code. Apple grafted FreeBSD’s UBC onto the Mach VMM then added the FreeBSD VFS through the UBC. FreeBSD’s networking code is also used, so XNU is the unholy child of Mach and FreeBSD.
Of course, the truly notable aspects of FreeBSD (namely the VMM) aren’t present in XNU.
“Why the hell do we need all those weird things like NUMA , SMPng , etc. On ordinary computers the only thing they do is to slow down everything (see comments made by FreeBSD developers above). If you want further proof just have a look at Solaris.”
Solaris has no performance issues. I don’t contend that there wasn’t a great deal of overhead due to its overly elaborate internal locking in earlier releases, however especially in Solaris 9 these contentions have been optimized to the point that they are no longer noticible, even on a single user workstation. In my experience, Solaris handles loads better than any other operating system out there.
“-but witch one?”
“-The first one of course! The original one!
“-The first one wasn’t even Linux! BSD’s the first one”
“-BSWhat?”
“-Check FreeBSD.com”
OK so here i am, all installed up and nowhere to go…
…my problem is that, now that i have the darn thing installed where do i start? Does any1 know of any web site that deals with fBSD from a looser’s (W2k user) point of view? I know that MSDOS knowledge is a plus! and i have that!! tons of that… damn w9x…
“-The first one wasn’t even Linux! BSD’s the first one”
Linux predates all the free BSDs:
http://www.dina.dk/~abraham/linux-bsd-timeline.html
i *did* say that i’m a luuser (w2k user) and i have never, ever accused my friend of being a genius!…
) he may however refering to the fact that fBSD is more of a direct descendent of UNIX than Linux is. (I guess 
If anyone cares the official release announcement was posted this morning:
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.0R/announce.html
“Linux predates all the free BSDs”
Hah, depends what you consider a free BSD. If you go by the Berkeley releases the first release came out in 1978, which would put it several years before Linux
As for the versions that ran on x86, the x86 port of 4.3BSD Net/2 (which would become 386BSD and eventually FreeBSD) began in june 1991, 3 months before Linux 0.01. FreeBSD 1.0 was released december 1993, whereas Linux 1.0 wouldn’t see a release until march 1994.
1) You can download pre-compiled binaries of OpenOffice.org, goto google and put in openoffice-1.0.1_4 and choose the top link (the domain name has a .ch suffix), from there you can download binaries for both 5.x and 4.x, so the issue regarding OpenOffice.org is pretty pointless as the source of the problem is NOT FreeBSD but SUN. Now, hopefully later on, future versions of OpenOffice.org will use the GNU Java Compiler instead of the SUN Java compiler.
2) You could describe FreeBSD as Windows 2000 Pro, for the majority of people, it is stable enough, however, for people who demand stability, they will generally wait till 5.1, 5.2, or in Windows 2000 Pro words, SP1 and SP2. In these .x upgrades features will be gradually added. The features that didn’t make it into 5.0, didn’t make it because they don’t exist, they didn’t make it because they didn’t meet the strict Q&A the FreeBSD release team have. SO, the rational is that to wait until the feature is more stable, THEN merge it into the main kernel CVS later on, meaning by the time 5.3, we will have a feature complete kernel.
3) Regarding the Linux vs. FreeBSD rants. To the Linux advocates, how about try to sell me Linux again. I used it for 6 years, I found my self bored shitless with the number of complainers, lusers and fruit cakes it was attracting, then on top of that, help chat rooms going from intellegent questions to down right stupid and idiotic rants on “why can’t linux be easy”. Well, here is a hint sunshine, life is hard, life is crap, get over it and get used to it. Don’t constantly expect a nice shiny desktop to magically appear on your desktop without learning a bit.
4) “FreeBSD should be made easier”, why? please explain why should we come to you? the door is open, you can enter and try FreeBSD at no cost, the support is there, the community is there. It is up to you to make the first step. Sitting back on the side lines pissing into a black hole isn’t going to get you using FreeBSD any faster. Infact, the time people waste complaining about something being “hard to use”, they could have picked up a book and learnt how to do it. Doesn’t that tell you something. They have enough time to post a rant on osnews.com, yet, can’t find some time in the socalled “hectic schedule” to read a book.
Hah, depends what you consider a free BSD. If you go by the Berkeley releases the first release came out in 1978, which would put it several years before Linux
You had to purchase a UNIX license from AT&T to get the Berkeley improvements (it wasn’t a stand alone system) from Bill Joy.
As for the versions that ran on x86, the x86 port of 4.3BSD Net/2 (which would become 386BSD and eventually FreeBSD) began in june 1991, 3 months before Linux 0.01.
What do you mean it ‘began’ in june 1991? What I’ve read is that Bill Jolitz began already in 1989. However, he wanted to hold up the release until he felt it was good enough, and then Linux came and forced his hand.
FreeBSD 1.0 was released december 1993, whereas Linux 1.0 wouldn’t see a release until march 1994.
Yes, and? It’s the FreeBSD people who keeps pointing to the AT&T lawsuit which supposedly gave Linux’ a two year head start as the main reason for why the BSD systems hasn’t achieved the same popularity.
Thanks for the clarification about OS X.
Btw, while we were discussing here, FreeBSD-5.0 has been officialy released (yesterday).
Samb you really are a shit stirrer. Go and troll in a Linux article, this one is about FreeBSD. Matthew’s point 3 says it well. You brought the question up: why should I use FreeBSD, well why should you? And why should I use Linux? Is it betterer?
Samb you really are a shit stirrer.
If countering incorrect information and questioning specious claims is being a shit stirrer, then yeah, sure.
Go and troll in a Linux article, this one is about FreeBSD.
Boy are we insecure.
Matthew’s point 3 says it well.
Hardly. It was a moronic rant.
You brought the question up: why should I use FreeBSD, well why should you?
Where did I do that?
And why should I use Linux? Is it betterer?
I assume you are perfectly capable of choosing your own system. I’ve only discussed specific issues here, and I have absolutely no interest in a ‘roolz/drewlz’-discussion.
I suggest you submit your future ‘fuck you’-posts to /dev/null.
samb, just what is your problem, you depraved linux zealot? you have been trolling this thread looking for the slightest inconsistency in anything anyone says, then hammer them to death in response. can’t you let people discuss their own os in peace? why do you have to nitpick everything to death? it should be clear from multiple responses to your comments that the people around here don’t appreciate it.
http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html