“For software that’s been around since the late ’70s, before any of today’s more popular operating systems, open source BSDs (in their current avatars) don’t get their due share of hard disks. FreeBSD, one of the first BSD flavors to emerge from the 386BSD project, is a Unix-like free operating system based originally on the BSD branch of 386BSD and later 4.4BSD-Lite. This makes BSDs more like traditional Unixes than Linux. Late last year FreeBSD unleashed release 6.0, with better support for 64-bit and wireless hardware. Here’s our review.”
“Mini” is right – sounds like every other generic FreeBSD article I’ve ever read – with the exception that it didn’t claim FreeBSD was dying/dead.
FreeBSD is Unix, unlike linux which is a unix-clone. In anycase the article was minimal at best, and I felt that is hardware support was going to be brought up the author should at least have pointed to the hardware notes … http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.0R/hardware-i386.html
Would you mind e-mailing me? I want to ask you something about your post, but I don’t want to get into a public “debate” over it.
bslpiaxmemle at gmail
I have started using FreeBSD as my main and only Operating System. I’ts been a week and I only can tell what a joy. It suits me in every need. Yeah, I know it isn’t that easy as Linux top get things working, for example k3b requires of adding an entry to the kernel and build it compile it after that some configuration files need to be updated and some permission. The easy part all is documented. The hard part, don’t go to ##freebsd crying about it since everyone will ignore you or make you read the handbook. If you have scsi cdrom go ahead k3b works out of the box but I have atapi cdrom.
Also as it is noted in the article FreeBSD is completely mantained by the kernel developers so is a unified OS for the most parts. I personally don’t like the idea of having pc-bsd nor desktopbsd available but, I saw the beauty of pc-bsd and wanted to see how well FreeBSD (The Mother of all) performed, and here I am very happy with my system. FreeBSD is the best OS I have used to date.
You don’t need to recompile the kernel to get K3B to work. As long as you’re using 6.0, you can add this line atapicam_load=”YES” to your /boot/loader.conf file.
Yes, but atapicam is not the only thing that’s needed, you also need scbus, pass and da, and I don’t think those are available as kernel modules.
Scbus,pass,and da are all in the generic kernel, so the atapicam module is all you need to get K3B to run.
Ah, right, my apologies.
I believe the purpose of the article may not have been what the title would have suggested. In my opinion, instead of “review” this should have been termed an advocating position. Maybe that’s what mini-review means – not much meat other than a “yep, it’s worth checking out” or “Nope, steer clear.”
If it’s purpose were that, then I believe the mini-review posted met expectations. If you thought mini-review meant that they were going to dissect the installation of several popular ports and compare/constrast CSH with Bash, you would obviously be disappointed.
Advocacy for the BSDs isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Disclaimer: Though I’m in not way associated with the project, I use and love FreeBSD for all of my non-work serving needs and many of the miscellaneous server needs at work.
That has bothered me about reviews for a really long time: most of them just suck. They mostly cover installation and almost never concentrate on usage, which is very unfortunate since one is very likely to spend more time using an OS than installing it (unless one is still runs Win98).
I’ve found that it is generally better to read discussions in forums to get an impression of an OS than to read reviews. Reviews just suck, and maybe it would help if highly frequented sites like this one stopped posting shallow reviews.
That has bothered me about reviews for a really long time: most of them just suck. They mostly cover installation and almost never concentrate on usage, which is very unfortunate since one is very likely to spend more time using an OS than installing it (unless one is still runs Win98).
I’ve found that it is generally better to read discussions in forums to get an impression of an OS than to read reviews. Reviews just suck, and maybe it would help if highly frequented sites like this one stopped posting shallow reviews.
Took the words from my mouth…
I think that what makes FreeBSD such a joy to use is that when you want to do something but don’t know how to do it, you are not left out in the cold, armed with only a web browser and Google on your spare Windows-running PC. What I’m referring to, of course, is the FreeBSD Handbook.
The FreeBSD Handbook is probably the single most comprehensive and well-written computer-related handbook of all time. If you read that thing cover to cover, you will know virtually everything required to properly set up, administer, and maintain a FreeBSD client/server. It’s worth a serious look. I recommend you glance through it, for anyone who hasn’t done so.
Need to compile a new kernel? No problem. My work server’s kernel config file is 18 short lines of non-cryptic options, and that’s it. Need to rebuild the entire OS, but leave out Sendmail, YP, SCSI, Bluetooth, ACPI, but include some other stuff? No problem — just customize FreeBSD’s reference make.conf file, stick it in /etc, then rebuild and reinstall the entire OS with only a few commands.
It seriously couldn’t be designed any better than that. It’s a shame that Linux hype has taken the world by such storm, while better OSes like FreeBSD are left to those who *really* want to try something “alternative”.
I couldn’t agree with you more. I switched to FreeBSD back in the early 4.x days because it was easy to install and it just made sense. Not only is are the docs there, but the filesystem lay out is standardized and just makes sense…
Edited 2006-01-18 23:32
Shocked…again.
Well, isn’t gentoo gnu/linux a customizable operatingsystem?
Anyway, Gnu/Linux is the most userfriendly secure desktop operatingsystem out there.
But for geeks it maybe doesn’t turn out to be good.
Btw, I am n00b when it comes to FreeBSD. I have not much experience. I know there is something called linux binary support. I do code quite much with the Qt4 toolkit and are somewhat dependent on that. Is it enjoyable to code/use it with FreeBSD?
One more thing. You seem not to like gnu/linux or the linux kernel at all – do you argue that the whole gnu/linux, linux community is living a lie? I mean do you think it is a joke? Don’t you respect Linus Torvalds and other big players who has done things around gnu/linux? Hope you don’t get mad
I don’t want to personally jump on you – I am so curious. Cause you seem to be so HARD on this question.
Most user-friendly secure desktop operating system out there? I think not. Ever play with OS X?
Anyway, if you’re a Linux guy switching to FreeBSD, you won’t have too hard a time as long as you’ve spent time in the terminal before. If you’re a clickety-click Ubuntu/Fedora/Mandrake/etc. guy, you will hate FreeBSD, so don’t even bother. There are differences, like where some files are kept, how configuration of the system is accomplished, how compilation of kernels is done, but once you read the handbook, it all makes sense, and you will find yourself preferring the BSD way over the Linux way. Where Linux feels like a mish-mash of methods with no thought about organization, FreeBSD is organized through-and-through.
Linux binary support in FreeBSD is basically a stripped-down set of Redhat libraries/configuration files, and a kernel component, that allow you to run most Linux binaries on your FreeBSD system.
And no, I do not like Linux very much. I could write an essay about why I don’t, but it can be more or less summarized with “lacks direction, lacks organization, lacks a concrete set of specifications as to where what should go”. What I hate more is the fanboys who don’t see anything past Linux. They claim it’s the greatest thing on Earth, all while ignoring the downfalls. I hate these people.
And no, I do not like Linux very much. I could write an essay about why I don’t, but it can be more or less summarized with “lacks direction, lacks organization, lacks a concrete set of specifications as to where what should go”. What I hate more is the fanboys who don’t see anything past Linux. They claim it’s the greatest thing on Earth, all while ignoring the downfalls. I hate these people.
Every operating system has its positive qualities and negative qualities. Some people value organization over choice, some don’t. Linux is much more modular in the sense that there are many more options in the kernel and even in a lot of gnu userspace programs. With so many choices and so many new technologies inserted into the kernel at such a rapid pace things can get a bit more disorganized. The benefit is that you can switch out filesystems, schedulers, sound systems, security models, etc. at will. There are also a myriad of different distributions that have their own way of solving problems in different and unique ways. There are a lot of us out there who value these choices. Some of us are not content with “traditional” Unix and these additional options are what draws us to Linux.
You are the same as any Linux zeolot, the only difference being your opinion but in the end flamebait is flamebait, no matter what you’re advocating for.
Linux zealots do not accept facts. I do.
That is how I am different.
Anyone who doesn’t use “alternative” OSes as a hobby will value FreeBSD’s organization over Linux’s “choices”. I could go on about how it’s no use having lots of choices when they’re all poor, but …
That’s for another day.
You usually don’t accept facts when they go against your opionions and intentions
I will concede if proven wrong with cold, hard facts.
Anyone who doesn’t use “alternative” OSes as a hobby will value FreeBSD’s organization over Linux’s “choices”.
That’s your opinion, which you always mistake for fact. It’s a ridiculous opinion too considering how much more Linux is used in enterprise than FreeBSD.
I could go on about how it’s no use having lots of choices when they’re all poor
You could, but again that would be your opinion and one that is obviously not shared by a lot of people considering Linux’s usage. This is a typical pattern for you on this site, you spout off a whole bunch of nonsense without backing any of it up. You claim everything you say is fact when it is not.
Well, you’re exactly right. Linux completely and utterly lacks direction. I mean, on the one hand you have firewall distros along the lines of IPCop. On the other you have clustering distros along the lines of Rocks. You have Windows clones like Xandros. You have embedded distros like Monte Vista. There are security minded distros like EnGarde. Not to mention live cds like Knoppix. Where’s the direction??? Linux as a whole is just going absolutely nowhere. Heck, my high performance Linux cluster is just a nightmare to set up and maintain. My Linux firewall never does what I set it up to do, not for years and years and years. Now that I think about it, my Linux firewall doesn’t even have an IP address. And my desktop systems? Compared to FreeBSD? Forget about it.
So screw Linux. BSD is where it’s at. When it comes to BSDs, you’re exactly right. No software at all in any BSD is anything other than what the BSD developers created all by their very lonesome. Not some mish mash of applications from all over the world as is the case with Linux. BSDs aren’t so stupid as to borrow things from other BSDs like Linux distros do. And don’t even get me started on BSD ports. I mean, it’s literally thousands of applications that BSD developers created all by theirselves.
And once again you hit the nail on the head when it comes to ease of use. Those clickety-click tools like Yast and the Mandriva Control Center are just buggy pieces of trash that just get in the way. There’s just no way you can learn how to use them. But with BSD it’s just so simple. Once you spend hours and hours learning things the hard way and doing away with basic common sense computer concepts like abstraction, you’re set.
So right. I hate those Linux people too. We should all do the world a favor and kill the next Linux zealot we encounter. Linux is just pure trash after all.
the ports is thousands of applications that the BSD developers created themselves……
um did you wake up and eat a bowl of crazy this morning
when did you ever have to learn abstraction to use freebsd????
hhaha silly trollllllll, please go to bed before your mom smacks you up a bit.. wait dont go to bed just yet.
Apparently you don’t understand the word opinion. That’s all it was, it was his opinion on linux. There was no need for such a childish post. I’d like to point out it’s people like you, that drove me away from the linux community after 8 years. Just the pure adolescent behavior of alot of linux users, finally got to me. Not to say that FreeBSD doesn’t have some childish users, but they aren’t as prevalent. Can’t some of you just learn to act like adults?
Before anyone else flys off the handle here, I’d just like to state for the record that I have nothing but respect for the people putting out FreeBSD and the various other BSD operating systems. They are quite wonderful pieces of work in my opinion.
All I can say, you must be new here sticking up for lippy like that.
Listen I’m glad you have respect for the BSD’s, I have the utmost respect for linux. But I’m not sticking up for anybody, but it was just his opinion. The way you came off in your post was to me very adolescent. It’s as I stated before stuff like that, that made me leave linux after 8 years. I wouldn’t of said anything, if you would of used a little class and maturity to defeat his argument. It’s it to much to ask for, that we have mature debates about FreeBSD and linux. Both are world class Oses and deserve respect, but the zealotry has to stop. If you don’t have something constructive to add to the debate, then don’t say anything.
Except that it wasn’t an opinion, but merely a statement meant to start a flamewar. He succeded, as usual. As a (mostly) Mac user, he’s under protection from them above.
Typical reply by a childish Linux zealot.
It’s called an opinion. You didn’t agree with mine, so you resorted to deliberately misinterpreting it and taking it as an attack on your beloved religion.
You are the problem with Linux and its users. You are a prime example of the kind of user that I said I hate. You think you’re advocating Linux, but what you’re doing is driving others away because of your elitist, deliberately narrow-minded, and deliberately blind attitude.
F***ing morons. *shakes head*
His comment read like satire to me. Your comment on the other hand seems slightly more self-descriptive.
It read like smug elitism. He completely misinterpreted my statements and turned it into a BSD vs. GNU war.
Typical reply by a childish Linux zealot.
That’s rich coming from the likes of you.
It’s called an opinion. You didn’t agree with mine, so you resorted to deliberately misinterpreting it and taking it as an attack on your beloved religion.
Ok, I see. You claim Linux lacks direction. Yet I could point out all day the countless distros that are entirely focused on one specific area. Granted Linux as a whole may not have a particular focus, but that’s not the point. You also claim BSDs are so much more organized, while I would argue they don’t really differ all that much, especially when it comes to this mish mash of packages you speak of. So I misinterpreted things how again?
You are the problem with Linux and its users. You are a prime example of the kind of user that I said I hate. You think you’re advocating Linux, but what you’re doing is driving others away because of your elitist, deliberately narrow-minded, and deliberately blind attitude.
F***ing morons. *shakes head*
No, it’s just at this point I have absolutely no respect for you LIP. So don’t expect me to treat you with respect.
– Is there a real kernel development timeline anywhere? A place where the devs/users can look to and think “Oh, right around that release, we can expect to have stabilized ____ and ____ drivers, and this feature should more or less be out of testing”, or does kernel development go more along the lines of “Hey, let’s just do whatever we feel like doing for this release, and if some guy comes along with a new driver or feature, we’ll throw it in and see what happens.”
The BSDs follow a strict development plan, and you can go to their respective websites and see what bugs are outstanding and planned to be fixed by the next minor release, what features are still incomplete and scheduled to be complete in the next minor release, what the major new features planned for the next major release are, etc.
– Can you point me to a standardized configuration of Linux system components? Let’s say along the lines of “all the major distros released in 2006 should contain kernel version X, glibc version X, X.org version X, supporting libraries versions X, Y, Z, etc.” I don’t see one. Right now, each distro maker can mix and match *any* set of components. You call that choice … I call that disorganization. How can Linux expect the backing of big-name software developers and hardware manufacturers when almost every distro contains a different set of core components, and is configured differently in terms of binary/library locations with conf files scattered all over the place?
FreeBSD is an operating system. Linux is just a kernel, with extra GNU baggage of anyone’s choosing. The core difference is that when you download FreeBSD 6.0, you are downloading the FreeBSD 6.0 release of compilers, shells, C libraries, the kernel, and everything else that makes up the base system.
– Let’s talk about base systems again. In FreeBSD, the seperation between base system and user-installed software is very distinct. Any seasoned BSD user will be able to tell you with ease whether something is in /bin-/sbin-/lib, or /usr/bin-/usr/sbin-/usr/lib. All user-supplied software goes under its corresponding locations in /usr/local. The last time I used a modern Linux distribution, I was disgusted to find that this is still a problem in the Linux world. Not only are there binaries that shouldn’t be there in the root directories, but /usr/local goes completely unused, meaning that you’ll find 1,000 (and possibly more) binaries just dumped straight into /usr/bin. I was hoping that binaries in RPM installations would go to /usr/local, but even THOSE got dumped into /usr/bin — a management and organizational *nightmare*.
– About ports: Ports is all about user choice. Once you’ve got the base system installed and configured, you can begin adding software by heading over to the ports collection and make install’ing to your heart’s content. *Nothing* you install from ports will ever mingle with the base system. This is called organization. You can take an aged FreeBSD installation, rm -rf /usr/local, and have a virtually virgin FreeBSD install yet again. Can I do that with Linux? Not a chance in hell.
You are completely wrong when you say that Linux as a whole lacking organization is not the point. That is entirely the point. Right now, anyone can grab any version of the Linux kernel and *any* version of anything else, package it together, and call it a distro.
That’s why we have hundreds of them, and they all suck, precisely because when I learn one, I can’t be reasonably certain that I’ll be able to efficiently use, fix, or administer another one. No software/hardware house can rely on anything being a particular version or being in a particular location.
Linux distros are mish-mashy patchwork-quilts, and nothing more. The BSDs are operating systems with a real direction and sense of organization.
Linux kernel development may be a little chaotoic at times, but it matters little. Do you think that Red Hat Enterprise Linux development doesn’t follow a plan? You believe they just throw any old thing into RHEL without planning and testing? I hate to break it to you, but that’s not how it works. While much of the development of the individual components that make up Linux distros may be more decentralized as when compared to BSDs, that doesn’t mean the components don’t undergo development and rigorous testing before they’re integrated into a distro. Now granted you could bring up a distro like say Fedora at this point, but even that gets tested somewhat before being released to the general public. Besides, if one did a tiny bit of research beforehand, they should know what they’re getting into with Fedora. But then I’d also point out that much of the same software that runs on Linux distros runs on BSDs.
Now can I point you to a standardized Linux configuration? Of course. The Linux Standards Base. You’ll no doubt just brush it off, but it improves with each release, and more and more distros have started to adhere to it, including Red Hat, Suse, and Mandriva.
And of course you can play semantics all you want here, so sure, Linux is just a kernel. But that doesn’t make an individual Linux distro any less of any operating system. I can’t think of a a single distro off the top of my head that doesn’t come with things like shells and libraries and compilers. So how is it Linux distros differ from BSDs again in that regard?
So let’s talk about base systems. You’re telling me I couldn’t install applications right into /etc if I wanted on a BSD? Or you’re telling me that I couldn’t install all my third party applications into /usr/local on my Linux systems? Funnily enough I’ve installed things into /usr/local at my work, and into my home directory here at home. Good thing I didn’t know it was impossible beforehand. But spit, now that I know I can’t rm -rf my /usr/local, I am kinda screwed in that regard.
When it comes to Linux packages though, especially if we’re talking rpms, what reason would I need for the files in a particular package to be seperate from the rest of the system? Not that I couldn’t easily pass options to rpm telling it to install a package into a different location if I so desired. And I do understand the advantages to keeping my custom software seperate, which is why I do it. But what would I gain when it comes to rpms? If my software is managed by rpm then I have no need to go digging around /usr/bin to uninstall it. I simply tell the package manager to uninstall it. If I want to find the file contained in a particular package I simply ask the package manager to tell me. And so on and so forth.
And I think you’re putting words into my mouth here, but anyway, I’ll agree. Linux as a whole is entirely disorganized. Again, it matters little. Does that make a particular distro such as Red Hat any less organized? Not by my reckoning.
As to the massive amount of distros out there, it’s a beautiful thing I say. I love how the various distros that I use that are specifically tailored to my needs a lot of times. And while I certainly won’t argue that there are quite a few distros out there that are rather shoddy, does that make a well put together distro like RHEL or Suse any worse?
I won’t argue that various Linux distros don’t have their differences. But how would switching over from say Mandriva to Debian, differ any from switching to OpenBSD from NetBSD? Or switching over from Irix to Solaris? I’ll give you a hint. It wouldn’t. They’re all seperate operating systems. Nothing says they have to be the same. If anything, the fact that the Linux systems are both Linux would make it easier as opposed to jumping from Irix to Solaris.
And while you may have a small point about commercial software developers having a hard time, it certainly hasn’t stopped any of the places I’ve purchased software from, which is quite a few I might add. At any rate, the LSB will make things better in time hopefully.
Edited 2006-01-19 11:34
You are the problem with Linux and its users. You are a prime example of the kind of user that I said I hate. You think you’re advocating Linux, but what you’re doing is driving others away because of your elitist, deliberately narrow-minded, and deliberately blind attitude.
F***ing morons. *shakes head*
Pot calling the kettle black…
Well I know about Mac OS X – but I was talking about cheap software. Gnu/Linux is free.
Right, so now you’re changing your argument.
That works.
I don’t get it…
I did that comment, cause you sad “Never heard of Mac OS X”…But when I meant “Gnu/Linux is the most userfriendly secure desktop operatingsystem out there” – I forget to write, *free*.
Anyway…
I’ve been using Gnu/Linux cause, it just happened to stand on the library book shelf for 6 years ago.
So maybe my argument is rather, “I am stuck here, why move?”.
The thing I cannot understand, is that you don’t seem to respect the work the Gnu/Linux community has done?
I mean a Gnu/Linux operatingsystem today, is the most powerful *FREE* desktop system.
You got HAL, D-BUS and other good core components that makes your work smoothier.
And there are something kalled Freedesktop standards.
Anyway, isn’t the gnu core tools, binutils etc –
arent it good software?
And sometimes you seem like you are a Windows fanboy, then I sometimes think you where the one who took FreeBSD to the Microsoft Server Halls in the 90’ies.
I don’t know who I am going to trust now?
There are bashing people on all areas(Linux Community, Micrososft, *BSD).
But your comments are rather taking my mind to use FreeBSD.
Go ahead, write that article.
Show the world that linux users is living a lie – if it is what you mean.
You make very little sense, but you also make blanket statements. Saying that Linux is “the most powerful free desktop system” is extremely narrow-minded.
I don’t suppose I have a chance of enlightening you.
I suppose you have the same chance I have of enlightening you
Drugs don’t work on me. Be gone! 😛
I hope you are not angry on me.
My meaning wasn’t to make anger.
Don’t you see I having D-BUS and HAL in the argument.
Please answer my questions…I honestly want to know, who I should trust.
I’d like to point out that FreeBSD has D-BUS and HAL is in the middle of being ported.
That’s nice to hear. A another victory for the OSS community. If you want something, theye port it to you.
“lacks direction, lacks organization, lacks a concrete set of specifications as to where what should go”
Yup, I agree, that is why linux will never win in the desktop.
That’s true, the FreeBSD Handbook is a fantastic piece of documentation (and back when I was still using OpenBSD, I found their FAQ an excellent source of information, too).
Anyways, I would just like to add that while the Handbook really is of great help, there’s a nice crew of BSD veterans, power users and normal mortals like me that are more than glad to help when one is stuck.
That was supposed to read “…a nice crew of BSD veterans, power users and normal mortals like me over at http://www.bsdforums.org“
Honestly, it’s a very patient and helpful community, and you very rarely get a “RTFM, n00b!” that’s unfortunately become so frequent on Linux support forums.
FreeBSD Handbook…
Gentoo Handbook
Gentoo/FreeBSD vs. Gentoo/Linux
Hmm… The difference isn’t that big.
It would be better for all of us, if you didn’t try to use FreeBSD as a hostage in your zealot-campaign against a certain Gnu/kernel kombination.
FreeBSD is too good to be compromised by your unethical behaviour.
The Gentoo handbook doesn’t even begin to compare to the FreeBSD handbook. Why don’t you give both of them a read?
I think that what makes FreeBSD such a joy to use is that when you want to do something but don’t know how to do it, you are not left out in the cold, armed with only a web browser and Google on your spare Windows-running PC. What I’m referring to, of course, is the FreeBSD Handbook.
This is what FreeBSD’s release engineer Scott Long had to say about the FreeBSD Handbook about a month ago:
“3. Full review and update of the install docs, handbook, FAQ, etc. There are sections that are embarrassingly out of date (one section of the handbook apparently states that we only support a single brand of wifi cards). A co-worker of mine tried to install 6.0 using just the handbook install guide, and discovered that it really doesn’t match reality anymore, in both big and small ways.”
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.freebsd.devel.hackers/22949
All documentation will have times where it lags behind the product — but at the very least the handbook is a *complete* piece of documentation, as opposed to the scraps of broken man pages, forums, and HOWTOs that the Linux world suffers from.
as opposed to the scraps of broken man pages, forums, and HOWTOs that the Linux world suffers from.
Rubbish.
http://www.debian.org/doc
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/index.xml
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/
http://wwwnew.mandriva.com/en/community/users/documentation
And what good does supposedly complete documentation do if the parts you are interested in are, and I quote, ’embarrassingly out of date’?
Anyway, as someone who actually reads FreeBSD mailing lists on a regular basis, you’re view of the OS is a hell of lot rosier than that of the people who actually work on it.
Laptop support still sucks in non-windows OSes. Too bad FreeBSD doesn’t support CPU performance throttling, which is critical on laptops.
I tried Asus ACPI module with the latest KDE on FreeBSD and it worked quite well.
When they add support for Powernow, I’m switching back to FreeBSD.
Powernow is supported in FreeBSD 6.0. See the cpufreq manpage and the powernow driver: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=cpufreq&apropos=0&sektion=…
too bad. throttling on my thinkpad pentium4Mobile with cpufreq works…. so give it a try and welcome back.
Great news! Welcome back aboard.
I absolutely love FreeBSD, I first tried it when version 5.4 came out simply because I just wanted to learn something new. I was a bit fustrated at first cause I wanted to jump on and ride the horse (OS) all the way in, sadly that didnt work out and I resorted to the handbook. Wow! I was completly taken by how well the system was documented. I never moved on since and I’m still attached to this OS. Im now a BSD evangalist.
“FreeBSD supports the ext3 filesystem in read-only mode, which can be a barrier to interoperability for some users. That’s still better than Linux’s non-support for UFS.”
IIRC, FreeBSD supports writing ext2/3 filesystems without journaling, and linux supports reading UFS (but not stable writing)
When FreeBSD 6.0 was released I really wanted to give it a try. So I backed-up my Debian testing based Mini-ITX server and attempted an installation. Several hours later (not to mention several Google searches too!) I still did not have a working FreeBSD server.
Whilst we are going back a couple of months now and I can’t remember the specifics I was basically receiving UDMA read and write errors during the installation, shortly after partitioning the hard disk if I remember correctly. Maybe my box is just too unusual for the release in question (i.e. 40GB 2.5″ laptop style hard drive utilising a 3.5″ to 2.5″ cable), maybe my hard drive does have bad sectors and Linux isn’t as fussy about it.
Suffice to say I ended reinstalling Debian and my server has been up ever since. Incidentally, I never once received an error message during the installation either.
Shame that as I wanted to get to grips with FreeBSD too.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: anybody who dumps one OS for another simply because jerks use their old OS is an idiot. Assholes drive the same model of car I do, use the same model of phone I do, wear the same brand of clothing I do and yes, use the same OSes I do. And yet, somehow, this fact has not prevented me from using and enjoying all these things. Blaming flight from on OS on the “bad community” is a copout. I’ve gotten wonderful help from the folks at linuxquestions.org, the FreeBSD and OpenBSD communities and a whole host of Windows help sites.
Given the respective chips on a lot of the shoulders here, I doubt my advice will be taken, but for those interested in a *BSD-like experience with Linux, I recommend trying out Arch Linux. It boasts a lot of the same ease of configuration and simplicity that the BSDs do with all the applications and ease of use of Linux.
In any case, this constant flaming and useless bickering from all sides on this site is getting ridiculous. Let’s have some mature conversation in place of all the screaming.