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."
FreeBSD should support more NICs than ARCHes (Score:4, Interesting)
Part of the reason why Linux is in a better market position than FreeBSD is the range of hardware supported by Linux. For instance FreeBSD supports only two ATM cards and no Tokenring cards, while people have done fancy things using Linux with both networks.
Flash 'n' Trash (Score:5, Interesting)
I started reading the article, and found the summation of why I prefer BSD.
Re:I tried it, I liked it (Score:2, Interesting)
What's with the old article? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:One thing in the ET article... (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it viable??? Ask a company like Red Hat; they're in the black because of GPLed software and related services (one could argue that they are two completely different ways of getting revenue, but service contracts and software go hand and hand in the corperate world). GPLed software in the mainstream is just starting to become established; it's too early to say if it's a dead-end or not. Companies are gun-shy to change any of their methods in a conservative move to their stockholders.
Re:FreeBSD should support more NICs than ARCHes (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux on big machines (Score:1, Interesting)
I've set up a NFS-Fileserver on a Dual-Xeon with 4GB RAM and after around 2-3 days it locks up.
Tried several kernels, even used RH standard one (given the fact, that Alan Cox hacks around for RedHat...).
The buffer is eating up 3.8GB and after a while kswapd is running amok, eating CPU and not swapping out a single page.
The is no write starvation either, all buffers are clean (and I made sure they are synced often enough).
I am not talking about some "funny little server here", but serving 10 machines via 100Mbit and 6 via 1Gbit and a total of around 500GB (right know; RAID is expanded next week to > 1 TB running JFS, thank god & IBM).
Each run of a programm reads ~10-20 GB of data.
I thought of FreeBSD as a viable alternative when I started that job, but choose Linux to have a common platform (clients and compute-servers are also Linux).
This expirience leaves me right out in the dust. The Linux-Kernel-guys seem to know the problem as many other have reported it, but don't really do something. Unfortunately. And I've been polite
FreeBSD = top quality (Score:5, Interesting)
The best is, my PC is a regular desktop PC. I can watch DVDs and TV, listen to Oggs, burn CDs, chat and now I am writing this comment.
I have uninstalled Debian. I don't need it, because FreeBSD has got the best Linux emulation in the world. I can even play regular 3D-accelerated games with top frame rates.
I don't understand why people are bitching about FreeBSD. It is easy and even trivial to use. You can install it in many different ways. Experts mostly use minimal installs or even the floppy install.
You can choose between packages or ports, whatever you wish. There are 9000 software ports and they compile without problems. A simple 'make install' in the proper directory is enough to fetch dependencies and install the package. Most of them are pre-configured in a a way which is appropriate for many users. Before and after installation you will get further hints what to do and how to use a port.
The manpages are good. You get examples and a centralized configuration file. I don't need to mention the possibilities if you want to use FreeBSD as a firewall. And the VM is top quality! Heavy load is no problem. You can still listen to your MP3 or watch an AVI while dd'ing a harddisk.
FreeBSD is my favorite OS.
Re:Well duh.... (Score:1, Interesting)
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It'
But the license is the key... (Score:3, Interesting)
While I recently abandoned RedHat for OpenBSD, I am uncomfortable in the knowledge that Microsoft could continue to incorporate BSD code into their Windows variants, and that I am helping this process by purchasing OpenBSD CDs. While I love the reduction in traffic on the OpenBSD errata channel (vs. RedHat), I do not wish to see the Microsoft monopoly continue, and the only thing that will stop it is the GPL.
While I realize that I could simply attach the GPL to every piece of source code in the BSD CVS tree and redistibute it, my actions would not in reality hamper any corporate acquisitions of BSD code.
Ideally, I would like to see the hacker community free to use the BSD license, while I would like to force the corporate community to abide by the GPL in every piece of software they produce (as will someday occur when Microsoft is finally defeated by "viral" GPL code).
I haven't always felt this way, but US corporations are abusive in many ways, and I would like to see them be more forcibly restrained. A judge instantaneously applying the GPL to all Microsoft software would be a real joy.
what do you expect? It's written by Brett Glass (Score:2, Interesting)
He's been harping on the "you can't sell GPL software" point for years even though it's not true. Linux people may also take issue with the quote that it was based on Minix. He's about as much of a pro-BSD, anti-Linux, anti-GPL person as you can get. Notice while he said that many systems are dependent on BSD code, he neglects also note that BSD relies on some GNU code as well.
Re:FreeBSD should support more NICs than ARCHes (Score:2, Interesting)
ATM just sucks. Yes. Yes it does. I worked on ATM, I worked on various ATM deployments. It sucks. I have the scars to proove it.
TokenRing, which is a neat graduate network course topic, is largely irrelevant, even it's cheap.
Can't you think of a better reason to **not** use BSD?
Re:FreeBSD = top quality (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:X problems (Score:4, Interesting)
Is your problem really which version of XF86 ships with FreeBSD 5? Without a bit more specification, I can't speak to that particularly well, especially since I'm speaking mostly from NetBSD pkgsrc experience, but if ports is still what it was the last time I looked, it's pretty similar to pkgsrc, and is essentially just a bunch of Makefiles. If you don't want to build things, don't use the source version. On NetBSD, that means "instead of doing a make in pkgsrc/<utility type>/<package name>, do pkg_add <package name>". I have to assume that the FreeBSD ports commands are functionally similar since they're approaching the same problem the same way... Again, without a bit more detail, I can't comprehend how this was a problem. Is it a complaint against (POSIX standard, where Linux's is not) ifconfig(8) syntax? Is it a complaint against