FreeBSD 4.10 has been released and is now available on the master ftp. It should be showing up on mirrors shortly. Changes include the addition of USB2 support, a “dumb console” driver, a host of security fixes and many other tweaks. Userland utilities such as ifconfig, killall and rtld have also been updated. This release is very much an incremental one and contains no major new features. The current plans are for one more FreeBSD 4.X release which will be FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE. After that, it’s expected that FreeBSD 5.3 release will have reached the maturity level necessary for most users to be able to migrate to 5.X.
I look forward to 5.3 going STABLE and hence only one branch for software developers to target. Right now there are pieces of software and drivers thats available on one and not the other. July would be a good month. With all debug code removed, the Daemon Devil can Roar
-D
Yeah -CURRENT is awesome. Can’t wait to see 5.3-STABLE, that’s gonna rock. I wonder if that means they’ll make 5.4-CURRENT or go directly to 6.0-CURRENT. What sucks though is that Xfree 4.4 is still not in the ports.
Oracle switching to linux . Why switch to one operating system ? Why not go with BSD’s also .
The only reason why I don’t deploy FreeBSD in my company is because it lacks official support for binary updates. Otherwise, I find it better documented, better organized, and there are far less random changes to it when compared to many Linux distributions. But, because there are so many security bugs being found in all sorts of applications, it is very important that these changes can be deployed very simple and very quick.
its just good security fixes and stuff. nothing exciting really. move on
“What sucks though is that Xfree 4.4 is still not in the ports.”
Check the latest posts in the [email protected] maillist. There is now a preliminary port of XFree86 4.4.0.
FreeBSD is unfortunately not as marketable as Linux:
1. The logo/mascot — I know it’s a very cute story from the Old Days of Hackerdom, but it just doesn’t translate well to the non-technically minded. And, then non-techies finally get the joke, they realize it was all about hackers laughing at non-techies who don’t understand the word ‘daemon’. It’s time to retire the logo to the ‘history of FreeBSD’ pages, and come up with something a little more fresh and relevant. Or at least, make the logo a little more stylized and simplified. Also as unfortunately, there are quite a few cultural barriers to the perceived (anti) religious implications of the logo itself, depending on what part of the world you come from. I know that it wasn’t intended as such, and the pun is easily explained in the U.S., but I imagine countries with a heavily Christian or Catholic population (in South America, for example), who don’t similarly get The Pun, might have a harder time coming to terms with it.
2. The name — first people (especially businesspeople) see the word “Free” and think “oh no, its shareware”, and second, they see “BSD”, which is kinda, well, unexciting. Linux does have a cool, unique and memorable name. NetBSD and OpenBSD are similarly unexciting. I suppose DragonflyBSD might be a little more memorable, but it is still not so marketable. What we need is a name that grabs the imagination a little, and maybe reminds people that *BSD inherits from the origins of Unix itself, and participated in the creation of the Internet. Something like FirstOS, or Genesis.
3. The BSD license cuts both ways. While it definitely opens up more doors for business, the businesses that use BSD don’t even have to explain what they have done, beyond putting some very small notices in the system giving credit to software licensed by “The Regents of the University of California at Berkeley”, etc… This is why you can even find such notices inside http://ftp.exe and other system files in Windows 2000. So, in one way, FreeBSD is much more widespread than many people realize, but it is advertised far less. Since re-release of source is a requirement with Linux, when companies use Linux, the name is much more in the open. This has actually worked in favor of some companies anyway, since Linux provides them with marketing capital in the form of goodwill among techies, and the perception that they are fighting the great gray beast from Redmond. FreeBSD advocates need to find better ways of encouraging companies who use FreeBSD to publicize the fact, even if they don’t re-release source. Apple is the notable exception, since they freely publicize their use of FreeBSD components.
4. The story — Linux has a romantic narrative, starting with the lone hacker and general quiet nice guy Linux Torvalds, in his quest to build a new operating system. It reads well in the newspapers, especially in countries like the U.S. where we love the underdog. The FreeBSD quest was every bit as bravely fought, but there is no one engaging personality, and the early parts of the story are complicated by all the legal stuff about AT&T, Bell Labs, etc… Boring, unfortunately, to the post-MTV generation. Time for some new stories.
1. The logo/mascot
Personally, I’ve always thought that both the Linux and various BSD logos suck.
2. The name
I can’t say that I find either name (Linux or BSD) particularly cool or exciting.
3. The BSD license
I’m not entirely sure that your points here are relevant either. Like you say, BSD code is widely used, and it wouldn’t be if it were completely unknown. My own personal opinion, but it seems to me that because you aren’t forced to do anything more than give credit for the work, and not sue the authors if it breaks anything, that BSD code is as ubiquitous as it is. The GPL turns off alot of people because of the extra restrictions.
4. The story
Personally, I find the BSD story much more interesting, and just as there are people that think more like you, there are also those who have similar thoughts as I do. I personally find the “Linux story” rather dull, but it’s all personal preference, and everyone’s got their own. To me the Linux story reads kind of like a computer geeks’ version of Star Wars (an evil empire, ‘rebel forces,’ countless ‘use the source!’ jokes etc.), where as the BSD one is really a history of the various people that shaped the UNIX world.
To each their own I guess.
“1. The logo/mascot ”
actually the linux mascot is pretty successful because the penguin is something live and can be creatively used for various things.
linux is growing – penguin flies
different distro- different penguin varities and stuff
“. The BSD license
”
the gpl is actually very important for linux because it makes sure that companies can invest in linux knowing fully well that others cannot exploit their own work. they have to share. bsd license is pretty good for what it aims. near public domain that is
linux is growing – penguin flies
I refer you to this page:
http://www.despair.com/limitations.html
(a joke for a joke)
Key words in you post “they have to share.” Not all software producers want to share.
the gpl is actually very important for linux because it makes sure that companies can invest in linux knowing fully well that others cannot exploit their own work
Conversely, the BSDL is actually very important for BSD because it makes sure that companies can invest in BSD knowing fully well that others cannot exploit their own work (meaning that any modifications that companies make to the code if made closed, will not fall directly into the hands of their competitors, and BSD itself still remains free and open source).
I am not sure what you mean by lack of official support for binary updates. If it is third-party software you are looking for, then you can get pre-built packages. If you want binary updates for the base system, look for freebsd-update – http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-update/. It can update the base system for security fix releases without any need for compilation. freebsd-update is itself available as a port.
Is there anything specific you are looking for?
One thing you seem to forget is that Quantity isn’t everything, quality is.
BSD has 3 BIG distros and you know them all. All are rock solid, fulfill their purpose and are aimed strictly at computer professionals. I would assume VERY FEW computer professionals not to know about the BSDs and just how fantastic they really are. So is their origin.
Linux on the other hand is aimed at broad masses and in general it’s hard to find clear facts about which distro does what good in what way… especially the myth that Linux is so ready for desktop (still CLI is used often).
Just face the fact that BSD is better off being known to the techie elite (as in quality in this case) and Linux to the masses.
Personally I think BSD resembles innovation and I love their philosophy while I consider Linux being just a reimplementation of what BSDs already done in a more chaotic way.
And just to kill any extra myth, BSDs so far IS NOT aimed for Joe Users desktop usage (and I’d hardly find it likely for any of the 3 main to aim in that direction).
“Conversely, the BSDL is actually very important for BSD because it makes sure that companies can invest in BSD knowing fully well that others cannot exploit their own work (meaning that any modifications that companies make to the code if made closed, will not fall directly into the hands of their competitors, and BSD itself still remains free and open source).
”
thats a limitation because commericial companies involving in bsd would only enhance themselves not the bsd itself. they can keep all modifications to themselves. whats your benefit. this is esp true because they dont want to share sometimes
thats a limitation
No it isn’t. Fewer restrictions means more free.
whats your benefit?
Well, if I so chose, I could distribute derived works without needing to distribute source. I can’t think why I would choose to do that personally, but because of the less restrictive nature of the BSDL, it’s an option.
“No it isn’t. Fewer restrictions means more free. ”
not really. would you believe any country would be more free if everyone was allowed to do anything they want
“but because of the less restrictive nature of the BSDL, it’s an option.”
one that will be exploited. thats why everyone talks about gpl and not bsd
one that will be exploited
Resources aren’t useful if they can’t be exploited, and the more restrictions you place on a resource will only serve to limit the exploitability. If “everyone talks about gpl and not bsd,” then there’d be no BSDL’d code, and we’d not be having this converstaion.
RMS has done a number on you.
That’s the very reason I support it. Stop all commercial activity in the software industry, corporations are evil. I hope everything gets GPLed so we can end commercialism
you are doing circular reasoning
And you are using poor reasoning.
you havent given a counter argument for my other point at all so i guess you have none
Case in point. Just because I disagree with most of what you say, doesn’t mean that I dismiss your points just because they’re yours. If I don’t disagree with something someone says, I’ve got no reason to attack it now do I?
Kids these days…
If you can’t understand a simple concept as “less restrictive == more free” than there’s not too terribly much that I, or anyone else can say that will help you.
Which OS is “better” is irrelevant, especially based on history or logos. The fact of the matter is, it’s an issue of personal or professional preference derived from the application(not program but rather situation) it’s being used for. Joe Schmoe wants to setup a simple web server. Off the bat MS is eliminated due to price. Next you have Linux or BSD. Which is better? Again, doesn’t matter. Both work within the same relative scope for this application. One might be able to be tweaked better, and one might have 3992920100 bit encryption, and another might be able to use 500 processors; but for the majority of computer users, that’s just fodder rather than something they actually implement.
In the end, the argument over which is better is irrelevant. I use FreeBSD because I’ve learned more about “UNIXy” administration from using it than the Linux distros I’ve used. I also find the handbook extremely useful as well as various support forums. Some people might have had the exact opposite experience. It truly doesn’t matter. Arguing over which type of beer is a better use of time IMHO.;)
Arguing over … beer is a better use of time IMHO
Tastes great.
;^)
I made those posts as someone who absolutely loves FreeBSD in each area: the license, the story, and the software itself. I simply meant to show what I think are the areas that are responsible for Linux getting more hype than FreeBSD.
I think these failings are more in the area of “the public”‘s ability to grasp things, rather than failings in *BSD itself. Unfortunate, but there it is. Linux (the story, the logo, and the name), just lends itself to a more simplistic reading, and is easier to turn into slogans and headlines.
Some people seem to think I am arguing for or against the BSD/GPL license. I am not arguing either side, but merely showing why the Linux license tends to “push” the name out there more. As to which is better, that is up to those who develop the software to decide which license they will use, and up to the users to decide which they will agree with. It is simple agreement folks; let’s not get into politics again.
@Kingston –
I agree with you that the *BSD story is actually more interesting, but it is also more involved. Those of us who really like to dig into this stuff and understand will be drawn more by that. In fact, I think people who really like to dig into the underlying nature of things are more likely to get into FreeBSD. That’s us 😉
The reason why XFree86 4.4 hasn’t been commited is due to the fact that many people want to see the X.Org server and libraries replace XFree86 entirely. The usual maintainer for X11 is working on the X.Org ports and is too busy to bother with XFree86 4.4 ATM. Eventually, both will be in the tree if core thinks it’s reasonable to support both.
Well, GPL is simply more restrictive, for the Free Software-developer too. For example, I wanted to make a webserver that didn’t fall under the GPL, but another free software license. Now I wanted to borrow ± 25 lines of code to run PHP from DevPHP. If it had been BSD-licensed, that would have be no problem. But DevPHP is GPL, thus using that code would mean I should put the entire application under the GPL, which would not be possible as another part was under a GPL-incompatible license.
So now the GPL forced me to break the program into two pieces, a server and a php executer, the latter being loaded at runtime as a plugin. Now how much extra freedom did I have because DevPHP is GPL?
Besides that, I’m not really interested in FreeBSD because they think the best solution to solve hardware problems is to say I should buy other hardware. The situation was this:
During the installation, I constantly got UltraDMA timeout messages. UltraDMA works in Windows, Linux, NetBSD and OpenBSD, so I filed a bug report. Their solution: your controller is broken, so don’t use UltraDMA at all.
From a server OS, I had not expected that. But I’ve found another solution, namely moving to NetBSD. Which does support UDMA, and in addition to that it also has a working soundblaster driver.
i specifically said less restrictive can be more free in the long term
Oh really? From your earlier post:
sometimes restrictions ensure long term freeness
I can read just fine. You apparently cannot. Nor can you come up with any convincing arguments in this matter.
or do you prefer not to read it to hold on to your false beliefs
No belief is false. Some are contrary to reality (for examples, refer to your own), but none are specifically “false.” My beliefs on the other hand, are generally well thought out and open to improvement, from people with more than half a wit about them. The more you say, the more I’m sure that there’s nothing to be gained from you but a good laugh.
People should believe in what they contribute not be forced to. I don’t have a problem with people using GPL if they are centent with it, but one should not be forced to do anything – even if someone else thinks its good for someone else. I don’t like to told what software to use or not to use and at the same time I don’t like people to tell me that I have to give back. I give back because I wish to not because I am forced to. Contribution should come from belief in doing good not because one if forced to or expect things in return.
Just a personal opinion.
-D
People who contribute because they wish to are often held in higher regard than people who contribute because they are forced to.
Example 1: Someone who volunteers to pick up garbage on the streets.
Example 2: Someone who is picking up garbage because they broke some minor law and were told to by a court.
The first one probably believes in what they are doing, and doing it to make a difference. The other is doing it because they were forced to do so.
Who would you rather be recieving code (or whatever) from? I’ll stick with BSD derived code whenever possible.
“People who contribute because they wish to are often held in higher regard than people who contribute because they are forced to.
”
a license doesnt force anybody to do anything. if you do not agree to gpl dont distribute it or modify source code that comes under it. you can use it. gpl only applies to redistribution and modifications. it says so in claus 6.
free for all is not a good thing to do. i can as well as put stuff in the public domain.
i write a software A under bsd license. i work hard for years and then one day company x decides to exploit my software and put out software B. everyone says software B is better because they added some proprietary parts. i have to reimplement that stuff to compete. i am in core competing with my largely what was my own code. gpl prevents that kind of exploitation. if you dont care use bsd. no problem. i care
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/editorials/gpl_evil.html
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/BSD%20vs.%20GPL~*…
the gpl license is share alike. thats the whole point. creating a software commons.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html
a license doesnt force anybody to do anything
No, but lawyers, courts and if needed, police will.
gpl only applies to redistribution and modifications
Glad you’re on the ball guy. That’s a restriction. Something that removes a freedom.
free for all is not a good thing to do
That is not part of my argument. I’m arguing that the GPL is less free than the BSDL, not that too much freedom is good or bad.
i can as well as put stuff in the public domain and the non-sensical ramblings following it…
Repeat after me: “A gift cannot be stolen by the recipient of the gift.”
You miss the point about using the BSD license. People write software using the BSD licences to improve the quality of software for all people. Software given under a BSD licences states the lowest threshold for quality. If a commercial company takes the code, adds value to it and sells it; that’s okay, because the original developer(s) purpose is to make sure that a minimum standard of quality is there. The commercial entity had better keep up the the BSD version, if they intend to make any money from their proprietary version.
I’m not a computer professional. I came accross FreeBSD by mistake. I now follow it’s ups and downs and it’s new versions… and it’s fun! I had used Linux before, back in 1999. Quite frankly, for a regular Joe-computer enthusiast, I think FreeBSD is better than Linux (not trying to make a flame war here):
-installing software on FreeBSD, once you understand the gist of it, is a breaze
-all those Linux distros are just too hard to keep up with…some use RPM some Debian…. for a non BSc Comp Sci person…it’s just too much to keep up with…
-Once you get the hang of FreeBSD, Linux distros seem like endless islands of exeptions and competition…U.S.A. mentality I guess…
All in all I like FreeBSD because I now know how powerful it can be, it’s free, I can now out-talk any phone support from my ISP when it comes to activating my web space (‘What do you mean 24 hours to activate my site?….just type…chod…’ ‘ha ha you didn’t think Joe Caller knew any UNIX commands!) and I can fiddle with it till the cows come home and still have something new to learn.
Aside from the fact that that is the least flattering way that could have been said (good job, BTW
you are essentially correct.
Furthermore, WRT Anonymous (IP: 203.197.157.—) missing the point, I think that (he or she) would be out of (his or her) depth in a parking lot puddle.
“gpl only applies to redistribution and modifications
Glad you’re on the ball guy. That’s a restriction. Something that removes a freedom.”
no. something that protects your freedom.
free for all is not a good thing to do
That is not part of my argument. I’m arguing that the GPL is less free than the BSDL, not that too much freedom is good or bad.”
gpl protects your freedom. bsd doesnt.
Repeat after me: “A gift cannot be stolen by the recipient of the gift.””
i dont want gift code. i want to share it. you want to gift code – use bsd. if you want to share code – use gpl
gpl protects your freedom. bsd doesnt
Riiight. The most restrictive open source license this side of “Shared source,” protects our freedoms.
i dont want gift code
Then buy proprietary.
i want to share it
So you want to give gifts (with strings attatched!), but you don’t want to recieve them. Well, fair enough, in a that makes no damned sense sort of way.
if you want to share code – use gpl
I think the term “brain trust” should fit in quite nicely about here. You’re telling me that FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonFly BSD, (the ancient) 4.4BSD & 386BSD etc, etc, etc, don’t share their code?
Get a life GNU/Zealot, and get a side order of clue to go with it.
Is society more free without Ten Commandments?
Yes. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, I’m arguing that the GPL is less free than the BSDL, not about wether or not more or less freedom is good or bad.
“:
Yes. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, I’m arguing that the GPL is less free than the BSDL, not about wether or not more or less freedom is good or bad”
i am arguing that those restrictions are better than free for all bsd.
”
i dont want gift code
Then buy proprietary. ”
no need. i use gpl
“Riiight. The most restrictive open source license this side of “Shared source,” protects our freedoms. ”
the moment you say its something of shared source you lose all credibility. what compiler are using to compile all those bsd code btw?
“So you want to give gifts (with strings attatched!), but you don’t want to recieve them. Well, fair enough, in a that makes no damned sense sort of way. ”
those strings attached is called share alike. i will share code if you promise to do the same.
none of the bsd’s do that
its called copyleft too
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html
I think both has its places – and I think gpl is essential for linux. the BSDs could go with their own licence because of brand recognition and an established developer/user community – and ‘upstart’ like linux was, could have simply went down the drain before it achieved the ‘critical mass’ for sustainability.
I’m a FreeBSD user, but I think choice is what is important at the end. If a developer wants something in return for its code, be it money or non-monetary contribution – that’s absolutely fine with me – just don’t bring freedom into the picture.
“Kingston: Glad you’re on the ball guy. That’s a restriction. Something that removes a freedom.”
anonym (203.197.157.)— no. something that protects your freedom.”
I think both of you are wrong in some respect. When mr. anonymous says gpl protects your freedom he or she is wrong. Freedom is before choosing any licence, your personal freedom is exactly that: you can choose the conditions under witch you want to publish your code. You can’t argue that gpl protects your freedom – it has nothing to do with that. GPL protects the code, nothing more, nothing less. And similarly: BSD licence protects your authorship (no one can claim that he or she wrote your code) not your freedom or whatever.
Anyway … I used to be like anon, than seeing the excellent work and development model + code sharing between various BSDs focusing on different aspects – security, performance, portability, clustering – of an OS, I began to like BSD licence. Also, BSD licence is more competitive inasmuch as it demands continuous high quality work from the developers. Open source is a feature, and if a vendor strips away that feature (makes the product closed), his proprietary addons must be _THAT_ good if it wants to compete. If it is, well… laissez faire.
Now I think that everything important should be licenced under the BSD licence. I’m thinking about core technologies (which are not products in themselves), like XFree86 for instance. Why? Just think of it … If BIND or TCP/IP would have been GPL, probably closed *nix vendors would have come up with independent (and perhaps proprietary) solutions, leading to fragmentation … and the Internet would be very different (I doubt it would exist in the form we know it now). If you consider every technology that became ubiquitous – none is GPL (BIND:DNS, email:Sendmail, TCP/IP, XFree86, etc) – and freedom (yes Mr. anonymous) to do whatever you want, without the need to share was the most important incentive of large scale adaptation and standardization.
Also, think about this: would you have OpenSSH under GPL? Hellno. The OpenBSD managed to invent some really important key technologies that are used by every linux distribution. Yes, they are under a bsd licence – and apparently these technologies didn’t suffer because an evil company came and ‘exploited’ the poor developers not giving back (gasp!). If you come to think of it: most open source ‘success stories’ out there are not under the vaunted ‘protection’ of the GPL, yet they are still successful (a case in point: apache). So stop the paranoia about the evil companies please. And choose GPL if you want payment (be it modifications or whatnot) and choose BSD if you just want to give away. Freedom is the ability to make that choice, not Eben Moglen’s invention. sigh.
“Also, think about this: would you have OpenSSH under GPL? Hellno. The OpenBSD managed to invent some really important key technologies that are used by every linux distribution. Yes, they are under a bsd licence – and apparently these technologies didn’t suffer because an evil company came and ‘exploited’ the poor developers not giving back (gasp!).”
openssh implements a protocol. not really a good case for modifications. apache is a good example for it thou. for other software like linux kernel where there is a lot of commercial involvement gpl is better. dont think otherwise
” Freedom is the ability to make that choice, not Eben Moglen’s invention. sigh. ”
who said anything about eben inventing freedom. he just wrote the license on the idea of rms. its a pretty clever license if you read it.
dont think otherwise
Freedom of the code, but not of thought? Heh. You’re funny.
Well, I agree that the GPL is a fine document. It is an excellent licence for those who want something back in return for their code – which is fair enough.
Eben Moglen:
I tried to make fun of those (obviously I failed) who think that the GPL (authored by EM) gives you freedom. It makes your code and every derivative work perpetually open source. If that is your wish, than GPL gives you that: in this case your freedom is your ability to choose a license that suits your needs, and that’s all. The GPL is a legal document, it has nothing to do with personal freedom – and it has everything to do with keeping the code open source.
On the other hand, there is RMS & CO. who wants to convince (and by all accounts, they are successful) that Free Software = GPL software. Every other choice must be worse choice (just read their ‘recommendations’) – even though the BSD license is ‘tolerable’. I just think that its kinda funny (or rather, ironic) to hear them speak of freedom on one hand, and implying that everything that is non-gpl is ‘less free’. For me freedom begins with choice: if someone wants to publish code under the beerware licence (see http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/) than respect his choice and don’t do propaganda that implies that this person made a bad choice, for the only good choice is GPL.
Repeat after me: the GPL is a legal document that makes code published under its terms and all its derivatives perpetually open source. Yes, it is a masterpiece, and don’t take me wrong, I don’t have anything against it. What I dislike is propaganda. And hypocrisy (now it seems that Bruce Perens doesn’t like the GPLd KDE that much because it is less free – what a turn of events!).
freedom of thought doesnt mean you can think like an idiot.
Well, fine. that was very convincing. at least it proves my point above – which can be summarized in one sentence: be always suspicious towards someone preaching about your freedom.
”
Well, fine. that was very convincing. at least it proves my point above – which can be summarized in one sentence: be always suspicious towards someone preaching about your freedom.
”
ya sure . be paranoid. alteast it keeps your system safe and be aware
freebsd needs to be more outspoken i guess, alot of users care about performance, stability, scalability, security rather than adovocasy… linux also had key backing from corporations and the FSF… the movement grew since linux was ‘new’ and alot saw it could challege ‘M$’…
linux is just a kernel though..not an OS.
well, Yahoo! runs on FreeBSD.. most popular site in world.
“linux is just a kernel though..not an OS.”
so what. end users get distributions not a kernel or os. freebsd handbook mentions that a integrated distro like debian is pretty close to freebsd. apparently you didnt read.
“well, Yahoo! runs on FreeBSD.. most popular site in world.”
yahoo has linux servers too.
count google,amazon ebay and so on for linux
commercial support
ibm
sun
redhat
novell
hp and so on. thats not what makes a great os.
What’s it with you people? Can’t you leave any BSD topic alone? Hell some are even fighting over whether the Linux story is more romantic or the BSD one. Jesus Christ, don’t you have better things to do?
I second that. As a long time BSD user, I’m completely baffled by the toxicity of just about *every* BSD topic on osnews (not to mention slashdot, but I don’t expect much from them). As a user of open source software, I’m disturbed that in 49 posts, many of you have only accomplished the psychological equivalent of comparing penis sizes. Lest I end up being a major contributor to this steaming pile of rediculousness (oops, too late!), I’ll give you some constructive advice:
Grab 4.10 and report back bugs. Help make 4.11 a better release.
also….
Grab -current and start testing. Report bugs. Help out.
I’ll rephrase: “Help out. Help out. Help out!”
You’re spending too much time here. To answer 3BSDs question for you, you *do* have better things to do. Make yourself useful to the project that you claim to enjoy so much.
sincerely,
– another 5 year old
just because something is more popular does not mean its better. If that were true microsoft would be surperior to anything you and I would use.
Helping? Fine. So let’s take my VIA 82C586 IDE controller. According to the hardware notes, it has been supported since FreeBSD version 4.4, and since version 4.5 it is listed as ATA33. But, I constantly get DMA Write Timeout messages. Thus, I file a bug that the controller does not work as advertised. The reaction, however, is that it is known that DMA doesn’t work properly with that chip. That was in the time of version 4.8/5.0. Yet in 4.10 and 5.2.1, it is still listed as supported! And the man page still indicates that DMA should work!
Now what should I do? Filing a bug isn’t enough. Posting to freebsd-hardware neither. Should I write an OSNews article with as title “FreeBSD lies about VIA 82C586 support”, and two pages of text ranting about how bad the PR handling of FreeBSD is?
> Is there anything specific you are looking for?
Java needs to be compiled from sources.
OK, that’s not a FreeBSD fault but that’s a license thing.
But the end result doesn’t change…you needs to compile from sources.
One question, though.
Suppose I installed a fresh 5.2.1 with kde.
Is it easy to keep my desktop up-to-date with portupgrade and without having to compile from sources (except java) ?
I’m missing a good tutorial that shows how to keep binary-updated a whole 5.2 desktop.
Thanks,
Yes, it is possible. I believe “portupgrade -p” installed from binary when possible, from source otherwise, and “portupgrade -pp” only installs binary packages.
That’s from memory, so please be sure and check from the man page.
“Is it easy to keep my desktop up-to-date with portupgrade and without having to compile from sources (except java) ?”
I may be wrong here, but my impression is that FreeBSD doesn’t much update the binary packages. If you want binary updates for kde, use a Linux distro like Debian or Fedora.
There certainly isn’t anything about updating your installed binary packages in the Handbook, and I also haven’t found anything useful in this matter (except the already mentioned “portupgrade -pp”) from the manual pages.
So I’ve personally figured out that FreeBSD uses binary packages as an option for the initial software installation but the ports system is the primary means for keeping installed software up-to-date. But, as I said, I may be wrong here.
I think this is one department FreeBSD or any other BSD is way behind. Installing from sources was fine sometime back when people actually extracted some level of performance and there were not so many packages or users. But now, there are 100s of apps. and the performance difference between most apps. and the precompiled ones are what maybe 2%-4%. As a longtime FreeBSD user I have stopped compiling from sources … it simply does not cut it anymore.
DragonFly seems to be focusing on this point as a FreeBSD weakness. I think they are trying to extend pkg_add to do something like Debian’s ‘apt-get’.
“So I’ve personally figured out that FreeBSD uses binary packages as an option for the initial software installation but the ports system is the primary means for keeping installed software up-to-date. But, as I said, I may be wrong here.”
Well, the FreeBSD packages are quite up-to-date, much more so than with NetBSD, for example. However, to use portupgrade -pp, you need to have the latest revision of /usr/ports. Additionally, in the following case an upgrade will fail with -pp:
– You have installed KDE 3.1.4
– There are packages for 3.2.1
– /usr/ports has 3.2.2
This because Portupgrade will now specifically look for a binary version of KDE 3.2.2, and not notice that the available 3.2.1 package is still newer than the installed package.
Portupgrade also isn’t very fast or reliable. It is written in Ruby, which makes it quite slow, and once the entire Portupgrade script started failing for me after it upgraded the Ruby interpreter (in the new version some modules on which portupgrade depended, were moved to a separate package, yet portupgrade was still in the old version and didn’t depend on that new package…)
So if you want to keep up-to-date with binary packages, using Debian is indeed a better choice indeed.
Btw. AFAIK, pkg_version can already look whether a new version of a binary package is available – now if they only added an option for installing them…
“As a longtime FreeBSD user I have stopped compiling from sources … it simply does not cut it anymore.”
Really? Hmmm, admittedly I’m a FreeBSD noob, but I’ve had to build everything from source. I’ve been working with The Complete FreeBSD 4th edition, and it seems to me that Lehey advocates that method. Updating the whole system via cvsup is probably not going to be feasible for me as I have dialup.
Kind of OT: Matt Dillon is seriously considdering porting Debian’s apt-get to DragonFly. I admit, I didn’t see that coming.