FreeBSD 5.1 Review and BSD Roundup 385
securitas writes "Both eWEEK's review of FreeBSD 5.1 and ExtremeTech's BSD overview and roundup (single page) will be of interest to BSDers and anyone else who wants to explore their open source OS options. The review of FreeBSD 5.1 says it lacks the stability of v4.8 but adds features that some may find useful (for example, more processor architectures are supported) so it shouldn't be considered for critical deployments yet. And the BSD round-up speaks for itself."
Awesome (Score:-1, Insightful)
None of that GPL crap that has hindered Linux for so long.
Long live *BSDs!!
Re:I'm not sure I get the analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
the article itself is sort of flamebait by itself. (Score:5, Insightful)
Though being a BSD-user (OpenBSD server & MacOSX desktop), I feel uneasy to read all those, esp. the 'linux-copy-bsd' phrase.
Too true (Score:4, Insightful)
So bottom line is, I really liked a lot of BSD's features, but unfortunately an OS without programs is useless. The ports guys do a great job, but can't make up for lack of vendor support. ;(
No commercial gain from GPLed code? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oops! It looks like IBM and Redhat were just charities after all...
But seriously, does this stink of someone that's lapped up the FUD to anyone else?
Re:I've always hated you and your comments, usotsu (Score:2, Insightful)
*sigh*
I don't have anything to do with BSD other than my experiments porting OpenBSD tools to DOS (!), but my crystal ball shows FreeBSD holding its own...
I like the BSD license better than the GPV anyway. I started work a couple years ago on a project called RMF-DOS (Reduced Memory Footprint DOS), which never got off the ground, but I did it because I felt the world needed a BSD-licensed DOS clone suited for embedded systems and ancient 8086 boxen. I still believe in it. I just haven't had any way to write a kernel for it.
BSD's philosophy is why it endears itself to the hearts of companies better than Linux (this is not intended as a troll or a flamebait), and also, it is why it is not as well-known as the more radical GNU projects and the Linux kernel.
As long as there's a use for it - and as long as there is BSD code in MacOS X - BSD is very much alive.
Good. Now mod me down into oblivion again.
-uso.
Who Owns UNIX? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Awesome (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lacking stability?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FreeBSD should support more NICs than ARCHes (Score:3, Insightful)
The funny thing there was that the token-ring network was so slow that the 56K modem integrated to my laptop was actually faster for accessing my email..... However the several hundreds employees still working there didn't have much of a choice. Remember, token-ring was very expensive and state-of-the-art 10 years ago.
The facility is now being migrated to a switched network deploying fast-ethernet, but planning and implementation will take months because the installed token-ring base is so huge.
Re:But the license is the key... (Score:2, Insightful)
X problems (Score:0, Insightful)
2) Slight errors in syntax when using ports results in ports trying to compile everything. Good system which needs a better safety.
3) The configuration system doesn't allow for small changes easily (like getting rid of an IP).
Linux now has: autohardware detection, good drivers, sample configs for virtually every system, lots and lots and lots of documentation.
How is BSD "friendlier"?
Re:Too true (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Reports of BSD death are premature! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure effectively using make, chown, chroot, and shells etc in Freebsd and Slackware is a big learning curve. The upside is it makes you much more aware of how things work, and a better GNU/bee.
Re:FreeBSD = top quality (Score:3, Insightful)
Could you please list them?
FreeBSD has list for 8866 ports.
Debian has 8710 packages - that means it's no modern, right?