×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

267 comments

Wow... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319647)

Wow.. this article was up for a good 5 minutes without even a FP!

Guess no one cares.

4.4 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319657)

yay!

Wow... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319659)

Wow again. Past 10 minutes, and not even a troll. BSD *is* dying!

those are all well and good... (2)

kootch (81702) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319664)

but one thing that open source people haven't learned that MS and Apple and such have learned are to answer the following questions:

1. is it faster?
2. does it do more/kewler stuff?
3. will it crash less frequently?
4. will it boot faster?
5. will i still have to spend hours trying to install new programs and hardware?
6. does it come with new/more/kewl goodies like MS Office (or equivalent), a dictionary and thesaurus, 100 free hours of internet access, etc.?

only when an open source OS states these things in their press release will the general public listen.

Re:those are all well and good... (2)

Junks Jerzey (54586) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319756)

only when an open source OS states these things in their press release will the general public listen.

Or will _anyone_ listen. Who is going to do something as major as upgrade an OS if there is no easily explainable benefit.

Re:those are all well and good... (1)

Diabolical (2110) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319768)

only when an open source OS states these things in their press release will the general public listen.

The fact that FreeBSD is being released is of no importance to the "general" public. It is however important for the technical savvy who are allready looking into things.

The fact that a press release is issued does not mean it's targeted at the mainstream masses.. it's just that... a press release for the press that is interested in this kind of news... wether it be online of in print.

But the points (except numbers 3 and 6) are course of equal importance to the techies...

Re:those are all well and good... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2320035)

You must be joking. If MS learned to answer those questions, they would have to reply No to most of them. It is in MS' interests for those questions to not be asked, which is why they don't bother answering them.

Re:those are all well and good... (2)

Amokscience (86909) | more than 12 years ago | (#2320054)

Well, when you can't answer positively to any of the questions you don't mention them at all. After reading the release notes, it's pretty obvious this fixes minor bugs and adds more/better device support.

The FreeBSD people may say some things about wanting more public use but it's still extremely targetted at technical people who already use unix. It's definitely not for general public consumption. It's a much more word of mouth operation even among techies.

Size and the dial up dilemna (0)

theeds (300421) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319684)

When will people decide to make certain iso's small enough for dial-up users to be able to download it in a reasonable period of time (say 24 hours) These iso's are getting far too huge for most of us to dl anymore where some can reach as much as a gig or so. Because of this I've taken to buying certain distro's, but when does this 'freeware' become costly, the moment that they start getting rediculously huge. Yes, I'm aware of certain programs that allow you to resume downloads, but for the sheer size of these some could take upto a week to download. They should either offer: a free cd burn (either they provide the cd, or you send them one of yours), or put it in stores and have them give the email of people who want their software ( these people have pre-signed up on their site and they submit it to the store along with a shipment). I'd prefer the first one myself, of sending them a cd. It would cost maybe 66 cents to send a cd back and forth, vs the $20+ people charge. Anyways feel free to flame.

-Theed

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (1)

Roofus (15591) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319703)

One address:

http://www.cheapbytes.com [cheapbytes.com]


Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319892)

Debian/Linux have a CD resellers list on
http://www.debian.org/distrib/vendors
most of these will carry other Linuxs, and a large chunk *BSD.

You get a green CD in a plastic envelope for about £5 ($7 US), normally from a (downloaded) copy of the Offical ISO.

Can't say fairer than that. Ofcouse you don't get a manual or much support (other than newsgroups/IRC) but if you want those, buy the boxed package for $40.

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319707)

Close to free+ shipping:
www.lsl.com

or
www.cheapbytes.com

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319709)

Check the freebsd-small.iso file 200 MB on the main FTP server.

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (1)

Nanuq (469873) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319752)

Actually, closer to 180M, no doubt for 3" CDs :)

Now there's a cool idea.

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319712)

That is one reason you should be involved with a user group. Many of the people who are active in these groups will burn cd's for you for the cost of the blank cd.

Open source software is about mutual support. Get involved, support others, and they will help support you.

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (1)

theeds (300421) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319728)

I am involved of a user group, consisting of over 10 people, I'm currently the only one with out cable/dsl. This doesn't matter however, because I'd rather download these files myself and burn them myself, preference, sorry.

-Theed

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (2)

elefantstn (195873) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319757)

This doesn't matter however, because I'd rather download these files myself and burn them myself, preference, sorry.


You're contradicting yourself. In the original post, you said you wanted to send a blank cd to the FreeBSD people so they could burn it for you, now you won't let other people do it cos you're a "burn it myself" kind of guy. Either you're confused or just trolling.

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (1)

theeds (300421) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319778)

Coming from a friend or coming direct from the creator is a different story, with the creator i can be sure everything will be there, with my friends i cannot.

-Theed

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (1)

turbine216 (458014) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319809)

IT'S AN ISO IMAGE!!!!


It's not like they're picking and choosing files to put on the disc!!!! They're burning a full image, with all necessary and included files!!! So how is it that your friends' burns would end up any different from discs coming from the creators????


Now i KNOW you're trolling.

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (1)

Maditude (473526) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319718)

When will people decide to make certain iso's small enough for dial-up users to be able to download it in a reasonable period of time (say 24 hours) These iso's are getting far too huge for most of us to dl anymore where some can reach as much as a gig or so. Because of this I've taken to buying certain distro's, but when does this 'freeware' become costly, the moment that they start getting rediculously huge.

Well, you could just download the boot floppies, and then install from them (it'll only pull down the stuff you actually intend to install, so you can say skip X and save a ton of downloaded code).
And, once you've got FreeBSD installed, as long as you stay relatively current (very easy to do), you won't ever need to do a full reinstall again!

They should either offer: a free cd burn (either they provide the cd, or you send them one of yours), or put it in stores and have them give the email of people who want their software ( these people have pre-signed up on their site and they submit it to the store along with a shipment). I'd prefer the first one myself, of sending them a cd. It would cost maybe 66 cents to send a cd back and forth, vs the $20+ people charge. Anyways feel free to flame.


I'm sure you won't find any volunteers on the 'BSD team willing to open snail-mailed cdroms of varying characteristics (rated 2x/4x/8x/etc), pop them individually into a cd-burner, start the burn, verify, and send them back. That'd be a huge pain-in-da-butt.

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319726)

Because the money that comes with people buying FreeBSD off-the-shelf is an important source of income, you should be glad that you can contribute some money to the project.
Alternative you could be help-your-selfish and parsimonious and just go to CheapBytes BSD section when 4.4 is there [cheapbytes.com].

Do yourself a favour and buy the FreeBSD 4.4 off-the-shelf, it's an investment that will come back around full circle, and benefit you in the end.

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (1)

theeds (300421) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319743)

I have bought a few distros on the past Debian $25 and slack $45, however I'm on an extremely fixed income and can't afford too much.

-Theed

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319810)

I have bought a few distros on the past Debian $25 and slack $45, however I'm on an extremely fixed income and can't afford too much.


Well this is getting off topic but I do have some suggestions:

- make friends with someone who has a broadband connection
- join a user group (often you can get burned CDs for the cost of the media, a buck or two)
- look into using boot images that download only the information you want over the net (for example I found a 24mb Debian ISO image that had just enough information to boot the machine and install the base system, for other even easier systems look at OpenBSD or FreeBSD ftp install floppies)
- find a cheap supplier of burned CDs (cheapbytes.com, etc)


There really is no reason to pay a lot for a distribution (unless you are doing so to support the project). Lots of options out there...

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (2)

Detritus (11846) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319732)

You don't need the ISO or a CD. You can download two floppy images, reboot your computer and install from the network via the ftp install option. It takes a while over a 56K modem but it does work.

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (1)

0101000001001010 (466440) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319740)

It appears to be that FreeBSD is the wrong project to point the finger at when complaining about unreasonable download sizes. I have installed FreeBSD by modem before and I appreciated three features very much:

1. All one has to download right away are the two floppy disks (boot and root) for an FTP install.

2. Afterwards the installer downloads only those parts of FreeBSD that one selects.

3. The ingenious ports tree (which is available for Mac OS X too, BTW) allows one to easily add programs at a later time.

As of now I consider FreeBSD to have the best installer of any free software. I wish more Linux distros would adopt an FTP install option (I am aware that some do). The ones that do, kudos to you, but they need more refinement (if you have ever FTP installed SuSE, you know what I mean :) )

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (2, Insightful)

dglo (21986) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319764)

They should either offer: a free cd burn (either they provide the cd, or you send them one of yours), or put it in stores and have them give the email of people who want their software ( these people have pre-signed up on their site and they submit it to the store along with a shipment). I'd prefer the first one myself, of sending them a cd.

Hey, cool. A volunteer! You forgot to provide your address so we can start mailing our CDs to you. I'm sure your followup will remedy that!

Note for the clueless: Free software is about DIY (do it yourself) not about whining that something hasn't been hand-delivered and auto-installed on you machine.

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (1)

cheezedawg (413482) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319814)

Big iso's aren't the problem- the problem is that some people still have dial-up connections (I'm kidding of course).

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (2)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319820)

Uh...isn't the idea of an ISO to be able to obtain the image of a CD-ROM (650MB) so you can burn the CD yourself?

So why on earth would you want them small? Yeah...there are like 5 CD's worth there to burn, but what you seem to be suggesting is that you have to burn 500 10MB CD's or something???

As for the "you wrote big software, you must burn it for me" argument, what about the time to process the cd's, to perform the actual burn, the equipment needed to do so? There is probably a reason that people charge $20...it's isn't free.

Find a friend with high-speed access, learn to use reget or something, or buy the CD's from someplace selling them.

There's a smaller ISO available, if you check (1)

parc (25467) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319925)

In the directory, there's a 4.4-mini.iso. It's 184M. Is that small enough for you?

Re:Size and the dial up dilemna (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2320221)

Try NetBSD, the iso's (for your arch only) are tiny, like 80M - and bootable.

me troll you long, long time! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319700)

This is an honor goatse link.
Please point your browser to http://goatse.cs/hello.jpg

OT: DDOS MS with their own bugs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319704)

Everyone running Apache on FreeBSD, Linux, OS X, whatever, add this line to your httpd.conf:

RedirectMatch ^.*\.(ida|exe|dll).* http://support.microsoft.com

Perhaps a little tough love will improve thier coding practices.

hehehe I love it..evil, immature, but sounds fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2320037)

I bet they would definitely notice that, and then somehow some legislation would surely come from congress about redirects..heheh

Updated info (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319711)

thet *BSD is dyin'. No, this hyar ain't th' same copy-paste deal, but it's true. FreeBSD suffers fum laughable perfo'mance, pore scalability, an' an almost total lack of commercial sof'ware suppo't. No t'menshun its unsartin future -- Walnut Creek, its primary distributo', was purchased by BSDi, an' BSDi was recently purchsed by Wind Rivah. Now, when yo' hoof it to th' FreeBSD Mall [freebsdmall, ah reckon.com], yo' find out thet "some producks & services haf tempo'arily become unavailable." Tempo'arily, mah ass: FreeBSD is daid. This hyar fack is further evidenced by th' fack thet th' Mall website kin't be accessed wifout th' "www." prefix -- th' site is bein' helter-skelter by amateurs. (Th' one thin' thet th' FreeBSD team ain't amateurish about is gay sex. It's fine known thet sevahal prominent fo'mer CSRG wawkers take it up th' ass as offen as postible, an' their "users group meetin's" [faggotry.com] is held in highway warshrooms. Th' fack th' Flamin'BSD is based in San Francisco is further proof thet FreeBSD is th' OS of choice fo' queer nancies. Finally, while ah despise Jedtians, ah will note thet th' BSD mascot is reminisent of an evil deity who Jedtians believe homosexuals will meet in th' af'erlife.) OpenBSD ain't much better. ah find it highly amoosin' thet a uniprocesso' sarver OS kin exist in th' year 2001, but ah guess thet OpenBSD's five users haf their reasons. Theo "Th' Rat" de Raadt is a fine known bitch/asshole, which is whuffo' he was kicked off th' NetBSD co'e team, dawgone it. (NetBSD has allus taken a firm stance of bitches/assholes, an' Th' Rat's bitchiness/assholery was not not tolerated once it was discovahed, cuss it all t' tarnation.) Also, Th' Rat's anti-US sentiments leads menny t'believe thet he was behind th' recent Wo'ld Grave Center "incident." Last, an' definitely least, is NetBSD. While their hardline anti-Rat policy is t'be commended, NetBSD is a joke. It's great thet they've managed t'po't their outdated UNIX-wannabe t'ev'rythin' on th' planet wif a circuit board, as fine as some citrus fruit, but sech po'tability has no prackical applicashun when viewed in light of perfo'mance, scalabilty, stability, an' sof'ware suppo't thet is even outdone by FreetofuckmenBSD. In sho't, *BSD is dyin'. ah hope thet these "AntiSouth Car'linan Megafags" larn th' truth an' is anally sodomized in th' booty by their competito's. Indeed, they muss be in a pore posishun already, t'have cornsidered usin' Cheap Sof'ware in th' enterprise. Thank yo'.

*BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319717)

*BSD is dying

Yet nother crippling bombshell hit th beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of ll servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [sysadminmag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick nd its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be mong OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For ll practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

*BSD is dying

Why I use FreeBSD (4, Insightful)

smnolde (209197) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319721)

1. cvsup r00lz for updating the OS
2. ports collection
3. single file (/etc/make.conf) for managing compile-time options and a master ftp server
4. VM
5. ports collection
6. no rpm or deb files
7. ports collection
8. linux binary compatibility
9. ports collection
10. softupdates
11. securelevel
12. make world

I converted all my computers from linux to FreeBSD about six months ago and never looked back. I find FreeBSD much simpler to manage, automate, and secure than any other *NIX (I haven't given OpenBSD a try yet).

There is no "journaled" filesystem since softupdates does a really good job and imporves the fs performance.

Oh, BTW, did I mention the ports collection?

'nuff said

Re:Why I use FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319761)

Softupdates is really great, unfortanly you still have to fsck if the box dies.
This will never happen if you have an UPS or run -STABLE branch, but adding an optional JFS layer in the VFS would be great.

No need for journaling...softupdates is as good. (1)

keepper (24317) | more than 12 years ago | (#2320288)

AFAIK, there are different school's of thought on the issue of Journaling Vs "SoftUpdate-like" filesystems.

I could go on and on about this, but theres a perfect comment on this on daemonnews that points to a french article that summerizes the reasons.

http://daily.daemonnews.org/view_story.php3?story_ id=2327 [daemonnews.org]

The only thing lacking right now in softupdates is an unattended way of the filesystem coming back up in the case of large data lost. This will be addressed when the background fsck daemon is completed, Softupdates will have all the merits of a journalled FS, plus even more speed ( disputeable ).

Re:Why I use FreeBSD (1)

drodver (410899) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319875)

Give OpenBSD a try, it's great for certain roles since it seems geared more to servers than FreeBSD. As of 2.9 I believe that it shares the ports collection with FreeBSD too. Highly recommended for firewalling or other network services.

I agree, one more small point (0)

Anonymous Koward (248926) | more than 12 years ago | (#2320158)

I just feel good about using an O.S. that really pisses off all of our local trolls. It has to be said, have you noticed they come out of the gate full of piss and vinegar every time a *BSD is even MENTIONED, let alone given a full story? This tells me the trolls are even MORE worried about its progress than the acceptance of Linux. Hehehehe, and all they can do is cut/paste/reiterate the same old posts. Now they're even running them through different translators (I loved the 'jive' version !). I use OpenBSD myself, but when I used Free, it was still everything that you stated above, a damn fine o.s. Let's salute our trolls, as they appear to be a good benchmark for *BSD's success (just in inverse proportions).

Should have waited... (1, Offtopic)

turbine216 (458014) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319723)


the developers should have delayed this release until October so they could steal some of WinXP's thunder...

Re:Should have waited... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319736)

that was a joke, by the way...

the old slashcode seems to interpret the tag as real HTML now...

Re:Should have waited... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319746)

DAMN IT!!!
how can i emphasize my sarcasm if stupid slashcode won't let me use the fake HTML tag that we've all come to know and love??!?!?!?!?

<SARCASM></SARCASM>....how ya like them apples, slashcode????

Re:Should have waited... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319843)

Fortunately most of the open source community doesn't play those childish games. :) Release when it's ready, don't delay it just for "timing". I'd rather have my better software before something mediocre, not after.

Should have waited... Or.. (1)

archen (447353) | more than 12 years ago | (#2320204)

OR it's better that they get it out now, so when people start jumping off the XP bandwagon like a ship on fire, they have something people have a bit of experience with.

(Free)BSD v. Linux (1)

digitect (217483) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319727)

As a rather novice Linux user, I've been curious as the differences between it and BSD. Can somebody point to a link that goes into some rather sophisticated detail between the two? (More than "Supports themes, is cool, etc.")

Thanks.

Re:(Free)BSD v. Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319790)

You can't have someone tell you these things without the risk of starting a flamewar or that the posts reek with personal opinions.

Here's my opinion, the BSD's are like Debian, a full system; but better in every aspect.

Re:(Free)BSD v. Linux (2, Informative)

Noxxus (259942) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319831)

As a rather novice Linux user, I've been curious as the differences between it and BSD. Can somebody point to a link that goes into some rather sophisticated detail between the two? (More than "Supports themes, is cool, etc.")

This article might be a good read for you:

http://www.daemonnews.org/199907/d-advocate.html [daemonnews.org]

Re:(Free)BSD v. Linux (2)

Zapman (2662) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319838)

Unfortunatly, finding such hard data is almost imposible. I've been searching for years for data to back up claims of networking superiority from one camp or the other.

To give a short answer, *BSD's are all offshots of the historical 4.4BSDLite code, the final inheritance of Berkeley's system distribution. This is different from the SysV distribution, who's roots lie within ATT. Linux's philosophy has always been "That's a nifty idea... how can we do it?" so it is a hybred of BSD and SysV. (Free|Open|Net)BSD are 'true' BSD. Something like Solaris2 is going to be a more 'true' SysV. Some linux distributions are more BSD (like slackware) and some are more SysV (like Redhat and Debian).

The main, user visable, differences between SysV and BSD are in the flags that 'ps' takes. :-) There are a lot of differences at the syscall level, but most people don't see that. There are also significant differences in the boot procedure (one of the things that I prefer about SysV). BSD has one file (script) per runlevel. SysV has one script per service, organized in 1 directory per runlevel. Want to stop a service in sysv? '<service script> stop'.

The best thing you can do to learn more about it is to download it and give it a try yourself.

Re:(Free)BSD v. Linux (0)

grav.2k (117775) | more than 12 years ago | (#2320083)

actually, there is only one main runlevel in BSD, multiuser with network and stuff.

typing init 1 for example (this is sysV style, just for compatibility and easy-to-useness) drops you into single user.
init 6 reboots the machine, init 0 halts it.
apart from that, there are no runlevels 2, 3, 4, 5 like in sysV unix.

Re:(Free)BSD v. Linux (2)

marm (144733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2320066)

I can give you a quick run down of the basic differences, at least wrt to Linux vs. FreeBSD - the other BSD's have a slightly different set of pros and cons but are largely similar to FreeBSD:

  • Licensing - FreeBSD uses the BSD license for its core, which allows incorporation of the code into proprietary, binary-only products. The Linux core components use the GPL or LGPL licenses, which disallow such incorporation.
  • Distribution and development - the FreeBSD core is developed and distributed as a complete OS. There is only a single FreeBSD distro, and it comes straight from the FreeBSD team. Linux is developed piecemeal by lots of different groups - the kernel group is quite separate from the libc group, which is quite separate from the group that develops the standard command-line utilities. With Linux, it is up to each individual distributor (of which there are many) to integrate all the various pieces into a coherent OS.
  • Maturity - the BSDs have a history that goes all the way back to the 70's, and in some places it shows - notably in the virtual memory subsystem, which takes a long time and a lot of fiddling and testing to get right. Currently the FreeBSD VM system is much better than that in Linux. However, Linux gets a lot more active development due to its popularity. Only two or three years ago, Linux was far behind FreeBSD in terms of its TCP/IP stack. Things change very fast in the Linux world however, and it is arguable that Linux 2.4 now equals or surpasses FreeBSD in this department.
  • SMP scalability - this is an area that FreeBSD is working on heavily, but currently Linux is far in the lead with this, scaling well up to 8 processors, whilst FreeBSD does relatively poorly even with just 2 processors. This will change when FreeBSD 5.0 is released, which incorporates much of the very good BSDi SMP code.
  • Packaging systems, ports vs. apt - the BSD ports tree is an exceptionally powerful way of automatically distibuting and updating software, far in advance of anything commercially available. Debian's (and now Conectiva's and Mandrake's) apt system rivals or surpasses it, but it is not standard in all Linux distros. Plus, in Linux, there is still a great divide over which back-end packaging system to use - either RPM or deb, and the overall layout of the filesystem, which, despite standardization efforts, still varies from distro to distro.
  • Portability - Linux has been ported to just about every architecture you could think of, and can be used on everything from a wristwatch all the way up to a big IBM mainframe. FreeBSD has... not, preferring to concentrate almost entirely on the Intel architecture. NetBSD rivals or surpasses Linux in terms of its portability, but is quite distinct from FreeBSD and has its own set of pros and cons in other areas.
  • Ease of installation - the commercial Linux distributors have it here. With some, it is as simple as powering up, inserting a CD, and getting a fully-working desktop or server system 20 minutes later. FreeBSD requires a significant amount more work to install it. However, this is no more difficult than the noncommercial Linux distros (Debian or Slackware).

Well, that's just a quick list off the top of my head, anyone care to add more?

More info (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319735)

*BSD is dyin' Yet t'other cripplin' bombshell hit th' beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC cornfirmed thet *BSD accounts fo' less than a frackshun of 1 percent of all sarvers. Comin' on th' heels of th' latess Netcraf' survey which plainly states thet *BSD has lost mo'e market share, this hyar noos sarves t'reinfo'ce whut we've known all along, acco'din' t' th' code o' th' heells! *BSD is collapsin' in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failin' daid last [sysadminmag, acco'din' t' th' code o' th' heells!com] in th' recent Sys Admin comprehensive netwawkin' test. Yo' doesn't need t'be a Krehide [amdest.com] t'predick *BSD's future. Th' han' writin' is on th' wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fack thar won't be enny future at all fo' *BSD on account o' *BSD is dyin'. Thin's is lookin' mighty bad fo' *BSD. As menny of us is already aware, *BSD corntinues t'lose market share. Red ink flows like a rivah of blood, cuss it all t' tarnation. FreeBSD is the dawgoned-est indangered of them all, ah reckon. Less keep t'th' facks an' look at th' numbers. OpenBSD leader Theo states thet thar is 7000 users of OpenBSD. How menny users of NetBSD is thar? Less see. Th' number of OpenBSD vahsus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 t'1. Tharfo'e thar is about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet is about ha'f of th' voloom of NetBSD posts. Tharfo'e thar is about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of th' *BSD market. Tharfo'e thar is (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This hyar is cornsissent wif th' number of FreeBSD Usenet posts. Due t'th' troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales an' so on, FreeBSD went outta business an' was taken on over by BSDah who sell t'other troubled OS. Now BSDah is also daid, its co'pse turned on over t'yet t'other charnel house. All majo' surveys show thet *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is mighty sick an' its long term survival prospecks is mighty dim, dawgone it. Eff'n *BSD is t'survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD corntinues t'decay. Nothin' sho't of a miracle c'd save it at this hyar point in time. Fo' all prackical purposes, *BSD is daid. *BSD is dyin'

Unfortunately, there is the fact (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319737)

that *BSD is dying. No, this isn't the same copy-paste deal, but it's true. FreeBSD suffers from laughable performance, poor scalability, and an almost total lack of commercial software support. No to mention its uncertain future -- Walnut Creek, its primary distributor, was purchased by BSDi, and BSDi was recently purchsed by Wind River. Now, when you go to the FreeBSD Mall, you find out that "some products and services have temporarily become unavailable." Temporarily, my ass: FreeBSD is dead. This fact is further evidenced by the fact that the Mall website can't be accessed without the "www." prefix -- the site is being run by amateurs.

(The one thing that the FreeBSD team isn't amateurish about is gay sex. It's well known that several prominent former CSRG workers take it up the ass as often as possible, and their " users group meetings [faggotry.com]" are held in highway washrooms. The fact the FlamingBSD is based in San Francisco is further proof that FreeBSD is the OS of choice for queer nancies. Finally, while I despise Christians, I will note that the BSD mascot is reminiscent of an evil deity who Christians believe homosexuals will meet in the afterlife.)

OpenBSD isn't much better. I find it highly amusing that a uniprocessor server OS can exist in the year 2001, but I guess that OpenBSD's five users have their reasons. Theo "The Rat" de Raadt is a well known bitch/asshole, which is why he was kicked off the NetBSD core team. (NetBSD has always taken a firm stance of bitches/assholes, and The Rat's bitchiness/assholery was not not tolerated once it was discovered.) Also, The Rat's anti-US sentiments leads many to believe that he was behind the recent World Grave Center "incident."

Last, and definitely least, is NetBSD. While their hardline anti-Rat policy is to be commended, NetBSD is a joke. It's great that they've managed to port their outdated UNIX-wannabe to everything on the planet with a circuit board, as well as some citrus fruit, but such portability has no practical application when viewed in light of performance, scalabilty, stability, and software support that are even outdone by FreetofuckmenBSD.

In short, *BSD is dying. I hope that these "Antiamerican Megafags" learn the truth and are anally sodomized in the butt by their competitors. Indeed, they must be in a poor position already, to have considered using Cheap Software in the enterprise.

Thank you.

-- The_Messenger
the_messenger@evilmail.com [mailto]

*BSD is dying (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319769)

*BSDis dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit th belaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of ll servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [sysadminmag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick nd its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For ll practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

*BSD is dying

They need to address some serious issues (1, Funny)

Bob Abooey (224634) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319786)

As a core consultant developer for the *BSD kernel for 6 months last year I can't believe they are releaseing this. There are many issues which have not been resolved and are not being publicized to the public. The issues as I see them:

1) The implementation of threads still uses fine grain kernel level locking which does not adhere to POSIXX IEEE 811.2b level requirements, meaning this software is not, nor could it ever be certified for level 4 security.

2) The hash implementation which was used for prior backdoor's still exists and the modules which access it have not been auditied by third party engineers. This is a serious security violation which the dev team refuses to address. In fact they are doing all they can to sweep it underground, hoping people will just forget about it.

3) There is still no credible evidence that the new implementation of the TCP/IP stack is an improvement over the broken one they are trying to replace from the 4.3.xx series. The benchmarks I saw before leaving were just short of horrible and the potential for data loss was rated as QQQ on the topenhiemer algorithm.

I am currently petitioning the core dev team to remove my code from the project due to my differences with them, but they are the most pious and insufferable people I have ever worked with, so I doubt they will. Use this product at your own risk.

Re:They need to address some serious issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319834)

Go toy with your NT box, damned Mike Bouma

Re:They need to address some serious issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319837)

1. Oh, level 4 security? Yeah, right, in what rainbow book can I read about level 4? A, B, C, D damn, didn't see a number in there.

2. Oh, a backdoor? Sorry to ruin your troll, there is no backdoor, I'm a kernel developer and I can guarantee that there isn't one.

3. You mean, it doesn't fully follow the TCP/IP spec? True, but the BSD stack is the defacto standard, and much more important than the actual spec.

Re:They need to address some serious issues (0, Troll)

shlong (121504) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319847)

Wow, this post most looks most informative, maybe even insightful, doesn't it? In fact, There is very little true about it. Lets take a look here...

1) "POSIXX" (sic) "IEEE 811.2b", "Level 4 security". What the hell? It sounds like these were pulled out of the guy's arse.

2) "Hash implementation ...prior backdoors". Bzzzt. Wrong.

3) "New implementation of the TCP/IP stack ... replace from the 4.3.xx series". No, the TCP/IP stack was not replaced, and there was no 4.3.xx series. I won't even quote the rediculous crap at the end of that line.

The guy also claims that he is an ex-core team member. This is a highly dubious claim given the junk contained in the post and screename of "Bob Abooey". So in short.... there's nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Re:They need to address some serious issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319860)

As per item (2), that backdoor has been there for a LONG time. In fact, that is one of the reasons that the Code Red virus brought down freebsd.org's own server ! The fact that the backdoor is still there tells you something of the chaos freebsd has been under since most of its leaders lost there jobs when Walnut Creek went under. No one is at the helm.

Re:They need to address some serious issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319877)

Another great troll!

Re:They need to address some serious issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319947)

I don't even need to make a comment. You made yourself look stupid enough.

nice troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319862)

but..

QQQ on the topenhiemer algorithm

kind of tiped your hat. This is no 'topenhiemer' algorithm, QQQ what kind of shit is that.

still don't belive me, check out his website.

-Anon

Re:They need to address some serious issues (1)

BlowCat (216402) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319922)

Posts like this are the primary reason why children shouldn't be allowed to read slashdot without being superwised.

It's complete junk. I'm sorry if somebody was fooled.

On the other hand, it would be appropriate on the 1st of April, much more than the idiotic jokes that slashdot was running.

Re:They need to address some serious issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319954)

What gibberish is this? And who the hell moderated this completely non-sensical and blatant troll?

Re:They need to address some serious issues (1)

CtrlPhreak (226872) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319977)

Why would you ever want your code removed from the project? If there are no problems with your code, then wouldn't you be helping this project become better? If you cared so little about it so as to want your code removed making it worse, then why complain about it at all?

Re:They need to address some serious issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2320016)

Why would you use FreeBSD if you want a secure system? FreeBSD is the least secure of all the *BSDs. It's not as bad as Windows, but it's no great shakes by any stretch of the imagination. The only truly secure *BSD is OpenBSD. That is what you want.

Re:They need to address some serious issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2320062)

Whoever moderated this troll as "Informative" needs to be taken out back and shot.

Seriously

Enough with those complaints already! (3, Informative)

c.r.o.c.o (123083) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319797)

The FreeBSD 4.4 news haven't been posted for more than a few minutes, there are (were when I started writing) 6 posts, and already people are following a very annoying thread. What I mean is the stupid (IMO) advice that *BSD (or Linux or any open source project) should do this and that, be like this and that in order to be more average user friendly and to gain more market share.

PEOPLE! Do you think that the people, or the companies developing with those OSes are not aware of those problems? That they have no clue whatsoever as to what the general public wants? That they simply refuze to make their OSes user friendly, just to spite the users, and stay in a tiny share of the market?

They want more users, and they're doing everything possible to make their experience as pain-free and easy as possible. That they haven't reached perfection is not a surprise. But don't give such stupid advice on /., and most of all, don't complain so much about it. Instead, do something about it. Mail the developers this advice, or better yet, help code the OS, write the documentation, and in general, help improve it.

But even this is not very relevant, for I'm using Linux because it suits me, and I like it, no matter how small its market share. And no matter how user (un)friendly it is. I like it (and I've been running it for the past 4.5 years)

I know, I know. My complaining does not help either. But I'm not doing it every time such a story is posted (check my posts if you don't believe me). I'm just getting fed up with all this useless noise. I'd much rather hear about the technical issues with FreeBSD (I haven't tried it yet, I'm running Linux and OpenBSD), the user experience, the major apps that have been ported to it, etc. THAT would help me, and others.

What I like and dislike about FreeBSD (5, Insightful)

Florian (2471) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319798)

What I like:
  • better responsiveness under heavy load - Linux 2.4.x with its VM problems is particularly bad in comparison
  • smaller base software/dependencies; BSD libc is much smaller than glibc; /bin/sh points to ash, so all shell and system scripts are ash processes (and not bloated bash processes); classic Unix tools are less heavyweight than GNU tools (Remember: you can use GNU tools, bash etc., but they're not a dependency)
  • mature device file system
  • Clear separation of what belongs to the core OS & third party software (=ports system)
  • Best package management for installing/compiling from source (Debian's apt-get src isn't there yet)
  • Kernel features are fewer, but proven & tested (as opposed to many experimental or not-yet-mature drivers/subsystems/filesystems in Linux)
  • standard file system is 64 bit, allowing big single files
  • Package selections show that FreeBSD maintainers are real Unix afficionados (vim 6.0 available etc.)
  • the whole system is/feels very solid and mature
What I dislike:
  • distribution/ports mixes free and non-free software (Motif etc.) without prompting the user what is free and not; bad not only for Free Software zealots, but also for people who want to make sure they can use software without limitations in their environment (FreeBSD looks as it is made by people for whom software freedom is a secondary concern)
  • available for a smaller no. of hardware architectures than Linux (or use NetBSD on non-x86 platforms, but that's already a different OS)
  • no journalling filesystems (no ReiserFS, no XFS), a very small number of filesystems supported
  • no /proc, no framebuffer device, no ALSA sound drivers, no hardware accelerated graphics in the kernel
  • much worse SMP support than current Linux kernels
. GNU/Linux feels more "modern" than FreeBSD, while FreeBSD is comparatively "conservative", but also more solid. Draw your own conclusions.

Re:What I like and dislike about FreeBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319957)

no /proc???

> uname -sr
FreeBSD 4.4-RC

> ls /proc/
0/ 12721/ 168/ 45117/ 5/

journalling vs. softupdates (5, Informative)

elbuddha (148737) | more than 12 years ago | (#2320185)


BSD's FFS with softupdates could be considered to obviate the need for journalling.

Read Journalling Versus Soft Updates [usenix.org] for a good Usenix 2000 paper comparing both approaches, which concludes that:

Soft Updates holds the promise of providing stronger reliability guarantees than journaling, with faster recovery and superior performance

and that

journaling alone is not sufficient to "solve" the meta-data update problem.

Both methods achieve the same goals by different means.

Re:What I like and dislike about FreeBSD (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2320192)

"No journalling filesystem."

Thats correct but they have "soft updates", thus making jounalling unnecessary. Different religion, solves same problem...

http://www.mckusick.com/softdep/

FTP upgrade (1)

dohcvtec (461026) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319804)

I'd really like to upgrade my FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE firewall now that 4.4-RELEASE is out, but to save bandwidth, and for simplicity's sake, I'd like to do it via FTP upgrade. However, I'm wondering if there are any security issues involved in doing so. Normally, IPFilter is running to provide packet filtering, but during the FTP upgrade, I would assume that I'd be relatively unprotected. I have done a lot of searching into this situation and haven't come up with a good answer yet. Does anybody have any opinions on this matter?

Re:FTP upgrade (1)

greenplato (23083) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319872)

cvsup [freebsd.org] is your answer. It grabs the newest sources, and then you can compile them and install them on your own with make world. It saves bandwidth and is pretty cool in general.

A change in your firewall rules to allow cvsup will not affect your security.

Re:FTP upgrade (3, Informative)

Maditude (473526) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319948)

FTP upgrade? Use cvsup, it fetches all the changed source files for you.

When it's done, you'll want to take a look at your /usr/src/UPDATING file, which will describe the significant things that have changed.

After that, it's just a matter of doing a:
make buildworld
make buildkernel KERNCONF=GENERIC (or whichever kernel you are building, if you have a custom one)
make installworld
make installkernel KERNCONF=GENERIC (or whatever)
reboot

Re:FTP upgrade (2, Informative)

glwillia (31211) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319994)

FTP upgrade? Use cvsup, it fetches all the changed source files for you.

When it's done, you'll want to take a look at your /usr/src/UPDATING file, which will describe the significant things that have changed.

After that, it's just a matter of doing a:
make buildworld
make buildkernel KERNCONF=GENERIC (or whichever kernel you are building, if you have a custom one)
make installworld
make installkernel KERNCONF=GENERIC (or whatever)
reboot


You should also run mergemaster after make installworld, or else you'll get weird errors (like the PAM errors from 4.2->4.3)

Re:FTP upgrade (1)

Maditude (473526) | more than 12 years ago | (#2320179)

You should also run mergemaster after make installworld, or else you'll get weird errors (like the PAM errors from 4.2->4.3)
Mergemaster fscked my box over real well going from 4.0 to 4.1 (I can't say that I truly knew what I was doing back then), and ever since, I've religiously avoided mergemaster.

Dumb noob question (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319813)

I was skimming over the Handbook and I noticed something about an option to install Linux compatibility binaries. Question for BSD users: how good is this compatibility? Perfect, so-so, or somewhere in the middle?

Re:Dumb noob question (1)

ocipio (131260) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319876)

The Linux compatibility is excellent in my opinion. It runs my linux java and netscape binaries just fine.

Re:Dumb noob question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319910)

It's fully RedHat 6.2 compatible, in that sence it's perfect. This is the best since closed source software are prectically always compatible with RedHat.
I generally get better performance with Linux apps in FreeBSD than in Linux, but then they are not that systemcall intensive.

Almost perfect (3, Informative)

flynn_nrg (266463) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319931)

In the ports directory you will find applications such as StarOffice (5.1 and 5.2), Netscape (linux version), linux version of Flash Plug-in and some more that work perfectly with Linux compat mode. What FreeBSD does is install a package (currently based on Redhat 6.1) and user a kernel module to provide binary compatibility, so it's no emulation. I've successfully ran Quake3 with h/w accel and all IPlanet products. Some other linux stuff you might run is e.g. acrored4 and the linux jvm. I'm posting this on a FreeBSD box using no other than Opera for linux.

*BSD be dyin' (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319818)

We all kin see da damn hand writin' on de wall, dig dis: *BSD faces some bleak future. What it is, Mama! In fact dere may be no future at all fo' *BSD cuz' *BSD be dyin'. Din's are lookin' real bad-ass fo' *BSD. As many uh us are already aware, *BSD continues t'lose market share. What it is, Mama! Red ink flows likes some riva' of blood. FreeBSD be puh'haps de most in endangered.

Let's look at da damn numbers.

OpenBSD leada' Deo say dat dere are 7000 users uh OpenBSD. How many users uh NetBSD are dere? Let's see. What it is, Mama! De numba' of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet be roughly in ratio uh 5 t'1. Derefo'e dere are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half uh de volume uh NetBSD posts. Derefo'e dere are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 puh'cent uh de *BSD market. Derefo'e dere are (7000 1400 700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. Dis is consistent wid de numba' of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Becauset'de troubles uh Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so's on, FreeBSD went out of business and wuz snatchn ova' by BSDI who sell anoda' troubled OS.

All marketin' surveys show dat *BSD gots'ta steadily declined in market share. What it is, Mama! *BSD be very sick and its long term survival prospects are real dim. 'S coo', bro. If *BSD be to survive at all it gots'ta be among OS hobbyists, dabblers, and dilettantes. *BSD continues to decay. Slap mah fro! Nodin' sho't uh a miracle could save it at dis point in time. What it is, Mama! Fo' all practical purposes, *BSD be wasted.

A balanced OS (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319832)

FreeBSD is a wonderfully consistent OS, great job!

The only woe I have is the plugin support for browsers. Most of them are binary only and built for Linux. Never seems to work for Mozilla (running under linux emulation) so I have to resort to buggy Netscape.

A lot of stuff out there uses Java or Shockwave...I just hate not being able to view them.

Why did *BSD fail? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319839)

So why now? Why did *BSD fail? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 15 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personalities?

The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shround over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.

Freebsd better now? (TROLL) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319846)

So is FreeBSD better then Linux now?

Ok how about for a web server?
... File server?
... Database server
... cluster computing/rendering farm
... Inbedded devies.
... Desktop OS.
... For games?

I used to run my NAT/BIND/Apache/Q3/ICECAST of FreeBSD 3.2, now I run have linux2.4 running a NAT and have 20x more problems randomly come up. I know it's because I don't know linux as well, or unix in general, maybe it's because linux is more supplicated, but I think I'm going to just install FreeBSD again because it just worked.. and makes for an easy statement that I can back up

!Linux suxors.!

-Jon

Re:Freebsd better now? (TROLL) (1)

ocipio (131260) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319936)

FreeBSD performs, in my opinion, better as a file server compared to Linux. With Softupdates enabled, the disk i/o can be faster than ext2fs but with all the reliability.

As a database server, it works great. FreeBSD 4.x doesn't have the best threading support, but 5.0 will, and then some. However, it runs perfectly for most needs.

I have been using FreeBSD as my desktop for 3 years now.

Gaming? Well, most of the games are made for linux. However, I have heard that people play games with wine with better FPS.

I would say give 4.4 a try. You last used the 3.2 version? 4.x has come a long way since 3.x. I am sure you will be impressed and pleased.

Ben must be stopped! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319864)

America is facing a serious problem; Ben is a foaming fucker. His foaminess and fuckery is a serious issue to our well-being, and the well-being of our children and children's children. Ben should die and go to hell.

Re:Ben must be stopped! (0)

Uriel_66_81 (522900) | more than 12 years ago | (#2319894)

No, The true problem this country is facing is a faceles coward nammed brad. His constant wasting of air through his selfish breathing of my air must stop. Down with brad the evil child worshipin heathen devil pagan. KILL KILL KILL KILL !!!!!!

Re:Ben must be stopped! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319911)

For more information on the problem of Ben, see the following site [fuckedcompany.com].

The women's locker room (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2319903)

What will you see in the women's locker room? You will see fat jodhpur thighs and cellulite buttocks which look like buckets of spoiled cottage cheese. You will see asymmetrical lop-sided breasts with hairs growing out of the nipples. You will see industrial size panties stretched over roly-poly guts. You will see hairy unshaven ape-like underarms. You will see various residues of menstrual fluid stains and paraphernalia. That is what you will see in the women's locker room.

Question about ports/cvsup... (1)

cymen (8178) | more than 12 years ago | (#2320079)

How often is ports updated? Is it like Debian stable where you never get a new version of something like Apache? Or does ports get updated fairly regularly? I ask because as much as I like running Debian on my servers I really hate not getting recent releases of Apache/PHP/etc... My mail server actually runs FreeBSD at the moment but it's an ancient version and the machine is too slow for a cvsup (48mb ram, cyrix p150+, 8gb IDE ata33 drives, it grinds). I've got a way faster replacement and I'm just getting ready to go the Debian route with it but...


(and before anyone says I'm reckless for running recent releases of apache/php/etc on my server - it's for my own use)

finally (1)

JDizzy (85499) | more than 12 years ago | (#2320082)

Man... I've been waitting at least two week for this... Originally thsi was supposed to be released at about the time Jordan made the infamous press release about the 5.0. To make things worse they would allow their website to have a bad date on the release page. Making things appears as if they forgot to release the new version, and also forgot to update the website.

FreeBSD helped me out of a pickle. (1)

spinlocked (462072) | more than 12 years ago | (#2320117)

I have an Alcatel speedtouch USB ADSL modem, which I spent monthes trying to get working reliably under Linux. The damn thing would lock up after about 200 packets went through it, either using the open-ish source Alcatel driver (utter, utter, c**p), or the real open source user-land driver.

In the end I tracked the problem down to the UHCI controller code in the 2.4.x Linux kernel and after some brief hacking about I gave up trying to fix it. I was just about to fire up windows/winroute when I thought I might try a *BSD.

3 days later I had a pretty well locked down NAT/IPFilter gateway machine, which has been connected to my ISP for well over 100 days at a stretch (I turn it off when I go away). It operates well under load and I get excellent ping times - even with the user-land ppp - better than windows.

My only gripe with FreeBSD is the amount of documentation available. You pretty much have to work out most things for yourself, there aren't the sheer number of different HOWTOs available like there are with Linux.

Now if only I could get my wireless card to work in it...

assembly woes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2320127)

I have been using tasm+tlink for a DOS app that I am writing but it turned out i needed MMX support and that forced me to change my assembler. I chose nasm because I have been using it before in my other programs. I am still linking everything with tlink.

The problem is: Everything compiles and links without warnings and usually runs but I can't link the debug version correctly - if I do: nasm16 -f obj -g myfile.asm tlink /zi myfile.obj I get some messages about wrong segment offsets and don't get any executable (if I exclude -g and use tlink /x everything is fine)

Other thing I found out is that the code mov ax,seg variable mov ds,ax mov di,var loads ds:di with different (however valid) segment and offset than equivalent tasm code. My question is: what should I do to make nasm produce object files that exactly match ones produced with tasm, so that I can link debug executable and don't get these segment/offset differences?

FreeBSD and friends? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2320246)

FreeBSD is excellent in some ways, other OSes are
excellent in other (perhaps similar) ways.

Everyone would like an OS that is excellent allround, right? Why can't some of the major free-unix-clone projects merge?

UNIX (and clones) has always fork()-ed a lot into different styles. Now, if someone might say that Linux will end that; have a look at the flow of distributions...
I hope to see ONE single FREE UNIX-clone in a few years and I believe it could be a result of cooperation between Linux/GNU/*BSD.

For you morons who can not cooperate because of licenses: go commit suicide immediately so the sane people can do some good work without being interrupted by flame wars.

Now, a comment to why this won't happen:
The key to cooperation is to give up control of something. Hackers are control freaks. The result is therefore eternal chaos, religious wars and "fork()-ing".

I know you. You are just like me. But I am twice as dumb as you used to be before you even were smart. Yet I have the truth and you are caught in the projection of lies.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...