The clocks have fallen back, the leaves are hitting the ground and new BSD releases are on the Net. Among all the noise and buzz created by Linux, it’s important to remember that it’s not the only open source variant of Unix. OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD are all still very much alive and kicking and have recently been released from their respective projects.
Return of the BSDs
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
i think i saw somewhere that the freebsd kernel is/was the most advanced kernel to the present day
is it true?
In some respects, yes FreeBSD is the most advanced kernel. However, in other respects Solaris and Linux are better. Even the Microsoft Windows NT family of kernels have their advantages from a purely technological perspective.
There is currently no “most advanced kernel” although FreeBSD has always been one of the top contenders.
Short answer: no.
Longer answer: depends on how you define ‘most advanced kernel’. But still I doubt that using any sensible definition the FreeBSD kernel would turn out as the most advanced one. Windows, Linux, and probably every major commercial Unix variant (Solaris, AIX, maybe IRIX, HP-UX and UnixWare) are at least on par, and most probably more advanced. FreeBSD has only recently implemented proper SMP, but still lacks features found in Windows and Solaris for a long time. It still doesn’t even have a journaling FS…
And it doesn’t need a journaling FS. Its alternative (soft updates & snapshots) provides a more sensiable alternative. Google for the relavent papers, there interesting and a worth while read. Journaling is, after all, a hack.
And it is perhaps worth noting that for a long time FreeBSD had far superior memory management to linux. When I switched from Linux to FreeBSD my loki games all ran noticablly faster on the same hardware. It got fine grained SMP support about the same time linux got proper memory managment.
Yes, and I can tell you why… It’s not as strict. When I used to code on fbsd I was always amazed at how I almost never seemed to have memory troubles. Then I tried the code on a Linux machine and found it crashing consistently at several spots which worked perfectly on fbsd.
This doesn’t matter so much for users, but for developing: It really stinks. In fact, it’s probably nice for users… Well, until the program corrupts its data so bad it can’t save their work…
But, I can’t imagine releasing something *that* messed up.
Journaling is, after all, a hack.
Actually, it’s not. Softupdates is indeed very elegant, but it merely helps guarantee that there will be fewer/no inconsistencies that result in damage. It doesn’t remove the need for a complete scan and validation of the metadata after an unexpected shutdown. This need for a ‘fsck’ is a liability since it means that system is still unusable for a time once you try to bring it back up. Imagine if you unplugged your TiVo and then had to wait 30 minutes to use it after you plugged it back in. Background fsck does try to hide this by allowing the system to run normally while a fsck goes on in the background, but it’s never been as reliable as it should be and is thus not a good option for embedded or enterprise use.
Journalling, when done right, is very effective. No need for a fsck, just a quick linear replay of a relatively small bit of data. The potential performance loss from doubling writes through the journal is made up by making the accesses more linear and predictable for the drive. And while you might think it’s a hack to encapsulate metadata changes into atomic operations, it’s been incorporated into just about every filesystem written since the early-1990s.
UFS and Softupdates do perform well, but the need for journalling is inevitable.
“but the need for journalling is inevitable.”
Last time I heard the team was working on UFS journaling. I’ll have to find the article, but if I remember correctly Scott Long said it should be ready for 6.1.
Actually, you don’t need to run fsck at all after a reboot, with softupdates. All background fsck does is reclaim unused space.
Also the advantage of doubling writes in journalling is not making accesses more linear and predictable. The real advantage is that it only requires you to only write the metadata synchronously, letting you safely delay the writing of the (non-metadata) data for longer, thus saving you several disk writes for data that is written often.
Softupdates also has this advantage (and in fact, needs even less synchronous writes than journalling, in most cases).
The real problem with softupdates is the code complexity, which is much higher than journaling.
Also, ATA disks often lie when they say something has been committed to disk, because of their write cache, which might introduce some unexpected inconsistencies in the filesystem if a crash happens at the wrong time. However, this also affects journaling.
“This need for a ‘fsck’ is a liability since it means that system is still unusable for a time once you try to bring it back up.”
Actually, we’ve got background fsck for a very long time now. ie, the system isn’t stuck doing the fsck on boot.
Right, journalling is a hack, that’s why there’s ongoing effort to add it to UFS2/3, and even the GEOM layer (http://www.freebsd.org/projects/summerofcode.html)
It does have softupdates though… Yes, softupdates are not journalling but they do fulfill some related goals. I don’t know of any other OS that supports them, either.
Not in any way, shape, or form.
Linux scales higher, lower, and wider.
While Linux has spread it’s wings in can be found on just about everything from handhelds to 512-CPU supercomputers, FreeBSD basically remains where it has always been, on the webserver.
There is quite simply a huge gap between the amount of resources put into Linux versus the amount of resources put into FreeBSD. It’s simply not possible to overcome.
This is so tru!
Linus and linux is Kernal Freedom whereas BSD tries to kill Linus
Linux is indeed spreading its legs unlike bsd like sun is stealing linux kernel ideas which are superior and made by Linus himself and Free as Freedom is Free!
I use onlu Linux becouse it is best for it is made by Linus and has a Kernel unlike eg BSD or sun which doesn’t have linux kernel made by linus with gpl!!!
Wow, that’s most funny comment I ever seen in OSNews. X-D
Nobody’s stealing anybody’s ideas in free software world. BSD is definitely _NOT_ some giant proprietary company like Microsoft. They both are _FREE_ in any common sense I can think of. (Forget about those pseudoreligiopolitical debates about GPLs and BSDL and such and such and such)
Also, Linux is not made by Linus: LINUX IS MADE BY ANYBODY. Linus is just one of Linux’s whole bunch of great developers.
BTW, IMHO you should drop your star-worshipping habit and get back to the real world. Grow humans!
There is quite simply a huge gap between the amount of resources put into Linux versus the amount of resources put into FreeBSD. It’s simply not possible to overcome.
Rephrasing:
“There is quite simply a huge gap between the amount of resources put into Windows versus the amount of resources put into Linux. It’s simply not possible to overcome.”
And about the “higher, lower and wider”, I’d really suggest reading this recent article:
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=421896
The fact that Linux still has a *slightly* better scalability than FreeBSD is very far from automatically making it the best solution. A seriously pondered choice would take into account many other factors – and, I would say, security is among those with the highest importance.
So, your claiming the “superiority” of Linux versus FreeBSD is as poorly grounded as would be claiming the “superiority” of Windows versus Linux.
Besides, it is an unambiguous sign of zealot talk.
Rephrasing: “There is quite simply a huge gap between the amount of resources put into Windows versus the amount of resources put into Linux. It’s simply not possible to overcome.”
First off, I don’t know that this is true, if we limit ourselves to the actual kernel. The vast majority of MS-developers have nothing to do with the core OS.
Secondly, having a large number of developers is one thing, but you also have to make it scale, and the Linux development process has undergone many changes over the years to reflect the continuous increase in contributors.
Thirdly, my statement was a reflection of the fact that the Linux kernel has been adapted to run in far my diverse circumstances than the FreeBSD kernel. Where are the people working on putting FreeBSD on big iron, on handhelds, or on massively parallel supercomputers? The simple fact of the matter is that FreeBSD isn’t even a viable alternative on PPC yet.
And about the “higher, lower and wider”, I’d really suggest reading this recent article:
Excuse me? How exactly is that (somewhat silly) article relevant to what I’ve written?
The fact that Linux still has a *slightly* better scalability than FreeBSD
Slightly? Are you just making things up as you go along? Many of the fastest computers in the world run Linux. Four of the top five on the Top 500 Supercomputer Sites list run Linux:
http://www.top500.org/lists/plists.php?Y=2005&M=06
Hell, almost three years ago SGI demonstrated Linux scaling superbly with 64 CPUs on a single system image: http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_releases/2003/januar… 14 months later, they demonstrated the same with 256 CPUs: http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_releases/2004/march/…
Do you have any benchmarks for FreeBSD?
is very far from automatically making it the best solution.
That I agree with. But all the world is not a webserver, and there are many areas requiring heavy lifting where FreeBSD simply cannot compete.
So, your claiming the “superiority” of Linux versus FreeBSD is as poorly grounded as would be claiming the “superiority” of Windows versus Linux.
Linux’ ‘superiority’ (not a word that I would use) has been amply demonstrated to anyone who has been paying attention for the past few years.
Everybody knows that SMP and architecture scalability are Linux’ main (unique?) selling points, but it’d be really nice if you just stopped pretending that scalability is the whole deal (or even the main issue), like you’re doing in *every single point* in your reply.
It simply isn’t true.
Of course, on handhelds FreeBSD isn’t an option (nor does it try to be! Check out NetBSD for those).
Of course, on 256-CPU machines FreeBSD isn’t an option – today.
What you pretend not to know is that in the vast majority of scenarios the requirements are much closer to the ones of a web server (where FreeBSD excels) than to the ones of a handheld, or to the ones of a 256-CPU supercomputer.
In the vast majority of scenarios, what an actual professional considers in order to choose a sensible solution is very close to what’s discussed in the recent article I linked (and that, not by chance, you quickly dismissed as “silly”…)
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=421896
In the vast majority of scenarios security is one of the main concerns: much more than scalability, that’s for sure. And in those scenarios Linux’ scalability, which isn’t even remotely the main issue, is (as I said) simply *slightly* better than FreeBSD’s.
While FreeBSD is my favourite OS, I’m not bashing the others. I’m simply saying that your perspective doesn’t work in real world, because it’s much closer to the one of a Linux salesman than to the one of a serious problem solver or solution provider.
You’re way off track. How about paying attention to the matter that I was responding to, namely “i think i saw somewhere that the freebsd kernel is/was the most advanced kernel to the present day”. I adressed that question, nothing else.
As for pointing me to a substance-free boilerplate article when security issues are a matter of public record is beyond ridiculous.
The fact that Linux still has a *slightly* better scalability than FreeBSD is very far from automatically making it the best solution.
Err, Linux scalability utterly blows FreeBSD out of the water.
The last scalability benchmarks I have seen from the FreeBSD camp were this:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=freebsd-smp&m=111540468626257&w=2
Showing the VFS barely scales past 2 CPUs on this 12CPU system.
And this:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=freebsd-sparc64&m=111120677323505&w…
Showing it doesn’t even scale to 4 CPUs on the same system when doing a parallel compile workload.
Now out of interest, a parallel compile is about the easiest possible task imaginable that can be scaled in the kernel. 2 or 3 years ago, we had IBM folks demonstrate a Linux kernel compile on a 32-way system complete in about 3 seconds. SGI has posted benchmarks of parallel compile jobs on its 512 CPU systems.
But nobody is really interested in parallel compiles or rudimentry VFS operations anymore in Linux. They are basically solved problems.
And lastly:
[i]Rephrasing:
“There is quite simply a huge gap between the amount of resources put into Windows versus the amount of resources put into Linux. It’s simply not possible to overcome.”
[i]
Err, the difference is that you are wrong and parent was right. Linux has people from IBM, SGI, SUSE, RedHat, HP, Intel, NEC, Fujitsu, Sony, Unisys, and others working on it full time. On just the kernel.
And that isn’t counting all the embedded interests
that use the likes of ARM, MIPS, xtensa, cris, m32r, etc.
There is no huge gap at all, and if you actually have the Microsoft numbers, I’ll try to come back with a reasonable estimate of kernel developers.
I’ve dabbled some in FreeBSD. I installed it a few months ago (now that 6.0 is out I’m going to try it out again, if I can get my main desktop going again). I was very impressed with how professional it felt when I installed and used it. Now the new SMP standard stuff looks very interesting too.
I haven’t tried the other BSDs but I’d like to give OpenBSD a try as a web/file/print/dns/dhcp server.
Just out curiosity why are they calling this “the return of BSDs?” Did linux really take that much interest away from the BSD UNIXs?
The BSDs have always been around. You’d be surprised to learn how many front- and back-end servers on the Internet still run some form of BSD. The problem as of late is that Free/Net/OpenBSD progress is obscured by Linux hype.
I mean, for every piece of FreeBSD news on the Internet, there’s probably 20 pieces of Ubuntu news. Don’t get fooled into thinking that quantity == quality. 😉 As far as things go, I only use FreeBSD when I/someone needs a *nix server.
And for every server there are how many desktops?
So, which news do you think interests more people… Desktop OS news, or server OS news? Not that freebsd is limited to the server, I’d certainly say no; but up until pcbsd it hasn’t marketed itself to the typical desktop user like Ubuntu has…
Also, the Linux development model is notoriously more open, and thereby more friendly to [lazy] journalists.
“Also, the Linux development model is notoriously more open, and thereby more friendly to [lazy] journalists.”
Huh? Everything about the FreeBSD development model is open. If not more than Linux. You can easily grab the source for whichever version is being worked on vs having to wait for a half-assed kernel version to be released.
Doesn’t change the fact that FreeBSD is poo.
You must be Linux is poo’s cousin
:B
Yeah, FreeBSD is total shit. That’s why I can grab a binary driver for FreeBSD 4.2 and use it with FreeBSD 4.12, right? That’s why when I “install FreeBSD” I install a whole operating system that has been developed, tested, released, and supported as a whole, right?
Yeah, FreeBSD isn’t worth the media it is installed from — for sure.
Just out of curiosity … have many Linux kernels have you compiled today?
Go away LPO.
You always have nice things to say about Mac, *BSD and Windows.
And always, ALWAYS do you have to flame linux.
And never have you come up with any evidence.
You only flame flame flame.
You’re so silly you remind me of Monty Python :p
I point out negative aspects of *BSD, Windows, and OS X wherever they apply. It’s not my fault that Linux just has more of those negative aspects.
Deal with it.
“I install a whole operating system that has been developed, tested, released, and supported as a whole, right?”
FreeBSD users use that one so much it’s lost all meaning.
Sometimes, instead of wondering if these people will come up with a new argument, I wonder if they’re mentally deficient. I mean, only a fanatic nut job uses Linux, so I’m pretty sure they know how it’s developed.
So what’s the point of repeating it over & over?
We won’t go into the fact that paticular approach seems to work fine for Linux.
When was the last time I compiled a kernel? Probably the last time I used Genpoo.
Now I have a question for you;
is it the record or the player that’s broken?
Because it’s all the same crying from here.
That’s why when I “install FreeBSD” I install a whole operating system that has been developed, tested, released, and supported as a whole, right?
Sure. FreeBSD developers built gcc, apache, php, perl, etc, from the ground up, right?
Sure. FreeBSD developers built gcc, apache, php, perl, etc, from the ground up, right?
Of course, they were the easy ones. And they are much better and more secure and more scalable and better engineered and cleaner than the equivalently-named-but-crap versions that come with any Linux distro.
But wait, there’s more. They also did XFree86/Xorg, KDE, GNOME, samba, exim/sendmail/etc, bind, firefox/mozilla/etc, …
Only GCC comes with a standard installation of FreeBSD — and that’s been modified suitably for FreeBSD. However, FreeBSD releases are sync’ed with GCC releases, and the entire OS is released along with that version. It’s as much tested and supported as it were if it was their own creation.
Only GCC comes with a standard installation of FreeBSD
I think you’re confusing standard install with base packages. However you’re still wrong – they include gnu make for example.
However, FreeBSD releases are sync’ed with GCC releases, and the entire OS is released along with that version.
Oh, what a brilliant concept! Wow how amazing that it never crossed the minds of any Linux distros to do the same thing! What morons ha ha. Hey, it is our little secret now – we wouldn’t want crappy Linux to gain from such innovation by the FreeBSD wizards.
You stupid f–kstick.
I think you’re confusing standard install with base packages. However you’re still wrong – they include gnu make for example.
GNU make is not part of base, it’s installed as a port as gmake if needed. Tsk! If you’re gonna say someone’s wrong and call them names, at least get your reply right
At the end of the day it’s all a matter of choosing the trade-offs that suit you, your organization and your usage patterns. The conservative and mature development processes behind the BSD’s may trump the more agile and carefree development styles you see in many Linux’s, even if that leads to poorer hardware support and lower benchmark results; maybe anal-obsessive security or scheduler fairness are better than raw throughput for your border systems; maybe you just get fuzzier feelings using software with a particular license; maybe you just like a particular way of doing things in certain environments.
Or maybe you just like feeling superior when you pointlessly argue on random websites because you’ve mistaken your local optima for a global one.
What I termed a “standard install” was just the base package. Sorry about that.
However, you’re still wrong. Base doesn’t come with GNU’s make. It comes with BSD make. Get your facts straight, f–kstick.
There are tons of other little things. Doesn’t it come with grep by default?
“Doesn’t it come with grep by default?”
The BSD’s use their own file utilities.
What I termed a “standard install” was just the base package. Sorry about that.
Err, yeah. Get your fact straight, f–kstick.
Yeah, quite a far cry from claiming that FreeBSD uses GNU’s make. Geez. You no longer have permission to respond to any of my posts. Kthx.
It does use GNU make, just not in the base install.
I don’t see how my mistake is any worse than yours, in fact they confused basically exactly the same thing.
Oh, yeah I remember now. It’s because you’re a stupid FreeBSD zealot, so anything shit that comes out of your mouth you think is gospel.
You now have permission to lick my balls and suck my anus. Kthx.
Be specific. How does it “use” GNU make? WTF are you on?
Linux is shit, and you know it. 🙂
Shut up and keep licking my balls you dirty chink.
Wow, excellent way to prove your point. You win. I will lick your balls now. Will you be compiling Genpoo while I do so?
I see words on the screen but all I read is ching chong ching chong.
“I see words on the screen but all I read is ching chong ching chong.”
That’s because you’re supposed to read the text on the screen, not listen to the voices in your head.
Only GCC comes with a standard installation of FreeBSD
Not perl even? I find that hard to believe. Perhaps I’m thinking of OpenBSD then? At any rate, in a whole lot of situations you’ll need to rely on this cobbled together gpl’d software you seem to hate to make your BSD useful. So where’s that leave you?
But then don’t get me wrong. The modularization of both BSD’s and Linux distributions is what attracts me, especially when combined with a powerful package manager along the lines of rpm, you can’t go wrong.
The only real vital piece of GPL’ed software in FreeBSD is GCC — and the only reason the FreeBSD devs don’t write their own compiler is because they already have a good one. FreeBSD isn’t about re-inventing the wheel — they leave that up to Linux.
“Not perl even?”
Perl isn’t GPL’d, it’s under the Artistic License.
And neither is it a GNU project.
Edited 2005-11-08 03:22
Well, in a way yes. Were it not for the AT&T versus Berkeley suit in the early 90’s, everyone (probably including Linus) would have gone with the BSDs.
As it was, the BSDs were on shaky legal ground and those interested in a free open-source UNIX-derivative for IBM-compatible PCs couldn’t persuade Dr. Tannenbaum to make Minix into an all-purpose OS. Into that environment came Linus Torvalds, who WAS interested in making a free all-purpose IBM-compatible UNIX (that he wanted to call Freax [“Free UNIX”?], apparently)…
By the time the AT&T versus BSD court case ended with a victory for BSD, Linux had already taken off.
That’s pretty informative, thanks!
bsd= bitch shit distro
Great distro for servers (although people needing Java may look elsewhere), but still behind in the desktop arena. 6 is finally catching up with Linux with features such as wireless networking, but popular tools like Skype or Gizmo are nowhere to be found.
“but popular tools like Skype or Gizmo are nowhere to be found.”
Actually dude skype is in the ports collection. Gizmo isn’t, but that’s just a matter of time.
I use FreeBSD on my desktop at work.
All the other employees use Fedora Core 2.
Interface-wise, they’re equally desktop ready, the way we have it set up.
That is to say, any idiot could use it. But not any idiot could set it up the way we’ve got it set up. So, thankfully, we do it for them.
6 is finally catching up with Linux with features such as wireless networking
Linux wireless networking is a hodpe-podge of crap that barely works together. Kernel 2.6.14 is the first kernel to even include a wireless network stack, and few of the wireless drivers in the kernel have been converted to use it. There’s also a bazillion different tools needed to configure a wireless interface: iwconfig for some parts, ifconfig for others, iwpriv for others <NIC>control for still others. Then there’s the bits needed to support roaming, WPA, and to keep track of multiple network configs.
Compare that to FreeBSD 6: ifconfig configures everything related to networking, including the wireless bits. wpa_supplicant handles auto-configuring based on various network settings (want to connect to a home network, and office network, and the local coffeeshop: put three network{} blocks in /etc/wpa_supplicant.conf and you’re done). Most of the wireless drivers in FreeBSD 5+ have been converted to use the included wireless stack. In a word, wireless networking on FreeBSD is simple, straightforward, and logical.
Wireless networking on Linux is a horrid mess.
Works fine for me. Unlike freebsd.
“In a word, wireless networking on FreeBSD is simple, straightforward, and logical.
Wireless networking on Linux is a horrid mess.”
Well, one thing that matters to me is what can i use it for:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=wi&sektion=4
“Lucent Hermes, Intersil PRISM and Spectrum24”
Hello? Anybody said something about _support_?
I won’t use any proprietary Windows drivers (for obvious reasons).
And no, I’m not a Linux zealot, I like BSDs. The thing is, both Linux and BSDs have some shortcomings in this area.
“http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=wi&sektion=4“
“Lucent Hermes, Intersil PRISM and Spectrum24”
That’s not a fair query, wi isnt the only driver:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=802.11&apropos=1
“That’s not a fair query, wi isnt the only driver”
You got me (damn, i’ve agreed that i’m an ignorant, not good
).
But returning to the previous comment, it’s not that scary to use wireless on Linux (surely not a mess as it was suggested) and there is a way too big risk that the card you have won’t work – either on Linux or *BSD.
rtl-8180 based thingy is working well with a decent driver on Linux but i’d rather blame manufacturers for the messy situation we have, not the implementators.
wireless networking on mandriva and ubuntu badger are very easy if you find the config tool. usuing the 2.6.12 kernel.
Depends on your needs. Ubuntu Badger doesn’t support WPA out of the box since it doesn’t include wpa_supplicant. You can find it in universe, but it’s unsupported. Does it matter? Well, given that WEP can be broken in minutes, I would say yes…
In that aspect, I think FreeBSD got it right.
herr… pkg_add -r skype <- so easy
After people cut there teeth on linux they usually come to FreeBSD. gentoo users keep complaining that FreeBSD keeps stealing their users. (http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-137284-highlight-freebsd.html).
Also linux is not even on the list 🙂 http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
For the life of me I can’t understand why FreeBSD is not the buzz instead of linux
Probably because of better marketing/hype and the development model started by Linus.
-bytecoder
and the development model started by Linus.
Ok, this is just plain funny. Which development model? The one where hundreds of people sumbit patches directly to him, and he has to track them by hand and try to integrate them together, resolving conflicts for code that he didn’t write and might not fully understand? The one where there was no public development tree, only the trees that Torvalds would toss out periodically? The one where it was impossible to track changes or history of code? Yeah, that had a very cool populist feel to it. But in reality, the 2.5/2.6 development really only took off when Torvalds acquieced to minimal engineering standards and adopted a source control system. It was actually pretty scary how efficient the development process became because of that. But those days are gone, and 2.6 development seems to have dramatically slowed again as a result. Oh well =-)
”
Ok, this is just plain funny. Which development model?”
Distributed development model instead of a centralised source
“But those days are gone, and 2.6 development seems to have dramatically slowed again as a result. Oh well =-)”
You are really sure? It seems pretty fast to me
http://wiki.kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges
Distributed development model instead of a centralised source
Right, the distributed model where the development tree was kept on a private computer and only given out periodically when a single person felt like it? The one where no one except Torvalds could see the or review the minute-by-minute changes? Ya, that’s pretty distributed. Too bad that CVS is such a closed, priate, elitist system =-)
”
Right, the distributed model where the development tree was kept on a private computer and only given out periodically when a single person felt like it?”
The patchsets were posted very often pre 2.5. The latest tree was hosted in bk from around the 2.5 days
Here is the current status using git
http://kernel.org/git
Gee, you make it sound so glamorous
Have you read the
Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond? It’s a bit on the lofty side, but it’s still a good read nonetheless.
-bytecoder
Sure, I’ve read it. You’re referring to the model where one guy has ultimate authority over access and ultimate authority in development of the project, and where input to the development generally only reachable through a hierarchy of lieutenents, right? That’s definitely the bazaar model. Allowing everone instant access to the development at all times and having a large group of developers with equal authority in the project is certainly the cathedral model. I understand perfectly. Or maybe I read the book upside down. Dunno. Either way, it’s all good =-)
“Also linux is not even on the list”
I have heard this from FreeBSD users so many times, that I wonder if they are just trolling, or they really can’t read – http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#whichos
http://www.freebsd.org/“>FreeBSD , Netcraft is dying.
LOL. Brilliant!
O sorry I missed ONE. did not see it, it was hidden in all the FreeBSDs
I think he/she meant for you to read the information on uptime measurement in some Linux systems. In a nutshell, it explains that Netcraft’s results are limited and therefore don’t show a Linux reality.
In other words, the results are skewed to the detriment of Linux.
I’ll say right off the bat that I am a long time Gentoo user and a long time FreeBSD user, one is not better then the other. I prefer to use Gentoo on my Desktop systems, and FreeBSD or Arch Linux on my server boxes (with one exception)
No offense, I don’t know the numbers but I bet there are more Gentoo Linux users then there are FreeBSD users, let alone other linux distros. I don’t think Linux is better then FreeBSD, but I do think it is more bleeding edge, most of the time if a new techonolgy is implimented into the opensource world it goes into Linux first, then into the BSD’s.
FreeBSD is an exceedingly stable os, is reasonably fast, can make a respectible desktop os, and an excellent server os.
Linux can also be fast, stable, a good desktop, and an awesome server……. the difference is in the distro, FreeBSD is FreeBSD, Linux is a kernel (a pretty decent one) but the distro that surrounds that kernel determines how viable the os is for various tasks.
My point is that Linux is far more flexable and bleeding edge then FreeBSD (not better), that is the reason linux is the BUZZ instead of FreeBSD.
“I don’t know the numbers but I bet there are more Gentoo Linux users then there are FreeBSD users”
No offense, I don’t know the numbers, but I bet there are more made up statistics in this post than there are real statistics.
=-D
Sykpe needs the whole Linux compatibility layer, not the most convenient thing, but you’re right it helps FreeBSD run more software since some ISV start to include Linux versions of their apps.
Oh for heaven’s sake. Having the Linux compatibility layer installed is far from inconvenient. Nearly EVERYONE who uses FreeBSD on the desktop has it installed. You just need it, even for things as simple as the Adobe Reader.
am running pcbsd 8.3. of course you know this is freebsd 5.4. i am not running with the linux compat layer and mozilla does my browsing; kopete, instant messaging; thunderbird, email; mplayer, does c-span, ifilm, pbs news hour. i can use xpdf for pdf files. so far no need to install acrobat. the only time i have needed to “kldload linux” is when i run “find_ddos”. maybe i will find other reasons down the road to run the linux.
just wanted to clarify that acrobat is not needed to read pdf.
I never claimed that the Adobe Reader is the only way to read pdf files, but I find that acroread7 is a better alternative than the others (and I have a half-dozen or so installed). I merely cited it as a common, easy to understand example
So how is it you propose to enable Flash without Linux compatibility? And how do you propose to view some of the sites that use Flash that are difficult, and seem to work only with Linux Opera or Firefox?
I remain steadfast in recommending every FreeBSD user install the Linux compatibility layer. Even the PC-BSD crew have talked about installing this as part of the standard configuration.
DrJ
I remain steadfast in recommending every FreeBSD user install the Linux compatibility layer. Even the PC-BSD crew have talked about installing this as part of the standard configuration.
Install Linux compat? F that! If it’s not native, then I don’t f’ing want it. Basically, everything that’s not native can be totally lived without.
Do I need flash? Not really, and sites shouldn’t force it down our throats either. PDF? I can use xpdf. Hell, even KDE has an excellent PDF reader. I don’t know Adobe Acrobat. There are alternatives.
It’s not that I want everything Open Source (remember, I am a BSD user and not a Linux user – I do know how to live with commercial software) since I do use the native version of Opera on my FreeBSD box. It runs beautifully. I also run the NVidia driver binary.
Personally, accepting the linux compatibility layer in FreeBSD just makes it so that software vendors can have an excuse not to port to FreeBSD. They’ll say, “Why port it when they can always just use Linux compat to run out software.” But, that’s just my opinion.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.max.html
i never had any stability isues with linux or bsd’s.
i belive the uptime issues often depends on that there are few beginers bsd admins, linux is a bit hyped so people who havent touched it try to make a server with crappy hw.
Oh stop arguing, FreeBSD and Linux users need to stop arguing. Friendly competition between developers, and friendly happy collaboration is what we need.
The users seem to flame war and flame war, whilst the developers (except perhaps Theo, head of OpenBSD, the idiot) don’t care about such trivial things.
Both systems are free, open, and modern. They have advantages and disadvantages. The real “wars” should be Free OSS systems vs things like AIX or HP-UX, and of course, Windows Server.
Stop arguing and celebrate your use of a good operating system.
Theo is hardly an idiot. He runs his mouth off occasionally, but he’s a very intelligent and TMK competent developer.
He really shouldn’t get called an idiot for what he says… If you wanna call him a name, call him a jerk or something.
I see this all the time. I honestly think it’s a superiority complex. It’s one of the things that has kept me happy with Linux: I don’t see the superiority complex as often as I do in BSD channels (by channel, I mean irc channel).
I get sick of the bickering as well. It’s pretty pointless. I have yet to see an OS I’d call dramatically superior to the rest…
Just to give a list:
1.) FBSD: Ports is pathetic. I’ve wasted more time trying to fix Ports upgrading deps and not moving up the tree…. But their kernel build method, that’s a work of art… Seriously, Linux’ method isn’t nearly so friendly. And their documentation is astounding…
2.) Gentoo: Too much work for one or two servers.
3.) ArchLinux: Pacman can’t handle situations like filled hard disks (I actually ruined an install by running out of disk space during an update once).
4.) Ubuntu: Broken libpng in, I think, warty or hoary. Generically slow, maybe it’s the 386 code? Seriously guys, who has a 386… (Debian, that goes for you too)
5.) Suse: Seriously slow… There’s got to be something wrong with Yast, there just has to be.
6.) WinXP Pro: Slows over time.
7.) OS X: Lack of free vnc/rdp. (I know how much Mac remote desktop costs, it’s ridiculous)
8.) RHEL4: Gtk 2.4, come on!
9.) NetBSD: Broken installer.
I’m sure I could list more, but I’m totally blanking on OS’s I’ve used… Well, ones that are worth listing; I don’t think anyone is going to argue with me on the status of Windows ME
.
Actually, Ubuntu and Debian packages are compiled for i486. To my knowledge, Debian can run on i386 because their kernel got emulation for three specific i486 instructions (bswap, xadd and cmpxchg).
Then perhaps it’s the i486 code? Could be, but many Slackware users are satisfied by the speed of their distro… which was compiled for i486.
Frankly, it could only be a matter of under/over-optimisation. Debian and Ubuntu got a AMD64 version but I didn’t got words on their performance (or their lack of).
Back on the BSDs, did they fixed the installer for NetBSD 2.1/3.0? I have installed FreeBSD 5.4 on my router because of that. I’ve got some weird “floating point exception” with the one from 2.02…
Corrected some typo.
Edited 2005-11-05 03:28
On OSX i use OSXVNC (Server) and ChickenVNC (Client) for my VNC needs both are free, ChickenVNC is available via SourceForge, and OSXVNC i can’t recall where I downloaded that from.
FreeBSD ports collection is awesome. Cvsup/portupgrade in 30 min, depending on bandwidth, your packages are update (along with dependents). I frequently ssh to my server and show off the ports collection to some of my Ubuntu buddies. They are always impressed.
>> 7.) OS X: Lack of free vnc/rdp. (I know how much Mac remote desktop costs, it’s ridiculous)
System Preferences => Sharing =>Click Apple Remote Desktop => Click “VNC viewers may control screen with password:”
An VNC viewer (i.e. client) you have to download yourself, Chicken of VNC is an excellent one, as stated before.
As for RDP, Microsoft provides with an RDP client.
“(except perhaps Theo, head of OpenBSD, the idiot)”
Adding more imflammatory and incorrect statements to an argument doesnt stop it…
Were BSDs dead at some point or have I missed something?
BSD’ are BACK !!! OH NOOOOOOO …
– You must all fear there new hardware … Nope none to be seen.
– You must all Fear there new Real Open Source and Real free software license … Nope still the same traitor license.
– You must all fear there new Software/Drivers … Nope still the same broken thing with a new logo.
– You must fear that corporation selling and supporting it with billion in fund !! … Nope dont exist.
– You must fear there Promotion and user party who will install it by millions … Nope not happening.
– They must ship free cd to anyone who ask , they got tons of corporate support on all platform !! … Nope.
– They have this new garantee that if there software is hacked faster then GNU/Linux they give you a million dollar USD !! … Nope.
– They have this garantee that if you find a broken software they will pay you a new computer with a competiting os !! … Nope.
BSD’s return and go back , But I promise you THEY WILL RETURN !!! and go back , BUT they will RETURN !!! and go back …
They where so missed that nobody knew they had left …
Lets see
http://www.fundable.org/
Show me a group of 1 million user for :
OpenBSD
FreeBSD
NetBSD
Who all sent 100$ to support there Ho so used OS
I will then do the same on all 3 OS
And If you change the BSD’S license in order to remove the Traitor effect ( Closing of code at anytime for any reason ) and make it real Open Source and real free software , I will go and say on TV *naked* and say that I tought BSD whas not free and Open Source but that I whas wrong so I appear naked in argument vs the BSD’S.
Its not hype , its not buzz and its not vaporware when you can use it and get it for free at your door and on Hardware. It is when you cant.
Don’t be a Moulinneuf. D’oh. Nevermind. It’s a genetic. You apparently can’t help it ;^)
“- You must all fear there new hardware … Nope none to be seen.”
Imagine that, eh?
They dont make hardware but perhaps the distinction between hardware and software is one you dont quite understand.
“- You must all Fear there new Real Open Source and Real free software license … Nope still the same traitor license. ”
Rehashing the old bullshit traitor license conspiracy theory, eh?
“- You must all fear there new Software/Drivers … Nope still the same broken thing with a new logo.”
There are plenty of new drivers but to know that you’d have to be literate.
“- You must fear that corporation selling and supporting it with billion in fund !! … Nope dont exist.”
Happily taking it up the a$$ from IBM, eh?
“- You must fear there Promotion and user party who will install it by millions … Nope not happening.”
Quantity != quality.
“- They must ship free cd to anyone who ask , they got tons of corporate support on all platform !! … Nope.”
Yeah, because *all* Linux distro’s does this….
“- They have this new garantee that if there software is hacked faster then GNU/Linux they give you a million dollar USD !! … Nope.”
No Linux distro does this …
“- They have this garantee that if you find a broken software they will pay you a new computer with a competiting os !! … Nope.”
…or this.
“I will go and say on TV *naked* and say that I tought BSD whas not free and Open Source but that I whas wrong so I appear naked in argument vs the BSD’S.”
Hey, that’s one more great reason NOT to change license. Ever.
Just give it up Moulinfool, by now not even the hardcore Linux zealots pay any attention to you.
“They dont make hardware but perhaps the distinction between hardware and software is one you dont quite understand. ”
Or perhaps you dont understand proper english or nuance. wait thats right , in your own failed world , an OS is going to work all by itself without any hardware.
“Rehashing the old bullshit traitor license conspiracy theory”
Its not old , its actually quite new , but it happen to be acurate , it aint a conspiracy either. Its the result of 35 years of use of BSD’s
“There are plenty of new drivers but to know that you’d have to be literate.”
What a great list of new drivers , I am impressed by your writting skills and the driver’s you listed , those surely are not availaible already on GNU/Linux …
“Happily taking it up the a$$ from IBM, eh?”
IBM is not the only company selling GNU/Linux , they dont even have there own distribution either. But hey your not even asking yourself why they aint distributing BSD’s like they do GNU/Linux …
“Quantity != quality.”
I am talking about distribution/promotion to users … But keep it a secret and only in the hands of the few who deserve it.
“Yeah, because *all* Linux distro’s does this….”
Yes , what do you think local LUG’S are for ?
“No Linux distro does this … ”
We dont need to , our product sell by themself , if BSD’s whas more secure ( it aint in reality ) it would cost less then GNU/Linux to insure at insurrance company.
“…or this.”
We dont need to our Computer shipping with GNU/Linux have the lowest returns.
“Hey, that’s one more great reason NOT to change license. Ever. ”
Keep thinking that way 😉
“Just give it up Moulinfool”
Its Moulinneuf , I see BSD still as its copy paste broken …
” by now not even the hardcore Linux zealots pay any attention to you.”
Novell as SUSE now Open source …
The GPL is being revised …
Open Source is kicking a lot of traitor license …
etc …
But hey : Its BSD Return !!! whouhouuuu.
Like the other one said Dont be a realistic Genius aka Dont be a Moulinneuf 😉
I am Moulinneuf and my genetics are killing BSD’s , the lord of hell said so …
“I am Moulinneuf and my genetics are killing BSD’s , the lord of hell said so …”
Ah, so the cat’s out of the bag, you’re an MS shill…
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=12544&comment_id=56183
For your information Microsoft love BSD’s … its easy to figure why, it as a traitor license wich you can close the code from others.
I like how every time someone enjoys being a pest here, people starting suggesting they’re paid shills of Microsoft. Moulinneuf doesn’t just do this here, and he certainly doesn’t do it for the benefit of Microsoft.
Just read a few posts from here: http://slashdot.org/~Moulinneuf
After doing so, I feel strangely compelled to buy Microsoft products. Or not.
The suggestion was to be taken with a big “:-P”. Just forgot to add it. 😛
Ah, my bad.
Nah, our bad. 😀
What can I say people like you Japail , who have nothing intelligent to say about anything and who harass people and make personnal insult over many forum and follow them all over the net arent banned enough on OSNEws.
My post summarize as :
– There is not enough real promotion of BSD
– People who are using it dont whant to pay to really support it.
– The fact that the entry level is too high and that making turnkey solution might gather new user is made obvious by Apple.
– The license is bad for Open Source and is not even Open Source as the only thing thriving on BSD is two entity who are not sharing anything back ( Windows and Apple , there not sharing all there code who are BSD based ).
I am sorry to see this state in wich all BSD’S currently are , we all had big hopes when it started that it would be the OS of choice for everyone ( Its free as in cost , its good and people can improve it for god sake ! ) , but hey we grew up doing the job and found that the flaw where not residing in our code but in the license and how humanity react to it.
Those of us who where inteligent found and fixed those flaw , GNU/Linux is the result of the BSD’s mistake and its solution.
The reality is , I aint at all Killing BSD’s , there doing a fine job doing that by themself.
– You have to be realy stupid to think that having turnkey solution shipping as default with BSD is a bad thing.
– You have to be realy stupid to think that having all the time BSD software availaible as Open Source for all is a bad thing.
– You must be really stupid to think that having more newer Software/Drivers for old and new hardware is a bad thing for BSD.
– You must be really stupid to think that not having IBM or Dell or HP or Gateway or etc … in your camp is not a problem at all and that there help would be a bad thing for BSD.
etc …
But hey its fuuuuuuunnnn and accepted to harass Moulinneuf because he dont whant to hold you by the hand and show you what is obvious in a polite and profesional way , might be because he tried for 3 years and you insulted and said I whas wrong then too , guess what MORON , We are winning , we whant you on board too but on our terms , because yours are whats making you all fail.
Get it ? I dont think so , Because you do not have the big smart like’s me , I am back to making my poutine and eating it.
Indeed, the only “return” is the return of media attention, because as a matter of fact in all these years the BSDs (and especially FreeBSD) have always been there – and massively.
For some actual numbers:
FreeBSD serves 2.5 million websites and that’s much more than *any* Linux distro (Redhat, notwithstanding the corporate push, stops at 1.6 millions).
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/06/07/nearly_25_million_acti…
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/03/14/fedora_makes_rapid_pro…
So, for those who don’t blindly follow the commercial hype, there’s actually no “return”.. FreeBSD has always been there.
“the only “return” is the return of media attention”
Wow you must have busted your marketing budget on that one article …
“FreeBSD serves 2.5 million websites”
you lost a million ?
Yeah… but don’t forget the other Linux-distros
However, FreeBSD is a great choice for a webserver. I’ve never understood why companies are using Windows when they ought to use a *BSD or a GNU/Linux distribution.
Another thing is:
Stop that f–king war between *BSD and GNU/Linux. When did it the whole f–king war start? It’s extremely stupid.
*BSD aren’t any better than GNU/Linux nor is the reverse true.
However, they’re all better than Windows (though not necessarily easier).
Jesus, people.. When you stumble into a troll/FUDster, instead of feeding him/her/it thus helping him/her/it to pollute the discussion, why don’t you use those f*cking modpoints. Isn’t that the reason they’re given for in the first place
You realise that the people on both sides of the argument are trolls, right?
So what you are doing is feeding them.
I’ve been happily using NetBSD for the last 7 years on quite different architectures (alpha, i386, PPC, you name them) for different uses ({web,mail,file,whatever} server and yes, desktop too), and it’s just a blessing that the system is coherent between them (expecially the packages system). Easy to understand, low bloat, readable kernel code, well documented, a helpful user base, POSIX & SUS compliant, developer-friendly license.
Would I go back to GNU/Linux? I experiment, from time to time. Too many different distros (many even incompatible between them!), too many crashes/instabilities (with my normal workload), too many different packages types (apt, emerge, rpm, hardly at the pkgsrc’s level).
And the GPL license, I don’t like it. At all.
No, I doubt I’ll switch back.
And whoever thought the BSDs are not ready for desktops should think twice, as MacOS X’s core (Darwin) actually is a BSD (derived)…
For me it’s a shame that FBSD does not have the latest ports in binary form, I really dislike compiling.
Gimme a break.. there are *tons* of updated packages and getting them is as easy as typing pkg_add -r [packagename]:
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/packages/
The instructions:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/packages-…
Read it once before starting to install packages, especially about the setting of the PACKAGESITE variable! In order to get the updated packages in the future, you might want to point it to the packages-6-stable folder.
… switch the BSD mascott for the FreeBSD logo for all BSD-related articles? The FreeBSD logo is ugly, and applies only to FreeBSD articles, not to other BSDs.
i think i feel about freebsd the way BeOS users feel about that special boat. after the choices and the tweaks and the compiles it feels like my creation. i imagine gentoo feels like that to it’s users.
somebody needs to tell the moms and pops that OS’s are free and easy. every town then needs a geek squad to run around and make some good money lending a hand.
my beef is that mandriva does not like electric sheep. but mandriva is staying on my laptop because it does wireless superbly.
javajazz
i bought this mag and it had solaris express install dvd attached. i started installation on 10/31/05 and it is now 82% installed. must be a bad dvd or ad burner, huh?
i really wish this would finish before the week end is over, cause i got to get into freebsd and portupgrade -avRr.
am i crazy? or just a fool? hmmm.
The article doesn’t say it but there’s also a new release of DragonFlyBSD coming before Christmas. : )
I’m quite happy with my GNU/Linux system but I’m also glad that there are all these great BSD systems available as alternatives.
Hey, thanks a lot for your reply. But I’m a bit confused, are these sources updated on a regular basis or are they up to date because FBSD 6 was just released?
I’ve tried FBSD 5.4 on a VM not so long ago and I’m sure I’ve set the PACKAGESITE variable correctly, however when I tried running a binary update (after updating my ports tree) it couldn’t find any fitting package so it had to built it all from source.
Thanks again for your input.
Yw. While FreeBSD has a unique ports collection, it has different package trees:
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/
The ones associated with a -RELEASE (like packages-6.0-release) aren’t meant to get updated (that’s why you’ve got to change the PACKAGESITE variable). The ones who do get updated are the ones associated with -CURRENT and -STABLE branches (like packages-6-stable or packages-7-current) and they do about once a month.
Btw: I don’t know if all the ports are available as packages, but I’m sure most of them are, since I can count more than 10,000 packages in the ftp folder I linked, and overall there are slightly more than 13,000 ports.
Enjoy
One more thing.. since I don’t use packages myself, I’m not sure about FreeBSD’s reaction when you try to install a package whose version is lower than the version in the ports tree (this might have been the problem you experienced).
If you had an issue about that, you might find an answer in the docs, or maybe on irc (##freebsd @ irc.freenode.net – I’ve always found them extremely friendly)
Thanks again ulib.
pkgsrc is the package management system from NetBSD that works with other BSD variants as well as Linux.
DragonFlyBSD is switching to pkgsrc in the upcoming 1.4 release.
If DragonFlyBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all adopt pkgsrc, then it improves the chances of catching up to the extensive number of FreeBSD ports and Debian’s packages.
Ideally, I’d like to see all the BSD variants adopt pkgsrc.
I wonder if the Kong company who makes dog toys knows of this new BSD logo?
One of their dog toys is a red, circular toy with what appears to be two horns on the top and looks very similar to the new BSD logo, the only difference between the two that I can see is the Kong dog toy has little legs under the circle part. Other than that, it looks the same.
I hope the person who came up with the new BSD logo didn’t just look at one of his/her dog’s toys and get the idea, I think I’ll contact the manufacturer of the Kong dog toys and let them decide. Their website can be found by Googling, FWIW.
By no means is Theo the head of openbsd a idiot.
I have alot of respect for the guy. He founded openbsd
so I think he has right to call the shots. From what i hear openbsd is very very respected os. People got upset with the guy who started atheos now syllable.
I dont understand why. He created a os. He moved onto something new.
If your not smart enough to build a os. Please dont gripe about a person who can. Theo founded openbsd.
Theo is doing a verr very good job with openbsd.