Good PC-BSD Guide Available

Anonymous Coward writes "A very good and worth reading PC-BSD guide for the aspiring newbie is available at from a small site. We definitely need several of these to promote alternate OS. Well done."

We need several of these...

[Sklivvz]

We definitely need several of these to promote alternate OS.

We also definitely need several of these to sustain the tsunami of slashdotter who are going to kill a good site in 2 minutes!

Coral Cached Links

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to be save.

Part 1: http://www.michael-and-mary.net.nyud.net:8090/intr o/?q=node/23 [nyud.net]
Part 2: http://www.michael-and-mary.net.nyud.net:8090/intr o/?q=node/49 [nyud.net]

Also...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's [studiocreations.com] an excellent book I like to use as a reference. It deals comprehensively with all the BSDs, regularly updated etc. (Not affiliated with the author in any way btw)

It's an easy one, but..

[wknoxwalker]

..the best guide I ever found for a new [Free]BSD user was the handbook [freebsd.org]
It's everything, all of it. I've a printed copy still sitting, bound on my shelf. It's also one of the top 10 words uttered in most #freebsd s:

[newuser] So how can I uh...
[guru] YOU CAN CHECK THE HANDBOOK

Re:It's an easy one, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the handbook is starting to get somewhat out of date especially with the release of 6.0 just around the corner, the handbook is still very 4.0+ centric, although still way better then most other documentation availble.

This is where FreeBSD could do with YOUR help, yes you the user can help, no you dont have to bbe able to write C code; SGML is desirable--easier to create a diff/patch from; but they will accept ascii/text instead.

Re:It's an easy one, but..

[Scarblac]

Newuser there got that answer because he asked his question the wrong way. Asking a direct question is just RTFM-bait. If he wanted a helpful answer from guru, he should have asked it more like

[newuser] Linux can do ..., how come it's not possible on BSD? I thought BSD was as good, but apparently I was wrong!
[guru] what do you mean?! BSD beats Linux all the time!
[guru] all you need to do is ...

(paraphrasing bash.org)

Re:It's an easy one, but..

[Brandybuck]

I remember once on the freebsd-newbies list when someone asked a question and other jumped on him with RTFM! He then sent a diatribe about about the rudeness of FreeBSD users, yada, yada, yada.

He closed his rant with the claim that he DID read the fcuking manual and the answer wasn't in it. He was then inundated with several dozen posts QUOTING the answer from the first chapter of the handbook. We never heard from him again.

It's okay to be stupid in the FreeBSD community, but it's not okay to be a liar.

important

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an exciting era in the Berkeley Software Distribution world; indeed, things started off with a litigious bang over a decade ago, but now BSD solutions are more varied than ever before and offer the user heretofore unprecedented choice and power. So many are the options today that it's time for a roll call from the various distributions. Each of the four major BSD projects are pushing forward with development and experiencing growth, diversifying the Open Source playing field's offerings Let's take a look at what each project is up to these days.

FreeBSD

FreeBSD is in a precarious state. While it's almost hit critical mass in the corporate world, their latest growing pains have left potential adopters confused. The new FreeBSD 5 branch offers some exciting technology, generally regarded as comparable with or superior to what is offered in Linux. The FreeBSD foundation is still upgrading its FreeBSD 4.x line and suggesting its use for production environments over FreeBSD 5. The reasons for this are very simple FreeBSD 5 won't be ready for prime time until FreeBSD 5.4 or 5.5 but users are left confused and timid.

FreeBSD's last major release, which now sits highly optimized at version 4.10, works just as well as always. For systems already running with FreeBSD 4.x that see no need to adopt the new technology in FreeBSD 5 or jump to Linux, this operating system is a godsend in stability and continued support. FreeBSD 4.11 is scheduled for a February '05 release, while plans for FreeBSD 4.12 are on the backburner should FreeBSD 5 not achieve -STABLE status by the fourth quarter of 2005. But what if you need the technology available in FreeBSD 5 and don't want to jump to Linux?

FreeBSD 5, currently available at FreeBSD 5.2.1 with FreeBSD 5.3 in late beta, tantalizes the BSD world with the culmination of several year's hard work and narrow escapes. Back in the late Nineties, when WindRiver bought BSD/OS (a closed-source BSD operating system owned by the now-defunct BSDI), FreeBSD users were promised a next-generation BSD made possible by crossing the ultra-robust corporate OS with its Open Source counterpart. While WindRiver let go of its plans leaving the future of FreeBSD in peril, the realization of its goal is almost here thanks to the FreeBSD community and Apple Computer, Inc.'s contribution of FreeBSD code.

That almost is a killer, though, in that it now causes potential users to look elsewhere for modern operating system features elsewhere until FreeBSD 5 is blessed as stable. Given FreeBSD's track record and the corporate sponsors now behind its operating system, however, it has a bright future ahead of it despite these stumbling blocks. Sadly, the same can't be said for its two little brothers, NetBSD and OpenBSD.

NetBSD

NetBSD's claims to fame aren't its optimization or secure code it's instead known for running on a wider variety of platforms than any other operating system out there, including Linux. NetBSD's binary releases include support for an amazing 40 platforms and an additional 12 platforms in the source code. In other words, it runs on everything but the kitchen sink. NetBSD forked from the 386BSD/4.4 BSD merger in 1993 and continued on its own in parallel to FreeBSD since then, albeit at a slower pace. It's currently at version 2.6.1, with aggressive testing on the new NetBSD 2.0 promising fruition by the first half of 2005.

Those familiar with NetBSD swear by it, though its use in serious environments is limited. It is not secure and device driver support is paltry at best. NetBSD's true usefulness comes in providing developers of other operating systems such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux with hardware support to base their own new ports off of. For instance, much of the code for the PowerPC FreeBSD port comes from NetBSD. OpenBSD implemented support for AMD64 by means of hefty imports from the NetBSD source tree, and Linux runs on Motorola's ColdFire processor family thanks to the work previously for NetBSD

Re:important

[rsax]

OpenBSD runs on very few platforms and even then only in single-processor mode.

It runs in SMP mode on the i386 and amd64 [openbsd.org] platforms.

OpenBSD is updated every three or four months

A new release of OpenBSD is made available every six months - no more, no less. Each release is supported for 1 year. Although 3.4 and 3.5 still seem to be receiving patch support in some cases.

One factor that mars OpenBSD's fair weather is its primary developer, Theo de Raadt. This individual is known to be highly unstable and even destructive at times ....... snip, snip, snip, snip, snip ....... Though excellent for network equipment, developers may wish to remain wary of this platform and its creator.

I hear this a lot but I don't understand this argument. If by "developers may wish to remain wary of this platform and its creator" you mean developers who want to contribute to the OpenBSD project itself then sure, you will deal with Theo. If by developers you mean, people who are going to use OpenBSD as a development platform, then who cares whether Theo has an attitude problem? You're just using the fruit of their (OpenBSD developers) labour. What you do with the source is your business and you don't have to get approval from them or something. I'm not a fan of the uber geek attitude like Theo's but his behaviour has opened more doors for Open Source when it comes to hardware manufacturers releasing documentation. The other BSD projects, and some Linux developers, for that matter seem to be fine using binary drivers and firmware. Atleast someone is taking a stand where this is concerned.

Re:important

[tenco]

No wonder you're posting anonymously, because your post is full of false facts:

NetBSD's binary releases include support for an amazing 40 platforms and an additional 12 platforms in the source code.

No, 54 platforms with 48 as binary release.

It's currently at version 2.6.1, with aggressive testing on the new NetBSD 2.0 promising fruition by the first half of 2005.

No, it's currently at version 3.99.7 and NetBSD 2.0 was released [netbsd.org] in December 2004.

Its desktop and production applications are so limited a

Re:important

[Anonymous Coward]

An interesting combination of facts that are out of date with things that simply aren't correct.

> The FreeBSD foundation is still upgrading its FreeBSD 4.x line and suggesting its use for production environments over FreeBSD 5.

The Foundation has nothing to do with producing releases, so they aren't in the business of recommending what to install. The FreeBSD developers (in particular the Release Engineers) have far more say than that. And as of 5.3-RELEASE on 12/7/2004, they were recommending that for

Re:important

[celle]

I've been looking for a comparison document for months between the various bsds so I would have an idea which way to go. Even looking at the websites I can tell how dated and inaccurate this is. Waste someone else's time you jerk. This isn't the first one of these documents I've run into either. Please take the time to update before posting. Btw, I have now tried all three bsd variants (including freebsd 5.4 and 6.0 beta) and none will touch my motherboard (Msi915p combo) w/ marvel/yukon networking chips

Difference to FreeBSD

[m_evanchik]

So is the main difference to FreeBSD is that PC-BSD has an easier install setup and has the availability of installable binaries?

If I play with PC-BSD, will I get a system similar enough to FreeBSD so my knowledge is useful for both?

Re:Difference to FreeBSD

[KwKSilver]

Easier install, yes. However, the old sysinstall installer was not that difficult, although I have found the 5.x series trickier than the 4.x series. This is being composed from PC-BSD 0.7.8. The Michael and Mary site has some good lessons on installing stuff & securing things. The main drawback to PC-BSD as of now, is the limited range of ready to go apps. One has to install the ports and compile..., it seems. The standard BSD installation with two disks includes pre-compiled binaries for a lot o

Fails to Impress

[Bios_Hakr]

The problem with using BSD is not that it is hard, it's just that Linux seems better.

If someone can come up with a good reason to use BSD vice Linux, let me know. Otherwise, Linux provides all the anti-MS geekiness I can stand at the moment.

Actuall, the one placxe I would use BSD is in a firewall. IPTABLES is such a pain and the BSD firewall is much cleaner. However, a LinkSys router can do that job better for under $100.

Re:Fails to Impress

[PygmySurfer]

If someone can come up with a good reason to use BSD vice Linux, let me know.

Some of the reasons I prefer FreeBSD to Linux:

- Ports - No Linux package management system can compare with the beauty that is the FreeBSD ports collection
- Clear separation between base system and add-on software
- License - I prefer the BSD license to the GPL
- init scripts - I like the /etc/rc.d system better than the different sets of scripts I've encountered on a Linux system.
- filesystem layout - I've found the layout of the filesystem to be more logical than most Linux distros. This kind of ties in to my "separation of base system and add-on software" point above.
- stable, secure.
- easy updating with cvsup and make *world
- I like the kernel configuration better. Linux' make config, make menuconfig, make xconfig are a pain. I'd rather just edit a text file, and go.

Many of these things are just personal preference. Give FreeBSD a serious look sometime, you may like it better than Linux.

Linux provides all the anti-MS geekiness I can stand at the moment.

That's not a reason to use anything. "Linux users hate Microsoft. FreeBSD users love UNIX" (Shamelessly stolen from someone's .sig here, I believe).

Re:Fails to Impress

[halber_mensch]

And in addition, *BSD provides a Linux binary compatibility layer - and there are even library wrappers for browser plugins and the like, so BSD users can capitalize on all of the advances in Linux binary-only software releases.

I think the major issues Linux users have with FreeBSD are the same issues non-Linux users have with Linux - you have to learn to use the damn thing before it will *just work*.

For some reason, after the Windows Monkey spends a few years learning to get by in a Linux environment a

Re:Fails to Impress

[Nimrangul]

The quote you are looking for:

"Linux is something for Windows haters, BSD is something for Unix lovers" - Heike S., February 1998

Re:Fails to Impress

[Anonymous Coward]

Ports - No Linux package management system can compare with the beauty that is the FreeBSD ports collection

One word: Gentoo. Gentoo's portage does compare with FreeBSD's ports, for the simple reason that it's pretty much a straight copy of it. ;)

License - I prefer the BSD license to the GPL

This is surely a philosophical thing. The only time it actually matters is if you're actively engaged in using or modifying the source code. For something as specialised as a kernel, it's pretty much irrelevant.

init sc

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:schedular!?!

[setagllib]

If you're talking about the threading library, it's inherently N:M but linking with a different threading library makes it 1:1. Performance has been shown to be inferior to NPTL and NetBSD's SA, but maybe that's improved by now.

If you're talking about the thread/process scheduler, it's ULE, based on the old O(1) scheduler in Linux. It has nices and processor affinity so it could only be called M:N, which is not the right terminology (is ANY modern scheduler 1:1 anyway?!).

Packet scheduler? I doubt you're

Re:Requiem for *BSD

[timmarhy]

since i'm sure trolls like you always come back to check on your handy work, let me take the time to let you know how great it was to have my way with your mum last night.

Re:The Last Nail in the Coffin: Developing Story

[timmarhy]

that wasn't even a very good effort you idiot. even a passing knowledge of bsd is enough to laugh at that. i'd liken that post to the enlarge my penis spam i get every day