Most people know what GNU/Linux is, but fewer know about BSD and fewer still have actually used one of the major free BSD variants. Ed Hurst, a writer and a long time GNU/Linux user, decided to give FreeBSD a try. Will Ed join the ranks of happy FreeBSD users? Find out at OfB.biz.
A Linux User Migrates to FreeBSD
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Yes, happy about waiting hours for ports to compile since there aren’t packages available for days.
Happy about practically no driver support for new hardware because Linux is the darling beauty at the moment.
Happy about some of the bizarre idiosynchrasises of the default setup (like the fact that using the default shell causes the gnome terminal window to beep while resizing).
Happy about a setup program that’s extremely simple at best and outshone even by slackware’s installer.
Happy about a kernel that doesn’t even have a text based configuration program but instead a huge text file that has to be gone through to get just the right options for your kernel.
Me bitter? Not really.
Don’t get me wrong, BSD has some nice things about it. But using it as a desktop is extremely frustrating at times.
Signed,
One frustrated FreeBSD 4.8 User.
He/she never mentions if it performs better, more stable, easier to config etc. He actually doesn’t even say what he is using it for (e.g. desktop,workstation,server,firewall etc)…
Also, it was somewhat funny that he doesn’t know the ‘top’ is not the best reporting tools out there as well as how Linux handles RAM.
I give this article 2 thumbs down ;(
While I’m ranting about FreeBSD 4.8 Desktop experiences…
I’m just “wondrously” happy that FreeBSD can’t seem to figure out what my hostname is supposed to be automatically even though every Linux distribution I’ve ever used hasn’t had this problem.
Finally, after I couldn’t find an answer anywhere, I devised my own little hack. I modified /etc/rc.d/hostname like so:
hostname_start()
{
ip=`ifconfig xl0 | grep ‘inet ‘ | awk ‘{print $2}’`
# Set the host name if it is not already set
#
if [ -z “`hostname -s`” ]; then
if [ $ip ]; then
hostname=`host $ip | awk ‘{print $5}’`
hostname ${hostname}
echo “Setting hostname: `hostname`.”
fi
fi
}
Joyous isn’t it?
Finally, after I couldn’t find an answer anywhere, I devised my own little hack. I modified /etc/rc.d/hostname like so:
You couldn’t set your hostname in /etc/host like you can in Linux? I’ll have to remeber that – thank’s
Hello all…
I’ve used FreeBSD, Linux, BeOS, and others now for some years, and I have to say that this review was really poorly done. I have installed many of the Linux distributions, as well as the bleeding edge stuff for FreeBSD… It is not that hard to do… The biggest thing I ever had a problem with was that the names of the devices are different than in Linux. So are the schemes for identifying partitions and such. If that is all, then big deal.
Maybe the reviewer, in their quest to understand a new operating system (old?!?) forgot about a little command called apropos that would have helped him immensely. xman anyone? Maybe he needs to go back to an old Linux distro and have a go at installing Slackware 2.0 for a change. Want a PITA? Make some boot / root disks and none of them work well. Try that one.
As far as the setup goes – bah to you. So you had to read the readme file. Big whoop. As far as /stand/sysinstall wiping files, what would you expect – a dialog to appear in the terminal asking if you want aq fresh clean slate, or do you want to just re-install all the files for no good reason and keep the crud that *might* be causing the problem in the first place? sysinstall clobbering logs? Well, what would you expect? It is a system installation utility, not a routine maintanence tool (even though you could use it as one) – go to http://www.freebsd.org and read some of the howto’s… I picked up Linux by good old fashioned experimentation. I also was able to sit down and learn to administer Solaris and AIX to boot after that. So, I find it very hard to believe that you had so many problems with FreeBSD – use your Linux experience to help solve your problems… Geeze…
Oh wait – maybe I shouldn’t be flaming here towards this guy. That’s right. I should be flaming mad at OSNews for using this type of crap as a news item. So a newbie to FreeBSD has a problem. If I want to read that, I can go follow USENET or something…
Brian
Why not just use Gentoo?
It’s the same idea, but you get Linux, which has a lot more packages/software and is preety much the same idea as BSD. It’s just better supported. You get do configure as much as you want in Gentoo.. anything and everything is configurable.. by hand.. or if you really want, automatically too.
Because LINUX is not BSD.
Why not just suggest Windows?
Re: Shawn
Look up: pkg_add (specifically the -r flag)
then search for hostname in:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=rc.conf&sektion=5&apropos=…
Preferably read the handbook sometime, it helps alot.
Re: Anonymous
I’m using gentoo on my laptop and I hate it. The only reason I _do_ use it is that it’s _slightly_ better than most other distros.
Honestly, I’d much rather be running freebsd: it’s better organized, it’s better documented, ports is far better than portage, and I’ve had about half the problems admining freebsd.
Why would I want to _ever_ use Gentoo (other than kernel laptop/hardware support)?
Hrmm, in /etc/rc.conf:
hostname=”blahblah”
I feel like crying for you.
Yes, happy about waiting hours for ports to compile since there aren’t packages available for days.
You have to wait *days* to get the latest 0.0.1 update of some inconsequential application ? The horror !
Happy about practically no driver support for new hardware because Linux is the darling beauty at the moment.
If you’ve got new hardware you won’t find much more solace in Linux.
Happy about a setup program that’s extremely simple at best and outshone even by slackware’s installer.
Pure, simple functionality.
Happy about a kernel that doesn’t even have a text based configuration program but instead a huge text file that has to be gone through to get just the right options for your kernel.
Because kernel options make so much more sense when you have to click a tickbox next to a meaningless term rather than insert a meaningless term into a text file, right ?
Me bitter? Not really.
You’re hiding it well
Don’t get me wrong, BSD has some nice things about it. But using it as a desktop is extremely frustrating at times.
I’d have to agree with that though. It’d a great Unix, but Unix doesn’t really make a good desktop IMHO.
Jee, don’t take it so passionately. As a non-programming Linux user, I thought that the article was rather interesting. It takes a newbie approach, which is cool for those of us who’ve migrated to Linux from Windows. I’m not sure if I’ll try one of the *BSDs, but I certainly learned a little about the experience of it from this. And mind you he is saying that there’ll be a part 2, in which he’ll test a stable release.
There’s no need to be so condescending. If you’re bent on being the alpha computer geek, go read the kernel mailing lists or something…
What, are you trying to troll both FreeBSD and Linux users?
You do understand the possible consequences, right? That it might unite us and cease the fratricidal flame wars between penguins and daemons?
Already I feel a kinship towards my BSD brethren. Together, *nix, Linux and other OSes will fight back the oppressive Monopoly and the computer ecosystem will flourish (which is good for security, too!)
Please continue trolling this board, ye foul herald of Redmond, you will only make us stronger…
…bah, it will never happen! BSD sucks! 😉
(Disclaimer: I don’t really think BSD sucks. Peace.)
I had been using various BSDs and whatever other OS was new each week for a while, but tended to keep my primary desktop on something Linux, mostly Debian and Gentoo over the years. Recently though, I started to put together my own Linux distro with LFS. It really made me question a lot of the decisions that go into Linux, and my machine at work was a mess anyway, so I decided to plop 5.1 Release on it. It’s a dual processor P4 Xeon 2.0ghz machine, and has been running great. So well I decided to switch from Gentoo at home.
The key to my success with FreeBSD is largely due to the articles of people like Dru Lavigne, and because of the great handbook and other documentation for the system. It’s clean, supports most of my hardware, and does everything I expect of it.
I guess I don’t share this guy’s experiences at all. I’d recommend FreeBSD to anyone unless they had a specific bit of unsupported hardware they couldn’t live without, or need ALSA for certain sound apps.
I have used FreeBSD as a server and as a desktop, and really enjoyed it. I’ve actually had far better luck with it than with Linux. Here’s a summary of the latest FreeBSD versus Linux comparison I did:
Mandrake Linux 9.1: Supported my wireless card after a lot of manual configuration (only distro that would work with it at all), SLOW boot, weird ACPI problems that made it lock up at odd moments
FreeBSD 5.1: Support all hardware with no manual configuration, fast boot, no ACPI problems whatsoever, only minor annoyance was that the newest point release of KDE wasn’t available for FreeBSD yet
I find FreeBSD to have better hardware support than Linux, contrary to what most people say, and that its driver system is more sensibly laid out. For that matter, FreeBSD is more sensibly laid out than any Linux distro I’ve seen (Gentoo is the only one that comes close). The FreeBSD folks really know how to build a distribution.
I really like ports, because I like having control over my installs like that. I also think it’s a good idea, because the ports makefiles can then enforce the system layout of FreeBSD without having to count on potentially sloppy makefiles that come with the packages.
The FreeBSD Kernel Config is child’s play.
It is well documented in the FreeBSD handbook. It should take 10 minutes of reading to figure out how to configure, compile, and install a kernel.
If you don’t know how to read you should NOT be pissing around with the internals of your OS.
As for the config being a text file — it is simple. If you can’t figure out how to comment-out or uncomment lines then maybe computers aren’t your thing. I remember using a menu config program for the linux kernel a couple years ago and it was the WORST most UNINTUITIVE program I had ever used. Sometimes simple is better; this is one of those times.
Hey, the only REAL reason that I use Linux is that the SiS900 network card doesn’t relly seem to be supported by FreeBSD… other than that, I probably WOULD use it! (If 5.2 does indeed have a working driver, I’d love to know! 🙂
I think what we’re seeing here is that the commercial Linux distros are becoming more mainstream, while some tinkerers are migrating to the BSD (and Gentoo) distros. All those of you who are saying “it’s really easy” and “text files are more intuitive than menus” (that’s only true if you’re comfortable with them, btw, and many people aren’t), you all sound like very techically-oriented people. That’s good. But for a lot of people, a commercial, newbie-friendly Linux distro is just what it takes.
And for the hopelessly technically-challenged, we can always use kiosk-style setups like Homebase and such… 🙂
Grab some coffee, this is going to be a long one.
Why use FreeBSD over Gentoo? Simple.
BSD is sane. Gentoo tosses installed programs where ever, has a minimum of accounting on them, and is a pain to use if you ever wish to remove a piece of software. There’s a reason most people who “switch” from KDE to GNOME on a Gentoo box reinstall their whole system, and that’s because the accounting of those packages is messed up. I’m using Gentoo on this laptop right now because I can’t get 5.1 to play nice with my hardware, and when I emerge –deep now, it informs me I need packages I unmerged, which are not required as requists to other programs, merely because they were once upon my hard drive. This is a pain.
If I need to upgrade a piece of software and all the programs it relies upon, as well as anything that relies on it, I can compile only those programs easily with portupgrade. But without it, I can still get a list of what is needed, and still compile it all by hand if I want. Because Gentoo lacks a great deal in accounting for what needs what, I would be forced to do a empty tree, and hope that it will find all the requirements, but even that only takes care of half the battle. To actually make a system stable after upgrade a base package that other programs require to run correctly, you would need to empty-tree compile the entire system again. Not fun.
And, just being a BSD as opposed to a GNU-based system can’t be discounted. The BSD tools are, IMHO, much better than the GNU ones. Perhaps if someone ported them all to Gentoo and made it so I could easily use them, I’d like Gentoo more, but, I digress.
Of course, there’s also Gentoo’s etc. I swear, you could find Hoffa in there, they put everything in /etc. The FreeBSD layouts just make more sense to me, and unfortunately Gentoo can’t easily duplicate that, as FreeBSD has a set batch of “base” tools which have their etcs in /etc, with additional tools in /usr/local/etc and /usr/X11R6/etc based on if they are commandline or X. It’s a model that works for me, and I find it makes it easier for me to find the file I want to edit fast. But again, I suppose that’s a personal preferance thing.
Going back to portage, the main thing I dislike about Gentoo is it’s lack of stability. I install 2 computers with the same USE flags within the range of a week, and one works fine, the other has trouble with certain programs such as Gdm.
/usr/src/UPDATING . Why does Gentoo lack something like this?
Basically, I guess it just ends up as a question of what works better for you. Gentoo has some high points (being Linux-based, it has some newer hardware sooner), but if I have the choice I would pick FreeBSD anytime.
I tried Lycoris and Red Hat 8 and then FreeBSD 4.7 I did not think it was that hard to install. The part’s I had trouble with were getting KDE to start and getting my wheel mouse to work. Found the how to info at bsdforums.org, made a few changes to some files and it all worked. Recompiling the kernel is easy if you follow the fantastic hand book at their site. I did mine and it worked the first time.
Now I have two boxes running FreeBSD, one a sever and the other a desktop. I picked BSD over Linux because it runs better than RH 8 and 9 did on my hardware even without a recompiled kernel. I also run Mac OS X which I tried because it is BSD based and I think it is great.
I’ve installed (or attempted to) FreeBSD three times. The first time, the Xfree configuration didn’t use correct refresh rates (though I set them correctly) and tried to kill my monitor.
The second, it misdetected my HD geometry (and refused to accept the correct settings) and wouldn’t let me create partitions–this was a few weeks ago, with 5.1-RELEASE.
Now, about five days ago, I tried it again on another computer. It installed, but this is an old monochrome LCD that only Xvesa works on; I couldn’t install it because it wouldn’t recognize my eepro100 network card.
Other gripes: BSD trolls, Csh. CSH IS HORRIBLE! Ugh.
BSD isn’t for me.
Hmm.. I think Linux is becoming more user-friendly than BSD, but that doesn’t buy it much. I have read your posts, and YOU sound like a much more technical, political person than most users, and that’s why we are going to stick with Windows.
I disagree with you on most of your points. Just curious, no offense meant: can you give an example of BSD tools being better than GNU tools?
Hmm.. I think Linux is becoming more user-friendly than BSD, but that doesn’t buy it much.
Well, it’s bought me, hasn’t it? I might not have switched to Linux if it hadn’t been for its blooming user-friendliness.
I have read your posts, and YOU sound like a much more technical, political person than most users,
Well, I’m sure I’m less technically-endowed than some of the BSD posters in this thread. Computers are a hobby, but I’m not programmer. I’d like to add that, even though I’m definitely political (which every responsible adult should be, IMHO), I’m mostly opinionated – but I don’t see what’s wrong with having opinions! This is the comments section, after all…
and that’s why we are going to stick with Windows.
Who’s we? The Anonymous masses?
“Yes, happy about waiting hours for ports to compile since there aren’t packages available for days.”
True, but I’m usually not in that much of a hurry for the latest/greatest package. I usually hold off a few days anyways, if the package lasts unchanged for a few more days it’s probably not going to blow up when I add it…
“Happy about practically no driver support for new hardware because Linux is the darling beauty at the moment.”
Definitely a problem if you’ve got new or weirdo hardware (like my parport CD Burner, unsupported on the BSD’s so I switched from FreeBSD to Slackware). So I went from M$–>FreeBSD–>GNU/Linux
“Happy about some of the bizarre idiosynchrasises of the default setup (like the fact that using the default shell causes the gnome terminal window to beep while resizing).”
XFCE for me, so can’t comment.
“Happy about a setup program that’s extremely simple at best and outshone even by slackware’s installer.”
How come people panic if they see text instead of a GUI?) IMHO /stand/sysinstall rules. Here’s why: You can establish a network connection -before- commiting any changes to your HD. The first time I installed FreeBSD was using only the 2 floppies & a dialup; if this can be done with anything else, I’m unaware of it. That was after I gave up trying to install Mandrake , Redhat from CD’s on the same box; both of whose GUI’s would freeze 2/3 of the way copying files over.
“Happy about a kernel that doesn’t even have a text based configuration program but instead a huge text file that has to be gone through to get just the right options for your kernel.”
So the book tells you the filename & where it is so that you can a) copy it somewhere in case you mess it up and b) just add a few lines to it rather than having to navigate a menu of several hundred choices when all you wanted to do was uncomment a couple of lines to, say make sound work.
I’m sorry it didn’t work out for you (bookmark all the BSD sites & give it another go sometime). I also had to finally switch to Linux ’cause of that parport CDRW that I mentioned. But I really don’t get this thing about non-GUI installers & text editors being unfriendly. The GUI installers are fine if everything happens to work perfectly on an ideal machine; but if not, it will leave you high & dry wishing for man pages & a text editor (since you don’t know what the GUI -tried- to do)
Given a choice between a GUI and decent doc’s I’ll take the doc’s thank you!
I read a otherwise very positive review this morning on Slack 9.1; unfortunately right up front they said “for developers & advanced users only” because of it’s “text based installer” 🙁
in linux … i have yet to figure out where the ‘standard’ place to install
1) Applications (e.g. openoffice, eclipse)
or
2) System/Software related apps (e.g. php,java,phython)
where do people typically install these types of software …? /usr/local ? /usr/share ? /usr/share/local ?
Also, I have heard that you shouldn’t compile an app as root since the program might later run as someone else and need root privelleges … is this true, if so – how do you compile to a directory that requires root privilleges?
Forgive me ignorance, I only want to learn
The fact that he’s trying to use linux sources without FreeBSD patches, that fact that he wasn’t using the ports system in the first place, and the fact that he used 5.0, which is outdated, and the 5 branch is not for the feint of heart, this is a totally unacceptable review of FreeBSD, related to Linux, as he’s still trying to use the system in a Linux fashion.
If this damn guy read the handbook before attempting to play with FreeBSD, he’d understand what he was doing. The damn installation process is DESCRIBED step by step in the handbook. The correct process of installing applications, managing the system, everything he attempted to review and failed, is covered.
This is the FIRST time I posted on osnews, mainly because I was shocked at how terrible this review was.
deflux
A devoted FreeBSD user.
Out of poverty, I was first drawn to Linux because it was free to obtain.
Too true. That’s the only reason I switched. If I could afford an Apple or Windows, I would be there in a second.
This review was amazingly bad I thought. He obviously didn’t even read the parts of the handbook that are relevevant to what he was doing. In my experience things usually go the other way. Since there is only one FreeBSD, if you find some documentation it’s almost guaranteed to work. Linux on the other hand…well every distro is different and there are at least ten that are in common use. There are reasons to use Linux instead of FreeBSD (mostly related to gaming etc.) but ease of use and documentation are certainly not one of them. The only reason I ever even wound up using FreeBSD was as a frustrated fu because of the nightmare that is Linux printing but I was amazed at how coherent the system is. Enough ranting, I think the FreeBSD people mentioned were entirely within their rights to say RTFM, especially since there actually is ONE manual, unlike Linux. Enough rant.
PS. Even though it probably doesn’t sound like it, I like Linux too, I’m just trying to defend another operating system that I like from an irresponsible reviewer.
PPS. Guy with the sis900, I’m running FreeBSD 5.1 with an integrated sis900 and I don’t remember doing anything special to get it working. Doesn’t mean I didn’t, but it does mean that if I did it wasn’t too horrible or I would remember it 🙂
Perhaps this is a bit of a dated review? This guy was writing about 4.8 (well, mentions waiting for it, at least) and 5.0. FreeBSD 5.1 has been out for a couple of months now, and 4.9 is in RC2 stanges…
Also, one thing that I noticed was that most of the review seemed to be about the software available for it. This really could be a review of any Linux distro as well as any BSD. It doesn’t really seem to have anything to do directly with BSD.
Slightly more OT:
I’m a Linux > FreeBSD convert. I used Linux as my main OS for about 3 years, and I played with it for 2 years before. It offered me many good things, and there are lots of good options, but I could never find one that “felt right” to me. I loved the automatic hardware setup of Redhat or Mandrake, but the tweakability of Gentoo or Debian. To me (and not necessarily to anyone else *g*) FreeBSD was a bit of a common ground between the them. Also, nearly any Linux software that’s out there either has source available to be built on a BSD system, or if it’s easier, you can run the binary. For example, OpenOffice. I’ve tried for a week to build version 1.1 without luck. (mainly due to Java problems) But I installed the binary for Linux under BSD and it works great. Also most of my hardware (fairly generic stuff) works with minimal tweaking under BSD. Some things (like my network card) I never could get going under Linux. Not a problem in BSD. Linux’s fault? No. I just didn’t “get it” on how to set it up.
On disadvantage is that I can’t get FreeBSD to use both of my processors without constantly dying. BUT, even with that, FreeBSD feels faster than Linux did when running two processors! (and I’m not too worried about running both of them anyway. I figure I have less than a year left on this machine anyway…) So, to me it really seems to outperform Linux on a system that should be running twice as fast.
I don’t feel, by any means, that BSD is for everyone. But as another convert from Linux (which I still don’t feel is a bad system at all, BTW), I thought I’d give my point of view…
As a Gentoo user, I agree with most of your arguments against portage, but I have to point out that it’s younger than ports. I suppose the issues you raised will be fixed sooner or later.
hard to install, hard to configure, hard to configure even get your soundcard working(even they confess that in their own website)
they say: ‘you have to be a rocket scientest to get your soundcard work on freebsd’
well, i’m no scientest.. just a PR guy…
i’m sure it does a great job for headless servers.. and thats where it belongs.. not our homes .. not our office desktops..
Just don’t believe if anyone comes with saying ‘freebsd is better.. faster.. easier to use’ coz its a big big big lie, tahts how i was convinced to install it. Just a loose of time
i use freebsd as a hobby. i didn’t expect it to be easy to install/use. wonder why people whining about bsd being hard to use than linux, if you want easy get windows or macosx. end of story.
I find it hard to believe that this guy is getting boot up times of around 90 seconds with linux and 60 seconds with BSD using an 800 Mhz Duron. Is this perhaps because the Linux distros he is using are in the type of RedHat, SuSe, and Mandrake? On My 1800+ I boot in about 15 seconds to command prompt and with the box i’m on now the boot time is about 20 seconds possibly less to GDM(another 1800+). These are both Gentoo boxes. Slackware and Debian should also be very fast booters. If the case is that the distrobutions he is using are of the more bloated type it is totally unfair to compare it against a more minimilistic system like BSD, otherwise I could compare FreeDOS against winxp’s boot times and act like winxp should be in the same range of boot time as freedos. I haven’t tryed the FBSD 5.x tree, but a long time ago when I was trying to find what flavor of UNIX I prefered FBSD had a SLOWER boot up than Slackware.
Also a lot of the talk about the Linux filesystem being cluttered is not completely accurate. I find that aside from the few oddities with things in/opt everything installs into a logical area as long as your comparing between the same Linux distros. It’s no argument to say well in bsd everything always lands here, but in linux it could be here or there when there is not near as much diversity in so far as type of distrobution within the BSDs as there are with Linux. I think that Gentoo is one of the worst with this, because the ebuilds aren’t exactly as centralized as the packages of a CD based distrobution such as Slackware which has a very logical filesystem layout.
As for the config being a text file — it is simple. If you can’t figure out how to comment-out or uncomment lines then maybe computers aren’t your thing. I remember using a menu config program for the linux kernel a couple years ago and it was the WORST most UNINTUITIVE program I had ever used. Sometimes simple is better; this is one of those times.
Pardon my ignorance, but do you have some comments for each option or you have to guess what the name of the option does by yourself (like editing Linux’s .config with a text editor)? If it’s the latter, well, I hardly understand how it’s more intuitive than Linux’s menuconfig. It’s not like everybody knows what the ewnh803uf module is or does.
You should never, ever try Debian’s dselect. You would probably commit suicide before you have the time to say “How the &%/@ does that program works?”. Btw, vi is a really intuitive text editor… right?
Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?
Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
FreeBSD: Are you guys coming or what?!?
🙂 I know, I know…. But it is still funny!
The writer of this article is a newcomer in FreeBSD and it describes newcomer’s experiences quite accurately. At first some things may seem more difficult than in Linux. Everything may not work as expected. Then, if you have little patience to find out how to make things work, you may learn to like FreeBSD a lot. That’s how it goes. Don’t blame the writer that he’s not yet a FreeBSD expert.
Of course, it would be also nice to read sometimes an article about an experienced user’s ‘inside view’ to FreeBSD.
About the GNU utilities being bad: the latest release of findutils (1997 or 1998) is so old that it doesn’t even compile anymore!
they say: ‘you have to be a rocket scientest to get your soundcard work on freebsd’
Maybe. But if you look in the section “Setting Up the Sound Card” you’ll find this:
To use your sound device, you will need to load the proper device driver. This may be accomplished in one of two ways. The easiest way is to simply load a kernel module for your sound card with kldload(8).
Now how difficult is it to do that?
I tend to agree, however, that NetBSD is better in some ways:
– 6 MB kernel = plug and play without delay = all hardware works immediately
– NetBSD supports DMA for my motherboard, FreeBSD doesn’t support it completely = known bug; but = not documented = changing cryptic device hints you don’t know about.
I’d rather recommend NetBSD. It’s lighter and cleaner than FreeBSD..
What, are you trying to troll both FreeBSD and Linux users?
Merely making some observations. As a snobby BSD elitist, it is my prerogative to dis Linux users and their fractured, inconsistent platform.
You do understand the possible consequences, right? That it might unite us and cease the fratricidal flame wars between penguins and daemons?
Pfft. The Linux community couldn’t unite behind anything. Otherwise they might have to stop wasting time re-inventing the wheel
.
Please continue trolling this board, ye foul herald of Redmond, you will only make us stronger…
So these days pragmatic == troll ? You people are strange.
I hope that someone will make a review that will really compare one OS with other OS in terms of performance and features, and the install process will never ever be listed in the os review. What it really metters is the packet management of the distribution and not the install phase. The install could be a separate review intended for peoples that really love to install distributions rather than use them.
Happy about a kernel that doesn’t even have a text based configuration program but instead a huge text file that has to be gone through to get just the right options for your kernel.
I think the real question is… why are you recompiling the kernel?
Chances are whatever you are trying to do can be done more properly without recompiling your kernel at all…
Unlike Linux (and more like Solaris) FreeBSD is geared towards run-time configuration via the sysctl interface and other mechanisms. The FreeBSD GENERIC kernel is intended as a “one size fits all” kernel, and shouldn’t need to be recompled except for a small set of circumstances…
Yes, happy about waiting hours for ports to compile since there aren’t packages available for days.
Oh, the life of the non-RTFM’er.
cd /usr/ports/X11/XFree86-4 & make install & cd /usr/ports/X11/kde3 & make install & cd /usr/ports/ftp/wget & make install & cd /root & /usr/local/bin/wget -c http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/DL/42534/DL/diablo-jre-1.3.1.0.tgz & pkgadd diablo-jre-1.3.1.0.tgz & cd /usr/ports/editors/openoffice & make install
That will get you up-and-running in around 9 hours using a Pentium III 550Mhz.
Happy about practically no driver support for new hardware because Linux is the darling beauty at the moment.
What devices are supported by Linux but not FreeBSD? My experience is the opposite, the support was not only “there” but better in stability and features.
Happy about some of the bizarre idiosynchrasises of the default setup (like the fact that using the default shell causes the gnome terminal window to beep while resizing).
That GNOME not FreeBSD. GNOME is a POS on FreeBSD hence the reason I moved from GNOME to kde due to the fact that the whole desktop would freeze up when selecting text from the console window.
Happy about a setup program that’s extremely simple at best and outshone even by slackware’s installer.
you have to be joking, right? FreeBSD’s installer is so easy, even *I* can use it!
Happy about a kernel that doesn’t even have a text based configuration program but instead a huge text file that has to be gone through to get just the right options for your kernel.
What is so huge about it and why on gods green earth do you need to use it? everything that is available is compiled as part of the kernel by default except SMP and HT support, which IMHO is nothing to whine about.
Me bitter? Not really.
Me bitter, yes. My list of people I hate is so long I replaced it with a list of people I like, which is very short.
Don’t get me wrong, BSD has some nice things about it. But using it as a desktop is extremely frustrating at times.
FreeBSD is great if you RTFM and follow advice instead of assuming that because you used Linux or some other *NIX, that everything is going to be the same, of which it isn’t and thank the heavens that it is that way. The last thing I want to see in FreeBSD is SYSV init scripts with 100s of directories and files floating everywhere.
alan d (IP: 213.139.216.—) – Posted on 2003-10-10 06:23:53
hard to install, hard to configure, hard to configure even get your sound-card working (even they confess that in their own web-site) they say: ‘you have to be a rocket scientist to get your sound-card work on freebsd’
well, I’m no scientist.. just a PR guy… 
So what you’re telling me that it is impossible for you to disable PnP in the BIOS and edit /boot/defaults/* and look for the part with the sound card kernel modules which start with snd* and simply apply “YES” next to the sound card drive you want loaded at boot time?
I’m no computer expert but if I can do it, I am sure *ANYONE* could, even you.
The only thing that does tick me off about FreeBSD, which is really not a FreeBSD issue, is Codeweavers promising a FreeBSD version of their Crossover Office and yet, they haven’t delivered. What’s the story with that? I am sure there are a number of FreeBSD users out there who would just love to be able to run Office and Photoshop without the need to reboot into Windows.
I can handle the fact that they haven’t released one for the early 5.x series, however, once KSE stabilises and the whole FreeBSD 5.x is put into stable “mode”, around 5.3, I don’t see any reason why someone wouldn’t want to offer a FreeBSD version.
Bascule (IP: —.client.attbi.com) – Posted on 2003-10-10 07:47:54
“Happy about a kernel that doesn’t even have a text based configuration program but instead a huge text file that has to be gone through to get just the right options for your kernel.”
I think the real question is… why are you recompiling the kernel?
Chances are whatever you are trying to do can be done more properly without recompiling your kernel at all…
Unlike Linux (and more like Solaris) FreeBSD is geared towards run-time configuration via the sysctl interface and other mechanisms. The FreeBSD GENERIC kernel is intended as a “one size fits all” kernel, and shouldn’t need to be recompiled except for a small set of circumstances…
Unfortunately there is a perpetuating myth, both with linux and freebsd that for some reason if you “modify” you kernel and ‘magically” becomes smaller, the computer will load faster. Anyone who 1/2 a clue will know it is BS.
The most I saved, when tweaking the Linux kernel was only reduced by 30K, as for the modules, who cares, they aren’t all loaded into memory at the same time as the kernel (only those that are actually USED) so who cares if they sit on the hard disk not being used? FreeBSD is the same thing, tweak the strings in GENERIC and you won’t notice a bloody difference in terms of speed.
The second myth, if you hang out at #freebsd on irc.freenode.net, is the myth that if you want sound, you have to recompile the kernel. The number of people who I have corrected cannot be counted on my fingers and toes. The myth, “oh, but I have a SoundBlaster Live!”, well, good for you. Disable PnP in the computer BIOS, make snd_emu10k1 = “YES” in the settings and reboot.
drsmithy (IP: —.lns1.bne1.internode.on.net) – Posted on 2003-10-10 07:30:54
Pfft. The Linux community couldn’t unite behind anything. Otherwise they might have to stop wasting time re-inventing the wheel
.
Forget the wheel, get a load of that dead horse getting flogged each week 😉 if it isn’t the GPL vs. the rest of the known/unknown universe, it will be the Linux vs. the rest of the known universe.
There is always some half-wit who has to play the same record each week, repeating the same garbage assuming that for some reason, they little 5 cent contribution to the debate will make a whole legion of users to suddenly “switch sides” because their half-baked idea has a grand conspiracy theory attached to it.
If it isn’t “Microsoft spies on YOU!” myth, its the “HP, SUN and Microsoft are all pro-SCO!” that does the rounds courteously my our old friend walterbyrd.
That was another reason why I moved from Linux to FreeBSD 4 years ago. Too many fan boys, one-hit-wonder users and “converts” claiming that they’ve found the light and everyone should convert to their religious zealotry.
That was another reason why I moved from Linux to FreeBSD 4 years ago. Too many fan boys, one-hit-wonder users and “converts” claiming that they’ve found the light and everyone should convert to their religious zealotry.
I don’t understand why people are switching OSes just because of a community. I agree that Linux zealots are really annoying, but it’s just a vocal minority. Every OS out there have its share of dickheads (although I must admit that Linux seems to have more). If you don’t like the community, just don’t participate or at worst try to collaborate with more reasonable people.
About the kernel file: you do have comments (very short). You have another file too, explaining about every option that may go into the kernel file (LINT).
<joke>
Heh, this OS was so cool a whyle back, but now it is like a pile of bones…I wish FBSD would make a come-back…
</joke>
Okay, thanks a lot. I don’t see that as easier or intuitive, although it’s probably more convenient for people knowing what they do.
I used FreeBSD 5.0 back in january for a few months and found it quite a joy (after the 3rd install, but that’s my fault for finding docs boring and an odd love of troubleshooting).
I absolutely adore the ports system, although I had a few problems compiling from ports and my roomates had never had any problems with portage (even though people claim ports is better than portage). I think it would be interesting if such a system could be de-centralized, although perhaps that would defeat the quality of it all.
I really liked the system organization way better than linux. I’ve tried many linux flavors, but I finally decided that Slackware fit me best, and it was refreshing to try out an OS with the same style init system. (of course, I know that slack got it from BSD).
I finaly ditched BSD (not for good) for 3 reasons:
Xfree 4.3 came out
Slackware 9.0 came out
ReiserFS support
I (foolishly?) made my data partition ReiserFS during a stage where I was testing out filesystems. I’m extremely pleased with Reiser, but BSD can’t read it, and until it can, I’ll be stuck(?) with linux.
Anyway, as a quick remark: I’ve been using linux for almost 2 years now, and I’ve never compiled the kernel. I used FreeBSD for 3 weeks, and compiled the kernel 4 times.
Take what you will from that; I can attest to the ease of compiling the FreeBSD kernel, but there’s something to be said that I was happy enough with default kernels and modules in linux that I did not need to compile my own to use all of my hardware.
I don’t understand why people are switching OSes just because of a community. I agree that Linux zealots are really annoying, but it’s just a vocal minority. Every OS out there have its share of dickheads (although I must admit that Linux seems to have more). If you don’t like the community, just don’t participate or at worst try to collaborate with more reasonable people.
I also moved because I prefered the ports method of aquiring software and updating the system.
The problem with Linux is you have half-witts like RMS, Eric Raymond and every other fruit cake jumping into the ring everytime Microsoft or SCO says their 5 cents worth about Linux or opensource. If they were grown up adults, they would ignore them. People who use or think about using Linux don’t need to have them providing cotten wool protection if Microsoft says something nasty.
Lets look at FreeBSD for example, through this whole trial I have not seen one comment by any of the core FreeBSD developers. During the GPL vs. Microsoft arguments a while back, again, you don’t see any comments by the FreeBSD community. Why? because their focus is on producing a good quality distribution and not to get into religious discussions over which license or operating system is superior.
It is interesting that this article came up since I was just installing FreeBSD last night. For some reason I always end up with hardware that is funky, to say the least.
I have a Logitech Wireless Desktop. It is being recognized since it adds devices for both the keyboard and the mouse. I even can run moused. But they just don’t work. I have no clue where to even start looking for a solution.
I also have the Netgear FA511 cardbus network card. It works fine in Linux but it seems FreeBSD does not support it. The only referencing to FA511 on FreeBSD I found on Google are links to the question whether it works or not. It is not being discussed at all even though people have asked about it for the last two years or more. Strange, because there is a Linux driver out there, so you would think that after all that time it would be in FreeBSD.
I could live without the network card, but I don’t want to give up my wireless desktop – especially since both are somewhat recognized.
Anyway, I used to run FreeBSD on my previous network and it was much fun compiling all those ports. I like the speed and easyness of FreeBSD and wish I could go back to it….
I disagree i think what happens is people get into OSS from linux then discover BSD and find it to be a cleaner more stable OSOS. I thought it was a great article a mid-level user experimenting with a new OS too bad there aren’t more people like that!
Hmm…I use gentoo, and findutils compiles just fine, and without patches — gcc 3.3.2 with aggressive optimization.
Also, regarding Linux zealots: Yes, they’re annoying. However, from my experience, BSD trolls are more so. Look at this thread: it’s ‘Linux is like Windows 95’ this and ‘Are you guys coming or what’ that. Like it or not, there is serious innovation going on in Linux, and it is at least as competitive a platform as BSD is.
I don’t see why there should be mortal rivalry between the free Unixes. Perhaps if 1337 d00dz would stop being so vocal about their preferences, we could be more at peace.
I don’t know about FreeBSD specifically but the kernel build process in NetBSD could not be more simple. The instructions are clear and almost all options are detailed out, most are self explanitory. Whats this about not having to rebuild the Kernel? Personally if i am not using a device or a particular kernel service why would i want to load it into memory to take away from other apps or otherwise make my system cluttered? Especially due to the simplicity of having just a single text file to edit to remove unused drivers<shakes head>. vi takes getting used to but i couldn’t live with out it. BTW csh does suck thats why i use ksh… not a problem.
You’re a BSD user? Somehow I find this hard to believe, especially since in another thread you were strongly defending Microsoft’s policy of making files ending in *.exe, *.vbs, *.scr, *.bat, etc. executables.
Would a snobbish BSD user argue, as you did in that thread, that usability is more important than security? I doubt it.
Jeez, you guys clearly don’t realize how bitter you sound. If you think that’s going to bring more people to try the BSDs, you’re sorely mistaken.
Why should everyone run the same OS, anyway? Interoperability is more importance than market dominance. The way some BSD users speak, it’s as if Linux was a toy OS and that “real users” used BSD. There’s nothing more pathetic than a zealot complaining about other zealots.
I know that sounds cliché, but…can’t we just all get along?
I started with linux at he same point as author: circa RH 5.1, went through SUSE, Mandrake, Slackware ( I liked it most), debian/prodigy. In the meantime I was exercising my rights to freedom by learning Net, Open and finally Free (around 4.3) and using 5.x-CURRENT from the beginning. However my experience is different than reviewer’s. Never had problem with install (of any used OS). From introduction it sounds as old sea wolf with bruises is trying to install OS and he has to use all his powers..! Barely made it.. bleeding. As someone pointed out it was even not the latest snap. I don’t need any particular experience to find out what the latest version of any OS is and where to find it. Maybe I will write CURRENT review if the spot is not taken.
Bascule
I allways re-compile kernel not only to get rid of not used options and devices but also to add POLLING, IPSec, IPFW, smbfs. If I use something often then it land in the kernel if it’s ocasional then I use modules.
CooCooCaChoo
“The second myth, if you hang out at #freebsd on irc.freenode.net, is the myth that if you want sound, you have to recompile the kernel. The number of people who I have corrected cannot be counted on my fingers and toes.
The myth, “oh, but I have a SoundBlaster Live!”, well, good for you. Disable PnP in the computer BIOS, make snd_emu10k1 = “YES” in the settings and reboot.”
One don’t even have to disable anything for SB Live! to work. Simply add to /boot/loader.conf
snd_emu10k1_load = “YES”
snd_pcm_load = “YES”
Modify /etc/sysctl.conf if want to use sound from several devices at the same time.
I never had any problems with SB Live!
Maybe I will write CURRENT review if the spot is not taken.
Actually, there is a second part to the article, where the author will write about his experience with FreeBSD 4.8 Stable.
One don’t even have to disable anything for SB Live! to work. Simply add to /boot/loader.conf
snd_emu10k1_load = “YES”
snd_pcm_load = “YES”
Modify /etc/sysctl.conf if want to use sound from several devices at the same time.
I never had any problems with SB Live!
You don’t need to put yes next to snd_pcm_load as it loads automatically. Regarding disabling PnP in BIOS, in some, but not all cases, SB Live! failes to get recognised by FreeBSD and Linux. If you disable it, FreeBSD can detect it without any problems.
Look at this thread: it’s ‘Linux is like Windows 95’ […]
The reason Linux gets called this because it is, like Windows 95, a classic case of trying to be everything to everyone. Lowest common denominator at its finest.
“Pure” unix nuts are turned off by the fragmentation, inconsistencies, poor documentation, dependency nightmares, instability and crap spewed all over the place by distribution makers.
People after an “easy to use, but it’s Unix” OS like OS X are turned off because it’s still a klunky, kludgy patchwork quilt of an OS.
Both types are turned off by the Linux evangelists (but then again so are most people).
FreeBSD is a good unix. Linux, IMHO, is not. FreeBSD developers are working together to create and maintain a cohesive, stable, mature product – and it shows. Linux developers are largely working apart and tend to have either political/religious (RMS, ESR) or completely pragmatic (Linus) motivations – and it shows.
No unix platform, IMHO, makes a good desktop unless you cover it with enough of a veneer so as to hide all the unixy bits (a la OS X) – at which point the fact there’s a unix underneath is largely irrelvant to all but a minority. You could lay Cocoa, Quartz, DisplayPDF, Aqua, etc over the top of the NT or BeOS cores and 95% of people would never even know (or care).
All this is also ignoring that from an objective perspective, unix is a freakin’ nightmare. However, it “sucks less” enough to have gained significant foothold and the voodoo involved keeps lots of people like me employed, so it thrives. Much the same reasons Windows does.
Like it or not, there is serious innovation going on in Linux […]
For example ?
Re-implementing old and new ideas (often out of sheer bloody-mindedness) is not “innovative”.
Then again, the word has been so badly abused in the last 5 – 10 years it’s really lost all of its meaning.
[…] and it is at least as competitive a platform as BSD is.
Oh, from a market perspective it’s much more competitive and will probably remain so – unless the Linux market fractures and self-destructs like the proprietry unix market did (a very real possibility).
But that’s largely because the *BSD folk aren’t really interested in doing much except creating the best product possible
.
On the other hand, there’s also the GPL, which presents big problems from the commercialisation perspective.
I don’t see why there should be mortal rivalry between the free Unixes.
So it always has been, so it always will be…
Back in the old days, young computing students became enamoured with unix (some would say “corrupted”). Honing their m4d 5k1llz in the art of unix systems administration, they came to deeply understand the zen of their pet OS. However, it was a volatile time and numerous different versions of unix appeared – all basically the same, but each having its own set of intricacies, peculiarities and secret handshakes. Different sects of unix worshippers appeared, each convinced their particular version was the best and that every other version was t3h 5ux0rs.
Which is why the unix market is massively fragmented and there aren’t really many concrete and strict standards. For example, Solaris skills can be *migrated* to HP-UX or Redhat, but they can’t be *transposed* – and vice versa.
Similarly this situation is occurring between the various free Unixes and even more so within the Linux camp itself. Most of the BSD community is too self absorbed and/or busy helping each other in their ivory towers to notice the different Linux armies battling it out in the fields below
.
Basically, the only thing that these people perceive as being valuable is their intricate and small-domain expertise in a particular flavour of an OS family. So, should some other flavour become dominant, their knowledge – and more importantly years of time invested gaining it – is worthless. Thus, much effort is expended in making sure this doesn’t happen.
I hope you have enjoyed our time today.
/pop psychology 101
I’ve never had a problem installing Linux emulation in 3+ years of using FreeBSD, either from sysinstall as the author attempted, or from ports.
I’m not a programmer, and when I started with FreeBSD, the only other OSs I’d ever used were Win3.1, Win95, and Win98.
If I could successfully install Linux emu at that point, it can’t be difficult. I think there may be some truth to the comments that the author didn’t read the excellent documentation available on FreeBSD’s website, which includes a step by step installation walkthrough with screenshots.
Re XFree 4.3.0, it’s been in ports for a long time now, with available update to version .12 (equivalent to XFree86 CVS from a month or two ago). Or if you want to be a bit adventurous, you can use CVS to get the latest XFree86 sources and compile and install them on your FreeBSD system directly. Works fine – I did it last week. (I understand that the fellow who mentioned XFree 4.3.0 had other reasons for continuing to use Slackware – just wanted to post this info for anyone else who might be curious about the state of XFree86 on FreeBSD.)
ISTM that the attitude toward recompiling the kernel may be different among Linux users than among FreeBSD users. Recompiling the kernel in FreeBSD is easy (I did it within days of my initial install, with absolutely no Linux/Unix background) and considered routine (it’s part of updating the system, which many FreeBSD users do on a weekly, biweekly, or monthly schedule). After all, why have gcc around if you’re not going to compile anything, eh? 😉 In Linux, there apparently is less need for it, and it’s considered somehow more – well, *momentous*, I guess – to do it. (I do have Gentoo installed and use it occasionally, but I have more expeience with FreeBSD.)
You’re a BSD user?
I’m a user of a lot of things. However, I don’t discriminate, they all suck in one way or another.
Somehow I find this hard to believe, […]
Undoubtedly there’s a lot of things about me you’d find hard to believe.
[…] especially since in another thread you were strongly defending Microsoft’s policy of making files ending in *.exe, *.vbs, *.scr, *.bat, etc. executables.
Actually, I believe the point I was trying to make was that if unix OSes were similarly popular (either historically or in the future), equivalent functionality would almost certainly exist.
Would a snobbish BSD user argue, as you did in that thread, that usability is more important than security? I doubt it.
As a snobbish BSD user, by definition, I can argue whatever I want
.
There is no simple, always-true answer to the question of usability vs security. Never has been and, I wager, never will be. There are as many reasons usability is more important as there are security.
Um. NO. My hostname is assigned dynamically, it changes daily. Every Linux distribution I’ve used dynamically assigns it when I boot. FreeBSD will not.
Apparently you didn’t read my comment at all. Packages that are precompiled aren’t available for days, sometimes even weeks. As such the ports have to be compiled and installed, whether that’s through pkg_add is irrelevant. Yes I am quite proficient in the use of portinstall/portupgrade, pkg_add, etc.
“Preferably read the handbook sometime, it helps alot. ”
First of all. As I mentioned before, you obviously didn’t read my comment. Secondly, I’ve read every single official handbook there is on FreeBSD including the developer handbooks. So don’t even go there
“The FreeBSD Kernel Config is child’s play.
It is well documented in the FreeBSD handbook. It should take 10 minutes of reading to figure out how to configure, compile, and install a kernel.”
Maybe for superman. But for my system I had to go digging through the LINT kernel configuration file to find all the options I needed. Then it also took a while to figure out what options were safe to remove since FreeBSD enables many options for old hardware by default. This took at least a good 30 minutes or so. I’ve done kernel configuration for certain other OS’s in far less time.
The point is that other kernel configuration programs are *much* quicker to deal with. I don’t have to worry about one kernel module depending on another usually because enabling one item enables the dependent.
Don’t be a bitter FreeBSD elitist. I’m a programmer for a living and even I find using FreeBSD *as a desktop* frustrating. Note that I never said that I wasn’t still using it, which I am.
Jeez, you guys clearly don’t realize how bitter you sound. If you think that’s going to bring more people to try the BSDs, you’re sorely mistaken.
Somehow, I don’t think that’s the objective of many of the BSD developers.
BSD development is, and always has been, very isolated and aloof.
Why should everyone run the same OS, anyway?
Heaps of reasons. Consistency, compatibility, quicker transference of knowledge, quicker development, less reliance on single individuals.
Naturally there are plenty of negatives as well.
The way some BSD users speak, it’s as if Linux was a toy OS and that “real users” used BSD.
It’s a fairly persistent attitude, fueled mainly by the behaviour of the average linux user and quality of the average linux distribution, relevant to what the average BSD user holds ideal.
There’s nothing more pathetic than a zealot complaining about other zealots.
Indeed. Watching 3-way battle between an OS/2 zealot, an Amiga zealot and a Mac zealot was truly a sight to behold.
IMHO Mac zealots are worse than Linux zealots, but at least the former really has a few things worth being zealous about. I’ve only met a few BSD zealots (one of my former bosses being the first example that springs to mind, one of the reasons I left) – most BSD people are just condescending and dismissive, if they even deign to notice you
.
I know that sounds cliché, but…can’t we just all get along?
“We” could, in the way you mean, but then “we” would end up like Microsoft and Windows. Monolithic, inflexible and ruthless.
I recompiled my kernel because, gee It’s kinda missing some important things by default. Like *SOUND SUPPORT*. Don’t know why I would want that…
Despite drsmithy’s agenda – which is obviously to help perpetuate the bitter rivalry between Linux and the BSDs – the fact of the matter is that the “fragmentation” of Linux is greatly exaggerated. For starters, all Linux distros use pretty much the same kernel – sure, there are a few patches here and there on various distros, but you can also download the sources from kernel.org and compile it on any system.
There are a few more idiosyncracies between distros, but these are relatively minor and will continue to be thanks to standardization efforts like the LSB. Apps that run on one flavor of Linux will run on another. Moreover, distro-agnostic packaging systems are in development.
And about the GPL being problematic from a “commercial perspective”: IBM clearly doesn’t think so. Of course, unlike the FUD spread forth by anti-Linux advocates, they do understand that Proprietary and Open-source can coexist, as indicated in a recent interview with Jim Stallings:
http://www.redhat.com/mktg/utb/100903_stallings_interview.html
Nobody’s forcing anyone making software for Linux to release it under the GPL. If you don’t want to use the GPL, don’t!
Finally, I personally think that Linux/*nix + KDE 3.1.4/Gnome 2.4 makes for a better desktop than a certain monopoly OS: nicer fonts, more functionalities, better security model – and no issues with the dreaded “Windows decay”. About this last item, check out Dvorak’s column on XP decay:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/1,4149,1304348,00.asp
Both types are turned off by the Linux evangelists (but then again so are most people).
Well, the evangelists must be doing something right, because the number of Linux users keeps increasing. According to IDC, desktop Linux will surpass desktop Mac users over the course of the next year.
I think rivalries between Linux and the BSDs is ridiculous. We should all ignore people like drsmith who seek to divide us, and realize we are part of the same group, Unix and Unix-like OS users opposed to any monopoly by any one OS.
“[…] especially since in another thread you were strongly defending Microsoft’s policy of making files ending in *.exe, *.vbs, *.scr, *.bat, etc. executables.”
Actually, I believe the point I was trying to make was that if unix OSes were similarly popular (either historically or in the future), equivalent functionality would almost certainly exist.
That doesn’t make any sense. Apart from breaking the Unix model and completely changing the way Linux works, why would anyone introduce such a security risk? Making files executable through their extension is a Bad Thing, and there’s no rationale why such a functionality would be added, even if *nix OSes were as prevalent as Windows.
“Why should everyone run the same OS, anyway?”
Heaps of reasons. Consistency, compatibility, quicker transference of knowledge, quicker development, less reliance on single individuals.
You don’t need everyone to run the same OS to achieve this: all you need is interoperability and open standards. And that way, with multiple OSes equally sharing market presence, you avoid the security risks of a monoculture, encourage innovation by fostering competition, and avoid any kind of vendor lock-in.
“I know that sounds cliché, but…can’t we just all get along?”
“We” could, in the way you mean, but then “we” would end up like Microsoft and Windows. Monolithic, inflexible and ruthless.
How could cooperation through diversity, interoperability and open standards lead to things being monolithic, inflexible and ruthless? This just doesn’t make any sense.
I use FreeBSD on my desktop (switched from NetBSD and a plethera(sp?) of linux distros before that), and I keep seeing people having problem with Sound Blaster Live!’s. And others putting something in /boot/loader.conf.
All I did was put “device pcm” in my kernconf.
It works perfect.
I’m using RELENG_5_1.
Oh well, It works fine, not complaining.
-adam
Quote
“I recompiled my kernel because, gee It’s kinda missing some important things by default. Like *SOUND SUPPORT*. Don’t know why I would want that..”
Why should the generic kernel include sound support? SInce FreeBSD is still predominantly a server OS what’s the point. How many servers do you know that have sound cards?
You can easily load the appropriate module.
That’s my 2 cents.
There are as many reasons usability is more important as there are security.
I’m sure Gabe Newell no longer agrees with this. Due to the fact that he used Outlook Express – a security liability if there ever was one – a cracker got inside Valve’s system, stole the source code to HL2 and some art as well (enough to build a Beta) and released to the web. This security breach, which could have been avoided if Newell had been using a mail client with arguable less “usability” (i.e. that didn’t allow to run executable attachments), now threatens the very survival of Vivendi Universal Games.
Security issues have real and serious consequences. Users won’t have a choice to sacrifice a little usability in the long run. Of course, encouraging a better market distribution of various OSes (Linux, BSDs, leading “hobby” OSes that will one day become mainstream, even Windows) can only be beneficial from an OS perspective. This is why I believe that we should not encourage rivalries between alternative OSes, but instead foster a climate of cooperation and interoperability.
If you are in Milwaukee, go to the Open Source Support group. Bet someone there can tell you that Intel network cards work fine. Or that your hard drive problem sounds like you need a BIOS upgrade. Or point out that Xfree is the same thing on *GNU/Linux as on FreeBSD, so if one works and the other does not your list of ‘complaints’ sounds more like a troll than actual concern.
I recompiled my kernel because, gee It’s kinda missing some important things by default. Like *SOUND SUPPORT*. Don’t know why I would want that…
You’ve obviously buggered up the installation and failed to read my previous post. As I have outlined, EVERYTHING is compiled into the kernel.
*_load If set to “YES”, that module will be loaded if set to “NO” then module will not be loaded. That is how I understood man page
Despite drsmithy’s agenda – which is obviously to help perpetuate the bitter rivalry between Linux and the BSDs […]
You are a very paranoid individual.
[…] the fact of the matter is that the “fragmentation” of Linux is greatly exaggerated.
You think ? How many different distros can you name ? How many different methods of managing software packages ? Patches ? Users and groups ? Different sets of default packages ? Different places for the same config files ? Init scripts ?
For starters, all Linux distros use pretty much the same kernel – sure, there are a few patches here and there on various distros, but you can also download the sources from kernel.org and compile it on any system.
The kernel is small bikkies. Practically irrelevant in this context.
And you’re really glossing over how different some of those patched kernels can be.
There are a few more idiosyncracies between distros, but these are relatively minor and will continue to be thanks to standardization efforts like the LSB.
Ah yes, “idiosyncracies” like how installed software is managed, how the OS is updated, where config files are located, what’s in a default install.
These are *not* minor issues. They greatly increase learning curve, make skills transferrence much slow and more difficult, reduce replacability and make commercial software support problematic (that’s *real* support, not “oh, I can get it installed and running after hacking around for a day”).
Apps that run on one flavor of Linux will run on another. Moreover, distro-agnostic packaging systems are in development.
Binary compatibility is problematic. Not everyone is willing or able to distribute source.
And about the GPL being problematic from a “commercial perspective”: IBM clearly doesn’t think so.
IBM are selling services, not software.
Of course, unlike the FUD spread forth by anti-Linux advocates, they do understand that Proprietary and Open-source can coexist, as indicated in a recent interview with Jim Stallings:
I never said they couldn’t co-exist, I said the GPL will present a barrier to (fast) large-scale commercial adoption.
Nobody’s forcing anyone making software for Linux to release it under the GPL. If you don’t want to use the GPL, don’t!
If you’re developing a complete product around Linux, you might not have a choice, if you build off existing code.
Finally, I personally think that Linux/*nix + KDE 3.1.4/Gnome 2.4 makes for a better desktop than a certain monopoly OS: nicer fonts, more functionalities, better security model – and no issues with the dreaded “Windows decay”. About this last item, check out Dvorak’s column on XP decay:
Just ignoring for a second that’s Dvorak – which in and of itself is reason enough to dimiss it – you’d value the opinion of someone who doesn’t even know what the idle task is or that a traceroute problem three hops out is completely unrelated to the OS ?
I think rivalries between Linux and the BSDs is ridiculous. We should all ignore people like drsmith who seek to divide us, […]
I’m just telling it like it is (and was).
I’d welcome a consistent free unix platform – it’d make my job easier.
[…] and realize we are part of the same group, Unix and Unix-like OS users opposed to any monopoly by any one OS.
Unless it’s unix-like OSes ?
“[…] especially since in another thread you were strongly defending Microsoft’s policy of making files ending in *.exe, *.vbs, *.scr, *.bat, etc. executables.”
Actually, I believe the point I was trying to make was that if unix OSes were similarly popular (either historically or in the future), equivalent functionality would almost certainly exist.
That doesn’t make any sense.
That’s because you’re fixated on “problem == windows”.
Apart from breaking the Unix model and completely changing the way Linux works,
One doesn’t need to make extensions the deciding factor of execution to expose a similar vulnerability, you just need a method of retaining the executable bit through an email.
[i]why would anyone introduce such a security risk?
Because some situation – technical need, marketing need, user request, whatever – makes it necessary. Same reason any security risk exists.
It’s a “security risk” that I don’t need a biometric reading, a hardware dongle and a 15+ character password, rotated daily, to login to my machine every day as well, but that risk exists because I couldn’t be arsed dealing with it.
Any security measures that are devised, normal people come up with workarounds so they don’t have to deal with the hassle they perceive those security measures as creating.
You don’t need everyone to run the same OS to achieve this: […]
No, but it does make them an order of magnitude or two easier.
[…]all you need is interoperability and open standards.
Which are only as good as their level of adoption. Not to mention the problem of defining them in the first place – you often end up with a camel.
And that way, with multiple OSes equally sharing market presence, you avoid the security risks of a monoculture, encourage innovation by fostering competition, and avoid any kind of vendor lock-in.
Not necessarily (see previous examples of multiple cross-platform vulnerabilities like ping-of-death).
Many computer science problems are sufficiently small-domain such that similar – if not identical – solutions are not unexpected. Additionally, the prevelence of open source would *increase* this risk, not decrease it, as existing code was reused to reduce costs and/or workloads.
Additionally, avoiding vendor lock-in at one level (the OS) doesn’t preclude it existing in other areas (application, hardware, service, etc).
This whole “drop in replaceability” you presumably envision the magic of universal open standards and interoperability making possible wouldn’t be feasible for anything except relatively trivial applications (where it’s already largely possible anyway). No-one is going to risk migrating their multi-terabyte database from Oracle to DB2 and back every few years as prices fluctuate just because they both claim to support the same “standard”.
Added to that, if everyone’s got the same product, how is one going to be able to succeed over the others ?
How could cooperation through diversity, interoperability and open standards lead to things being monolithic, inflexible and ruthless? This just doesn’t make any sense.
Because you just end up with a pseudo-democratic monolithic, inflexible and ruthless entity.
For example, it’s a reasonably prevalent belief amongst the OSS community that hardware vendors who won’t open-source their drivers should be ostracised and boycotted. If the OSS community controls 90% of the OS market, how likely is it a hardware vendor who doesn’t want to open source their driver is going to survive ?
The tyranny of the many is just as bad if you aren’t one of the “many”.
Ack, apologies. Formatting hopefully fixed.
Despite drsmithy’s agenda – which is obviously to help perpetuate the bitter rivalry between Linux and the BSDs […]
You are a very paranoid individual.
[…] the fact of the matter is that the “fragmentation” of Linux is greatly exaggerated.
You think ? How many different distros can you name ? How many different methods of managing software packages ? Patches ? Users and groups ? Different sets of default packages ? Different places for the same config files ? Init scripts ?
For starters, all Linux distros use pretty much the same kernel – sure, there are a few patches here and there on various distros, but you can also download the sources from kernel.org and compile it on any system.
The kernel is small bikkies. Practically irrelevant in this context.
And you’re really glossing over how different some of those patched kernels can be.
There are a few more idiosyncracies between distros, but these are relatively minor and will continue to be thanks to standardization efforts like the LSB.
Ah yes, “idiosyncracies” like how installed software is managed, how the OS is updated, where config files are located, what’s in a default install.
These are *not* minor issues. They greatly increase learning curve, make skills transferrence much slow and more difficult, reduce replacability and make commercial software support problematic (that’s *real* support, not “oh, I can get it installed and running after hacking around for a day”).
Apps that run on one flavor of Linux will run on another. Moreover, distro-agnostic packaging systems are in development.
Binary compatibility is problematic. Not everyone is willing or able to distribute source.
And about the GPL being problematic from a “commercial perspective”: IBM clearly doesn’t think so.
IBM are selling services, not software.
Of course, unlike the FUD spread forth by anti-Linux advocates, they do understand that Proprietary and Open-source can coexist, as indicated in a recent interview with Jim Stallings:
I never said they couldn’t co-exist, I said the GPL will present a barrier to (fast) large-scale commercial adoption.
Nobody’s forcing anyone making software for Linux to release it under the GPL. If you don’t want to use the GPL, don’t!
If you’re developing a complete product around Linux, you might not have a choice, if you build off existing code.
Finally, I personally think that Linux/*nix + KDE 3.1.4/Gnome 2.4 makes for a better desktop than a certain monopoly OS: nicer fonts, more functionalities, better security model – and no issues with the dreaded “Windows decay”. About this last item, check out Dvorak’s column on XP decay:
Just ignoring for a second that’s Dvorak – which in and of itself is reason enough to dimiss it – you’d value the opinion of someone who doesn’t even know what the idle task is or that a traceroute problem three hops out is completely unrelated to the OS ?
I think rivalries between Linux and the BSDs is ridiculous. We should all ignore people like drsmith who seek to divide us, […]
I’m just telling it like it is (and was).
I’d welcome a consistent free unix platform – it’d make my job easier.
[…] and realize we are part of the same group, Unix and Unix-like OS users opposed to any monopoly by any one OS.
Unless it’s unix-like OSes ?
“[…] especially since in another thread you were strongly defending Microsoft’s policy of making files ending in *.exe, *.vbs, *.scr, *.bat, etc. executables.”
Actually, I believe the point I was trying to make was that if unix OSes were similarly popular (either historically or in the future), equivalent functionality would almost certainly exist.
That doesn’t make any sense.
That’s because you’re fixated on “problem == windows”.
Apart from breaking the Unix model and completely changing the way Linux works,
One doesn’t need to make extensions the deciding factor of execution to expose a similar vulnerability, you just need a method of retaining the executable bit through an email.
why would anyone introduce such a security risk?
Because some situation – technical need, marketing need, user request, whatever – makes it necessary. Same reason any security risk exists.
It’s a “security risk” that I don’t need a biometric reading, a hardware dongle and a 15+ character password, rotated daily, to login to my machine every day as well, but that risk exists because I couldn’t be arsed dealing with it.
Any security measures that are devised, normal people come up with workarounds so they don’t have to deal with the hassle they perceive those security measures as creating.
You don’t need everyone to run the same OS to achieve this: […]
No, but it does make them an order of magnitude or two easier.
[…]all you need is interoperability and open standards.
Which are only as good as their level of adoption. Not to mention the problem of defining them in the first place – you often end up with a camel.
And that way, with multiple OSes equally sharing market presence, you avoid the security risks of a monoculture, encourage innovation by fostering competition, and avoid any kind of vendor lock-in.
Not necessarily (see previous examples of multiple cross-platform vulnerabilities like ping-of-death).
Many computer science problems are sufficiently small-domain such that similar – if not identical – solutions are not unexpected. Additionally, the prevelence of open source would *increase* this risk, not decrease it, as existing code was reused to reduce costs and/or workloads.
Additionally, avoiding vendor lock-in at one level (the OS) doesn’t preclude it existing in other areas (application, hardware, service, etc).
This whole “drop in replaceability” you presumably envision the magic of universal open standards and interoperability making possible wouldn’t be feasible for anything except relatively trivial applications (where it’s already largely possible anyway). No-one is going to risk migrating their multi-terabyte database from Oracle to DB2 and back every few years as prices fluctuate just because they both claim to support the same “standard”.
Added to that, if everyone’s got the same product, how is one going to be able to succeed over the others ?
How could cooperation through diversity, interoperability and open standards lead to things being monolithic, inflexible and ruthless? This just doesn’t make any sense.
Because you just end up with a pseudo-democratic monolithic, inflexible and ruthless community.
For example, it’s a reasonably prevalent belief amongst the OSS community that hardware vendors who won’t open-source their drivers should be ostracised and boycotted. If the OSS community controls 90% of the OS market, how likely is it a hardware vendor who doesn’t want to open source their driver is going to survive ?
The tyranny of the many is just as bad if you aren’t one of the “many”.
Not required. If a module needs another module to be loaded, the module will automatically load itself.
adding two modules for SB LIve! is not necessary that is true but one need to specify if lodule should be loaded or not (“YES”/”NO”)
Despite drsmithy’s agenda – which is obviously to help perpetuate the bitter rivalry between Linux and the BSDs
I dunno i find myself agreeing with Drsmithy on his points about BSD and BSD users perhaps it more than “His” agenda.
drsmithy
Actually the absolute worst are UNIX bigots! The old crusty ones that don’t wash and have beards down to their waist. Disalcaimer: If you resemble the above description and you were of the original people working on UNIX you are okay
I read in the Linux journal that linus and other linux big wigs are considering licensing Linux under the OSL(?) and abandoning the GPL becasue of the ideology and politics of stallman that goes with it. So is seems the shepards of linux are looking out for the best interest of Linux.
“Despite drsmithy’s agenda – which is obviously to help perpetuate the bitter rivalry between Linux and the BSDs […]”
You are a very paranoid individual.
Not at all. I’m only making reasonable assumptions based on what you write in your posts.
Binary compatibility is problematic.
Not really. Binary files will often be portable from one distro to another. As I have said, the fragmentation of Linux is greatly exaggerated – especially as it regards to skill transferrance. Here you are just full of it: I’ve never used anything but Mandrake, and the other day I tried Debian and RedHat and I had no trouble adjusting at all. Quit trying to make mountains out of molehills.
IBM are selling services, not software.
Who cares? Money is money. Also, I do believe that DB2, Lotus Domino and Websphere are software, not services.
If you’re developing a complete product around Linux, you might not have a choice, if you build off existing code.
More FUD. Even if you’re developing a complete product around Linux, you don’t have to use the GPL. If you want to use existing code and not have to release under the GPL, just use code under other licenses. Or you could just not build off existing code – which is what you’d have to do if you developed on another platform (and wanted to be legal, of course). Point is, you always have a choice.
“[…] and realize we are part of the same group, Unix and Unix-like OS users opposed to any monopoly by any one OS.”
Unless it’s unix-like OSes ?
No. No monopoly, by anyone. Open standards and interoperability. Don’t try to put words into my mouth – you’re already spreading enough disinformation as it is.
That’s because you’re fixated on “problem == windows”.
Well, it is mainly a Windows problem – one which you said was not a real problem because that’s what users supposedly want. You actively tried to defend this unsecure practice – don’t make me quote you!
Because some situation – technical need, marketing need, user request, whatever – makes it necessary. Same reason any security risk exists.
The thing is, there are acceptable degrees of risks, and unacceptable one. I believe that making a program executable through it’s file extension is an unacceptable risk. Same goes for “keeping the executable bit through” – which fortunately is not part of *nix OSes, and will not be. For one thing, I have yet to hear a single user ask for this.
“You don’t need everyone to run the same OS to achieve this: […]”
No, but it does make them an order of magnitude or two easier.
The price to pay (i.e. abuse of monopoly, vendor lock-in, stifling innovation) is too high. Sometimes it’s worth working a little more. A good example is a dictatorship vs. democracy: democracy is actually a lot less efficient than a dictatorship. You have to debate things, hold elections, follow public opinion, debate some more, have laws voted, etc. In a dictatorship, the dictator decides, and that’s that. Yet you wouldn’t say that a dictatorship is better than democracy, right? (Although, seeing how you go out of your way to defend an OS monopoly, I have to wonder about that last part…)
Added to that, if everyone’s got the same product, how is one going to be able to succeed over the others ?
Who said anything about everyone having the same product? Interoperability doesn’t mean being identical! Different software routinely use open file formats – that doesn’t make those software identical!
Because you just end up with a pseudo-democratic monolithic, inflexible and ruthless entity.
No, you don’t! You end up with a slightly chaotic, diverse, highly-adaptable entity. The more open things are, the more different entities start out on equal footing, the more opportunities are available. Enough with the FUD already!
For example, it’s a reasonably prevalent belief amongst the OSS community that hardware vendors who won’t open-source their drivers should be ostracised and boycotted.
Yeah, right, that’s why everybody I know who uses a NVIDIA card under Linux uses the proprietary drivers, right?
That “prevalent” belief thing is a myth, carried by a vocal minority.
If the OSS community controls 90% of the OS market, how likely is it a hardware vendor who doesn’t want to open source their driver is going to survive ?
First, who said anything about 90% of the OS market? When I talk about a diverse ecosystem, I mean one where no OS dominates the other.
And if in fact Linux held 90% of the OS market, and that there was indeed pressure on hardware vendors to make their drivers open-source (which really shouldn’t matter, since they sell hardware, not software), then that would only be market forces at work. Are you against a free market as well?
The tyranny of the many is just as bad if you aren’t one of the “many”.
For one, the “tyranny of the many” is better than the “tyranny of the few”. That’s why democracy is better than a dictatorship, remember? Secondly, a diverse computing ecosystem would not lead to a tyranny of the many, because there would be no dominating OS.
I stand for democracy (despite its inneficiency), open standards (despite the difficulty of establishing them), interoperability and a diverse OS ecosystem with no dominating force. What do you stand for?
Despite drsmithy’s agenda – which is obviously to help perpetuate the bitter rivalry between Linux and the BSDs – the fact of the matter is that the “fragmentation” of Linux is greatly exaggerated. For starters, all Linux distros use pretty much the same kernel – sure, there are a few patches here and there on various distros, but you can also download the sources from kernel.org and compile it on any system.
Strange, I’m a Linux user and I think he raised many good points, especially fragmentation. Most distros only have the kernel in common. Some distros have patched the kernel so much that it could fail on other distros. It’s not really that bad in itself, but…
Take a look at the distributions tracked by DistroWatch (http://www.distrowatch.com). There are over 100 distros and they’re not including embedded, small, floppy-based and Windows-based ones. In contrast, there are only 4 major BSD distributions around (Net, Free, Open and BSDi, although the last one is now dead). Okay, they ain’t kernel compatible, but they are sharing a lot of stuff.
Some people might think fragmentation is good, but I believe that too many choices are like not enough. They’re duplicating a lot of work to get to the same point.
There are a few more idiosyncracies between distros, but these are relatively minor and will continue to be thanks to standardization efforts like the LSB. Apps that run on one flavor of Linux will run on another. Moreover, distro-agnostic packaging systems are in development.
“Few more” is an euphemism… I used Slacky, Redhat, Gentoo, Mandrake and Debian and they’re all quite different from each other, especially the layout.
I’m only aware of two distros following the LSB right now: Redhat and SuSE. I’m pretty sure that most company-owned distros won’t follow them because of conflicts with the guidelines (like the mandatory use of RPMs). I wouldn’t put my faith in them. Distro-agnostic packing systems will probably be failures as I’m sure distros won’t like to be limited by the system of somebody else. Distros might share a similar kernel, but they don’t share the same structure/layout.
And about the GPL being problematic from a “commercial perspective”: IBM clearly doesn’t think so. Of course, unlike the FUD spread forth by anti-Linux advocates, they do understand that Proprietary and Open-source can coexist, as indicated in a recent interview with Jim Stallings:
The issue is not if OSS can coexist with proprietary solutions. It’s already proven. The question is if the GPL can. The GPL is problematic because commercial developers can’t use GPL code in their proprietary code or even link against GPL’d libraries (unless they’re LGPL’d). IBM are developing some software, but they are making money with Linux (if they do) by selling services like smithy said.
I’m not saying the GPL licence sucks. Many people have valid reasons to protect their code with the GPL. It’s just a non commercial-friendly licence.
I think rivalries between Linux and the BSDs is ridiculous. We should all ignore people like drsmith who seek to divide us, and realize we are part of the same group, Unix and Unix-like OS users opposed to any monopoly by any one OS.
Oddly, I’m not a part of any group that is opposed to any monopoly by any one OS. I use Linux just because I like it… I don’t want to flame or troll, but sadly this saying is getting closer to the reality everyday: “Linux is for those hating Microsoft, BSD is for those loving UNIX”.
These things I had to configure manually (post-install) on…
FreeBSD 5.1: XFree86, Sound, xinitrc
Slackware 9.1: XFree86
Is not that hard to install and start working, is it?
I agree. Slackware can be used by both non-developers and non-advanced users.
However, I have noticed that FreeBSD boots faster and apps runs faster as well. The ports system is nice too.
About “friends”: you can have KDE, GNOME or WindowMaker on FreeBSD or Slackware (or others) and no one will notice the difference unless he or she opens a terminal and unames. Well, you can also see if it is one or not by doing other kind of stuff.
n0dez
You know what is the perfect embodiment of “market forces at work?” Microsoft Windows. No government gave Microsoft its monopoly. The market did.
If the kind of democracy you envision is anything like the one that supposedly governs the good ol’ U S of A, drsmithy has a point. Democracy seems universally to devolve into a beast that has none of benefits of a dictatorship AND none of the benefits of a democracy: an oligarchy elected by your market forces at work.
drsmithy entertains me, which is more than market forces ever did. You hear that, market forces? You can cram it with walnuts, mister!
– paid for by the drsmithy advisory board
Who cares? Money is money. Also, I do believe that DB2, Lotus Domino and Websphere are software, not services.
IBM might make money from their software by selling services, but most companies can’t afford to GPL their products and trade secrets. That’s why using GPL’d code is out of question and in the same time makes the GPL non-commercial friendly. Of course, companies could all simply change their business model, but I live in the real world, not in some dream/ideal one.
Yeah, right, that’s why everybody I know who uses a NVIDIA card under Linux uses the proprietary drivers, right?
That “prevalent” belief thing is a myth, carried by a vocal minority.
Well, it’s the wish of Linus Torvalds and many kernel developers, if not all of them. They might be a minority, but they’re far from being insignifiant.
And if in fact Linux held 90% of the OS market, and that there was indeed pressure on hardware vendors to make their drivers open-source (which really shouldn’t matter, since they sell hardware, not software), then that would only be market forces at work.
What about trade secrets? You just can’t share stuff you’ve licenced from other companies without autorisation.
I don’t understand this anti-GPL thing at all. As commercially unfriendly as the GPL is, it is still commercially friendlier than the commercial licenses people typically have to deal with. I can’t create a closed-source derivative of (say) Linux. But I can’t create ANY derivative of Windows. If I want to create closed-source software, both doors are closed to me.
Of course, the BSD license is friendlier still and that is why there are hundreds more derivatives of BSD than there are of Linux.
Err … oh, well, don’t worry. I’m sure a market correction is in the works.
What I like from FreeBSD is the simple configuration file. Linux distributions seem to have forgotten that the etc directory is for system configuration files, not for programs. Now you will find scripts spanning hundreds of lines littering the directory. It is becomming more and more difficult when trying to change configurations. Programming 101 teaches people that they should always separate the configuration/data from the logic.
You know what is the perfect embodiment of “market forces at work?” Microsoft Windows. No government gave Microsoft its monopoly. The market did.
Then I guess “market forces” killed off DR-DOS? Market forces must of also prevented OEMs is from shipping alternatives like BeOS alongside Windows.
The GPL is problematic because commercial developers can’t use GPL code in their proprietary code
How is this less problematic than a proprietary license? Commercial developers can’t use other proprietary code in their software either, unless they license it.
If you want to make money off of software sales, then don’t base your code on existing GPL code. You can still link to libraries which, as you say, are mostly LGPL.
In contrast, there are only 4 major BSD distributions around (Net, Free, Open and BSDi, although the last one is now dead). Okay, they ain’t kernel compatible, but they are sharing a lot of stuff.
Okay, there may be a myriad Linux distros, but that’s irrelevant. There are five “main” distros (six of you count Gentoo): RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake (which follow the LSB), Debian and Slackware. And they are mostly kernel compatible. Now, it seems to me that BSD is indeed more fragmented, because they are kernel compatible at all. But I still fail to see how this is a problem. To each his own.
IBM might make money from their software by selling services, but most companies can’t afford to GPL their products and trade secrets.
As far as I can tell, neither WebSphere nor DB2 nor Lotus Domino is GPL’d, nor are the “trade secrets” open.
That’s why using GPL’d code is out of question and in the same time makes the GPL non-commercial friendly.
Then don’t use the GPL for applications! It’s as simple as that! The fact that the OS is GPLed is completely irrelevant!
Of course, companies could all simply change their business model, but I live in the real world, not in some dream/ideal one.
Could you be more condescending? I design games for game consoles (PS2, Xbox, Gamecube). My livelihood depends on proprietary products. Clearly, for game developers, the open-source model is not feasible (at least not until the game has outlived its shelf life). Now, some other companies can change their business model – in fact, some already have. Not all software needs to be proprietary, not all software needs to be open – but the OS, the underlying infrastructure of a computer should be open, IMO – or at least, it should follow open standards.
You might not care about the Windows monopoly, but I do think that the way Microsoft abuses it is detrimental to competition and innovation.
What about trade secrets? You just can’t share stuff you’ve licenced from other companies without autorisation.
I’m not sure if NVIDIA license stuff from other companies and includes that stuff in their driver. Do you have any examples or are you – yet again – playing Devil’s advocate?
If the GPL bothers you that much, why haven’t you switched to a BSD yet?
Li Shai Tung
Democracy seems universally to devolve into a beast that has none of benefits of a dictatorship AND none of the benefits of a democracy: an oligarchy elected by your market forces at work.
Well, our democracies are imperfect creatures, I’ll give you that. But an imperfect democracy is better than no democracy at all. And it does not change the point I was making: democracies may be just, but they are inneficient. That is the price to pay, and we who believe in them are ready to pay it.
I think BSD (especially OpenBSD) is wonderful for servers. For me it works in that realm better than Linux does. However, I would not want to use BSD as a desktop machine. I think Linux provides a much better desktop experience than does BSD. I, of course, have no idea what you think.
Not really. Binary files will often be portable from one distro to another.
Yes, that’s the problem. “Often” isn’t good enough.
As I have said, the fragmentation of Linux is greatly exaggerated – especially as it regards to skill transferrance. Here you are just full of it: I’ve never used anything but Mandrake, and the other day I tried Debian and RedHat and I had no trouble adjusting at all. Quit trying to make mountains out of molehills.
There’s a significant difference between playing around in a GUI and adminning dozens of servers..
Who cares? Money is money.
Anyone who currently sells software.
Also, I do believe that DB2, Lotus Domino and Websphere are software, not services.
Means to an end.
More FUD. Even if you’re developing a complete product around Linux, you don’t have to use the GPL.
Unless you link to non-LGPL code. Or make any changes.
It’s a legal minefield. Developers will avoid even the *possibility* of a GPL violation.
Or you could just not build off existing code – which is what you’d have to do if you developed on another platform (and wanted to be legal, of course).
Thus kind of defeating the purpose of OSS in the first place.
No. No monopoly, by anyone. Open standards and interoperability. Don’t try to put words into my mouth – you’re already spreading enough disinformation as it is.
Seems to me you’d be quite happy with a unix-like OS dominated market. That certainly appears to be what you’re preaching.
The thing is, there are acceptable degrees of risks, and unacceptable one. I believe that making a program executable through it’s file extension is an unacceptable risk. Same goes for “keeping the executable bit through” – which fortunately is not part of *nix OSes, and will not be. For one thing, I have yet to hear a single user ask for this.
It’s an application capability, not an OS one.
You haven’t heard any users asking for it because there aren’t any such users on the platform.
The price to pay (i.e. abuse of monopoly, vendor lock-in, stifling innovation) is too high. Sometimes it’s worth working a little more. A good example is a dictatorship vs. democracy: democracy is actually a lot less efficient than a dictatorship. You have to debate things, hold elections, follow public opinion, debate some more, have laws voted, etc. In a dictatorship, the dictator decides, and that’s that. Yet you wouldn’t say that a dictatorship is better than democracy, right? (Although, seeing how you go out of your way to defend an OS monopoly, I have to wonder about that last part…)
Actually yes you would, under certain circumstances. A democracy in a wartime situation, for example, is a huge hinderance.
Who said anything about everyone having the same product? Interoperability doesn’t mean being identical! Different software routinely use open file formats – that doesn’t make those software identical!
Well, you see, differentiating between products means that some of them have to have *unique* features. Ie: not completely interoperable or interchangeable.
No, you don’t! You end up with a slightly chaotic, diverse, highly-adaptable entity. The more open things are, the more different entities start out on equal footing, the more opportunities are available. Enough with the FUD already!
This does not seem to be a reasonable conclusion.
Yeah, right, that’s why everybody I know who uses a NVIDIA card under Linux uses the proprietary drivers, right?
As always, belief != practice when there’s only a tiny proportion of believers.
That “prevalent” belief thing is a myth, carried by a vocal minority.
A vocal minority of core developers.
First, who said anything about 90% of the OS market? When I talk about a diverse ecosystem, I mean one where no OS dominates the other.
You wouldn’t need to have one single OS dominating another for OSS to control 90% of the market.
And if in fact Linux held 90% of the OS market, and that there was indeed pressure on hardware vendors to make their drivers open-source (which really shouldn’t matter, since they sell hardware, not software), then that would only be market forces at work. Are you against a free market as well?
Depends on the situation.
Best remember it was the “free market” that put Microsoft where they are today, as well.
For one, the “tyranny of the many” is better than the “tyranny of the few”. That’s why democracy is better than a dictatorship, remember?
That depends on the circumstances.
Secondly, a diverse computing ecosystem would not lead to a tyranny of the many, because there would be no dominating OS.
There wouldn’t need to be a dominating OS, just a dominating philosophy.
I stand for democracy (despite its inneficiency), open standards (despite the difficulty of establishing them), interoperability and a diverse OS ecosystem with no dominating force. What do you stand for?
Practicality. Computers are tools.
If you are in Milwaukee, go to the Open Source Support group. Bet someone there can tell you that Intel network cards work fine. Or that your hard drive problem sounds like you need a BIOS upgrade. Or point out that Xfree is the same thing on *GNU/Linux as on FreeBSD, so if one works and the other does not your list of ‘complaints’ sounds more like a troll than actual concern.
I don’t need FreeBSD badly enough to go to some support group. My Intel card certainly didn’t work, and even if they do in theory, that doesn’t help me much. BIOS upgrade? I bought this computer four months ago. Why do I need a BIOS upgrade to run some OS that I don’t need? Xfree? I was talking about XVESA for this other comp., which is an alternative-type X server (not built by default). I couldn’t find out whether it worked on FreeBSD because my network card didn’t work. The Xfree configuration was an exact copy of my Linux XF86config, and yet it didn’t work.
My goal was to test FreeBSD on whether it was a good desktop. It failed three times. Debian and Gentoo are both much, much better.
For not only an entertaining debate but also a very informative one.
One question for BSDers: there are a multitude of people who will swear BSD is NOT Unix (all Unix code having been removed from it long ago) and just as many who will say that it is Unix…what say you?
I’ve tried out a few FreeBSDs (4.8, 5.1) and was really amazed. Nice piece of work. But it’s simply not ready for desktop use. Too many small annoyances (No native Java (at least for 5.1), some missing important apps like K3B (granted, it’s not FreeBSD’s mistake), problems with recent OpenOffice releases, and so on.
FreeBSD is IMHO a much better alternative for distro makers. Speed is incredible (even under 5.1, which is kind of unstable development release), ports system is great, and it’s not so chaotic like the one billion linux distros. Configuring and compiling an new kernel is almost fun, under linux it’s a torture.
Hey SuSE, RedHat, Mandrake! Wouldn’t it be nice to have your distros on a FreeBSD basis?
I like FreeBSD and Debian in home desktop use. I find it funny that, although they lack GUI installer and GUI sysconfig tools, system maintenance and software installation are in FreeBSD and Debian actually easier than in any GNU/Linux ‘desktop distros’. So, if you’re lazy and like to get an easy-to-maintain desktop OS with easy software installation, FreeBSD is one of the best choices available.
Several have posted that BSD has no native Java. Actually, FreeBSD (for a long time in ports, tho jdk version 1.4 requires FreeBSD 4.8 or later now due to some library improvements) and NetBSD (using pkgsrc-wip) can compile a native Java sdk.
Better yet, if you insist on not compiling Java, FreeBSD has finally convinced Sun to let them make Java binaries of jdk or jre 1.3.1, called “Diablo”. http://www.freebsdfoundation.org or in a recent ports tree. Just download the tgz and pkg_add it!
“Not really. Binary files will often be portable from one distro to another.”
Yes, that’s the problem. “Often” isn’t good enough.
Well, for the cases where there is binary incompatibility (which will usually be caused by different glibc versions), you can always recompile or repackage. Since the distro makers and volunteers take care of this, I fail to see where the problem is. In fact, most of the “problems” you talk about are not really problems at all.
There’s a significant difference between playing around in a GUI and adminning dozens of servers.
Actually, Webmin looks and works pretty much the same on every distro. Differences are minimal. Again, a false problem.
“Who cares? Money is money.”
Anyone who currently sells software.
Well, technological changes have often had economical impacts. Just ask former telephone operators if they think that replacing them with computers was a good idea…
“you don’t have to use the GPL.”
Unless you link to non-LGPL code. Or make any changes.
Well, then don’t link to non-LGPL code! BTW, the “Or make any changes” part doesn’t make any sense. Why would making changes force you to use the GPL?
It’s another false issue. FUD. You don’t want to use the GPL, just don’t! There are plenty of examples non-GPL products that work with Linux. That does not defeat the purpose of OSS, as it can still interoperate with proprietary software. On my Linux system I have MS Office, Photoshop (through Crossover Office) and Neverwinter Nights (native – oh, and distro-agnostic). Again, I fail to see the problem.
Seems to me you’d be quite happy with a unix-like OS dominated market. That certainly appears to be what you’re preaching.
No, you’re the one preaching the virtues of a monopoly market. I’m preaching for a varied ecosystem of OSes that interoperate and use open standards.
It’s an application capability, not an OS one.
Actually, the default permissions on a created file in Linux are handled by the system, not the application. So you’re wrong.
Actually yes you would, under certain circumstances. A democracy in a wartime situation, for example, is a huge hinderance.
More efficient, maybe, better, surely not. The U.S. doesn’t stop being a democracy (assuming that it is in the first place, but let’s not get into that) during war time. The government may have more powers than usual, but it’s still a democracy, and the president doesn’t become a dictator. What you’re suggesting goes against the very principles of democracy. I can’t believe how far you’re ready to go in order to avoid admitting that you are wrong!
Well, you see, differentiating between products means that some of them have to have *unique* features. Ie: not completely interoperable or interchangeable.
Not true. Photoshop and GIMP are surely interoperable (I never said anything about interchangeability – again, you put words into my mouth in order to avoid admitting that you’re wrong), and yet they each have unique features. MP3 players all use the same file format, yet some are better than others…Mplayer plays Quicktime files, yet it loads faster (and plays smoother) than the native Quicktime player…
What you’re defending is the practice of a monopoly player (MS) who can keep a stranglehold on the Office suite market by having closed, proprietary file formats and therefore hamper interoperability instead of competing on features and other aspects.
“No, you don’t! You end up with a slightly chaotic, diverse, highly-adaptable entity. […]”
This does not seem to be a reasonable conclusion.
Wow, what an argument! Well, I think you’re conclusion is not reasonable (and in fact completely fallacious). So there!
You wouldn’t need to have one single OS dominating another for OSS to control 90% of the market.
Whatever. Again, you try to twist my words because you don’t have a valid argument. When I say a diverse OS ecosystem, it is one where no OS holds a dominant position – which is what you have right now. And yet you seem to have no problem with that. As I’ve said before, you’re the one who’s supporting a market dominated by a single OS/Vendor. The fact that you also seem sympathetic to a dictatorial form of government is quite telling.
“That’s why democracy is better than a dictatorship, remember?”
That depends on the circumstances.
I disagree. There are virtually no examples of a benevolent dictatorship in history. In fact, there are quite a few examples of democracies that gave dictatorial powers to the leader in times of trouble, and it always turned out to be a bad idea. A recent example is the Weimar Republic, who did exactly that and gave birth to Nazi Germany.
Democracies may be less efficient than dictatorship, but that’s the price they have to pay.
There wouldn’t need to be a dominating OS, just a dominating philosophy.
When the dominating philosophy is openness and equality of opportunity, then one can hardly complain – unless one’s goal is to exploit everyone else!
“What do you stand for?”
Practicality. Computers are tools.
Practicality without morals led us to the worst atrocities in history. May I remind you that our society is built upon certain ideals?
Obviously we don’t share the same views, and you’ve shown that you’re ready to make outrageous claims and distort what I’ve said in order to avoid admitting that your arguments are weak. I’m tired or repeating the obvious. I guess we should just agree to disagree…
YES! Market forces did those things to DR-DOS and BeOS. Market forces concentrate power in a few entities. That is what market forces do. Power seeks to sustain itself. That is what power does. =You= may not like how the power was exercised. =I= may not like how the power was exercised. But the power could =not= have been exercised if it hadn’t already been given by the market.
All of which is ancillary to the point I was making. Great Cthulhu expressed, virtually in the same breath, belief in the free market, unhappiness with its current consequences of a Microsoft OS monopoly, and acceptance of a Linux monopoly if it came to that. The free market Cthulhu espouses made Microsoft not only likely, but inevitable. Unseat Microsoft and the free market will fill the resulting power vacuum with another monopoly. The replacement monopoly might be a Linux monopoly or some other, but there will be a monopoly.
One might argue that a Linux monopoly is no monopoly at all, since there are, as someone posted earlier in the thread, hundreds of alternative Linux distributions and the consumer can choose among them. However, a choice between Linuxes is still a choice restricted to a very narrow category of operating systems which are really quite similar to each other, regardless of how daunting their dissimilarities might. It’s certainly a broader choice than the choice between “Windows-like” operating systems, but a narrower choice than the choice between “Unix-like” operating systems and much narrower than a choice between all operating systems. A 90% dominance of Linux in the marketplace =is= a monopoly in the most significant way because, like the prevailing Microsoft monopoly, it would serve to marginalize competing ideals to the point of irrelevance.
I would love to see a diverse ecosystem where no OS dominates another. However, that will not happen. Not in the real world. Not while the free market ideal dominates our culture. Because the free market is a driving force toward uniformity. That is why McDonalds has served billions of billions of hamburgers even though nobody seems to like their food.
Great Cthulhu expressed, virtually in the same breath, belief in the free market, unhappiness with its current consequences of a Microsoft OS monopoly, and acceptance of a Linux monopoly if it came to that.
Huh, no. First of all you should know that I am a social-democrat. I do not believe in an unfettered market, and in fact I do believe that market forces, if unchecked, will inevitable lead to instability, inequality and a degradation of society as a whole. Fortunately, I live in Canada, which has not completely succumbed to laissez-faire capitalism yet (and actually, neither has the U.S., at least not as far as the military-industrial complex is concerned – but that’s another story).
Now, if you go back and read what I actually wrote instead of trying to pigeonhole me, you’d see that I asked the question to drsmithy if he was “against the free market as well”, since he seemed to have problems with democracy. Usually, those who don’t care for democracy are either authoritarians (who seek to smother democracy) or laissez-faire capitalists (who seek to render it irrelevant). I was not personally making a statement for or against market forces – the truth is, they are there, and one must learn to live with them.
I don’t believe, however, that MS’s dominance is entirely due to market forces. I do believe that they have stifled competition true abuse of their monopoly power. But that’s a different debate.
Finally, I am not advocating a Linux monopoly! I just want the OS to become more mainstream. A 25-30% market share would be fine with me – enough so that companies would make native ports of their apps and games. I also don’t think that a monopoly would automatically replace MS if its own monopoly came to pass. I don’t think monopolies are inevitable. Take the game console industry, which I know pretty well: even though Sony has a dominating lead, it’s still not a monopoly. In fact, it seems as if there is room for all three consoles – which is why a lot of companies are porting games from one console to another, or making simultaneous releases (which is what we just did with our last title).
I do agree that an unfettered free market and laissez-faire capitalism lease to uniformity and lack of competition/innovation. Markets need to be regulated to a limited degree. Again, that’s another debate and one which is quite off-topic, so we should leave it at that. I just didn’t want anyone to think I was a fiscal conservative when I’m actually to the left of the Democratic party!
However, a choice between Linuxes is still a choice restricted to a very narrow category of operating systems which are really quite similar to each other, regardless of how daunting their dissimilarities might.
You miss one important distinction: nothing is stopping someone from forking the Linux kernel or any other GPL software into whatever direction the deem fit, bundling it up and selling it, so long as they releases source code of their mods. If you’re working with BSD code, you don’t even have to share.
Likewise, nothing is preventing anyone from taking existing GPL/BSD products, bundling them, and selling them or giving them away.
The barrier to entry–a monopoly litmus test–to get into the GPL software business is exceptionally low.
Try jacking Redmond’s source code and selling it.