FreeBSD, Stealthy Open Source Project 291
zam4ever writes "Sean Michael Kerner has written an article on how FreeBSD has become a Stealth-Growth Open Source Project with various reasons outlined for FreeBSD's growth over the last years."
Re:Odd... (Score:2, Insightful)
competition with Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
That's roughly like asking: why do people eat less chocolate than they eat potatoes?
The answer is not history, it's that they are different kinds of "products" with different strengths and weaknesses.
FreeBSD is an OS, Linux isn't.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that sells me for FreeBSD in corporate environments is that FreeBSD is an operating system. The same group of people do the kernel *and* the OS. I've put a lot of FreeBSD boxes in production corporate environments, and I've never been bitten by the choice of OS, so I've become a pretty loyal punter. On the other hand, I just can't bring myself to put any OS that uses the linux *kernel* (there isn't an OS called 'linux' as best as I can tell) on a production enviroment - I've always had the impression that the Linuxes are all terribly fragmented, incoherent, and you never know what you're getting.
(by about now, all the script kids with mod points have cluelessly clicked the 'flamebait' button already... should I bother going on?!!! :-) )
In other news, I've become a really big fan of Gentoo Linux... it's just brilliant. I'm using it all kinds of non-production environments, and loving every minute of it. Bottom line though, it's too hard to sell something that is just a kernel as stable, reliable, and suitable for business.
"Stealthy"? (Score:5, Insightful)
FreeBSD is a "stealthy" open source project in the same way the Brooklyn Bridge [nyc.gov] is a "stealthy" public works project:
It's been there forever, doing its job, fully appreciated only by an informed minority.
PS: Neither are for sale. :-)
Re:FreeBSD is an OS, Linux isn't.... (Score:5, Insightful)
In FreeBSD, you get the filesystem, the kernel, a shell... all developed by the same group of SW engineers. In GNU/Linux, you get a Kernel from kernel.org a filesystem from Hans Reiser a shell from GNU, etc... that's why most Linux installs are called distributions and that's why distros vary so much.
Don't get me wrong, I like both GNU/Linux and FreeBSD. Just think others should be more aware of this difference as it's a fundamentally different approach to developing SW:
FreeBSD = All core parts developed together.
Linux = Assembling a collection of core parts from different sources.
OSDL is Linux only? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why the Wars, People? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FreeBSD is an OS, Linux isn't.... (Score:5, Insightful)
In FreeBSD, you get the filesystem, the kernel, a shell... all developed by the same group of SW engineers.
...and libc. It always seemed strange to me that the Linux C library (glibc) was not developed together with the kernel, since the C library is how most programs interface with the kernel.
Re:FreeBSD is an OS, Linux isn't.... (Score:1, Insightful)
$$$ Poured into Linux, puts it over the top (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as stability and consistancey goes, only Debian-Stable approaches BSD, because Debian enforces a strict development and testing process (as opposed to adding in just any random unstable bleeding edge package because it is "new").
A non-article (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FreeBSD is an OS, Linux isn't.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The best part of this cohesion you get from FreeBSD (and Open- and Net-) is that the filesystem is not laid out like they gave a paintbrush to an epileptic. Things are put in logical places.
This changes a bit when you delve into the /usr/ports/ tree, but not much. The port maintainers generally keep to the standards. I.e., they don't fill /etc with a bunch of crap.
I can't bear to use any of the GNU/Linux distros these days. Partially for aethetic reasons, but also because of the gung-ho mentality of Linux nerds who will stick any damn thing any damn place they damn well want to. *BSD admins tend to stick to canon, I've noticed, whereas GNU/Linux admins each do their own thing. So after a couple of years, you can't find anything and often enough find the same thing installed twice. My experience, YMMV.
Re:Odd... (Score:4, Insightful)
> Yahoo is not representative of what you'd find in a typical corporate datacentre / computer room.
They are indeed not representative, but you kindof forget one thing here..
Yahoo depends on its web servers. If they stop running, Yahoo has no business.
That means that their choice and motivation counts for a lot more then what a company says who doesn't depend on the stuff to begin with.
Re:What has FreeBSD got to offer? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you could say the same of any non-Windows/Mac OS. Unless, that is, this really is the year of Linux On The Desktop. ;-)
Fewer drivers are available (especially those available as binary modules for Linux).
This is somewhat true, but the counterargument is that most FreeBSD drivers support every bit of functionality that a piece of hardware can offer. For example, if your NIC has a built-in PRNG, then FreeBSD will probably use it as a hardware accelerator for rand(). Linux is pretty good about this, too, but generally speaking when FreeBSD says that they support something, they mean all of it.
Many applications developed for the GNU system won't work on a vanilla FreeBSD system. While this is the applications' fault, it still is a disadvantage for FreeBSD.
If by "many applications" you mean "some commercial programs", then I'd have to agree. If you meant that as a general statement, then I'd have to vehemently disagree. I ran FreeBSD with a KDE desktop as my personal workstation for a long time, and don't remember any specific apps that I could use under Linux that weren't available in FreeBSD.
It also has fewer binary packages available than Debian GNU/Linux.
According to apt-cache, my Debian/unstable system has 16725 installable packages. There are 11236 Makefiles in my /usr/ports on the FreeBSD server next to me. Debian wins, but I wouldn't call it a landslide. :)
The ports system really is the killer app for me. I love (and depend on) the ability to compile the options I need into an application. I like Debian a lot, but it's a pain in the neck to maintain your own version of a package with non-Debian-standard build options.
Re:Real comparisons? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FreeBSD is an OS, Linux isn't.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to me sometimes that a lot of Linux users are cross-overs from the Windows world, whereas BSD users are more likely to have been using Unix all along.
Questions to ponder (Score:5, Insightful)
But when looking at it, *BSD users are throwing praise at each others in here. It's not like anyone is arguing in here, because mostly people with the same opinion responded to the article.
But no one is really talking about why Linux has more market/mind share. Or why the kernel developers for Linux have created a technologically similar kernel without having a head start (i.e. a full UNIX kernel). Or why - if any *nix - is taught, nearly always Linux is taught at universities. What made Linux the platform of choice for so many people in so "little" time?
These are not flames. These are questions I'd really like answers for. And maybe the *BSD communities should have them, to take advantage of that knowledge!
Nothing gained from 20 somewhat posts of the style "I like the ports tree", "Me, too!".
Start asking: "Why isn't *BSD dominating the *nix world now?" Don't answer: "It doesn't want to." Because that's not true. Hear yourselves talk. You want to! But you don't.
So why? Don't give me the USL/Novell case. In the time from 1991-1993 Linux had not become a comparable kernel, it became after.
Is it the license? The more chaotic collaboration? Linus' personality? The anti-Windows stance? The urge for people to develop something new (that lured more developers)? Why is (almost virtually etc.) nobody talking of a FreeBSD desktop?
As long as a lot of people talk about history, or past successes, or think along "I always have done it that way / have used it" nothing is won for *BSD in terms of "innovation" (it hurts to write it). *BSD needs some new answers to the Linux question, not some self-content same ol', same ol'.
If *BSD asked these questions, found the answers for them, and used them, it actually again become the most-used *nix system.
Re:What has FreeBSD got to offer? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why we sadly switched to Linux (Redhat) (Score:4, Insightful)
We recently started playing with FreeBSD 5 and RHEL 3 for comparisons... Quite frankly, I MUCH prefer the BSD ports to up2date, they are terrific. Both OSes are pretty good in the performance departments (OpenBSD while a rock, just couldn't perform).
Why did I switch to Redhat?
Redhat is simply moving in a direction that I like. Getting the machines to talk to our LDAP Server and Kerberos KDC (an OS X Server that does our central directory system) is a joke, as was straight LDAP before we started playing with Kerberos.
Adding software is a bit easier in BSD-land, because if I need to switch compile-time options, the ports are MUCH easier to work with than SRPMS. Granted that compiling source on Linux is easier, because most developers target Linux first, however, source tarballs are great for testing, not so great to roll out and keep track of across my networks.
Redhat support, while pretty mediocre at the low-end (RHEL 3.0 ES, $350/machine or so), I can put support requests in and get a response over time and get things escalated to engineering. With Apple Support, it's even worse, I can fill something out on Apple's bug report/feature request site, but I can't find out if they are doing anything on it.
It's a dilemma for a small company, you don't have the money to get the GOOD support from a top company, but dealing with a small company may get you personal service, but not the capabilities of the big boys.
FreeBSD is a GREAT system, and the ports/packages are a DREAM to work with.
The greatest thing about a BSD is how streamlined/stripped down the core is, then it is off to ports to configure.
The worst thing about a BSD is how streamlined/stripped down the core is, as making network configuration changes is just harder/more time-consuming, with multiple files to change.
FreeBSD, great OS, just not offering the easy-to-use Enterprise features that Redhat provides. Without the easy integration, it just isn't as easy for my little business to take advantage of everything that I can with Redhat.
Re:It's FreeBSD's biggest advantage (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a big supporter of FreeBSD for this major reason. When people ask why BSD over Linux I tell them it feels better, and that feeling is half of knowing how to use, and fix, a computer. Used and installed many a linux, Slackware was my first love, worked with redhat a bit remotely, worked (unknowingly) with FreeBSD remotely and everything seemed better in a kind of inexplicable way. Friend told me to try out FreeBSD and I just liked it, and realized it was what I had been using before. I do still admin a linux machine, and both myself and my boss kind of groan over having to do anything to it.
FreeBSD's installer could be improved, though. sysinstall needs to be reinvented and perhaps have picobsd merged into it. I'd love to be able to install a variable-sized FreeBSD for firewall or appliance-type installs.
sysinstall could use some minor functionality improvments definitly, but I love it how it is, and most anything it does can be done by hand with little more effort and maybe a little digging once you get a base system up and running. I would love a stock kernel with minimal bells, but BPF and the other socket stuffs built in for ipfw2. I have setup one or two "setit-and-forgetit" firewall/nat computers at friends houses with little to no expertise in computer, let alone FreeBSD etc and so far no problems or complaints. Multiple power outages, network outages etc, but their computers keep chugging along. I spot check it every few months when I happen to be over there and none of the filesystems are growing, etc. I love it.
Re:Java support is still lacking... (Score:3, Insightful)
Boy, and I thought the Mac crowd was rabid!
Re:Questions to ponder (Score:1, Insightful)
Err, could it be that BSDs aren't all far better than Linux? And in fact, Linux is as good as all BSDs in most areas and better in many?
Or are you one of those charming BSD zealots who work on the assumption that the universe somehow reorganises itself so anything that comes out of their mouths is the truth?
1. It's only vaguely similar. It can't compete well on terms of security, performance, stability, etc.
It competes *very* well in terms of performance. I can bring up ten links for you right now to back that up. I'd say you can't show me one reasonably recent comparison, can you? And no, I'm not interested in your anecdotal rebuttal and made up stories about how much trouble you had with Linux.
Security... Linux now has features comparable or better than OpenBSD's security features. ie. better than FreeBSD and NetBSD.
Stability? That is something pretty difficult to measure and asses as easily as you have appeared to. Would you care to back up your data with some real facts, or do I have to sit through another tale about how all your companies Linux servers kept crashing till you moved them to BSD?
2. They got press, so they got the massive funding, the huge hordes of developers, corporate developers, etc.
You know, it isn't a chicken and egg problem... Linux wasn't suddenly created amidst this press hype. It got press because it was a good system and people were interested in it and using it with success.
And if you think corporations like IBM just pour money into the latest thing in the news rather than on its own merits, you're seriously deluded.
3. The BSD teams didn't have a head-start really. The whole BSD lawsuit ended when Linux was already being actively developed for a couple years, and only then did FreeBSD/NetBSD even start, and they didn't have a full OS to work with, large parts were missing.
Their kernel was widely acknowledged to be superior to Linux's back in the mid '90s, which is probably why people still wheel out the old "secure, stable, robust, engineered, best network stack, scalable, etc etc" crap.
So yes, they did have a head start.
4. The small BSD development teams aren't just working on the kernel, as the Linux team is, they are working on the entire base system the whole time.
It is funny isn't it? I think the BSD license must have something to do with the lack of corporate contribution. It would appear to be a more corporation friendly license, but look at IBM's contribution to Linux vs Apple's to FreeBSD!
Also note that Apple is actively commiting resources in the form of full time employees to the *gcc* project, which is GPL of course.
If you don't like that comparison, look at Wasabi Systems. They supposedly are very community minded and good for NetBSD... and yet they have a proprietary journalling filesystem which they sell. OK? Now look at namesys... already made two advanced journalling filesystems* which have always been open, even during development.
I don't know about Wasabi's filesystem, but even so, I'd lay money that it is far more primitive than reiserfs.
* Reiser4 will apparently go into beta any day now.
Oh, one more thing which I think is interesting while we're on the topic of licenses... OK, IBM has allowed the Linux kernel to use some patented technique they have called RCU. Now some FreeBSD developers were thinking this RCU would go well in their kernel. They remembered the patent, but were pretty confident that IBM would allow them to use it as they had allowed Linux. BZZT!! If IBM allowed BSD licensed code to use a patented technique, every man and his dog can copy the code and use RCU, rendering the patent worthless. Never going to happen.