Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems

FreeBSD under the Penguins Shadow 254

Posted by CmdrTaco from the its-all-about-publicity dept.
An anonymous reader sent us an article about FreeBSD, and life in Linux's Shadow. Interesting article about the culture difference between Linux and FreeBSD users. Its a good one for you FreeBSD fans and you curious Linux users alike. I wish more BSD stuff came down the pipe here, but Linux just has the vast majority of the submissions here too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FreeBSD under the Penguins Shadow More

FreeBSD under the Penguins Shadow

Comments Filter:

  • Why I choose Linux (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Linux's kernel has sooo much hardware support.
    In FreeBSD, you had to have a SB16 or nothing.
    (Unless things have changed recently) I've
    never seen a joystick, quickcam, TVcard, etc
    driver as an option.

    I do hate the companies can take the code, upgrade
    it and then not give anything back.

    The license isn't such a big deal to me. I think
    programmers are free to choose the license. It's a right you get as the coder. If FreeBSD had the
    hardware support of Linux, I'd be all over it.
  • Nothing's changed. If it had, we'd see Linux beating FreeBSD. I'd like to see that.

  • Yay (Score:1)

    by drwiii ( 434 )
    It's nice to see FreeBSD get some good press. If I was asked to choose one free Unix to standardize on, I'd choose FreeBSD.
  • I'm confused. I thought FreeBSD was based on 386BSD, which is dated June 1992 while Linux was based on Minix which was dated 1987.

    386BSD of course was based on bits and peices of Berkeley Net/2, but it wasn't a direct relative of it.

    Wouldn't this technically make Linux's kernel older than FreeBSD's? (as far as origins are concerned).

    --
  • Too bad most apps are made kinda linux specific so you need to wait for a port until you can download and compile... the ports system is wonderful though...
  • Yepp, still don't like the fact that applications doesn't compile because some strange functions that only exists in Linux...
    A minor example is that pthreads are linked with -lpthread in Linux and -pthread under FreeBSD...

    My current problem is x11amp, it seems that you need OSS to use it. I use the FreeBSD sb driver.
  • Genreally with linux emulation there is no slowdown (or negligent amounts). Some things have been foudn to run faster under BSD, even though they're linux emulated.

    It's not so much of 'emulating', but just understanding the other format and having the libraries ready.
  • Actually, I think a large part of the problem is that people tend to act that way about whatever they use. "Redhat sucks, the only worthwhile dist is !!" It happens on the BSD side too. Hopefully eventially the dust will settle and people will realize that while we may have our preferences, in the end it's all good enough to get the job done and it's all Free Software. (Speaking of course for Linux and the free BSD's of course)

    Just pick one you like for the reasons you like it and call it good enough.

  • FreeBSD's superior stability and speed probably made up for the slowdown due to Linux emulation.

    After all, Windows apps run faster in win95/98, but that doesn't stop people from running them in WINE.
  • BSD is not centralized. You have a choice of BSDi (commercial), or FreeBSD, NetBSD, or OpenBSD, all of which are Free Software. The advantage here is that you not only have a choice of distributions (as you do with Linux) but of tweaked kernels, since they all use slightly modified kernels (something you can't do with Linux's centralized kernel development).

    So it would appear that Linux is actually more centralized than BSD is.
  • Our web server has been up for 167 days without a reboot. Our EMAIL server has "only" been up for 122 days (somebody kicked the cord loose one day, argh!).

    But, of course, that's all just stories. Actually measuring reliability is a difficult task. How do you tell how reliable an OS is? Can't run it in a laboratory setting, it'll never crash there, it's in the real world that systems crash. Yet it's in the real world, doing real work, that it's hardest to monitor enough systems doing enough work to get statistically significant numbers.

    -- Eric
  • Posted by DonR:

    I'm a Solaris and AIX sysadmin and have run Linux and Solaris at home as well. FreeBSD is my main OS now. It "fits" me.

    I am a Solaris sysadmin as well. I feel the exact same way as you do. Linux is great and all, but to me, FreeBSD just somehow "feels" more right to me. Funny, this unix thing. :)


    ---
    Donald Roeber
  • Posted by DiegoGuy:

    I have used FreeBSD in the past, and what impressed me the most was the ports system.

    Linux definitely needs something like this.
  • The way I see it, the people who need quality and speed and stability know where to look for solutions to a server enviroment ( and desktop ). FreeBSD, or OpenBSD Or NetBSD. I don't think BSD needs to be published like linux. We see examples of this "People who know, use it." philosophy on the net, Yahoo.com? ftp.cdrom.com? And Matrix ( i guess that's what the pres said )


    erik!umenhofer!firebelly.net
  • Some of us can't afford nice lines for web serving....And I can't afford to be picky as to what IS my vhost runs. Jeeez.
  • Read the message you replied to one more time. He didn't say there's only one free BSD, he said there's only one FreeBSD(TM) distribution. AFAIK there is only one FreeBSD, even though there were some people talking about making a Debian distribution of (Free?)BSD.
  • I work with Solaris mostly at work, and so I prefer Linux, mainly because its ever so slightly more similar, with its sorta hybrid Sys V/BSD look. Heck, I've installed procps, so I can:

    ps -eaf | grep httpd

    and get the right output. :->

    I've had to work with FreeBSD a bit lately, and while I don't hate it, I can't help but feel that some things about it are just a bit old fashioned. I had just said farewell to the last of the machines running SunOS 4.1.4, at long last, and so FreeBSD makes me feel like SunOS is back, like a zombie, refusing to go to its final resting place peaceably... :-|

    It *is* stable, though not terribly moreso than Linux, from what I have observed. I have Linux machines run for months with nary a hiccup on a regular basis. But, heck, you gotta install that new kernel sometime...

    From what I can tell from many of the posts here, Free/Open/NetBSD's raison d'etre for some people seems to be opposition to the GPL. I like the GPL just fine myself, so that isn't a drawback to Linux for me.

  • BSD licensing is centered on the needs of developers, while GPL licensing is focused on the needs of the *users*.

    That's really what it's all about. If you want your code to be free to use in any project, proprietary or otherwise, the BSD license is good for that.

    But if you are primarily concerned with your code being *used* by the largest possible number of users, the GPL is the way to go.

  • I'm 21, and I've been using FreeBSD for 3 and a half years now (I first heard about it at Virginia Tech in 1995).

    -lee

  • BSD (Score:1)

    by mackga ( 990 )
    Nice article. I run Linux mostly, and I like the Sys V ish stuff. But I also work with a dog-eared SunOS 4.1.4 box that's just a peach in terms of stability. I am planning to try out FreeBSD as soon as I get my taxes paid off (damn the gov't! What tax reform?) and can actually save some money for a spare box. I'd like to have more than one type of system to play with at home as well.
  • What the hell...I'm just about finished w/ the minimal install to an old 486. I use Trinux on this puppy, so I'll be able to use both. So far, the ftp install - no cdrom is working fine. I kinda like the partitioning scheme. It's remaking all devices now...so I'll see what all I can find to do with it - it's only a little machine w/ 120megs and 16mb RAM. Hope I have fun!
  • Ah, but if someone does swipe GPL code, and we do find out, we either get a new GPL'ed app, or we sue them. It's a different mindset.

    Personally, I'd be a little offended if I were working on a project and ended up having my code used by a big corporation who out-marketed my product and left me in the dust. That's what the BSD-style licens allows for that I don't like.

    (hence, MacOS X. As far as I'm concerned, if Steve Jobs wants a UNIX, he can try to write it himself, but that's not the BSD opinion... It's also why you aren't going to see 'Microsoft Linux')

    Meanwhile, if people do contribute code back to a BSD project, that's great. Just because it isn't GPL'ed, doesn't mean it's bad, I'm a big fan of WINE. :) I just wouldn't want a BSD-style license on an entire operating system.
  • > > I just wouldn't want a BSD-style license on an entire operating system.

    > That's because you're a narrow-minded geek. NEXT (and now Apple) did contribute code to the *BSD community. AFAIK
    > NeXTStep, SunOS and MacOS X Server have not hurt the various free BSD flavours. They're still alive and kicking.

    Thanks, you're pretty polite yourself. If I were narrow-minded, or for that matter, less cordial, I wouldn't reply to this. I am a geek, however, and for you to deny that label as well would be pretty silly by now... :)

    > In a nutshell, I think FreeBSD/OpenBSD actually profit from their liberal license policy.

    I never said that they didn't, but I'll be happy to argue it now. Boy, the quality of discussion always goes down when we talk about FreeBSD. Wow, we got a few measly patches so that someone else could port our operating system without contributing back the important changes. I would consider a good contribution from Apple, say, Carbon, or some windowing code, or something to help us in the UNIX "quest for the stupid user interface". But no, they take your code, and release it under a more restrictive license, without any of the higher-level tools, and say that they're 'Open Source' on one hand. On the other hand, they make the rest available for a stiff fee, as a proprietary, closed-source product that's mostly just BSD where all the new features are. And you say "I think [we] actually profit from [this]". How meek you've become.

    I also specified that this was my opinion, as in "I ... wouldn't want [this]". You can't deny that. If you want it, then I pity you, but that is of course your choice.
  • Thanks for being more polite than the other anonymous coward in this thread, I rarely see a polite response from a *BSD'er who doesn't understand my POV...

    If GPL advocates just wanted payment for software, they would make it closed-source, and invalidate their entire philosophy. What they really want is the ability to share the code without losing their other freedoms. Anyone else can also sell the product, or distribute it free. Money doesn't have to be an issue, but one way people can show their support is by buying a product. Again, it's a different philosophy, and it doesn't always apply to all software. I just don't like to see people getting their operating systems stolen.

    Actually, though, you have a good point there. I'd be happier if Microsoft *could* steal *BSD, because then maybe that would mean that they could write/sell a better OS for once. It's just that the OS is such a commodity, and such a battleground these days, that I don't see why anyone should help those who only help themselves.

    I also don't see why a proprietary software company who also contributes back code shouldn't just use the GPL. :) If you're not afraid of sharing code, why not make it official? Then people might *respect* you (and your code) enough to buy your product. Also, there would be no question of fairness in OSes. Does the webserver give more priority to people using IE? Submit a patch to make it even, and use the new version... :)
  • It is possible to license code under both licenses, especially licensing BSD code as GPL code. Unfortunately, doing it the other way around again defeats the purpose of the GPL.

    However, let's make your example theoretical. (I'm sure this has happened before, but being specific in this case only leads to bickering over facts that don't appy to the discussion :)

    Let's say that a device driver foo was originally written under a BSD style license. Some random GPL fanatic comes along, takes this driver, adds to it, and releases *his* driver under a GPL style license. The options the original BSD fanatic has are: (1) continue to hack his own driver. (2) hack the other driver under the GPL.

    If this particular BSD fanatic shares anyhow, what does he have to lose by contributing to the GPL'ed driver? If he doesn't... well, we know he has already, because of the BSD style license.

    The only reason the 'enforced sharing' clause is there (I know, it sounds like something from the cold war) in the GPL is because at one point in time people *stopped* sharing, and started turning free applications into proprietary ones. I don't want to take sides here, but I'm sure it started somewhere around RMS writing Emacs and other companies adding to it without contributing back. Since they violated an unwritten tradition, (around the BSD-style licenses) the GPL was born.

    If people always shared their code, there would be no GPL, and there would be much rejoicing. They don't, so the people who don't want to see their code used by other people without the benefits of the additions to that code use the GPL. Those who are trusting of human nature, or want to improve other people's code without necessarily improving their own use a BSD license.

    I guess it comes down to if you want to help others, or if you want everyone to help each other. Therefore, it's a matter of opinion. :)

    Aww man, you run Linux too? So you mean that I *still* haven't had an intelligent conversation with a BSD user? :)

    Actually, I tried a boot disk with FreeBSD on it, and I liked the kernel configuration, that was slick. However, I miss all the friendly options from the GNU utils. And I thought that both the device layout and the way all the system utilities pointed to one big executable were very strange. I like to know how much space ls takes up. I hope this isn't a standard configuration, but rather something done for this boot disk. However, it was odd.
  • That same person could very well contribute back the same changes to the *BSD community, however this behavior is allowed by the *BSD licenses, which is what i was saying I didn't like in the first place.

    And yes, if you were concerned about someone making a million dollars off of your code, and givving you nothing for it, then you would have licensed it under the GPL, not under a BSD license.

    The GPL does force everything to be open when the copyright holders are many and disparate. This is why the linux kernel is safe. And even if Microsoft had rights to all future versions of GCC, they would never have exclusive rights to the current or previous versions, and therefore development would be unchanged. However, I really doubt the FSF would do this. (Over RMS's dead body...)

    Anyhow, let's stick to licensing issues here, this is getting silly. There already is nothing to stop Microsoft from stealing all the BSD code they want (except not knowing what good code looks like), and there is something to stop them from stealing GPLed code, given the sanity of the copyright holders.

    Therefore, I don't see where this argument is going, if anywhere...
  • I'm using Linux on my workstation because Linux had support for the most outlandish hardware. Linux is much more bleeding edge ( suprise) and (in my opinion) has a number of very good devicedrivers (take Donald Beckers line of NIC drivers). If there is a little tweak that will make a device go 5% faster, than it will be used. It does make the Linux kernel a bit less stable. However, if you stay away from 'new' and 'experimental' kernel options, that is usually not a problem.

    I use FreeBSD as a server. The kernel is more modular (especially NetBSD/OpenBSD) and the source is easier to understand. FreeBSD is usually more a coherent mass (like the article states). A small example: glibc 2.0.7 implements writev(2) with write(2), while the linux kernel supports writev(2). Not very efficient. However, this is more of a small problem with glibc than a problem with the linux kernel. (Maybe the Hurd kernel doesn't implement writev.)

    Mathijs
  • FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.. They are all free and seem pretty similar at first glance.

    That's because they are, especially NetBSD and OpenBSD. Most of the source for OpenBSD comes from NetBSD. (OpenBSD is kind of a paranoid version of NetBSD.)

    FreeBSD runs on Intel and Alpha CPU's and is probably your first choice if your using a x86
    machine.

    NetBSD and OpenBSD run on just about any CPU, so if you've got hardware like a SGI Indy or a nice Sun, you want to get one of these.

    The difference between NetBSD and OpenBSD is mostly that OpenBSD is more security minded (hope Theo doesn't see this ;)

    FreeBSD has a bit better support for x86 hardware than NetBSD/OpenBSD.

    In the end, these BSD variants have more similarities than differences. It doesn't really matter which one you choose. It's more a matter of taste, I guess.

    If your using x86 hardware, go with FreeBSD. If you're really 'paranoid' (are is that 'sane'?), go with OpenBSD, since it tends to be more secure.

    Hope this helps.

    Mathijs
  • Maybe it is time to standardize. I think BSD would be a lot stronger if there was one flavor to advocate and improve.


    This whole net/open/free BSD thing is too confusing for most people.
    I disagree. Each of their goals are different enough to justify 3 projects. For instance, to get something secure as OpenBSD is pretty much impossible unless you're really focused on securing every facet of the system. To have its crypto, it can't be developed in the US.

    And, FreeBSD's level of "Friendliness" and relatively rapid evolution probably wouldn't mix well with the breadth of architectures supported by NetBSD.

    I personally use Debian Linux, FreeBSD and OpenBSD, and have never thought "Hmm.. it sure would be better if this were all standardized". That reeks too much of mob rule, force and mediocrity for my tastes.
  • I've always viewed Linux and FreeBSD as being somewhat equals. Linux is better in some areas (e.g., driver support) and FreeBSD is better in others (e.g., I hear FreeBSD tends to be a bit faster for server-type applications).

    That said, I think the main reason I run Linux on all of my computers is because five or six years ago, Linux is what installed easier on my 386. I downloaded both Slackware and FreeBSD. I never could get FreeBSD running right on that hardware, but Linux did, so it stayed. The university I graduated from used FreeBSD on a LOT of lab machines. From my limited usage of them (just for compiling projects and what not), it behaved just like all of the other UNIXes I've used.

    I wish the article would have addressed more technical issues. I want to know specifically what FreeBSD does better and what Linux does better. Of course, I'll support anyone's choice of either, I love Linux and I've heard few bad things about FreeBSD!

    I'm getting a new second-hand computer this weekend (I'm playing the "how many computers can I fit in an apartment game")... I think I'll stick FreeBSD on there just give it a go.
  • You can see our noc-cam here [necropolis.org] running on a FreeBSD box. This box is also the ftp.suse.org [suse.org] server, so there!

    We run a farm of over 80 FreeBSD servers pumping over 150Mb/s (the cam shows the routers).

    And on the age thing... I'm a 38 year old network engineer who runs SuSE on my desktop but work for a 25 year old that runs this FreeBSD farm. Go figure.

  • Could someone explain to me how the 150+ committers on FreeBSD are more centralized than Linus?

    You have to compare FreeBSD more to a Linux distribution, than to just the Linux kernel, although this isn't quite accurate either.

    The *BSD developers hack on the kernel, the install system, the package system and a large number of the utilities/programs that are distributed with their system. They also do "ports" of packages that are outside of their control.

    Compare this with, say, the Debian GNU/Linux which has 400 developers that can commit changes to their distribution. These 400 developers mostly just do ports, although some work on the install and packaging systems.

    The kernel that Debian uses is based off of either the development tree or the release tree of Linux, depending on which the Debian folks thinks is the best thing to do at the time. They also add patches that they think are appropriate and select additional device drivers. The other Linux distributions do similar things with their kernels. So, while there is one central body that controls the FreeBSD kernel, Linus has a lot less direct control about what gets put into the Debian distribution.

    To the best of my knowledge, FreeBSD only has one "vi", while Debian has at least three, each of which has a Debian maintainer, and the upstream developers. The Debian user can easily choose whether they want vim or nvi as their editor and the upstream developers have very little control over which they choose, or how the different vi's get packaged by Debian.

    While FreeBSD has much more central control than the Linux distributions, I'm not sure that this is really A Bad Thing. It has plusses and minuses.

    In the case of the Linux kernel, Linus having a very central control of it has worked well, as has FreeBSD. On the other hand, Debian's freedom to pick and choose which kernel will work best for them frees Linus up from having to worry about the release schedules of the distributions. He, and the rest of the Linux kernel crowd, can worry about developing the kernel, the same goes for the developers of glib, lilo, binutils, etc. It is up to the various distributions to make sure they all work well together.

  • ...the fact that it requires a primary made it a BITCH for me to find room for it. I ended up installing it on a secondary box because my main box has no spare primary partitions at all. Overall, though, the FreeBSD installation software is pretty good.
    BTW, I agree about Jordon Hubbard. Very classy guy from what I've seen online. I know a number of Linux folks who could learn a thing or two from him in terms of how to advocate a given platform. :-)
    --
    -Rich (OS/2, Linux, Mac, NT, Solaris, FreeBSD, BeOS, and OS2200 user in Bloomington MN)
  • I figured a much better animal to associate with the OS (based upon it's lineage) would be the platypus.

    You've said that before... but you've never explained why (anywhere I've seen). Care to enlighten me now?

    Ta.
    --

  • I admire their choice of OS for the Matrix, but I'm wondering if they had good reason for their choice? If they were going to choose a flavor of UNIX, why did they choose FreeBSD over other Unices? If it was a matter of the free availability, why did they choose it over Linux?

    I would be curious to find out these answers. Does anyone know?

    "In true sound..." -Agents of Good Root
  • From this, it looks like he was only comparing it to Irix. Perhaps Irix and FreeBSD were all he wanted to choose from. I can't imagine Renderman performing better under "Linux emulation" on FreeBSD than natively on Linux. I take it there isn't a FreeBSD port of Renderman (too bad).

    "In true sound..." -Agents of Good Root
  • I would agree with you, but that was before I tried Debian. I've been pretty impressed with the Debian packages system. There are some minor tradeoffs between the two implementations, but they are both very similar in terms of power.

  • one of a difference is... (Score:3)

    by Frederic54 ( 3788 ) on Thursday April 15, 1999 @12:37PM (#1931724) Journal
    ... that there's only one "distribution" of FreeBSD compared to a lot for Linux (RH, SUSE, etc), also FreeBSD is a BSD standard, program written following the BSD rules always compiled fine under FreeBSD. Some years ago i remember at university we installed a network of FreeBSD to have a standard, and also because we could find tons of books about BSD standard and nothing about linux (not true today :o). Anyway i used a lot HPUX from 8 to 10 and it's a mix about all standard...
    what i regret also about linux is that linux users sometimes are "LiNuX-is-better-than-your-fucking-OS-so-you-are-a -morron" :-(
    let's live in a free os community :o)
    i don't want to start a war between FreeBSD and Linux, use what you prefer! you? MacOS, great! you? BeOS, great! etc
    --
  • Pre-5.x SunOS was originally BSD-derived, although it picked up rather a lot of System V in its life; if that qualifies it as System V, then all the BSD stuff SVR4 picked up, and all the BSD stuff various other SV derivatives picked up, might qualify them as BSD.

    Of course, rather a lot of pre-5.x SunOS (and probably rather a lot of stuff in other UNIXes people might consider to be "BSD") came neither from BSD nor System V, but from the vendor of the OS (the SunOS 4.x VM system and dynamic linking system, for example, were designed and implemented at Sun).

  • I really wish people would either stop commenting on performance/reliability of Linux vs Freebsd.
    Or post some extensive test results to support their claims.. I have yet to see anything that even comes close to this. (Closest I have seen was in the freebsd zine, which compared redhat 5.0 running 2.0.34 to freebsd 2.9?(8?) which showed them both to be about equal.. with freebsd possibly ahead by a nose)

    I think it shows that people rely to much on "what they think" based on personal experience.. This is fine in of itself, but when people make generalizations like "freebsd is more stable then linux" or "I have found that freebsd is 20% faster then linux overall" It would be nice to see supporting facts.

    I use/have used both for a number of years and I can't in all good conscious say one is faster or more stable over the other.. My personal experience of stability with linux or freebsd is GOING to be different then someone else. I most likely have different hardware and have used different distributions / versions of them both. So for me to make a general statement would be pointless.

    If this is so important to some people I would suggest there be a test procedure drawn up on how to test these things.. perferably using a current configuration of each. Having a "expert" from both camps on hand wouldn't be a bad idea either.
  • The development methods for the two are so radically different that I don't think you can compare the two by the amount of code freezes.

    Really, There might be more bugs in a linux kernel releases but there are more drivers, and more features. More people also use the code, and thus bugs becomes more apparent.

    As you stated you're "personal" opinion is based on an experince in 1994. I think we both remember the state of linux in 94. Freebsd on the other hand took less time to mature because it was based on an existing code base.

    I believe times have changed since then.

    Just to give you an idea of the servers we have around here and the uptimes:

    15 alphas (osf 4.0) ranging between 4000s, DS20s, and 8400s. (with ranging uptimes of 30 days to a year)

    8 linux boxes (all redhat 5.2) (3 are servers with uptimes exceed 150 days, 2 are routers with uptimes exceed a year, rest are workstations)

    3 BSDI boxes (uptimes ranging from 30 days to 100 days)

    12 suns from sparc20s to ultra enterprise 5000. (varing degrees of uptime)

    5 AIX RS6000s (30 days to 6 monhths) (they are new)

    misc other servers..

    Reguarding uptime it has been my experince that the uptime of all the above operating systems are directly related to the following:

    a) hardware used
    b) software used
    c) strain

    Again my opinion is if its important we need someone who is willing to put there money where their mouth is and show some statistics.

    If you run linux on a packard bell its not going to get high uptimes. If you buy a server from var research I think the odds are you won't run into situations where you need to reboot often.

  • I have found FreeBSD's installation tool to be very simple. The first installation I did with it years ago was much easier than my first RedHat installation just months back.

    So, I don't think installation effort is much of a claim against FreeBSD at least. I haven't played with other *BSD systems.

    scottwimer

  • I think the reason Linux is so much more popular than *BSD is that Linux was free first. If I remember correctly Linux was about 6 months old when the announcement was made that BSD source code was going to be released. Then there were some legal problems between Berkley and AT&T which took a while to resolve. Being first, even by a tiny amount, has tremendous market implications.
  • Actually, this isn't the case. There were articles about the development of a freely available BSD system in Dr. Dobbs Journal in 1990. Linux wasn't available until late 1991.
  • Although it's not FreeBSD specific, I highly recommend the 'Unix System Administration Handbook' (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0131510517 /distributednet - This link will help distributed.net out btw). Very good book, a must for any unix admin. (Read a slightly larger review at http://www.distributed.net/research/).

    Moo!
    dB!
    http://www.distributed.net
  • I am 33 years old, and I love Linux, *BSD holds no interest to me.
    Age does not = being conservative the thought is just silly as hell.
    I rather like the idea of using GNU tools first, *BSD does not, to my understanding.
    Being on Linux-kernel makes me feel like a kernel developer, even though I have never contributed a line of code, but the idea that I could has it charms me.
    Systems that are controled social chaos (meaning Linux) tend to be more stable, over the long run then, forced ridgedy (*BSD) are in the long term.
    Last Linux gives more choices, if you like infinte control chose Slack, Ease of use chose SUSE, stablity Debian, Or Out and out performance Stampede.
    There all fun, slightly chaotic, and the right choice for you.
  • I've been told that I'm genetically clue inhibited but...

    I have Red Hat pre-6, Debian 2 and Slackware "4" running on various boxen at home and plan on trying to pick up a copy of FreeBSD 3 at Comdex on Monday.

    There's so much that's good and so much to learn from all of the work going on that I feel like a kid in the world's biggest candy store (kinda like a Virtual Frye's for software) and when I grow up (I'm 42) I'm gonna be like Linus and Alan and Jordan H., etc.

    I guess I just don't get the O/S Holy Wars. I'd ask for an explanation but my flameproof Fruit of the Looms are in the wash right now.

    Destined to be clueless for life I guess... (*sigh*)
  • non-newbies also need a choice too. Please don't turn all OS's into newbie OS's. I think newbie's need an alternative to Windows but that doesn't mean we should dumb down unix -hurting those who love unix the way it is now- just to give newbies that choice.
  • I was wondering, given that FreeBSD is sorta
    centrally controlled, could it not be that it
    does nor engender the same sense of community?

    Do we not feel that Linux is "my" OS regardless
    of whether we are developers or consumers. I'd
    say that a lot of this is due to the lack of centralization and some of it is due to the license, the GPL, which provides a sense of
    protected ownership. The GPL makes us feel that
    Linux is OUR intellectual property, it belongs
    to all of us. Perhaps knowing that their work
    will not be ripped off (read tcp stack) does
    motivate some developers.

    The lack of centralization makes us feel that we
    can all make a difference. Its hard to see a
    tightly controlled source base giving people that notion. While a lot of this is just our notions
    (surely one can compile KDE for linux without ports, or whatever), our notions and emotions do dictate what we do.

    In fact, centralization makes some of us uncomfortable, which is why, for example, some people do not want companies to standardize on RedHat. Finally I do believe that the fanaticism and evangelism, dangerous in its extreme form, is a direct product of this sense of community.
  • The joystick programming is up to the end program to poke at /dev/joy0. As for TV tuners, anything with the bt848 or bt878 chip is supported. I use my Hauppauge WinTVpci card all the time to watch TV!
  • You can't steal what somebody gives away for free. The UCB/BSD-style license gives the code away for use in whatever way you feel like. Please tell me how this is less free than GPL.
  • Like I've said a dozen times before, BSD-style licensed code is NOT "ripped off". You can't rip off something that is given away free to be used however the user sees fit. Why do you GPL advocates insist on twisting reality like that?
  • Ah, more FUD. Perhaps the patch was sloppy or wasn't well bug-tested? Ever think of that? Grow up. The core developers are there to prevent sloppy crap coding from getting into the FreeBSD kernel, and I'm glad they are there.
  • NetBSD's kernel isn't split along port lines, only architecture specific code. NetBSD/sparc and NetBSD/mac68k, for instance, both are built from the same source tree.
  • Wow, I see that the old "Linux or nothing" attitude is still rampant in the community. Some of us just don't like the Linux development model. Some of us think that *BSD just has it right in the first place. Why don't you Linux users get off your high horses and bring your talent and expertise to *BSD? Just leave your rabid GPL cheerleaders behind, thank you. :)
  • Most GNU utilites came about in an attempt to duplicate existing BSD utilities WHICH HAVE EXISTED FOR MUCH LONGER. Who is cloning who?
  • Nice, resorting to childish architecture attacks? BSD orginially ran on the PDP and VAX series computers, yes, but now it runs on more different types of computers than Linux does, and does a good job of it.
  • Hi, how is this any different from how FreeBSD works? If you can directly commit, go ahead. If you can't, use send-pr. If you're unwilling to do so, then put out a patch. Nobody will tell you to stop. You can even go one step farther; make your own version of BSD based on FreeBSD's code! Nobody will stop you there, either.
  • If somebody writes some code themselves, what right do YOU have to it? The BSD-style license gives the code away for free, no strings attached, no morality or ethics imposed.
  • Wow, you're badly informed. FreeBSD certainly has plenty of hardware support. I have an SB AWE64 which works fine with a joystick connected (I don't use it for anything, but is there as /dev/joy0). Quickcam has been supported for quite some time (qcam driver). I have a Hauppauge WinTV card that is very well supported; even made some MPEG movies using it. As for companies "stealing" code, what business is it of yours? How do you know companies aren't swiping GPL'd code and not telling anyone? Several companies have used FreeBSD code in their products and have even given back code to the project (Whistle, for one). I know rabid GNU cheerleaders tend to pretend that this doesn't happy, but sorry folks, it does. You don't need a license to force people to dump code back into a project.
  • I'd have to say unless I drasticly change I'm a linux guy. When I program I use sysV changes that are supported by linux. I use the /opt fs for extra software on my system.

    I have a FreeBSD 2.2.3 system and I think it is a great stable operating system. I off load work to it and use it to check compatability of code I write. But that is just me.

    I do appreciate everything that BSD gave unix, vi, biff, and so on... (I would say etc. but...)
  • I remember when I had Linux (0.99.x, baby!) running on a 386 w/ 4mb - now that was a sweet setup. I even had it running a MOO, and it was plenty responsive. Now mind you, I did get it to boot and run Win NT, so it may have been some sort of magical box.
  • Well, running NT was a mistake - I was installing a hard drive from a "top-o-the-line" 486 and booted it by mistake. I have to say I was quite shocked - it was slow as all hell, but I could run Eudora from across the network.
  • The stability argument holds true because FreeBSD unlike linux has a lot more code freezes and those freezes last for a lot longer timer.

    I used to use linux a lot but after running into tons of ext2 problems and scsi issues (this was 94 mind you) the servers I was responsible for were migrated over to FreeBSD. I have stayed with FreeBSD every since... I still know linux and still use it in professional situations but if it comes down to what I feel safer *trusting* then FreeBSD gets the nod from me. Of course this is my opinion but it is based on years of experience and for me (and the people who pay me) it seems to suffice.

    Just to give you an idea of the servers we have around here and the uptimes:

    2 alphas (osf 4.0/3.2) 187 and 207 days uptime.
    3 linux boxes (all redhat 5.1/5.2) 14/21/54 days. The 14 and 21 are from hardware upgrades.
    2 FreeBSD boxes (3.1/2.2) 26/115 days.

    and for comparison :) one 95 based ACT server.
    Averages 2-3 days before reboots.

    ---
    Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OSF /...
  • I love the BSD style of kernel creation. Maybe thats cuz I use vi for everything but it takes me no time to zoom through and change/comment what needs to be done. On a side note if there isn't anything, it would prolly take 3 minutes to hack a perl script up that would go through the LINT file asking Yes/No/Change style questions.

    I am really glad that there is now the option to include the configuration file as a string inside the kernel. This actually saved me a ton of time the other day on a system when I had popped out the drive that contained /usr/src... all I had to was get it outa da kernel and edit. Nice!

    ---
    Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OSF /...
  • Uh. I am sorry but this is not clearly thought out. The main point that you raise is that "all good features eventually spread to all distros"... uhm no offense but this *does* happen in the BSD camp. It has happened since the initial BSD forks and will continue to happen. This is because the aim of the BSD camps is to have the best distro they can, so of course they implement the best features and lose the worst.

    The GPL has nothing to do with this.

    ---
    Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OSF /...
  • This posting is quite full of inaccurate statements. I am assuming you either mean it as total flamebait or your lack of *BSD knownledge is quite high. Luckily for you ignorance is correctable.

    Your posting is exactly what the article was talking about as far as extreme loyalty to operating systems. So full of rhetoric and obvious love for linux it amazes! This is a beautiful example, that I am sure you shrewdly conducted, to aid those out there who didn't understand what all this evangilising was about! Kudus!
    ---
    Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OSF /...
  • Why are there so many BSD's?

    This is not a flame, but an honest question from someone with very little BSD background (other than legend.)

    Why the splits between Net, Open, and Free, and god knows what else BSD? Why do people say "FreeBSD is great because it's one distribution" ignoring the existence of OpenBSD etc?

    I just don't understand.

    On a totally unrelated note, is there any interest in a Python script that makes automating URL submissions to a variety of web search engines very easy? I've written one recently and I'm wondering if there's any interest.

    Email me in private if you like (remove the SPAM-B-GONE.)

  • If it was a matter of the free availability,why
    did they choose it over Linux?

    FreeBSD is just as "free" in terms of price, just as easy to download, and arguably freer in terms of license.

    Perhaps it was the superior performance?

    There was a link on Gartner Group's site (now removed) that described FreeBSD's superior web serving performance.
  • *BSD has had subsantialy more success, it's called SUN, HP-UX, Digital Unix, BSDI.....
    Sorry, but with the exception of BSDI, those all derive from System V (originally from AT+T's Unix System Group) and not BSD. System V Release 4 was an attempt by USG to integrate as much BSD into SysV as possible, but SysV still predominated. (Just about every commercial Unix out there--Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, etc.--derives from SysV R4.)
    Linux, on the other hand, will not let this happen. It can't happen because of the GPL. the GPL ensures that Linux will always remain open to the users.
    And BSD isn't open? Just because Joe Random Corporation can grab BSD and make a proprietary system does nothing to lock up the original source code. There are arguments for the GPL, but I don't think this is one of them...

  • SunOS 4.X (and earlier) is a direct BSD descendent (given the Bill Joy connection, one might say that Sun was more BSD than BSD). But SunOS 5.X was no closer to BSD than other SysV R4 varients.

    There are some old Sun hands out there who still haven't forgiven them for abandoning BSD.

  • I've been thinking about moving a box that I have set up as a web server/database server/ip masq box over to FreeBSD. Does anyone know if FreeBSD has something similar to ip masq?
  • Can someone suggest good (and up to date) literature for FreeBSD? I've had lots of success with Linux, partially because I've had good friends to turn to the few times I've had major problems. I don't know anyone, however, who runs any BSD systems, so some printed help would be good.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Slowdown ?
    Where ?

    Do you guys even know how Linux emulation works on BSD machines ???

    It's just a question of having a kernel with COMPAT_LINUX compiled in. Then processes are tagged from start, and use another set of stubs for system calls.

    The `slowdown' is *dwarfed* by the context switches, which is the reason system calls under Unix are a bit slow (and hence, that there are not that many of it). The only inefficiency is *memory* since you need to have another set of dynamic libraries loaded.

    I've been checking Linux emulation with such programs as xanim. There is *no measurable slowdown* from the native version.

    The only programs that perform slower under BSDs are those that can use svgalib under Linux, but this is bound to change with GGI...
  • This is plain FUD.

    Linux distributions usually have all the shiny knobs, but more often than not, this means more rope to hang yourself.

    BSD distributions usually try to keep configuration to the bare possible minimum, and automate everything.

    As a recent personal example, I can remember having trouble with redhat's CD which insisted on me having a swap partition, even though that machine didn't NEED any swap (128 Mb).

    One other point where BSD is easier is man pages. At least, you have documentation for all commands and system calls. This is more compact than howto, but this means LESS to read.

    Depends on which class of newbie you belong to. Newbies who are not afraid of manual pages may have a simpler time with BSDs... and they can still read the BSD 4.4 manuals, printed version.
  • Well, Linux drivers are highly specialized, to an absurd point sometimes.

    Don't forget that the standard drivers are made by OSS, a company who makes a living selling drivers.

    Considering their business, having shitloads of drivers to every card in existence makes lots of sense, but you sometimes get absurd results: this is getting so specialized that my laptop's soundcard isn't recognized by *anything* in Free OSS, except as an older SBPro !

    Of course, the commercial version of OSS has truckloads more drivers, and recognizes it.

    On the other side, OpenBSD generic Windows Sound System driver is not that sophisticated: it doesn't try to check every functionality of that card, it simply picks it up as yet another cs4231 clone.

    Yep, you've got it, I've got a sound card with *BETTER* support under OpenBSD than I ever managed to get under Linux... which is why I'm playing quake under OpenBSD + GGI, not Linux.
  • But code *is* thrown away and rewritten in the BSD world.

    The i386 serial driver has been completely rewritten, the ffs code has little in common with the older ufs, there is all the vfs code, and a major effort is going on to completely re-vamp the memory handling system (as known as uvm).

    Apart from that, if you think IPv6 or SMP don't count as `major' changes, well, I don't know what will...
  • the way all the system utilities pointed to one big executable were very strange. I like to know how much space ls takes up. I hope this isn't a standard configuration, but rather something done for this boot disk. However, it was odd.

    It's done for the boot disk, and it's not odd if you stop to think about it.

    If you've got 15 different small programs (even if they use shared libraries) some of the code (like the C run time startup) is going to be duplicated in all the binaries.

    If you can merge all the binaries together, and choose which chunk of code to run based on argv[0] then you've just saved yourself a bunch of disk space.

    Take a look at the FreeBSD manual pages [freebsd.org] and look for crunchgen for more information.

    And yes, this is only done for the boot disk.

    N

  • It's worth pointing out at this point that BSD has binary compatibility with Linux...so if there's a binary available, chances are, it'll work.

    -lx
  • The code's all there...why don't the Linux folks just take it? When something is developed for BSD, its developed for the entire software community.

    -lx
  • NetBSD: Best for overall hardware support across different architectures.
    OpenBSD: Emphasis on security-related issues.
    FreeBSD: Best overall x86 support, and has the greatest number of ports.

    They all work great - I would suggest starting with Free, and move on from there, especially if you're wanting a workstation OS. I tried Open for a while, and it has some great features, but the security features started to burn me out, and the lack of documentation. Haven't honestly tried Net yet

    -lx
  • I've had bad experiences using x11amp with OSS - that was the first time I've seen BSD crash and burn. We're talking "play, play, play, skip, skip, poof! reboot."

    -lx
  • I was the same way. I tried many of the free OS's and even ran Linux for the longest time. Then I tried FreeBSD just for a change... I've never looked back. We run an all FreeBSD shop now.

    But it all stems back to people asking "which OS should I use?" ... Use the one you like.
  • I found this article in one of the FreeBSD advocacy pages.. It explains how to setup NAT and get natd running. A bit of it is dated, so you might want to check out the second link too, which is an ipfw setup page for FreeBSD.

    http://www.computerbits.com/ar chive/9708/lan9708.htm [computerbits.com]

    http://www.metronet.com/~pgilley/fre ebsd/ipfw/ [metronet.com]
  • If you read the comments in the Linux kernel source for 2.0, a few of the SCSI drivers have been borrowed from FreeBSD, and for the longest time, the IP stack was from NetBSD.

    I haven't dug thru Linux kernel code for a while, so I'm not sure if this is true anymore....
  • It will have one when the question is not NT or Linux, but a question of GNU vs. OpenBSD vs. FreeBSD vs. NetBSD vs. GNU/Linux vs. [insert future OS here].
  • Part of the reason BSD lacks evangelism is its lack of the GNU factor; you don't have GNU bigots (such as yours truly) behind it.

    It's also a fair bit harder for a clueless newbie to set up; I don't recommend that a green user go out and install OpenBSD on their PC.

    BSD still has a superior kernel in terms of raw forking speed.

  • Originally there was BSD/386 (which tended to use X386). BSDi sold commercial copies; when Berkeley's advanced computer lab closed down, FreeBSD formed. It forked into NetBSD and then OpenBSD because of the usual internal strife. So now there are really four major BSD distributions--BSDi, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. I like OpenBSD best myself.

  • Good article. (Score:3)

    by jerodd ( 13818 ) on Thursday April 15, 1999 @12:35PM (#1931776) Homepage
    I liked the article (although it failed to mention OpenBSD, which is the ideal BSD distribution for Intel (NetBSD from what I hear still rules for Macintosh/VAX platforms)). I do wish BSD would get more credit; BSD is still a better kernel in terms of raw performance than Linux. And BSD has been aroud much longer and is far more mature. OTOH, Linux has that dynamic element you only get when you have idealistic young kids working with it who think they're going to change the world (and don't realise what we think is cool was done by IBM on their System/3[68]s 25 years ago). In addition, it's hard to be a BSD newbie--the culture is cruel to the unknowledged.

    That said, BSD is going to be with us for a while longer, if only because of the ease with which GNU/Linux binaries can be run on BSD and the ease with which device support can be migrated over (I won't address licencing issues here).

    I haven't seen the Matrix movie, but I did hear on Systalk [mailto] that FreeBSD was central to the production of said movie.

    Cheers,
    Joshua "Still running OpenBSD on one PC" Rodd

  • I'm courious, what are the advantages of a BSD over a Linux. I understand that BSD is more mature, but what does this actually translate into, all I have hear was faster forking and a faster IP stack. Also,it seems as if Linux has really started closing the gaps in terms of desktop software (as opposed to server)....Word Perfect, KDE, Gnome, stuff like that. How does BSD stand up in this respect.
  • what sort of effect do you think it will have on BSD that apple is using its kernel as part of Mac OS X?

    it's bound to have interesting effects on the whole BSD culture that a bunch of random mac users are suddenly going to have a BSD flavor installed on their machine. Even if they (the mac users) largely aren't aware of it.

    I don't know whether Mac OS X will actually be able to run BSD programs normally. I think the bsd kernel is pretty much left alone. But still, that's a relatively large boost in the user base.
    Of course, because of Mach, Mklinux and kernel hosting you'll be able to boot a linux kernel off the same microkernel as mac os x, but that will only be if you specifically go and install it. The BSD pieces will be installed for everyone.
  • The little BSD devil is a very nice illustration, that should prove attractive to us Mac users. Some of the Penguin art I've seen is a little...ehhh... kinda weak. Artie the Gimp rules though, he could easily carry his own comic strip.

    The Mac OS brings to the table the Mac system smileys, and the QuickTime Penguin.

    Any other OS Character Mascots out there?>

  • That *BSD has not had the same success in the comercial market as Linux has had. I would disagree. *BSD has had subsantialy more success, it's called SUN, HP-UX, Digital Unix, BSDI..... Oh, one problem though, those aren't open source operating systems. That is the main reason *BSD hasn't had the same percieved market presence that Linux does. Once a company gets a hold of the *BSD code, they hack it up, and release their crippled version under a proprietary license, so you never hear of *BSD, instead you hear of SUN, HP, BSDI ....

    Linux, on the other hand, will not let this happen. It can't happen because of the GPL. the GPL ensures that Linux will always remain open to the users. *BSD's fatal flaw was that companies could take control of it, and lock up the source. The license is the reason I choose Linux over *BSD. I am assured that Linux will always be Linux. My efforts will remain in the public domain. No one will be able to take that away from me, or any other user. I give respect to *BSD, we have all benefited from it! However, I live by the GPL.

    -Master Switch out
  • According to Charles Henrich who works for Manex he chose FreeBSD over Linux because he prefers it and found it more stable. I was trying to find his post describing this but the mailing list archive on www.freebsd.org hasn't been updated recently enough. Ooops - I found it, at least one of them. Here's a quote:

    Basically we used a collection of 32 Dual Proc P-II/450 systems w/ 1GB of memory and 9GB Ultra2/LVD drives (Dell Precision 410's), as well as 40 MIPS R10k processors (the P-II's in general outperformed the fastest R10k). We used Pixar's Renderman under Linux emulation (yeech, maybe next time I can get them to give me a native FreeBSD port) on the FreeBSD systems. With the exception of some wackyness caused when our renders started to exceed 1GB of memory (FreeBSD got real grumpy then) things were pretty darn smooth. Easily as good as the IRIX machines, , and infinitely more simple to maintain IMHO.

    There's also a splash screen available from:

    splash screens [baldwin.cx]

  • It seemed mostly like a fluff piece. But I agree with the premise that the *BSD folks haven't done too well in terms of evangelism, and that the rabid Linux advocacy movement is primarily driven by younger folks now.

    BSD people rave about the quality and cleanliness of theor chosen flavor. Linux people rave more often about its social aspects.

    I wonder just how much of the usage gap is publicity-driven, and just how much of it really is free choice... It's an question for which I can't even begin to posit an answer.
  • On my desk at home, I have systems running FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux. For quite a while, I was a big fan of Linux, until the day when an employer of mine asked me about FreeBSD. At the time, I knew nothing more than that it existed. So I looked at it. I installed it. I *liked* it. A lot. I loved having unified source distributions for the whole OS (kernel and all standard programs)...made installing patches and upgrading to newer versions much smoother in my opinion. I still like Linux, still think it's a
    great OS. I'll even concede that for a desktop system it kicks FreeBSD's butt in a lot of ways. But when it comes to making one hell of a server, I'm FreeBSD all the way. Just ask www.yahoo.com and ftp.cdrom.com...they'll tell you why :)

  • FreeBSD deserves its nitch (Score:3)

    by Izaak ( 31329 ) on Thursday April 15, 1999 @01:12PM (#1931814) Homepage Journal
    I've been a happy FreeBSD user for years; I run my business on it. For Internet/Intranet server i've found it to be a very efficient and scaleable box (kicked NT's but on the same hardware anyway). I know of many other companies using it for same and I see no compelling reason to switch. That is not to say I won't be using Linux also. Linux is also a great OS and it appears to be attracting more applications and desktop services. I'm running two Linux systems at home (as well as FreeBSD, NetWare, Windows95, and WindowsNT) and it has become my primary desktop.

    And contrary to some comments I've seen saying otherwise, FreeBSD's install is really slick. Redhat and other Linux distros have only recently caught up to where FreeBSD has been for some time in ease of install. Furthermore, the Ports system rocks! Linux needs something like this.

    BTW, Jordan Hubbard seems like a rather nice guy. He provided me some very useful feedback on a project I'm working on. Comparing him to Linus, I'd be hard pressed to say which one is more cool. ;-)

    Thad

  • Well, there are no serious technical reasons. Both will experience minor temporary advantages in one direction in some parts of the system at different times. But due to the high exchange between systems I dont think any such difference will last, and most claims in either direction are usually just advocacy.

    I've had both keel over at high loads. But I expect any system running at 60 loadavg to keel over eventually, and in any case you have a serious sizing problem (not to mention response time problem) if you have a sustained loadavg around 60.

    So in the end it comes down to a few practical, political and personal preference issues.

    SysV. I do not maintain just BSD based systems. Since I have to maintain AIX, Solaris and HP-UX which are all more or less SysV style, any time I get to a BSD based system it's an annoyance. This is an annoyance with Linux too, at times, but at least it's a little more SysVish (we can argue the merits about that...).

    GPL. Some BSD supporters argue about the extra freedom of the BSD license, but in my opinion, if BSD should make major inroads and raise corporate interest then we'd just get another... SunOS, HP-UX 9, etc. The BSD license is more free than the GPL, but the price of that freedom is proprietarization, code forking and yet another round of incompatible embrace-and-extend corporate wrangling around. No Thank You. We Have Done That Already. BSDI has a tendency to play nice, but the others dont.

    A realistic view on the market. BSD appears to be willing to concede the desktop to Windows, and be content with being a very good server platform. While that may be a possibly realistic view, it isnt in my opinion an acceptable one. Because Microsoft will not tolerate either BSD or Linux as a server platform, and they'll do everything they can to make sure that the Windows clients wont work with anything but NT, or that there are major proprietary advantages of using NT. Giving up the client market means, IMO, giving up any chance at existence at all. It wont matter how good you are if Microsoft has total control of the clients. And most of the major advances in Linux have come as far as they have because the people behind them were not realistic.

    And finally, for various reasons,I actually prefer the more componentized and anarchistic development of parts of the Linux systems. I'm happy to leave the integration to the distribution makers, but I like the lack of central control.
  • Yep. And as a system administrator supporting HP-UX, Solaris, AIX, IRIX, BSDI, SCO and some things I forget, and a sometimes cross-platform unix programmer in my free time, I'm finding at times that I'd be happy to sacrifice some of the 'better' for more of the 'same'. It usually just results in having to use 'the worst common denominator' and/or writing dirty kludges anyway.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close