# How it fits BSD?



## aponomarenko (Jul 15, 2020)

Choosing hardware for BSD?

I just implemented a new feature of the BSD hardware database that allows you to check desired computer models for BSD compatibility. You need to find the computer model you are interested in in the Linux hardware database first (it's large enough) and then follow new *How it fits BSD?* button at the bottom of the page. You'll get a list of devices on board and support statuses:



*Tested*We have a BSD probe of this device and driver was found and active*Supported*We have found driver implementation for the device in the kernel*Likely not supported*We have NOT found driver implementation for the device in the kernel*Not supported*We have a BSD probe of this device and driver was NOT found by the kernel*Need to test*We have no info on the device


See example for DELL E6320 computer model on this page. See example for RTL8188CE device on this page.

Search for drivers is performed using this list of supported device IDs generated for the FreeBSD kernel, kms-drm, drm-legacy and Nvidia proprietary drivers.

If you did not find the right computer model, then try again in the morning — 200-300 new computers are added to the database daily.


----------



## DonK (Jul 15, 2020)

This is useful. Thank you.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 15, 2020)

aponomarenko  On this page I see you have people select their BSD "distro". There is no such thing as a "distro" in BSD. This is not Linux.


----------



## aponomarenko (Jul 15, 2020)

drhowarddrfine said:


> aponomarenko  On this page I see you have people select their BSD "distro". There is no such thing as a "distro" in BSD. This is not Linux.



This is now fixed. Thank you.


----------



## Mjölnir (Jul 15, 2020)

drhowarddrfine said:


> aponomarenko  On this page I see you have people select their BSD "distro". There is no such thing as a "distro" in BSD. This is not Linux.


Your understanding of the term _distribution_ does not match common agreements. In fact, Ghost/Midnight/FuryBSD, XigmaNAS et. al. are FreeBSD _distributions_: (software) A set of bundled software components; distro.
.


----------



## SirDice (Jul 15, 2020)

mjollnir said:


> Your understanding of the term _distribution_ does not match common agreements.


It's not, the FreeBSD OS is considered a single entity, not a collection of individual, self-contained, components.


mjollnir said:


> In fact, Ghost/Midnight/FuryBSD, XigmaNAS et. al. are FreeBSD _distributions_:


No,  they  are _derivatives_.


----------



## aponomarenko (Jul 15, 2020)

SirDice said:


> It's not, the FreeBSD OS is considered a single entity, not a collection of individual, self-contained, components.
> 
> No,  they  are _derivatives_.



How about _BSD variants_?


----------



## SirDice (Jul 15, 2020)

aponomarenko said:


> How about _BSD variants_?


That sounds fine if it is intended to include NetBSD, OpenBSD and BSD/OS (BSD/386) for example.


----------



## aponomarenko (Jul 15, 2020)

SirDice said:


> That sounds fine if it is intended to include NetBSD, OpenBSD and BSD/OS (BSD/386) for example.



Yep, in the context of the original post it's intended to include all BSD systems.


----------



## Mjölnir (Jul 15, 2020)

SirDice said:


> It's not, the FreeBSD OS is considered a single entity, not a collection of individual, self-contained, components.
> 
> No,  they  are _derivatives_.


I do not agree on this.  It's a matter of definition, though.  If you bundle FreeBSD w/ a set of sw components e.g. *NAS web interface, I'd call that a _distribution_ as per the definition given on wiktionary.   I understand a _derivative_ as beeing e.g. HardenedBSD, for they change _relevant_ parts of the kernel.  The sw they add is only two tools AFAIK, so I'd not call that a _distribution_.  A _distribution_ does not do that to that extend, but bundles a set of sw and usually comes pre-configured for a special use-case.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 15, 2020)

mjollnir said:


> If you bundle FreeBSD w/ a set of sw components e.g. *NAS web interface, I'd call that a _distribution_ as per the definition given on wiktionary.


I would call that a configuration or packaging. Adding software to a working operating system does not change the underlying operating system in the case of FreeBSD. It does not change how FreeBSD works. 

In Linux case, there is no operating system until one pieces together everything needed to create one which is typically given a name for "distribution". Once that is done, then one can use the rightly called "package manager" to create a configuration or package based on an operating system. You can then add a *NAS web interface to Linux in the same way but that won't make the original Linux distribution another, different distribution.


----------



## Mjölnir (Jul 16, 2020)

An OS kernel is a piece of software.  The userland is a set of sw components, as well as a web server and it's middleware & backend.  Applying the definition: "A _distribution_ is a set of bundled software components", then e.g. the *NAS are _distributions_, as well as the desktop distros, since they bundle FreeBSD & GUI, and the commercial variants like JunOS.  It's just that in the BSD universe, this definition is not commonly accepted, or more precisely, the use of this term is not commonly applied to FreeBSD distros. This reminds me on the historical use of the term _slice_ in the BSD world for what was commonly known as _partition_, while a _slice_ was commonly used in the realm of RAID.  You are refusing to apply the term _distribution_, to emphasize that another kernel comes naked and needs to be bundled w/ userland to make up an OS, while FreeBSD is a complete OS.  Ok.  But that does not invalidate the definition given above, right?  The Linux folks _do not define_ the term _distribution_...  you can use it w/o any risk, trust me, it does not do any harm


----------



## Jose (Jul 16, 2020)

I disagree. The BSDs I'm familiar with provide at least a carefully integrated set of three key components: A kernel, C library, and toolchain.  There's only one Linux kernel, but there are several options for the other two, and the permutations of these key components can yield radically different results.

Additionally, it is customary and common for particular Linux distributions to patch all three components. This has advantages and disadvantages*.

To me, the word "distribution" implies that custom integration and patching. I do not believe that applies to the BSDs.

* "Because Linux distribution compilers tend to use lots of patches. coreboot does lots of "unusual" things in its build system, some of which break due to those patches, sometimes by gcc aborting, sometimes - and that's worse - by generating broken object code. Two options: use our toolchain (eg. make crosstools-i386) or enable the ANY_TOOLCHAIN Kconfig option if you're feeling lucky (no support in this case)."


----------



## 20-100-2fe (Jul 16, 2020)

I don't understand why some people are so rigid on "ports are not FreeBSD". The sole purpose of an OS is to allow the execution of applications. Applications are what people need to get their work done, an OS is a just way of achieving flexibility and cost-efficiency by providing abstractions to application developers and resource sharing to applications. If Windows applications could run on FreeBSD, there would be no need for ports. Ports are the only reason for the base OS to exist.

OS developers can consider them as distinct on a purely technical point of view, but it makes no sense to separate them from the user's perspective. Users are what makes the efforts of developers meaningful, and my impression is that this is often overlooked.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 16, 2020)

The REAL problem is that "distro" is a Linux term referring to their multitude of mish-mash variations of the same thing. No one EVER called ANYTHING else a "distro" before this. The BSDs have a bad enough time when so many Linux weanies think BSD is just another Linux so minimizing Linux terms and names about FreeBSD should be the LEAST we can do to remain unique.


----------



## 20-100-2fe (Jul 16, 2020)

drhowarddrfine said:


> Linux weanies think BSD is just another Linux



Maybe because FreeBSD ranks #27 on Distrowatch. 
The dream of the FreeBSD community is that it gains more visibility, and when it does, they regret it. Tssss...


----------



## Mjölnir (Jul 17, 2020)

drhowarddrfine said:


> The REAL problem is that "distro" is a Linux term referring to their multitude of mish-mash variations of the same thing. No one EVER called ANYTHING else a "distro" before this. The BSDs have a bad enough time when so many Linux weanies think BSD is just another Linux so minimizing Linux terms and names about FreeBSD should be the LEAST we can do to remain unique.


Now we get to the point.  _Distribution_ is _not_ a Linux term.  Look it up in any dictionary:

```
distribution
n. 1. A software source tree packaged for distribution; but see kit.
Since about 1996 unqualified use of this term often implies ?Linux distribution?.
The short form distro is often used for this sense. [...]
```
Besides that, it's a very old word with various applications in statistics, economics, etc.pp.  So IMHO it's justified to avoid to use _distro_ because it commonly refers to _Linux distributions_, but it's _false fear_ to avoid to use _distribution_ which already has a meaning applied to bundled software.


Jose said:


> I disagree. The BSDs I'm familiar with provide at least a carefully integrated set of three key components: A kernel, C library, and toolchain.  There's only one Linux kernel, but there are several options for the other two, and the permutations of these key components can yield radically different results.


At least PC-BSD/TrueOS applied patches to the kernel & base system.  I'd guess the commercial FreeBSD distributions (e.g. JunOS) do as well.  You let the Linux folks define the term _distribution_.  IMHO that's totally unjustified.  The term get's it's meaning in the realm of software from by applying common sense and carrying over it's meaning in other realms.  See my previous post.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 17, 2020)

mjollnir said:


> _Distribution_ is _not_ a Linux term.


I didn't say it was. I said "distro" is the problem.


----------



## Mjölnir (Jul 17, 2020)

For me _disto_ always was an abbreviation for _distribution_.  I'll try to change that to avoid confusion.  Thx for this interesting discussion on a topic that went kind of philosophical (evolution of natural language).


----------



## mark_j (Jul 17, 2020)

mjollnir said:


> Your understanding of the term _distribution_ does not match common agreements. In fact, Ghost/Midnight/FuryBSD, XigmaNAS et. al. are FreeBSD _distributions_: (software) A set of bundled software components; distro.
> .


No, they're derivations. A word is often 'hijacked' and can never be used again for it's original definition. For example, gay. It meant something totally different 40 years ago. Likewise, distribution is, in software terms, associated with linux. No ifs or buts. 

It should never, ever be used in terms of any *BSD. Linux is a kernel, and is useless on its own. It requires a distribution around it to make it usable. That's not applicable to any BSD.


----------



## mark_j (Jul 17, 2020)

20-100-2fe said:


> Maybe because FreeBSD ranks #27 on Distrowatch.
> The dream of the FreeBSD community is that it gains more visibility, and when it does, they regret it. Tssss...


And an obscure Linux distribution has top billing, always. I suspect distrowatch is pay-for-rank.


----------



## mark_j (Jul 17, 2020)

Jose said:


> I disagree. The BSDs I'm familiar with provide at least a carefully integrated set of three key components: A kernel, C library, and toolchain.  There's only one Linux kernel, but there are several options for the other two, and the permutations of these key components can yield radically different results.
> 
> Additionally, it is customary and common for particular Linux distributions to patch all three components. This has advantages and disadvantages*.
> 
> ...


Linux distributions are such a disjointed mess it took one of Linux's owners IBM/Redhat to design a wanna-be launchd/svcadm called systemd to try to align the dog's breakfast of inits, network and audio managers etc.


----------



## Mjölnir (Jul 17, 2020)

mark_j said:


> No, they're derivations. A word is often 'hijacked' and can never be used again for it's original definition. For example, gay. It meant something totally different 40 years ago. Likewise, distribution is, in software terms, associated with linux. No ifs or buts.
> 
> It should never, ever be used in terms of any *BSD. Linux is a kernel, and is useless on its own. It requires a distribution around it to make it usable. That's not applicable to any BSD.


Well, that's often the problem with natural language.  A sender sends a message intending X, the receipient receives it and applies meaning Y.  Many respected members here use the term _distribution_ according to it's definition given in various dictionaries.  Of course you are free to apply any meaning you like to any term, but obviously that will make communication difficult.  You can even invent your own new language... Maybe you should start a discussion with the editors of the dictionaries?
EDIT if you let others hijack a term & redefine it's meaning, that's your decision.  You are free to take another decision and use the very same term in it's genuine and widely accepted meaning.


----------



## olli@ (Jul 17, 2020)

Actually, formal definitions don't matter much in practice. What matters is, when you say “distribution” in the context of operating systems, 99 % will think “Linux”.


----------



## 20-100-2fe (Jul 17, 2020)

mark_j said:


> Linux distributions are such a disjointed mess



When talking about FreeBSD here, we don't care what Linux is, what matters is FreeBSD.

Besides philosophy and linguistics, considering psychology also helps.
Posts here exhibit not only fear, as mjollnir pointed out, but also anger, a whole lot of anger.

The role of fear is to keep us safe by triggering a reaction when we feel in danger.
The role of anger is to preserve our status in our group by triggering a reaction when we feel someone lacks us respect.

Obviously, this danger and lack of respect are purely imaginary: no one in any Linux community cares about FreeBSD.
They already have the world with them, they don't need to even think about FreeBSD.


----------



## Mjölnir (Jul 17, 2020)

olli@ said:


> Actually, formal definitions don't matter much in practice. What matters is, when you say “distribution” in the context of operating systems, 99 % will think “Linux”.


99% of computer nerds.  Which is a small group of all people.  Why do you care about their artificial narrowing of a otherwise commonly accepted meaning of a term?  Which is, as you can easily verify, written down to look up in various dictionaries?  Let them think what they want.  If they can't mentally leave their universe, ok, but you can, I guess.


----------



## olli@ (Jul 17, 2020)

mjollnir said:


> 99% of computer nerds.  Which is a small group of all people.  Why do you care about their artificial narrowing of a otherwise commonly accepted meaning of a term?  Which is, as you can easily verify, written down to look up in various dictionaries?  Let them think what they want.  If they can't mentally leave their universe, ok, but you can, I guess.


Aren’t we all computer nerds? The fact that this whole discussion exists proves that we are nerds.  

And the rest of mankind probably doesn’t care at all what the word distribution means.


----------



## 20-100-2fe (Jul 17, 2020)

The question is: does it help? And if it does, for what?
Unfortunately, there is no single answer to these questions as everyone here likely has different goals.

As for me, I've found out that unpleasant emotions (and they're all unpleasant but joy) are invitations to figure out (or remember) what is really important to me, then decide what to do with the situation triggering the emotion. I found this approach very useful and my quality of life keeps improving since I began using it.

This approach could be dubbed "First Things First" - which is also the title of a book by S. R. Covey.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 17, 2020)

20-100-2fe said:


> Obviously, this danger and lack of respect are purely imaginary: no one in any Linux community cares about FreeBSD.


For a group that doesn't care about FreeBSD, they sure do talk a lot about it. Actually, more often in a positive light than a negative one except for the aforementioned "weanies".

But just as Windows is absorbing Linux into itself, and Linux users seem fine with that, they now adapt Windows terms and software along with all their inherent problems. This is an issue for them but, again, they seem fine with that. However, if one is going to start absorbing Linux-isms into FreeBSD just because it doesn't do any harm and no one cares, then there is a problem with that. You no longer define problems and wins based on your own product. Linux is good because it runs Docker. FreeBSD is bad because it doesn't run Docker. But why does FreeBSD need Docker? Should we now rename all our devices as /dev/sdax because Linux does and it's only a name? Like Linux, should we start calling directories "folders" because users think they're the same thing?

I could go on and on but I'm irritated enough about other things today.


----------



## olli@ (Jul 17, 2020)

aponomarenko said:


> I just implemented a new feature of the BSD hardware database that allows you to check desired computer models for BSD compatibility.


How can I correct the information?
I have uploaded the data for my workstation, and the web page lists several components as “detected but not tested”, for example the audio controller. But I can confirm that it works fine, I'm listening to music right now that's playing through that audio controller.


----------



## aponomarenko (Jul 17, 2020)

olli@ said:


> How can I correct the information?
> I have uploaded the data for my workstation, and the web page lists several components as “detected but not tested”, for example the audio controller. But I can confirm that it works fine, I'm listening to music right now that's playing through that audio controller.



Use big green button *REVIEW* on the probe page to submit your review.


----------



## mark_j (Jul 18, 2020)

20-100-2fe said:


> When talking about FreeBSD here, we don't care what Linux is, what matters is FreeBSD.



Yes, but when referring to distributions 9 out of 10 IT people will assume it's Linux.


----------



## mark_j (Jul 18, 2020)

mjollnir said:


> Well, that's often the problem with natural language.  A sender sends a message intending X, the receipient receives it and applies meaning Y.  Many respected members here use the term _distribution_ according to it's definition given in various dictionaries.  Of course you are free to apply any meaning you like to any term, but obviously that will make communication difficult.  You can even invent your own new language... Maybe you should start a discussion with the editors of the dictionaries?
> EDIT if you let others hijack a term & redefine it's meaning, that's your decision.  You are free to take another decision and use the very same term in it's genuine and widely accepted meaning.



That's an absurd approach.

It's not about me letting the term be hijacked, it's about the common usage in the ecosystem of IT. Whether you like it or not, distribution as a noun, in IT circles, means Linux.

Whether many "respected members" use the term here, is neither relevant or validating your argument, when the other 99.95% don't use it in that context.

You can use it all you want to refer to FreeBSD derivations, it won't make you right. The word has undertaken a semantic shift; a narrowing of its definition in the IT sphere. I'm not discussing its wider usage nor its obvious definitions for statistics, for example.


----------



## mark_j (Jul 18, 2020)

20-100-2fe said:


> [...]
> Obviously, this danger and lack of respect are purely imaginary: no one in any Linux community cares about FreeBSD.
> [...]



You are clearly wrong with your hyperbole. A quick check on the most Linux-of-Linux fanboy sites, shows you this is never the case:






						FreeBSD Getting Close To Finally Migrating Development From Subversion To Git -  		 		Phoronix Forums
					

Phoronix: FreeBSD Getting Close To Finally Migrating Development From Subversion To Git  The FreeBSD project has published their Q2'2020 status report that outlines their neat-complete work on migrating from Subversion to Git plus many hardware support improvements for this BSD operating system...



					www.phoronix.com
				








						Systemd 246 Is On The Way With Many Changes -  		 		Phoronix Forums
					

Phoronix: Systemd 246 Is On The Way With Many Changes  With it already having been a few months since systemd 245 debuted with systemd-homed, the systemd developers have begun their release dance for what will be systemd 246...  http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=systemd-246-coming



					www.phoronix.com
				




However, having proved this, I don't understand why you raised this? It's not about "danger and lack of respect" it is about differentiating FreeBSD from the swamp of Linux distributions.


----------



## mark_j (Jul 18, 2020)

olli@ said:


> Aren’t we all computer nerds? The fact that this whole discussion exists proves that we are nerds.
> 
> And the rest of mankind probably doesn’t care at all what the word distribution means.



I think this is where he fails to understand the word "common". In the context of IT, common usage of "distribution" is a reference to Linux kernel, a GNU userland and systemd controller.
In the statistical field, distribution has another meaning. I don't expect my statistician friends to speak of "distribution" in the terms of Linux, nor do I expect the general populous to.
It's a nonsensical semantic argument, IMO.


----------



## Mjölnir (Jul 18, 2020)

mark_j, your argumentation & thinking seems very 1-0-ish to me.  When I talk to an IT guy about a _FreeBSD distribution_, s/he will not think of Linux as long s/he is aware that the BSDs are different from Linux.  This is not meant to be offensive: I suggest to re-think reflect your mental absolutism.


----------



## olli@ (Jul 18, 2020)

aponomarenko said:


> Use big green button *REVIEW* on the probe page to submit your review.


The design of the site needs to be improved.

That review button at the very top of the page is easy to miss, it doesn't even look like a typical button. Intuitively you would try to click on the field in the “Status” column that you want to correct, but that brings you to another page that doesn’t help at all.
And when you finally manage to submit your review, it says that it will wait for approval. I’m not sure what that means. Who is going to approve it, and based on what? Someone else who happens to have the identical hardware? This seems unlikely. The whole workflow needs to be made clearer. Documentation needs to be improved.
And then, when the data finally appears on the page, it says “Reviewed by the probe author” – I wonder how it claims to know that I'm the author? I did not authenticate with a login + password or anything like that. This causes a bit of an uneasy feeling about the security of the system.
That also leaves the question how to review a probe that is not my own. While browsing the site I've found several probes that are clearly incorrect, i.e. devices that _are_ supported, but not marked as such.
Another mistake: My monitor is reported to be located on the EISA bus. That’s complete nonsense, of course. I don’t seem to be able to correct that myself.


----------



## olli@ (Jul 18, 2020)

PS: The NVMe SSD is missing from my probe. The NVMe controller is listed, but the disk itself is not. The SATA SSD and SATA HDD are listed, though.


----------



## aponomarenko (Jul 18, 2020)

olli@ said:


> PS: The NVMe SSD is missing from my probe. The NVMe controller is listed, but the disk itself is not. The SATA SSD and SATA HDD are listed, though.



This is due to error: `/dev/nda0 failed: INQUIRY failed`

By: `smartctl -x /dev/nda0`

Is command `smartctl -x /dev/nvme0` works on your machine?


----------



## aponomarenko (Jul 18, 2020)

olli@ said:


> And then, when the data finally appears on the page, it says “Reviewed by the probe author” – I wonder how it claims to know that I'm the author? I did not authenticate with a login + password or anything like that. This causes a bit of an uneasy feeling about the security of the system.



You've authenticated your computer by creating the probe. No one else can submit review of your probe.


----------



## aponomarenko (Jul 18, 2020)

olli@ said:


> That also leaves the question how to review a probe that is not my own. While browsing the site I've found several probes that are clearly incorrect, i.e. devices that _are_ supported, but not marked as such.



This is not possible. Could you please point me to such probes?


----------



## olli@ (Jul 18, 2020)

aponomarenko said:


> Is command `smartctl -x /dev/nvme0` works on your machine?


The SSD is attached as namespace 1 to the controller:

```
# smartctl -a /dev/nvme0ns1
smartctl 7.1 2019-12-30 r5022 [FreeBSD 12.1-STABLE-20200612 amd64] (local build)
Copyright (C) 2002-19, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org

=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Number:                       Samsung SSD 970 PRO 1TB
Serial Number:                      S462NF0K816531M
Firmware Version:                   1B2QEXP7
PCI Vendor/Subsystem ID:            0x144d
IEEE OUI Identifier:                0x002538
Total NVM Capacity:                 1,024,209,543,168 [1.02 TB]
Unallocated NVM Capacity:           0
Controller ID:                      4
Number of Namespaces:               1
Namespace 1 Size/Capacity:          1,024,209,543,168 [1.02 TB]
Namespace 1 Utilization:            284,502,929,408 [284 GB]
Namespace 1 Formatted LBA Size:     512
Namespace 1 IEEE EUI-64:            002538 5881b3bb74
Local Time is:                      Sun Jul 19 00:13:17 2020 CEST
Firmware Updates (0x16):            3 Slots, no Reset required
Optional Admin Commands (0x0037):   Security Format Frmw_DL Self_Test Directvs
Optional NVM Commands (0x005f):     Comp Wr_Unc DS_Mngmt Wr_Zero Sav/Sel_Feat Timestmp
Maximum Data Transfer Size:         512 Pages
Warning  Comp. Temp. Threshold:     81 Celsius
Critical Comp. Temp. Threshold:     81 Celsius

Supported Power States
St Op     Max   Active     Idle   RL RT WL WT  Ent_Lat  Ex_Lat
 0 +     6.20W       -        -    0  0  0  0        0       0
 1 +     4.30W       -        -    1  1  1  1        0       0
 2 +     2.10W       -        -    2  2  2  2        0       0
 3 -   0.0400W       -        -    3  3  3  3      210    1200
 4 -   0.0050W       -        -    4  4  4  4     2000    8000

Supported LBA Sizes (NSID 0x1)
Id Fmt  Data  Metadt  Rel_Perf
 0 +     512       0         0

=== START OF SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED

SMART/Health Information (NVMe Log 0x02)
Critical Warning:                   0x00
Temperature:                        39 Celsius
Available Spare:                    100%
Available Spare Threshold:          10%
Percentage Used:                    0%
Data Units Read:                    70,603 [36.1 GB]
Data Units Written:                 787,228 [403 GB]
Host Read Commands:                 2,198,620
Host Write Commands:                7,772,932
Controller Busy Time:               42
Power Cycles:                       275
Power On Hours:                     3,555
Unsafe Shutdowns:                   1
Media and Data Integrity Errors:    0
Error Information Log Entries:      9
Warning  Comp. Temperature Time:    0
Critical Comp. Temperature Time:    0
Temperature Sensor 1:               39 Celsius
Temperature Sensor 2:               46 Celsius

Error Information (NVMe Log 0x01, max 64 entries)
No Errors Logged
```


----------



## olli@ (Jul 18, 2020)

aponomarenko said:


> You've authenticated your computer by creating the probe. No one else can submit review of your probe.


How is my computer authenticated? How does the website know that my browser runs on this computer? By IP address? This is a dynamic and shared IP address, so it’s not a good idea to use it for authentication.

That also opens the question how to review probes from headless servers where you can’t run a browser?


----------



## aponomarenko (Jul 20, 2020)

olli@ said:


> How is my computer authenticated? How does the website know that my browser runs on this computer? By IP address? This is a dynamic and shared IP address, so it’s not a good idea to use it for authentication.



Yep, your IP address is used. The potential attacker will need to know both your IP (on the moment of probe uploading) and probe ID to get access to your review. But where can he get them? Even if he gets access to your review, administrator approval is required for each new edit.



olli@ said:


> That also opens the question how to review probes from headless servers where you can’t run a browser?



In this case you need to write review from any device in the same network (with the same external IP).


----------



## aponomarenko (Jul 20, 2020)

olli@ said:


> Another mistake: My monitor is reported to be located on the EISA bus. That’s complete nonsense, of course. I don’t seem to be able to correct that myself.



The hw-probe script has been ported from Linux, where it relies on hwinfo utility from OpenSUSE to detect monitors. I just asked authors to explain why bus of all detected monitors is identified as EISA. Is it just PCI nowadays?


----------



## olli@ (Jul 20, 2020)

aponomarenko said:


> In this case you need to write review from any device in the same network (with the same external IP).


The headless servers that I’m responsible for have their own IP addresses. What you’re suggesting might work for a private home server that’s behind a NAT gateway, but it doesn’t work for “real” servers.


----------



## olli@ (Jul 20, 2020)

aponomarenko said:


> The hw-probe script has been ported from Linux, where it relies on hwinfo utility from OpenSUSE to detect monitors. I just asked authors to explain why bus of all detected monitors is identified as EISA. Is it just PCI nowadays?


Well, monitors are not connected to any system bus. They're connected to a GPU (graphics card or whatever) with HDMI, DisplayPort, DVI and so on. Of course, the GPU is probably connected via PCI or PCIe, but that’s a separate entry.


----------



## Jose (Jul 20, 2020)

mark_j said:


> Linux distributions are such a disjointed mess it took one of Linux's owners IBM/Redhat to design a wanna-be launchd/svcadm called systemd to try to align the dog's breakfast of inits, network and audio managers etc.


I agree with you about network and audio managers, but there was really only one init, and it had worked (and still works!) fine for more than a decade before the systemd crackerjacks arrived on the scene. That's part of what made its replacement so obnoxious, it was completely gratuitous at best.


----------



## mark_j (Jul 22, 2020)

Jose said:


> I agree with you about network and audio managers, but there was really only one init, and it had worked (and still works!) fine for more than a decade before the systemd crackerjacks arrived on the scene. That's part of what made its replacement so obnoxious, it was completely gratuitous at best.


One init? Like openrc, sysVinit, upstart, runit?
I'm not arguing the plus or minuses of systemd, but I can see the rationale for only one init system. systemd is attempting to make Linux into a *BSD where everything is homogeneous, where the kernel is matched to the init, is matched to userland and so on.
It's effectively attempting to do away with the various distributions. Linux will eventually be just IBM/RedHat.

The irony is that these distributions embrace systemd, some because they have no choice and some because they blindly choose to.

But again, I can understand Linux distribution developers being frustrated at maintaining a myriad of inits in their distributions. I also can not understand why they just don't pick one of them and stick with it, faults and all. This choice is slowly being taken away as systemd infiltrates everything from init, network, dns, user's home directories and so on.

That's why I say "Linux" is such a disjointed OS; a real mess. Every effort should be made to disassociate the term "distribution" from any BSD, in this case FreeBSD.


----------



## mark_j (Jul 22, 2020)

mjollnir said:


> mark_j, your argumentation & thinking seems very 1-0-ish to me.  When I talk to an IT guy about a _FreeBSD distribution_, s/he will not think of Linux as long s/he is aware that the BSDs are different from Linux.  This is not meant to be offensive: I suggest to re-think reflect your mental absolutism.


You can shoot the messenger, it won't change the message.


----------



## Jose (Jul 22, 2020)

mark_j said:


> One init? Like openrc, sysVinit, upstart, runit?


Sorry, I meant one implementation of the process that ran as PID 1. There are many implementations of the rc script part, as you point out.

All Linuxes I'm aware of used sysvinit before systemd. Ironically the attention created by the systemd thing spawned a bunch of new PID 1 implementations, including a compellingly simple one.


----------



## mark_j (Jul 23, 2020)

Jose said:


> Sorry, I meant one implementation of the process that ran as PID 1. There are many implementations of the rc script part, as you point out.
> 
> All Linuxes I'm aware of used sysvinit before systemd. Ironically the attention created by the systemd thing spawned a bunch of new PID 1 implementations, including a compellingly simple one.


Oh ok, sorry I misunderstood. Actually, plenty used other init systems, ones that come to mind are ArchLinux and Gentoo, but I know there were others as I remember having a similar conversation with a Linux administrator back about 6 years ago. I profess, though, I know very little about Linux distributions at present.

Personally, I don't mind SystemV Init, because I've used it with Solaris.


----------

