# Flame bait: Why BSD is dying, or How I learned to stop worrying and love Linux



## lele (Sep 16, 2012)

Not a recent article, but it hasn't been discussed here:

http://www.section6.net/2011/07/why-bsd-is-dying-or-how-i-learned-to.html

EDIT: Seriously, not all of his criticisms still apply.  For instance, besides ports, nowadays we have packages available.  However, I didn't know that when upgrading the system you had to recompile everything, even things you didn't compile in the first place.


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (Sep 16, 2012)

You don't. /usr/ports/misc/compat8x... for example.  Then, "rarely go smoothly"... I've the upgrade procedure in motd, read the Release Notes,
have backup. I even once updated with *much* difficulty direct v6 to v9. Desktop applications quaint? Multimedia support lacking? Broad overgeneralizations that are in my experience untrue.  ( Of the remaining points I have an opinion on, I've posted elsewhere. )


----------



## lele (Sep 16, 2012)

Yeah.  And I remember an Ubuntu upgrade making my PC unbootable (it wasn't an upgrade between LTS versions, though).

What about "There's no rapid deployment system like Debian's fai, or Redhat's kickstart."?  My understanding is that Bsdinstall is scriptable.


----------



## shitson (Sep 16, 2012)

IMHO It sounds like someone is afraid of a little hard work, Not sure why he would of gone with Ubuntu over something like CentOS. 

I think this is just the regression of System Administrators shying away from really understanding their Systems. Also as much as it would pain the zealots of their favourite OS to say, not every OS is suited for every application and expecting to tweak out Ubuntu to perform like FreeBSD under certain conditions would be a pain. 



> Horses for Courses


----------



## atmosx (Sep 16, 2012)

These rants have mostly to do with how accustomed is a user with a specific operating system - when it comes to Linux I'd say how accustom is to the specific flavor's mindset - and much less has anything to do with the 'real value' of the OS in question. Reading them, mostly is a waste of time.

As an example I'll tell you that for me it's very easy to do everything on Gentoo. I know exactly what files to edit in etc, to make portage extremely personalized.

Once I tried to do manual kernel recompile on a debian system. I lost something 2 days, without success having to re-read pages of documentation in order to understand a process that in theory should made the task 'way easier'. The debian kernel recompile process however, didn't make any sense to me. Any sense at all. I still consider it as the most stupid approach I've ever saw in an otherwise simple task.

But if you ask a debian user, he might come with much of crap about portage and non-automatic kernel compiling solutions (although gentoo has one or two), etc.

So, if he has problem with the FreeBSD upgrade it's because he didn't read the manual or didn't approach the problems in the right (freebsd's) way.


----------



## zer0sig (Sep 17, 2012)

I've found that FreeBSD's ports/packages system is easier to automate (though I know plenty of Linux variants have come along and in some ways surpassed FreeBSD) and dependencies are usually correct as long as you pay attention and keep the ports tree up-to-date. the base and kernel are much easier to automate and take approximately 0 attention once you have done them once - and the same methods and automation scripts I used in 1998 still work. If you are a passable script author, you can write a fairly short script to handle installation - using xapply you can rapidly perform these tasks on many hosts. FreeBSD is excellent for the kind of admin that isn't looking to point-and-click their way through installations, and has been known for security, stability and performance for a long time. 

Many Linux-compiled binaries, if you have Linux compatibility packages set up, actually run faster in FreeBSD, and pretty much all major Unix-type free software will compile in it (though whether one wants to is purely up to the individual). Much like in the old guard proprietary Unix variants, you can go to one central place (this website and forum) for most relevant information about how to do what you want in FreeBSD. The kernel is here. The base and CLI userland is here. Various native apps are here. The maintainers of ports and packages are delineated on this site and not especially difficult to find. FreeBSD will also run binaries from many other X86-based Unix-type systems, also better in many cases. FreeBSD is clear about supported platforms, and you can find out about all of them on the main site. I also find FreeBSD's basic design and layout (device naming, location of various binaries) to be consistent - with the exception of new subsystems found in ascending full releases, many things are exactly the same and have been for a long time.

The main reasons big corporations have moved to Linux IMO are recognition of the name and the GNU project, longer-established fulltime enterprise support for certain distributions (though an enterprise incapable of doing most of its own support is in a precarious state as far as I'm concerned), and fairly best-of-breed SysV layouts and userland (closer to non-deprecated versions of Solaris). Many free software projects start as Linux-based code, although mature multiplatform codebases are likely to have a FreeBSD version. The learning curve is a little lower for many tasks, particularly if one is more used to GUI-based frontends and administration - but many, like myself, find those additional API layers to add rather than reduce complexity.

I have done production and test/dev installation, administration, and auditing on many different Unixlike OSes including a ton of Linux variants, and I still prefer FreeBSD when possible. I would happily choose it for any possible production-quality applications, though there are various strengths and weaknesses when compared to Linux.

This is just my experience, and I will work with any recent (or less recent, if need be) Unix-type OS. We're still all in this together when it comes to Unix-style OSes based on freely available software and source code, and the specialization of certain distros (e.g. I really like BackTrack Linux as a liveCD used to audit security) makes them better or worse for various purposes; still, i will continue to choose FreeBSD for general Unix server-type purposes when plausible.


----------



## freemason (Sep 17, 2012)

Well, I'm not quiet sure but still think that GNU/Linux may be faster than FreeBSD (that's why some companies begin to choose it instead of *BSD`s) - even CERN has Linux machines on LHC system, but not FreeBSD ).

Linux kernel has real support for A LOT MORE hardware than FreeBSD does (you don't need to find hardware for os, but os for hardware, again that's why some companies begin to choose it instead of *BSD`s).

To sum up, BSD is ancient (and maybe slow...).

For regular home-dummy user:
Versions of programs in ports of FreeBSD are really old compared to originals made for GNU/Linux.
As for using a laptop I'm not satisfied neither with FreeBSD, nor with OpenBSD - all of them have poor acpi and modern hardware support (second BSD is even a lot slower than first one).
FreeBSD may be good for oldschool admins with great beards (who are real GEEKS and enjoy having a possibility to infinitely tune just every smallest detail in system - polish system until it shines like a brilliant), but it's still not ready for regular-housewife-like user who wanna run this kind of system on laptops or desktops.

Overall, everything is documented in *BSDs, you can set up everything from reading through man`s.
But what I do reeeeeeally HATE is BSD`s very long directory layouts in "/usr" and so on", dead forth language in loader scripts (which I always delete and use loader.rc instead), and no boot to GPT from 32 bit x86 UEFI BIOS.


Thanks.


----------



## zer0sig (Sep 17, 2012)

freemason, it's true that depending on the distro, kernel parameters, specific application, etc. that Linux can be faster - but it goes the other way often enough that I consider it pretty much a draw except for certain specific circumstances (Oracle, for example, is very specific about what you must run to be supported, and they don't support FreeBSD, so I wouldn't bother trying to run a RAC/CAD/VDB Oracle cluster in FreeBSD in an enterprise production environment) - performance tests often vary from version to version to such a degree that, as an example, FreeBSD might benchmark with a better score on Apache static HTML page GETs one month, and some variant of Linux might the next month as tweaks are made in the kernel/filesystem/Apache codebase. Linux does support a lot more hardware and many many more platforms, but NetBSD supports a ton of platforms and so might be choice for certain architectures - and I think the base and common natively ported daemons tend to be a little better tested for stability and security in the open source BSDs. Anyone wanting to run the latest and greatest hardware for gaming or audio production will likely find it better supported in Linux, if anything other than Windows supports it.

In the end, a lot comes down to personal preference - I prefer BSD-style userland and directory layout to SysV in general, so i will give FreeBSD a point in my personal book for that. Commercial software in general overwhelmingly supports Linux better, in my experience - and while FreeBSD may run that software just as quickly or stably, you will not likely get Enterprise-grade support with quick-responding Service Level Agreements in FreeBSD for those Linux-native binaries. There could be a great community of folks running the software combination but big companies will not approve 3rd party software if it is not officially supported in a great many cases, particularly if they can get official support for RHEL or similar. Neither OS has a consequential portion of commercial desktops, but Linux has notable installed bases of certain GUI-based applications that will likely never see an official FreeBSD version - partially because Mac OS/X is BSD-based and has loyal fans for multimedia apps that have neither Linux nor *BSD native ports. Linux clusters and VMs do the job well enough that nobody bothers to make the same happen in FreeBSD unless development of these happen in-house at a company that prefers Free/Net/OpenBSD for its own purposes.


----------



## zer0sig (Sep 17, 2012)

First version of above message should not have gone through. I edited a couple of things for the second.


----------



## shitson (Sep 17, 2012)

freemason said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not quiet sure but still think that GNU/Linux may be faster than FreeBSD (that's why some companies begin to choose it instead of *BSD`s) - even CERN has Linux machines on LHC system, but not FreeBSD ).



These are the companies who think otherwise; Also when building a Cluster there is far more than Speed alone that is factored in when selecting an OS, including Driver Support, Legacy Software support, it can even come down to what the System Admin likes more or has more training in. So saying that it's "slower" is just conjecturbation. 



> Citrix Netscalers
> F5 Networks's 3DNS version 3 global traffic manager and EDGE-FX version 1 web cache (NB These are now end of life with 3DNS functionality being moved to the Linux based BIGIP Platform)
> Ironport network security appliances
> Junos network operating system by Juniper Networks used in their routers, switches and security devices
> ...





			
				freemason said:
			
		

> To sum up, BSD is ancient (and maybe slow...).



Maybe slow? Do you have no metrics to back this up... This is just conjecture and adds nothing to the conversation. How does the age of an Operating System have anything to do with it's performance? Don't forget your using an Internet that runs on +20 year old Protocols 



			
				freemason said:
			
		

> For regular home-dummy user:
> Versions of programs in ports of FreeBSD are really old compared to originals made for GNU/Linux.
> As for using a laptop I'm not satisfied neither with FreeBSD, nor with OpenBSD - all of them have poor acpi and modern hardware support (second BSD is even a lot slower than first one).
> FreeBSD may be good for oldschool admins with great beards (who are real GEEKS and enjoy having a possibility to infinitely tune just every smallest detail in system - polish system until it shines like a brilliant), but it's still not ready for regular-housewife-like user who wanna run this kind of system on laptops or desktops.



Old? Or Stable? No where in the FreeBSD mission statement does it say it intends to be the best Desktop Operating System in the world. The OP was right with his subject name, this type of debate clearly has no point; It could be likend to saying a hammer is the best tool to build a house and makes many assumptions about what the application of the OS is, the skill of the user(s) and the requirements of the software/application. 

This is like:

Cisco vs. Juniper
Holden vs. Ford
Andriod vs. iOS
vi vs. emacs

No one will win, unless there is a way to rewrite someones mind


----------



## Morte (Sep 17, 2012)

freemason said:
			
		

> I do reeeeeeally HATE is BSD`s very long directory layouts in "/usr"


Are you one of those people that puts all of their files on the "Desktop"?


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Sep 17, 2012)

freemason said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not quiet sure but still think that GNU/Linux may be faster than FreeBSD


A well known fact is that FreeBSD can run Linux applications faster than Linux can.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Sep 17, 2012)

I am always suspicious of one's capabilities when one switches from something like FreeBSD to Ubuntu.

I am also suspicious of this guy's capabilities based on his points, some of which are blatantly false.


----------



## freethread (Sep 17, 2012)

freemason said:
			
		

> but it's still not ready for regular-housewife-like user who wanna run this kind of system on laptops or desktops



With no offence, but... this kind of people fall to pre-installed, pre-chewed, pre-digested Windows/OSX/Linux machine. People that has a lot of spare time should not use it to install FreeBSD, this doesn't mean that FreeBSD is an elitary OS, that means you need an OS that is a solid base Unix system, open to any kind of implementation that runs on a wide range of hardware. It's not always easy to implement it as you want, nothing comes easy.

However, there are still differences from a Windows/OSX and a Linux system for housewifes et al, so the die is cast.


----------



## Crivens (Sep 18, 2012)

Ok, to twist the "time consuming" argument a bit : I have little spare time and I still prefer FreeBSD. Ports can compile while I do not watch, not a problem. But I know that, with my urge to tinker around, I need to do a lot more damage to the system to be forced to a reinstall than under Linux. FreeBSD allows me to boot and repair damages which send an Ubuntu user on the search of the install medium. I know this kind of screw up will happen once in a while and I simply have no time to reinstall every time it happens. So, I save time.

But what I see behind some of the "it just works" arguemts provided by the red hat admins is that red hat / oracle have definite views about what they support and so you can shift the blame by telling the PHB that tinkering with the system in the way he wants would void the support contract which is expensive - thus not being asked to do it. And if you did not touch it, it is not your fault if the thing does not perform as expected.


----------



## piggy (Sep 18, 2012)

lele said:
			
		

> Not a recent article, but it hasn't been discussed here:
> 
> http://www.section6.net/2011/07/why-bsd-is-dying-or-how-i-learned-to.html
> 
> EDIT: Seriously, not all of his criticisms still apply.  For instance, besides ports, nowadays we have packages available.  However, I didn't know that when upgrading the system you had to recompile everything, even things you didn't compile in the first place.


That article is perfect. I couldn't said it better. This is exactly the reason becouse I pretty much terminated professional use of FreeBSD and I moved to Linux (even Gentoo when I need more system customization).

After all this years, the lack of a serious binary packages serious upgrade system is simply unacceptable.

Do they want to stay in a ghetto? It is ok for me, there are lotsa alternatives this days and honestly I don't miss all the lost time upgrading and updating FreeBSD from ports.


----------



## jwele (Sep 18, 2012)

Why does Ports VS Binaries come up so much? I always perceived source code to be the standard write once compile anywhere goodness. I am a novice sysadmin deciding on what OS to use for my next server/project. This is a great discussion btw. :stud


----------



## piggy (Sep 18, 2012)

jwele said:
			
		

> Why does Ports VS Binaries come up so much?


Becouse it is the core of the problem. They said they do not have enough resources to put up and regularly update binary releases and this is what can definitely put them in a ghetto. Sure, if they base them decisions on this forum feedback they could probably die of misconception considering many people writing on threads here and supporting ports to death are not professionals, they are supposed geeks just spending time playing with something they think cool. Many of them don't have any idea about what is needed to make dozens of systems up, ready, secure and before of this updated systems day after day, in the faster time possible, with the less downtime and with the less effort.

And considering that is my job and I do work to get the money and I have so many interests after my day job, I don't want and I don't have the time to loose time with stupid ports (often broken) and to find solutions just to support an OS pretty much remained at the glorious nineties times.

Also the kernel, this days, seems less robust to me. I personally tested the memory leek reported many times here and hardware support is quietly poor. Considering, this days, updating hardware is often less expensive compared to loose time to work with an outdated, problematic system, also for this FreeBSD (totally poor new hardware support) is out of the options a lot of company evaluate before to load an OS.


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (Sep 18, 2012)

I would reply constructively to your post, but almost every sentence contains an outright insult.  Would it not be wiser to solve linux problems over on the linux forums, or seek FreeBSD solutions here on these forums?  Particularly since the type of post should never happen once you have search engines, with which the problems can readily be solved or answered or asked?


----------



## jwele (Sep 18, 2012)

So you are saying that FreeBSD needs a binary package management application to "stay in the game"?  I still feel like FreeBSD is harshly underfunded to do as much as they do currently.


----------



## UNIXgod (Sep 18, 2012)

jb_fvwm2 said:
			
		

> I would reply constructively to your post, but almost every sentence contains an outright insult.  Would it not be wiser to solve linux problems over on the linux forums, or seek FreeBSD solutions here on these forums?  Particularly since the type of post should never happen once you have search engines, with which the problems can readily be solved or answered or asked?



Piggy is a professional troll. Since he makes his living being one. He contributes absolutely nothing to the project. Just a tiny user who can't see the forest though the trees. I find it very hard to help those who can't help themselves.


----------



## wblock@ (Sep 18, 2012)

In fact, FreeBSD has at least two binary package systems at present, the old pkg_install and the brand new and highly regarded pkgng.  There's another package system from PC-BSD with their PBIs.

What we don't have are "stable" and "current" package repositories.  Some people want that badly, in the belief it will add stability to the ports/package system.  Others think it will add more overhead for already overworked, volunteer port maintainers and committers.  One of these two viewpoints is absolutely correct, the other obviously wrong.  I forget which is which.


----------



## aurora (Sep 19, 2012)

FreeBSD cannot so easily die.Because it's the foundation of other 3 mainstream OS'es:

Windows NT was inspired by it, Mac OS (X) is based on it and Linux borrowed many basics from it. 

I personally use FreeBSD as a testing and development environment especially while compiling open source codes, i.e. not resorting to pre-compiled packages.

Nowadays, only an ARM port of FreeBSD is really missing. We need to have the ARM version of FreeBSD releases in no time.


----------



## Blueprint (Sep 19, 2012)

With modern CPUs getting faster and faster, and the upcoming switch to LLVM. I would have thought ports compilation times would become less of an issue?


----------



## caesius (Sep 19, 2012)

I ignored this thread for a while, but since it is gaining momentum...

I don't know where the attitude of "I don't use FreeBSD 'coz I don't want to have to compile EVERYTHING maaan!" comes from, but I find it completely untrue. Oddly enough, I suspect it came about due to the excellent ports system.

I do however reluctantly agree with some of the views of FreeBSD's insistance that it is not a Desktop OS. This may be true! But I strongly believe the reason GNU/Linux has become so popular - to use Ubuntu as an example - is because of its pandering to the desktop user. Remember, people will choose to run as a server something they are comfortable with. And it is much more likely future system administrators will first experience GNU/Linux, which will perpetuate things further.

I don't have an answer for what I've posed as a problem, I don't think this project has teh resources to tackle it. But I don't see the tide of "UNIX" applications that are really "Linux" applications stopping anytime soon.


----------



## SirDice (Sep 19, 2012)

aurora72 said:
			
		

> Nowadays, only an ARM port of FreeBSD is really missing. We need to have the ARM version of FreeBSD releases in no time.


I fully agree. It's about time to make ARM a Tier-1 architecture. Especially since there's now talk of servers being based on ARM.


----------



## Crivens (Sep 19, 2012)

aurora72 said:
			
		

> FreeBSD cannot so easily die.Because it's the foundation of other 3 mainstream OS'es:
> 
> Windows NT was inspired by it, Mac OS (X) is based on it and Linux borrowed many basics from it.


Not exactly true. The Windows NT is based on good old VMS.
Linux, IIRC, was more inspired by Minix.



			
				aurora72 said:
			
		

> Nowadays, only an ARM port of FreeBSD is really missing. We need to have the ARM version of FreeBSD releases in no time.



You can already build for some ARM targets, but what will work there is another question.
I keep asking myself - did KMS _really_ have to go into the kernel? And a lot of other things, was/is that necessary?


----------



## AlexJ (Sep 20, 2012)

This guy says nothing bad to compare with this statements: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/BSD_is_Dying


----------



## AlexJ (Sep 20, 2012)

Blueprint said:
			
		

> With modern CPUs getting faster and faster, and the upcoming switch to LLVM. I would have thought ports compilation times would become less of an issue?



Yes it compile much faster, but produced code looks like runs slow. 

http://blog.vx.sk/archives/25-FreeB...-gcc-base-vs-gcc-ports-vs-clang.html#extended



> clang was 10% slower in average on most of the tested CPUs than FreeBSD base gcc (4.2.1)
> gcc 4.5 was 5-10% faster in average on most of the tested CPUs



It looks like Chinese's cheap products manufacture according to this tests - that made products fast but quality is bad.
(No offense to Chinese friends because we know that Apple, Dell, etc that run quality assurance in the China has very good quality)

GCC on other side produces faster code but license... is GPL3
which is means you can not build another "Apple" with this kind of license because it required to share your source code, but as we all know we all make a lot of money by employing BSD code in our close projects and nobody can require to pay royalty then...

From another point of view GPL3 is a hook - take a look on MySQL, it happily grabbed from community by Oracle and commercialized.


...


----------



## UNIXgod (Sep 20, 2012)

AlexJ said:
			
		

> From another point of view GPL3 is a hook - take a look on MySQL, it happily grabbed from community by Oracle and commercialized.



MySQL was always dual licensed. Probably at the right time historically as businesses needed adoption and the world of open source could be misinterpreted by 'upper management' as being of low quality or non-viable option like "shareware" or "less robust" than the Oracle or Microsoft solutions. As much as it may have been a detriment the dual license itself may have helped adoption with the aggressive marketing hit with managers from bother M$ and Oracle.

I don't know if the cargo cult mentality still exists as much as it did a decade ago.

On a side note Oracle took more than from us than just MySQL with the Sun Microsystems buyout. We'll always have PostgreSQL. At least that one started at UC Berkeley =)


----------



## throAU (Sep 20, 2012)

Strange.

I came to FreeBSD FROM Linux because of the upgrade process and stability between upgrades.

I don't run it on the desktop, but then, running FreeBSD on the desktop is, in my opinion like using a screwdriver to drive nails.  Sure, you can do it (I have done so in the past, for that matter), but its a lot more difficult than it could be.

That's what my Mac is for.


And for what it's worth...  I run with binaries these days. Very rarely need to recompile anything.


ps:
Cisco
Holden
iOS
vi


----------



## Majorix (Sep 20, 2012)

throAU said:
			
		

> ... running FreeBSD on the desktop is, in my opinion like using a screwdriver to drive nails.  Sure, you can do it (I have done so in the past, for that matter), but its a lot more difficult than it could be.



I disagree. There are no real "purposes" of Operating Systems. You can use FreeBSD for a media station, Windows for a server or Mac for a workstation. It is not the OS'es that make the difference, but the mindset of users and set of tools/programs they have.


----------



## piggy (Sep 20, 2012)

Majorix said:
			
		

> I disagree. There are no real "purposes" of Operating Systems. You can use FreeBSD for a media station, Windows for a server or Mac for a workstation. It is not the OS'es that make the difference, but the mindset of users and set of tools/programs they have.


I do agree. I do actually have just two FreeBSD box at home. One is a media server and file server, a multipurpose machine working fine from I think 5 years. I always painfully updated it, then now it is time to upgrade the hardware with some inexpensive and fine Ivy Bridge derived processor and considering FreeBSD is very painfull in supporting new hardware, I will choose a customized Archlinux box I always tested on Ivy Bridge and it works really fine.

The other machine is an old "desktop": it is long time it seat on a "entartainment" room and it is time to trash it too, even if it still works quietly fine (a miracle considering the poor video and multimedia support offered by FreeBSD; it got a old Pentium IV processor and a ATI graphic). New configuration (with some up to date AMD graphics) it simply will underperform under FreeBSD, and also the poor ACPI support I think it makes the box consuming a lot, so it is time to definitely say goodbye to FreeBSD in real life. For this machine I think a Linux Mint (I love it!) box will work top.

I will still maintain a virtual FreeBSD machine for educational purposes and that's all.

FreeBSD is painfully and sometimes "ridicoulisly" out of time to be used in real life.


----------



## freethread (Sep 20, 2012)

Piggy, you cannot rid of FreeBSD, it's your drug. Change pusher.



			
				piggy said:
			
		

> (I love it!)



That's say all.


----------



## throAU (Sep 21, 2012)

Majorix said:
			
		

> I disagree. There are no real "purposes" of Operating Systems. You can use FreeBSD for a media station, Windows for a server or Mac for a workstation. It is not the OS'es that make the difference, but the mindset of users and set of tools/programs they have.



And you're free to do so.

If you don't want to pay money for an OS, or you want to fiddle with the source, etc. then FreeBSD is great for doing most things.

And it's true, any OS can do pretty much most things these days.  Some are just better at it (and less hassle) than others at specific roles.

I guess what I'm saying is that after being all for open source at any cost for 15 years, I've come to realise I'm happy to pay money for the best solution for my needs.

The Mac rocks as a home desktop.  Windows is compatible with everyone else at work, and runs more commercial software than anything else.  FreeBSD makes a great firewall, NAS, mail server, proxy server, etc.  - and yes you're right in saying it is the applications generally that make the difference.

I'm operating system agnostic and am a firm believer of "the right tool for the job".

Its far less effort, and at the end of the day, this is what computing is about for end users - making your life easier.

For some people, tinkering is a hobby though, and that's fine too.


----------



## alie (Sep 21, 2012)

SirDice said:
			
		

> I fully agree. It's about time to make ARM a Tier-1 architecture. Especially since there's now talk of servers being based on ARM.



+1 for this


----------



## GuillotinePartition (Sep 21, 2012)

throAU said:
			
		

> And you're free to do so.
> 
> "the right tool for the job".



I'm glad someone finally said it. I'm sick of hearing the general Apple consumer cry oh we are so much better because of x,y,z. Then its Mac vs. Windows, then its A vs B, etc. It's irritating. A person who knows and respects computer technology will tell you there are positives and negatives for all systems, but each one has a purpose for a specific job; you use whatever distro for what purpose you are trying to fulfill at the moment. Like they say "a hacker or cracker uses whatever tool necessary to get the job done."ï¿½e


----------



## zspider (Oct 27, 2012)

Ok bye, FreeBSD works just fine for me, been using it for 2.5 years now, never had a major issue with it as a desktop.


----------



## ishpeck (Oct 30, 2012)

I'm a bit late to the game here but I'd like to contribute my thoughts.

My conversion to BSD was pretty recent.  First installed OpenBSD about a year ago for a mail server.  Started running FreeBSD a couple of months ago on my main desktop.

gmane's logs clearly show a decrease in activity on the mailing lists for both these systems but that may be the result of a rise in webforum activity (dunno how to get that data) or an increase in the general usability of these systems (thus requiring less hand-holding for new users). 

Since I started using it, I've gotten several other people to install BSD systems on their computers.  

With the rise of the mobile phone as the general-purpose e-mail and browsing machine, we're starting to see the ubiquity of desktop systems wither as they're used for far less than they were before.  As we see more software move to the web as its delivery mechanism, the prevailing need to be able to run the same universal binaries as everyone else is dwindling.  Unlike fifteen years ago, when everything was shipped to you in compiled binary form, it doesn't matter so much what OS you're running so long as you've got a browser.

Now that adding transistors isn't the panacea to performance, I've noticed a bigger push for elegant software design that makes distribution simpler.  Unix shines in this regard.  Among the Unixes that I've used (which include Solaris, AIX, HPUX, and too many Linux systems to mention), BSD seems to shine above the rest. 

Yeah, I've run into some inconveniences.  Linux never seemed to have as many headaches with sound drivers.  Sometimes, it's unclear to me why a ports build worked or didn't.  But now really does seem like a great opportunity for BSD to rise. 

Is it dead?  It seems to be running just fine for me. 

http://youtu.be/g7tvI6JCXD0


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 30, 2012)

ishpeck said:
			
		

> With the rise of the mobile phone as the general-purpose e-mail and browsing machine, we're starting to see the ubiquity of desktop systems wither as they're used for far less than they were before.


This is much talked about and market advisers state this is the reason Microsoft will see dwindling revenue over the coming years. (Not just Cringley but many others). In web development, it is now preached "mobile first" when designing and coding web pages.


----------



## bbzz (Oct 30, 2012)

What a load of pure shit, that article is.

That is all.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 30, 2012)

Well, the dwindling numbers for desktop and climbing numbers for mobile were reported for quite a while now and were brought up in Microsoft's own quarterly earnings a couple weeks ago as one of the reasons for their weaker earnings. iirc, the WSJ or NYTimes had an article this morning mentioning the same thing but the real proof is in this: web developers develop for Android, iPhone, iPad and Opera mobile FIRST. That's it. Windows is never in the mix until you build to the desktop and have to start including all the IE hacks.

Five years ago, Paul Graham said, "Microsoft Is Dead".


> So not only does the desktop no longer matter, no one who cares about computers uses Microsoft's anyway.



EDIT: And, today, Facebook isn't even bothering to build an app for Windows 8.


----------



## Remington (Oct 31, 2012)

I've come from Linux, Solaris and OpenIndiana.  I like Solaris and OpenIndiana but they have limited hardware support, OpenIndiana is pretty much dead since its been in beta testing for over 2 years and their ancient packages that hasn't been updated for quite some time.  So, I'm not comfortable using OpenIndiana for production use with its future uncertain.  Solaris and OpenIndiana's zones are quite powerful but I question their long term viability since Oracle ceased OpenSolaris project which I think they made a big mistake but Oracle is in business to make money.

FreeBSD's jail is almost similar to Solaris's zone.  It's good enough for secured virtualization for mysql, web, mail, etc.  I use ezjail since its great tool to manage the jails with flavours.  Linux doesn't have anything like this and they have to use third party containers such as OpenVZ.

ZFS is already compiled into the FreeBSD kernel. Linux does not have ZFS compiled into its kernel due to license incompatibility.

Linux is great for desktop users and FreeBSD is best for server due to less overhead and its more secure.  Linux got too many dependencies that hogs memory and it can compromise the server to hackers.  FreeBSD ports are impressive and I like it since it allows me to choose the options before compiling the sources.  It takes time to compile but its worth it due to security.  Binary packages does not give you the options and you don't know what is compiled into the binary packages.

PC-BSD is pretty good for desktop users and they're getting there.  I might use it since I'm quite familiar with FreeBSD system.

It all comes down to how comfortable you're with Linux or FreeBSD and the primary reason for using it.  Two reasons I use FreeBSD are jail and ZFS with mirror/raidz support.


----------



## AlexJ (Nov 1, 2012)

Remington said:
			
		

> Linux doesn't have anything like this and they have to use third party containers such as OpenVZ.


There also is V-Server... and they have KVM that FreeBSD haven't.
Linux itself it is just a kernel by its definition. It is a lego, you can build with it exactly what you want, - it's a power of the Linux.



			
				Remington said:
			
		

> ZFS is already compiled into the FreeBSD kernel.


If it would happened, FreeBSD will loose two more markets - embedded and VPS.
I also don't think that a regular computer users are ready to spend 1Gb of RAM per each 1 Tb of HDD.
ZFS is pretty cool, but... I really don't need 50 tons truck just to drive to nearest food store and I really glad that FreeBSD has a kernel that allow to load module(s) dynamically - exactly what you need ONLY.



			
				Remington said:
			
		

> Linux does not have ZFS compiled into its kernel due to license incompatibility.


No, as soon as the ZFS module isn't distributed or statically linked to the Linux kernel there no license conflict and as you can see here http://zfsonlinux.org/ linux move adopting it pretty actively.





			
				Remington said:
			
		

> Linux got too many dependencies that hogs memory


Ghm, you should speak about particular distro, not about kernel ONLY.
Linux's kernel could be very-very small and a distro like http://www.emdebian.org/ for example doesn't have a lot  "dependencies that hogs memory"




			
				Remington said:
			
		

> ...and it can compromise the server to hackers.


It is just because it's more popular. If FreeBSD would be on a CentOS place I pretty sure it gain hackers attention too.



			
				Remington said:
			
		

> FreeBSD ports are impressive and I like it since it allows me to choose the options before compiling the sources.


Gentoo linux distro has it too.



			
				Remington said:
			
		

> It takes time to compile but its worth it due to security.


Every time when I read this, I really, REALLY want to see that person who VERIFIED ABSOLUTELY ALL source code that he is compiling. I do really want to see that guy who enjoy to do that. Sorry, but I don't believe you that you check every FreeBSD update or ports source codes  to be sure the all code are secure!  
Ports is great for those who do customization or those who really check every line of source code ONLY. There no any magick, compilation isn't more secure than a binary update/install. You probably didn't heard how many FreeBSD servers a few years ago was owned when popular proftpd(8) source code was modified by hackers.




			
				Remington said:
			
		

> Binary packages does not give you the options and you don't know what is compiled into the binary packages.


That's because one can't cook them right. Adjust option/source as you want, compile from source and then pkg_create(1) it and distribute your unique binary packages.
Beside of that, source code distribution instead of packages doesn't not guarantee that there no "Easter eggs". Especially it true since primary source repositories just recently going to switch form CVS that doesn't has integrity checking feature. 



			
				Remington said:
			
		

> PC-BSD is pretty good for desktop users and they're getting there.  I might use it since I'm quite familiar with FreeBSD system.


Get some old Pentium-4, install there VirtualBox, then install there PC-BSD and Debian, then compare its speed... visually



			
				Remington said:
			
		

> It all comes down to how comfortable you're with Linux or FreeBSD and the primary reason for using it.


That is a part where I completely agree with you!
That is all depended on a task. 

Even if you have the most precision microscope, hammer will be better, if you going to nail something. 

This is completely childish thread that measure whose penis is bigger.

FreeBSD is full operation system. It self contained, kernel and all its utility. It has its advantage and disadvantage. Linux is just a kernel that can be build to a dishwasher or run server farms. And while it is scary how many distros it has, all of them has particular purpose instead of attempting to satisfy everybody.


----------



## Crivens (Nov 1, 2012)

AlexJ said:
			
		

> It is just because it's more popular. If FreeBSD would be on a CentOS place I pretty sure it gain hackers attention too.


That would be the case, sure. But then again there is another point to this, because that attention would result in different gains of success. When it comes to breaking into user mode software, we can agree on that there are holes which can be exploited easily.
But that is only part of the point. IMHO the *BSD kernels offer ways to be made much harder to mess with that Linux does. This also stems from the design goals. When confronted with obtaining a speedup or getting a 'cool' new feature against taking a risk to be the victim of some privilidge escalation, I would wager that the scales tip more to the risk in Linux than in *BSD.


			
				AlexJ said:
			
		

> Every time when I read this, I really, REALLY want to see that person who VERIFIED ABSOLUTELY ALL source code that he is compiling. I do really want to see that guy who enjoy to do that.


Partly, here!

I do not read any and all code, but I enjoy reading kernel code as this is where the highest demand on clearity and reliability is. Here is the code which you supposedly can learn from. Trying to learn defensive programming, safe code, gracefully fallover, ... from code that values speed over correctness is futile.

Any programm that can present you with an "unknown internal error" message should go back to the drawing board, learning from that codebase IMHO should be prohibited.

Also you do not need to read all code. You read a part of it, and somebody else reads an other part, and given enough readers you have a good chance to read all of it. And that means that whoever wants to slip something in has a good chance to be found out. This is a risk one can take if messing around is the goal. But if your goal is to, say, slip in some gubbermint backdoor, this risk is unacceptable. Only one guy needs to get it and sound the alarm.

And that is why I try to avoid what I can not check. Not that I would be able to check it all, but being denied the chance to check something means that someone has a reason that I am not doing so. That reason may be payment (good reason for him), or it may be that he tries to slip something in (NSAKEY, anyone remembers?). In the end it comes down to risk and trust. 

And these days when your telco tries to sell the location information from your phone and your call logs to world&dog, trust is in pretty low supply.



			
				AlexJ said:
			
		

> Even if you have the most precision microscope, hammer will be better, if you going to nail something.


Agreed, if you know how to handle both. Otherwise you might arrive at the conclusion that the heavier the object, the better the nail is driven. Know your instruments is what I mean.


----------



## pacija (Nov 1, 2012)

I use BSDs wherever I can. My laptop currently runs FreeBSD 8.3. At work I have four OpenBSD firewalls that protect my employer's network and provide VPN services. Around 20 FreeBSD 9.0 servers spin on VMware ESXi 5.1 for different purposes - simple DNS servers, proxy and web content filtering servers, mail relay servers, web (and mysql) servers etc. In fact, I wanted to have my non-windows part completely linux-free but it turned out I couldn't.

What made me to start using linux (CentOS) on some machines was the fact that my ESXi boxes would not talk well with FreeBSD NFS storage servers. Speeds were terrible, and I spent half of year trying to make it work, tweaking every possible sysctl that was mentioned in any instruction I could find online. In the end I said to myself "lets eliminate OS factor and try it on something else". CentOS worked out of the box.

Of course this does not mean I am going to transfer all my services to CentOS. But it is good I was reminded that there is no such thing as "the best OS". Sometimes eveen the same OS works different in different release, architecture, hardware combination etc.


----------



## Bengie (Nov 4, 2012)

First post, but have been reading these forums for many months.

After doing a little bit of googling, it turns out the content of the link posted by the OP was actually originally created by a troll. I'm not saying it was the intentions of the OP, but just pointing it out.


----------



## achix (Nov 7, 2012)

FreeBSD is like a fender stratocaster. You may eye candy a Gibson Les Paul, even buy one and play it for years. You will always go back to the strat. It just feels natural.

I have FreeBSD ws/server at work and do a wonderful load of things. At home, and laptop, I have Ubuntu for the unarmed civilians (wife/kids). It just feels like a stupid toy in comparison to FreeBSD. Also all those bells and whistles do not come for free. I think the time is not too distant that Ubuntu/Google or any similar Linux/cloud combination will prove to be a much worse nightmare than poor MSoft ever was.


----------



## GreenMeanie (Nov 7, 2012)

I personally like a easy OS to use.
Not being able to auto Mount drives in gnome sucks on freebsd.
I like a GUI sorry people.
I like a package manager in my GUI sorry people.
Debian and redhat have good package managers and not all the hassles of trying to get things to work like on freebsd. It shouldn't be a night mare trying to get FLASH and JAVA running.
Yes I know I am afraid of hard work/just goto Linux blah blah blah.
Mostly I use Oracle Linux for now but always like to get FREEBSD running and give it a chance once in awhile.


----------



## caesius (Nov 7, 2012)

GreenMeanie said:
			
		

> I personally like a easy OS to use.
> Not being able to auto Mount drives in gnome sucks on freebsd.
> I like a GUI sorry people.
> I like a package manager in my GUI sorry people.
> ...



Fine use Windows. That's supposed to be easy to use. Microsoft have even simplified the latest version so much that the user just prods his/her finger at coloured squares on screen.

Maybe that will satiate your need for an easy to use OS.


----------



## AlexJ (Nov 16, 2012)

caesius said:
			
		

> That's supposed to be easy to use. Microsoft have even simplified the latest version so much that the user just prods his/her finger at coloured squares on screen.



And I pretty sure they will win again because of that!
The scary things that Sheeple like it... less thinking, less problem...

Windows 9 probably would be simplified to 5 big buttons:

*[Pron]
[Eat]
[Entertaiment]
[What other likes]
[I want that too]*


----------



## wpostma (Nov 23, 2012)

There is a subsection among Linux fans who prefer a Ports like approach. The Gentoo Linux people, for example.

Here is what I see as REALLY GOOD about FreeBSD:

- BSD is perfect for tinkerers. That's me.
- BSD and Ports are the most powerful way to move (over time, with a gradual learning curve) from "I can install any software I want" to "I can not only install, but also modify, any software I want".
- Ports encourage minimalism (binary distributions of Linux are maintained/patched more aggressively)
- Ports encourage simplicity (notwithstanding how gross autoconf and all that crap is under the hood)
- Source code is important.  Ability to work with source is important for real world systems that will last 1000 years.
- Unix values, and ideals and traditions are all present in the BSD-flavors of Unix, and are mostly a sensible way for high-tech users to work.

Neither any BSD nor any Linux (Sorry Ubuntu) will EVER be user friendly enough to compete with Mac. 
And frankly Windows isn't user friendly either. It's a binary-only hell, actually.  It's just an "Acceptable Hell" for a lot of people, because it has a lot of games, a lot of commercial software, and is a huge installed base in corporate computing.

Frankly, I like working in Linux.  But I also like BSD. I actually like BSD better, but I think both are great in their way.  BSD (and certain Linux flavors like Gentoo and Debian) are great for  tinkering. BSD is for learning.  BSD is an ecosystem for sustainable computing that keeps the hacker ethic alive.

Sadly, Linux is far ahead of BSD on Laptop wifi support, but both are pathetic at video card support.
I don't blame Linux or BSD for either of those problems. Those problems are because the hardware vendors don't care enough about Linux or FreeBSD.  Windows is a pile of binary sludge that you will never understand.   Linux binary-only distros end up becoming more like Windows than like FreeBSD or source-oriented Linux distros.  In the end, the source is your friend. Even if you are not the one reading it.  It's good to be able to get some Hacker who CAN read the source to fix your problem.  If people ever start to realize that, then the FreeBSD approach will start to gain more traction.  As it is, binary turnkey systems are fit for content consumption and purchasing, not for "hacking".

"If my life is for rent,
And I don't learn to buy...
 I deserve nothing more than I get. 
For nothing I have is truly mine" -- Dido (Life For Rent)

I think that this philosophical difference between those who slide through life without really
making a more shallow commitment to computing.  It's a "rental" mentality.  I understand the "I just want it to work" mentality, but I see it as something entirely different than the "hacker" mentality.

Hackers build, explore and understand, consumers just consume content in walled gardens that turn them, and the rest of the members of their herd, into automatons who simply shell out coins the way us kids used to pump quarters into Space Invaders machines at the arcades in the 80s.

FreeBSD is important.   Linux is great.  But FreeBSD is something else.

Warren


----------



## iwre0 (Nov 24, 2012)

*sorry, i still want to work with FreeBSD desktop but...*

Here my impressions working with PCBSD 9.1RC3-amd64

http://iwre0.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/wasting-time-with-pcbsd/

i called "wasting time" because at least is only to fix my environment work, not to get things done at work.

Without acrimony


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Nov 24, 2012)

iwre0 said:
			
		

> Here my impressions working with PCBSD 9.1RC3-amd64
> 
> http://iwre0.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/wasting-time-with-pcbsd/
> 
> ...



You wasted your time posting that too. These are the FreeBSD forums, not PC-BSD.


----------



## nslay (Nov 24, 2012)

wpostma said:
			
		

> Sadly, Linux is far ahead of BSD on Laptop wifi support, but both are pathetic at video card support.


You're joking right? Linux Wi-Fi is the biggest hack job I've ever seen. iwconfig? Really? Also scroll through the default hostapd.conf ... most of those options aren't relevant to FreeBSD since the BSD Wi-Fi stack deals with many of those details. I also think you overlook the efforts of the OpenBSD project. The Wi-Fi support gap between the BSDs and Linux is probably quite a bit smaller than you think.

There's no distinguishable difference between Linux and BSD to the experienced Unix user. But as a developer, Linux feels somewhat like a hack job.

*For example, I love string parsing for system information in C and C++ programs!*


----------



## kpa (Nov 24, 2012)

I bet iwconfig will go away in Linux when Lennart decides it's outdated and obsolete  Fun times for everyone who wrote their little scripts to configure wireless using iwconfig.


----------



## nslay (Nov 24, 2012)

kpa said:
			
		

> I bet iwconfig will go away in Linux when Lennart decides it's outdated and obsolete  Fun times for everyone who wrote their little scripts to configure wireless using iwconfig.



And how would they configure Wi-Fi in Linux then? They have like 2-3 different utilities to configure different aspects of Wi-Fi. It's a blackeye to Linux. FreeBSD at least has seamless integration of Wi-Fi into ifconfig. Sam and Adrian did/do a great job!

That said, Network Manager sure hides the blackeye from users.


----------



## Crivens (Nov 24, 2012)

nslay said:
			
		

> And how would they configure Wi-Fi in Linux then? They have like 2-3 different utilities to configure different aspects of Wi-Fi...


They will all be merged into the upcoming systemd plugin which tries to configure every wlan in reach...


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Nov 25, 2012)

I honestly think Linux is no longer a Unix-like system or, perhaps, won't be called that anymore soon the way they are doing things. I think it will become a kernel of its own but, with so many distros, the fragmentation just may do so much damage as to put it in peril.


----------



## sossego (Nov 25, 2012)

I'm a small bit bored and calm.

Earlier someone had mentioned speed in this thread. Currently, the Linux kernel cannot go over 1000 hertz- There are patches for it to do 2000 hertz but they are for an older kernel and are not considered stable- while FreeBSD can run at 2500 hertz without breaking a system.

The article itself stated it was a bit of humor. 


The BSD family of operating systems remain a constant research project. Do not take this statement in a negative way. 


Blah blah.


----------



## nakal (Nov 25, 2012)

At the moment I changed my desktop to Linux because of two reasons:


I want to do some Android development and on FreeBSD the tools failed to work properly.
I want the new Gimp 2.8 very badly, because I need to edit photos.

I want to return as soon as possible, because Linux is really painful (and getting more and more painful, but I knew it already when I started to use it). Everything is broken with systemd (cannot even turn it on or my PC hardware will behave very weird, *even when the PC is off*(!) and I cannot find out why). On FreeBSD, I understand the basics and everything *just works*.

I have a reason to choose FreeBSD. It's because I like how the ports developers handle applications. At the moment many applications lag behind Linux. Earlier Linux lagged behind FreeBSD, when I first chose to install FreeBSD (4.3). Like I said... the most important (for me) are applications. And they need to be fresh.

I have been also optimistic that I could try out Gnome3 on ArchLinux. But I think that this software is not even portable to Linux and works only for Fedora. Whatever... I changed my desktop to Openbox and I am happy with it. Since Openbox works perfectly on FreeBSD, it is not the desktop itself which keeps me on Linux.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Nov 25, 2012)

nakal said:
			
		

> At the moment I changed my desktop to Linux because of two reasons:
> 
> 
> I want to do some Android development and on FreeBSD the tools failed to work properly.
> ...



OpenBSD 5.2  has Gimp 2.8.0, I've been trying it out on my desktop the past few days and it's not that much different than FreeBSD. I don't know if it will fill your Android needs though.


----------



## wpostma (Nov 25, 2012)

Last I checked the list of supported Wifi Chipsets on Linux was far larger.  That's what I mean about Wifi Support. (Can we all agree that some people love this, and some people love that, and that we're here to talk about FreeBSD? KTHXBYE)

Warren


----------



## bbzz (Nov 25, 2012)

There are some hacks which are necessary to get certain things running on linux both on kernel and drivers, backtrack comes to mind. But that's an extreme exception. I don't think anyone with a clue should be running backtrack as main desktop or server.

But yeah... I forgot what are we talking about.


----------



## nakal (Nov 25, 2012)

I won't discuss hardware support, because I buy only hardware that is explicitly supported. I don't buy Nintendo cartridges and complain that they are not supported by my Playstation 2, either.


----------



## UNIXgod (Nov 25, 2012)

wpostma said:
			
		

> Last I checked the list of supported Wifi Chipsets on Linux was far larger.  That's what I mean about Wifi Support. (Can we all agree that some people love this, and some people love that, and that we're here to talk about FreeBSD? KTHXBYE)
> 
> Warren



But... but ... but this is the _Flame bait: Why BSD is dying, or How I learned to stop worrying and love Linux_ thread.

You can't just come in here and troll words like _KTHXBYE_! Have some netiquette for crying out loud! Think... Just think of the children. Your lack of moral aptitude is just plain disconcerting. I quit! Going back to windows 98. kthx... bye!

/sarcasm


----------



## nslay (Nov 25, 2012)

wpostma said:
			
		

> Last I checked the list of supported Wifi Chipsets on Linux was far larger.  That's what I mean about Wifi Support. (Can we all agree that some people love this, and some people love that, and that we're here to talk about FreeBSD? KTHXBYE)
> 
> Warren



Far larger? I can't even tell if it's even slightly larger ...

See for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open-source_wireless_drivers#Linux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open-source_wireless_drivers#OpenBSD

I mean ... it's not FreeBSD, but you do pay attention to the other BSDs right? I mean, there was supposedly even a time when OpenBSD Wi-Fi support surpassed Linux's. So is it any surprise that, for example, OpenBSD's list is comparable to Linux's?

And, oh boy, I often come across PRISM, Texas Instruments, and other unusual/antique chipsets ... and not the _usual_ Atheros, Ralink, Broadcom, or Realtek chipsets (all of which FreeBSD supports, and more).

You're better off making your case with TV capture cards or something ... not network hardware.


----------



## cpm@ (Nov 25, 2012)

Interesting comparison between two heavyweights FreeBSD and Slackware. Place your bets? My bet for little red devil. I hope that at the end of the fight we take some beers :beer


----------



## throAU (Nov 26, 2012)

AlexJ said:
			
		

> And I pretty sure they will win again because of that!
> The scary things that Sheeple like it... less thinking, less problem...
> 
> Windows 9 probably would be simplified to 5 big buttons:
> ...



It will also feature a voice assistant "Ook" which the user can grunt at instead.


----------



## hedgehog (Nov 26, 2012)

The only reason why I have chosen Kubuntu for PC at work is binary packages. I cannot afford spending hours to update tools like Gimp or browsers or DE. However, now the pkg-ng tools brings new possibilities:

I can use official binary repository for packages. Well, it doesn't get updated quite often. Probably because it's still beta.
I use SSH connection to login on home PC and start building packages for the own repo in jail. Then I just do `# pkg install` anytime I want to upgrade anything. I think I could use this repository at work together with the official one in the future.


----------



## Crivens (Nov 26, 2012)

nakal said:
			
		

> ... Everything is broken with systemd (cannot even turn it on or my PC hardware will behave very weird, *even when the PC is off*(!) and I cannot find out why).



You may want to contact thisGuy.


----------



## Martillo1 (Nov 26, 2012)

What has happened recently in the Linux realm, what has broken, what does malfunction so badly? I can not find another explanation for all this trollfensive...

/waterhose


----------



## ishpeck (Nov 26, 2012)

Martillo1 said:
			
		

> What has happened recently in the Linux realm, what has broken, what does malfunction so badly? I can not find another explanation for all this trollfensive...



That's because it's partially a political problem.  Lots of emotion vested in this one.

Lennart Poettering threw down the gauntlet over the startup system. 

https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2012-August/029681.html

It spawned more than zero flame wars on the matter.

https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2012-May/026724.html

https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2012-June/026791.html

https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2012-July/028440.html

https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2012-July/028705.html

https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2012-July/028748.html

https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2012-July/028900.html

https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2012-August/029178.html

The TLDR version is that as the efforts of shops like RedHat try to turn Linux into a commodity similar to a Windows server, there is resistance from those, like the Arch community, who had BSDisms like rc scripts, and the crap hits the fan. 

Startup systems are not the only point of contention here but it was a recent and meaningful enough one that it garnered some attention.


----------



## cpm@ (Nov 26, 2012)

I believe that if software developers need productive users should not worry about the lack of communication, it is obvious that this is a problem of adequately promote interest of users, those looking to learn how things work from 0. No benefit at all, criticizing what others do, it is better to do and leave the rest. The FreeBSD operating style is the benchmark for the whole community. This thread can serve as a weapon for those who still seek to question the real interests that we served. All these conclusions will serve to update the already well-known http://www.freebsd.org/advocacy/whyusefreebsd.html.

One thing I would add, by the way, is the BSD license, which from the legal point of view is a great precedent, the question of permissibility, so that you can leave your open source or commercial products like pfsense, provided to respect its three essential freedoms:


> - The first freedom is to use the program.
> - The second to be able to modify the program.
> - The third to distribute the modified program or not.



BSD software applies sell while respecting these three freedoms, so we tend to not charge for the program itself, but for services that involves: installation and maintenance mainly.


----------



## wpostma (Nov 26, 2012)

Good point about the BSD license.  I've learned to "tolerate" the GPL.  Whereas, I actually LOVE the BSD license.

I guess you could say that about the design of FreeBSD from top to bottom.  I just like it. The more I learn about it, the more I like the decisions that were made in its construction. 

Warren


----------



## arapaima (Nov 27, 2012)

I believe most of the frustration around Linux is related to the big suite of different distributions and their goals, design philosophies and ways of solving problems. I have hard to believe that the regular anti-linux person actually has had any huge problems with the kernel and the base GNU tools.
I can see why some people don't like the license since it force all developers to write explicit for the community. So it is somewhat anti-capitalistic and against the idea that an idea in it self should be obscured and sold as a product.


----------



## cpm@ (Nov 27, 2012)

Good clarification of the matter, the truth is that a good license must be written for all cases, and the modification of its clauses must be tailored to the needs of developers. Provides legal guarantees demanded at the time, and should stay that way. 

Currently the FreeBSD Project suggests and uses the following text as the preferred license scheme.


> The FreeBSD project strongly discourages the so-called "advertising clause" in new code. Due to the large number of contributors to the FreeBSD project, complying with this clause for many commercial vendors has become difficult. If you have code in the tree with the advertising clause, please consider removing it. In fact, please consider using the above license for your code.
> 
> The FreeBSD project discourages completely new licenses and variations on the standard licenses. New licenses require the approval of <core@FreeBSD.org> to reside in the main repository. The more different licenses that are used in the tree, the more problems that this causes to those wishing to utilize this code, typically from unintended consequences from a poorly worded license.
> 
> ...



Every good project should have a good legal cover.


----------



## Xenomorph (Nov 28, 2012)

Until I can get perfect Windows ACLs on Linux, FreeBSD will be what I look to first for a long time.

BSD dying? After trying it out, I've actually considered throwing out all of our Apple, Windows, and Linux servers and replacing them all with FreeBSD.


----------



## arapaima (Nov 29, 2012)

Xenomorph:
Depends on your application.
BSD is definitely not dying.


----------



## UNIXgod (Nov 29, 2012)

arapaima said:
			
		

> BSD is definitely not dying.



netcraft confirms: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/BSD_is_Dying


----------



## throAU (Nov 30, 2012)

wpostma said:
			
		

> consumers just consume content in walled gardens that turn them, and the rest of the members of their herd, into automatons who simply shell out coins the way us kids used to pump quarters into Space Invaders machines at the arcades in the 80s.



Dude, not everybody wants to mess with source code.

Some people just want tools to get other things done.  Computers are a means to an end for them, and time not spent screwing around with the command line or a compiler is time they can spend being more productive at what they actually do.


----------



## Sfynx (Nov 30, 2012)

throAU said:
			
		

> Dude, not everybody wants to mess with source code.
> 
> Some people just want tools to get other things done.  Computers are a means to an end for them, and time not spent screwing around with the command line or a compiler is time they can spend being more productive at what they actually do.



The Ports system "screws around" with a compiler behind the scenes, not you. The choice whether or not you want to mess with the source code vs. just installing a specific port and being done with it is entirely up to you.

My experience with FreeBSD vs. the different Linux distributions is that FreeBSD has a much clearer and more logical system structure. For example, I think it is completely unnatural to throw the operating system specific and third party applications all together in the same file system namespace, where with FreeBSD the operating system is stored in / and third party applications get placed in /usr/local.

I also had more problems with Debian or Ubuntu release upgrades than with freebsd-update(8) or simply rebuilding world, and there are much less 'gotchas' because the FreeBSD base system is a centrally tested self-contained set of software... Things like this upgrade guide: http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html makes me really hesitant to just upgrade a box quickly, while with freebsd-update(8) the process is much simpler because it does not touch any of your third party software at all, only the things that the FreeBSD team is distributing.

The way things are being developed in FreeBSD land also seems more professional to me, I really like the "release when it's ready, not when it's time" motto... backed up by the very small number of errata problems after a release finally happens. I actually feel much better about putting a new FreeBSD -RELEASE in production the day that it comes out compared to release upgrading to a new Ubuntu the day it comes out.
I also don't like the speed with new features are being added to the Linux kernel with one line of development, leaving the actual production QA process in hands of the distributions (the previous stable (even) and testing (odd) Linux kernel branches were much better in that respect imo).

Btw, the lack a lot of desktop oriented things like drive automounting are not entirely FreeBSD's fault, because desktop environment developers tend to use a lot of Linuxisms in their code or depend on Linux-only services by default (DeviceKit anyone?). This will get ported over by FreeBSD porters eventually, but that takes time and sometimes needs new operating system features to work correctly.


----------



## freethread (Nov 30, 2012)

throAU said:
			
		

> Dude, not everybody wants to mess with source code.
> 
> Some people just want tools to get other things done.  Computers are a means to an end for them, and time not spent screwing around with the command line or a compiler is time they can spend being more productive at what they actually do.



Half of my soul agree with you, at this time few people are able to appreciate quality. I'm a Windows user, so for most of *nix (including Linux) serious programmers/users I'm a 'basic consumer', but I think FreeBSD (perhaps all *BSD systems) is a 'rare quality peace' despite the user interface approach (console and what related). Perfection doesn't exists in this universe, *BSD systems are well designed and developed, nothing is left to chance.

Really, FreeBSD is 'the unknown giant'. I'm always rude talking about Linux. Linux is a respectable kernel but Linux distributions cannot be compared to a real OS like FreeBSD or (i guess) any *BSD systems. FreeBSD is a unique peace of quality art.

So, *rhroAU* you are right, people want something that works and it's easy to use and maintain, but few peoples known the effort and passion behind jewels like FreeBSD. If people spend few time to get into it, they will discover a 'unique peace of art'.

At least, this is my feeling.


----------



## wpostma (Dec 1, 2012)

I'm not saying people "want" to mess with source, or that they "should".

Simply that what is good is that computers remain accessible, and open, not opaque black boxes.

I guess that makes me a "Hacker" in the old MIT/BSD sense. {I am not a hacker in the sense of the word where it means someone who breaks into computers. bah.}

Warren


----------



## arapaima (Dec 2, 2012)

UNIXgod said:
			
		

> netcraft confirms: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/BSD_is_Dying


That's some new info for me. At least my impression is that the FreeBSD community is getting bigger. The FreeBSD forums is a great initiative since not so many people uses mailing lists and usenet anymore. The way to communicate is changing. Every way has it's own pros and cons.



> "I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes"


http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164582&cid=13741084

This seems common around old projects consisting of low level hackers. My impression is that the retro computer scene has the same problem. Still the same people who grew up with the computers writing their assembler.
It's like it's a huge gap between users, power users and core hackers if you see what I mean. A somewhat elitistic approach saying We're not keeping this simple. You need to learn the hard way, because we did". The result of this is poor documentation requiring loads of background knowledge. It's easy to end up reading Richard Stevens books from the 70s with lost of inspiration and motivation on the road. I'm not aiming at the "for dummies" approach, but maybe something in between. As with writing software you'll probably avoid assuming stuff. A documentation method approaching the same could be a good idea.
At least this is my experience. I've been tinkering around with C for several years, and still using it for quite simple tasks.


----------



## cpm@ (Dec 2, 2012)

Stop worry about this. We can find all this stuff, day by day. A lot of people want to change this concept of fight, very absurd of course. Others can change this theory and show that is possible. Try to learn with the best members of this great community is a gratefully opportunity.


----------



## Martillo1 (Dec 2, 2012)

If you do not want to mess with the FreeBSD internals, you can always install a derivative as GhostBSD or PC-BSD and forget about them. PC-BSD has a nice installer, automatic GUI setup, self contained applications (PBI), easy printer setup and other goodies as meta-packages for desktop environtments. It is par with all "xbuntus" and alike regarding to user easiness.


----------



## UNIXgod (Dec 2, 2012)

Martillo1 said:
			
		

> If you do not want to mess with the FreeBSD internals, you can always install a derivative as GhostBSD or PC-BSD and forget about them. PC-BSD has a nice installer, automatic GUI setup, self contained applications (PBI), easy printer setup and other goodies as meta-packages for desktop environtments. It is par with all "xbuntus" and alike regarding to user easiness.



YEah those projects are cool in their own right. I don't feel going directly to FreeBSD the traditional route( even if your installing X11) is really messing with internals. Though the aforementioned projects provide a quick and easy way to determine weather you have multimedia capabilities quickly (i.e. gfx card support)... Might be nice for a new user to take to a store and boot a laptop with before purchase.


----------



## piggy (Dec 3, 2012)

UNIXgod said:
			
		

> YEah those projects are cool in their own right. I don't feel going directly to FreeBSD the traditional route( even if your installing X11) is really messing with internals. Though the aforementioned projects provide a quick and easy way to determine weather you have multimedia capabilities quickly (i.e. gfx card support)... Might be nice for a new user to take to a store and boot a laptop with before purchase.


Multimedia? LOL What is your concept of Multimedia? Serious Multimedia and games never ever exists in the FreeBSD world. There is no new hardware support in FreeBSD. If you stay with FreeBSD, even PC-BSD, you don't need a modern system with modern multimedia devices (like top video cards, tuners and so on) becouse simply FreeBSD can't take advantage from them.

FreeBSD was a server OS in the past. Now they can't even maintain the schedules for new releases and it is like oine year and a half that kernel do have memory leaks and they never ever had the ability to fix it.

In my environment FreeBSD is pretty much dead. Scan the web and see how many company runs FreeBSD servers for Apache and production: they are like one to one millions.

So, yes, FreeBSD is pretty much dead but for geeks living out from the real production world.


----------



## SirDice (Dec 3, 2012)

piggy said:
			
		

> Now they can't even maintain the schedules for new releases


Schedule has always slipped.


----------



## ondra_knezour (Dec 3, 2012)

SirDice said:
			
		

> Schedule has always slipped.



With policy ship when ready release may be shipped little early, but never too late


----------



## ankscorek (Dec 3, 2012)

all OS are good as long as they have not originated from redmond city or from the Apple labs....)


----------



## alie (Dec 5, 2012)

BSD needs more developers to help, we can see from number of check-ins, architecture support, features, etc. But all these can't tell the quality of the OS since number of check-ins is quantity only, not quality.


----------



## Martillo1 (Dec 6, 2012)

ankscorek said:
			
		

> all OS are good as long as they have not originated from redmond city or from the *Apple labs*....)



Do not say that too loud around here :e


----------



## Ben (Dec 6, 2012)

I can't tell about FreeBSD as a desktop system, but we are running more and more FreeBSD servers all over. In our case Linux is dying, FreeBSD is more than alive.

Our FreeBSD servers outperform Linux in almost every aspect. The advantages have been listed. Love or don't love it. For desktop-use I would consider something else.


----------



## Remington (Dec 6, 2012)

piggy said:
			
		

> So, yes, FreeBSD is pretty much dead but for geeks living out from the real production world.



Care to backup your absurd claims?  Yandex, Amazon, Rackspace, Pair, Yahoo and many Russian companies are using FreeBSD on their servers.  Also, many companies don't reveal which OS they run on their servers due to security concerns, however, most of them are using FreeBSD or Solaris especially banks, investment and insurance firms.  There are too many Linux distros to count and they're different from each other.  With every major Linux upgrades, something breaks so I don't bother with it.  FreeBSD has been extremely stable and I am using it on my production servers.

I don't consider Linux to be a true UNIX system since it didn't originate from AT&T UNIX.  Linux is a kernel and RedHat, Suse and many others just add their own stuff to it to make it look like a UNIX.  If you write a script for RedHat Linux and then try to run the same script on Suse Linux.  50-50 chances it will fail.

I work in IT industry in Moscow Russia.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Dec 6, 2012)

Remington said:
			
		

> Care to backup your absurd claims?  Yandex, Amazon, Rackspace, Pair, Yahoo and many Russian companies are using FreeBSD on their servers.


So does Netflix.


> I don't consider Linux to be a true UNIX system since it didn't originate from AT&T UNIX.


With all the new stuff, like systemd and Wayland and other things, I'm starting to think Linux has pulled itself further away from Unix, too.


----------



## gwarbot (Dec 8, 2012)

All hail FreeBSD!


----------



## zero (Dec 8, 2012)

From another point of view GPL3 is a hook - take a look on MySQL, it happily grabbed from community by Oracle and commercialized.


----------



## lordyuanshu (Dec 8, 2012)

It is alive and well. Not for everyone certainly, and will probably never be a mainstream factor. But it has it's own niche and a lot of people / businesses count on it.


----------



## throAU (Dec 9, 2012)

wpostma said:
			
		

> I'm not saying people "want" to mess with source, or that they "should".
> 
> Simply that what is good is that computers remain accessible, and open, not opaque black boxes.
> 
> ...



No, more importantly, you essentially called anyone who doesn't want to go to the hassle of running an open source OS a consumer, and implied they were stupid.

If I was a musician, or a doctor, or a geologist, for example and wanted to run, say Ableton Live, or Surpac on my machine to do my job, it is easier to just run the app on the platform it is supported on.

It doesn't make me stupid, it just means I waste less time faffing about with the platform and more time doing the job I'm paid to do.  My friend for example is a paramedic.  They run iPads out in the field, because that's the device that runs the app they use.  Is he/they stupid?  No, it's just a tool to do a job.  It's not a religous/idealogical issue.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm all for open platforms when it is appropriate, and comparable open alternatives exist.  But having a go at people who run Windows or Mac OS or whatever because thats what platform supports the application(s) they need to run is a bit unfair.  The simple fact is that not all software runs on FreeBSD or Linux or any other open platform.  In some niche purposes, it is very unlikely there will ever be an open alternative.

Operating systems are a commodity these days.  Run the one that runs your software.

If there's an open alternative, great.  But don't compromise the maintainability, stability and ease of deployment of the application for the sake of the stability or open-ness of your OS, because you'll lose far more than you gain.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 10, 2012)

I agree with all sides, but only partly.  I've been a fBSD loyalist from the off, but it really is true that it hasn't been treated by the development folk as seriously as it could have been - could still be, and should.

It's wonderful for servers.  

Xfce4 makes a nice windowing system, once you get X working.  But getting X working is often a non-trivial project in itself which is ridiculous after all this time.

Apps?  Apps are a problem.  A lot of the ports are rubbish, and shouldn't be.  The distribution would have lots more street cred if it were separated the same way the o/s is:  "production", "beta", and "alpha - don't install or run on anything you'd like to keep".

Linux scores because for all its chaotic "Heinz 57 Varieties" nature, any one of the distributions has had a lot of work put into it by its partisans.  

Betamax was better than VHS.  OS2 was better than Windoze.  Where are they now?  Seats is the key issue.  If the dev team were focusing on capturing seats from Linux instead of working like hobbyists in a garage, life would be very different.  How much difference really is there between v4 and v9 from a human-factors standpoint?  Not a lot.  But there should be.


----------



## wpostma (Dec 10, 2012)

I don't remember calling anybody stupid. I remember referring to a "herd".

Just because the "herd" is mostly always going to use something like iPads doesn't mean that "BSD is dying", which is the context in which I was speaking.

Do I dislike these shiny devices that just work? No.  I like Linux and BSD, and Ubuntu and iPads, and all these things. I don't hate any of them. I think I said that. Twice.

All I said, and here I'll type very slowly so you'll understand me....

BSD is important.

That's all. Not dead. Not dying.  And still important.

Warren


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 11, 2012)

One of the things that still makes building an FreeBSD system such a _special_ experience is that, even though production releases such as 8.3 are supposedly very stable, a person can spend 10 hours, as I just now finished doing, installing FreeBSD, and building X11, the nvidia driver, and xfce4 from ports only to have it all fall apart at the end because someone didn't test something before shipping it.

As the builds proceeded I sat there and watched it offer me the opportunity to select options for clumps of early-beta --alpha, really, I bet-- software.  Not an opportunity to include or reject the software, just configure it.  The including was already decided.  Obviously some hobbyists felt certain that I would just love their buggy software utility or app as much as they do. 

What does their software do and why is it necessary, if it is?  They'll never tell.  Obviously I should have been suspicious, spent some hours or days determining what it does and whether it's important, and pruned it out of the makefile if I didn't want it.  

The idea that a production release shouldn't have beta software in it at all, ever is apparently a foreign idea to those in charge of FreeBSD's release engineering.  Hobbyists include everything, because they love the software and even its bugs.  People who want to get something else accomplished just want the software to be painless to install and reliable in operation.

In this case, the killer error was apparently in Ghostscript, which has been around long enough not to behave like that. I thought. Perhaps it's no longer being maintained.

So now I get to spend tomorrow doing it all again.  

It's experiences like this that make me think that perhaps I should investigate Linux (ptui!) after all.


----------



## morbit (Dec 11, 2012)

That's ridiculous. You are responsible for crap you have installed and it's dependencies, not operating system. You can always build all by hand and omit port system altogether, have fun.


----------



## fonz (Dec 11, 2012)

Auld_Besom said:
			
		

> One of the things that still makes building an [red]fBSD[/red] system such a _special_ experience is that, even though production releases such as 8.3 are supposedly very stable, a person can spend 10 hours, as I just now finished doing, installing [red]fBSD[/red], and building X11, the nvidia driver, and xfce4 from ports only to have it all fall apart at the end because someone didn't test something before shipping it.
> [snip]
> The idea that a production release shouldn't have beta software in it at all, ever is apparently a foreign idea to those in charge of [red]fBSD's[/red] release engineering


Sigh. It's *Free*BSD, not *f*BSD. Where is DutchDaemon when you need him?

Fonz


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 11, 2012)

morbit said:
			
		

> That's ridiculous. You are responsible for crap you have installed and it's dependencies, not operating system. You can always build all by hand and omit port system altogether, have fun.



I don't believe you've ever been in the computer industry or understand how a successful systems-development process works.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 11, 2012)

fonz said:
			
		

> Sigh. It's *Free*BSD, not *f*BSD. Where is DutchDaemon when you need him?



Isn't that being a bit anal?


----------



## morbit (Dec 11, 2012)

Auld_Besom said:
			
		

> I don't believe you've ever been in the computer industry or understand how a successful systems-development process works.



I don't believe you know what is part of said operating system and what is not, moreover I also don't believe that you know what are you doing with ports.


----------



## fonz (Dec 12, 2012)

Auld_Besom said:
			
		

> Isn't that being a bit anal?


One: See the forum rules. Some quotes (*bold* face omitted, you can see that in the link): 
This forum is not for children or texting teenagers!
Opening remark: try not to take any of this personally, even when a moderator sends you to this page. These rules exist to make the forums an enjoyable experience, and to help you make a good impression on other forum members.
It's FreeBSD, not fbsd, FBSD, freebsd, freeBSD, Freebsd, or any other variation. FreeBSD is likely older than you are, so respect the operating system!
Two: If you have time to post here, you also have time to spend a measly few extra key presses in order to spell properly.

Three: See one. And two.

Four: Where is DD?

Fonz


----------



## SirDice (Dec 13, 2012)

Auld_Besom said:
			
		

> The idea that a production release shouldn't have beta software in it at all, ever is apparently a foreign idea to those in charge of FreeBSD's release engineering.  Hobbyists include everything, because they love the software and even its bugs.  People who want to get something else accomplished just want the software to be painless to install and reliable in operation.
> 
> In this case, the killer error was apparently in Ghostscript, which has been around long enough not to behave like that. I thought. Perhaps it's no longer being maintained.


The ports have nothing to do with the FreeBSD versions. All versions (including all -RELEASE, -STABLE and -CURRENT versions) and architectures use the exact same ports tree. A common misconception all new FreeBSD users seem to have, especially if they have previous Linux experience. The ports and the base OS are two separate entities. It therefor doesn't make sense to blame a certain version of FreeBSD for inconsistencies caused by third party applications.


----------



## fonz (Dec 13, 2012)

Auld_Besom said:
			
		

> In this case, the killer error was apparently in Ghostscript, which has been around long enough not to behave like that. I thought. Perhaps it's no longer being maintained.


You must be kidding. The Ghostscript ports are actively maintained by the Doceng team.

Fonz


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Dec 13, 2012)

Just they can't understand the obvious. FreeBSD is the OS. Not FreeBSD + ports. *Ports are not a part of the base system*. Ports are ported from users, handled by users, maintained by users. From me, from you, from my grand mama, from the neighborhood. Everyone can port. We have told this gazillion times in this forum. If is not compiling send pr to maintainer, if you set wrong flags, search on forum for similar threads. If you can't find a similar thread, open a new thread and ask. But everything you do stop blame FreeBSD because a port wont compile or it is buggy. Is not FreeBSD's fault. From the moment you will run
#portsnap fetch extract
you must accept that you can have any package error you can imagine and this have nothing to do with the OS.
I know. It's easy to blame FreeBSD on that but is wrong. I really want automount on my DE / thunar-volman. But I can't have it. At least this moment. Linux turn to another way on automounting. The maintainer of xfce4 port the DE but of course automount will not work. It's broken. There is not know solution about that right now.
But this is about port and linuxisms. Not about FreeBSD.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 13, 2012)

This will be my last post in this thread, and I'm making it only because I do very much care about the future of FreeBSD.

(to clear up a sneer made, I hope, in jest:  no, FreeBSD is not older than me.  I am older than it.  I'm also older than UNIX itself.  I'm even, mirabile dictu, older than Ken Thompson, Brian Kernighan, and the late Dennis Ritchie.)

I've been a supporter of FreeBSD from the beginning, coming to it from SCO, Solaris, and Novell's SysV.  Because having source is good, I was investigating Minix with the idea of doing something with it when the FreeBSD project started.  I think the earliest cd I thought to save might be 1.1.2.  One of the very earliest releases, anyway.

My computing career started in 1975, when the grad student whom I'd hired to write a program I needed handed the specs back to me with the apology that he was already over-committed.  I asked whether it was hard to learn to program and he called back over his shoulder on his way out the door "no, no, it's easy".  So I went over to the computer center, explained what I needed, and asked if there was someone who'd be willing to teach me how to do it.  There was, and after awhile I was hired by the computer center even tho I was training to be a psychologist not a computer scientist.  To cut a long story short, I spent 30 years in the computer industry writing software, doing systems architecture, and being an engineering boss and program manager.

The difference between the popularity of Linux vs FreeBSD is (imo) down to the fact that the people packaging Linux are treating it like industrial-grade software, while those packaging FreeBSD are treating it like the joke about the original UNIX: "five Master's dissertations and two hundred undergraduate term papers".

Most people already have all the hobbies they can use.  What they need and want is _good, reliable, easy-to-use tools_.  That's why so many people like Macs despite their high cost and limitations.  And why Windoze is a huge success worldwide despite Micro$oft's predatory obnoxiousness.  I do nearly all my work under XP because it has a lot of useful apps that work well.

The beliefs of people here notwithstanding, "FreeBSD" out in the real world is both the excellent, pro-quality operating system and the gallimaufry collection of ports. 

To keep FreeBSD from gradually becoming a footnote like Minix or Ultrix, someone needs to start focusing on the needs of the millions of people who are not computer hobbyists.  It wasn't an accident that Apple chose FreeBSD's o/s as the stratum on which to build OS X.  How many ports did they use?  

The PC-BSD people have the right idea (I think - I haven't looked at it):  make a distribution that is complete out of the box.  That can be installed and used _without_ prayer and fasting or chicken-sacrifice.

Someone else should be doing a server edition with a simple check-box setup like a cross between the o/s's and Microsoft's:  do you want MySQL, MariaDB, or PostgreSQL and where do you want to put it; do you want to include HPHPc; what u/i layer do you want, none, curses text console, xfce, Gnome, or something else?  And so forth.

Server and workstation packages for web service, file service, app service, sw dev, multimedia, office, and school.  Usable right out of the box!

Linux would begin to lose seats almost immediately, and the corporate money and developer interest would start coming back to FreeBSD.

I would hope that that's what everyone who loves FreeBSD would want.


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Dec 13, 2012)

On some things you have right. People wants easy tools to do there job.
BUT. FreeBSD is server OS. Is to serve. Is not designed to be desktop OS. When you speak about BSD you speak about security (not ports security but systems security).
If you want the best of packages and security, OpenBSD is the best. They check every line of code for vulnerabilities before port something. But the packages are too old and not to much. If you speak for Desktop use PCBSD is the answer. Is easy to use, gui installer, gui package manager. But this is FreeBSD. That means security on FreeBSD system (not on ports). Solid code and ports in the hands of community.
We have 24000 ports and 4000 have no maintainer any more. If you want to help see here. Don't be angry. Don't blame. Help.


----------



## adamk (Dec 13, 2012)

> FreeBSD is server OS. Is to serve. Is not designed to be desktop OS



And yet the FreeBSD Foundation pays someone to port Intel KMS from linux to FreeBSD. This is functionality that has no real use in a server OS, only in a desktop/workstation.


Adam


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Dec 13, 2012)

An OS to be proud about himself must cover a big range of things. But every OS focus somewhere more than somewhere else


----------



## Martillo1 (Dec 13, 2012)

Today's desktops, even laptops, are more powerful than yesterday's servers.

Next time we'll see tablets as servers. Adapt or die.


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Dec 13, 2012)

I don't think that FreeBSD is not using today's technology.
zfs, ufs, can mount ext3-4, fat, ntfs, support ssh, nfs, samba, multiprocessing support, drivers for wired/lan, for graphics (Not so much as Linux but a wide range) etc. From FreeBSD 10 will change gcc to clang compiler and also there is an effort to BHyVe. Pfsense witch is a great firewall and FreeNAS witch is a great NAS solution are using FreeBSD as base system. FreeBSD try to adapt. Is not staying in the same place. May don't make the hudge steps of Linux. Prefer to do little steps but to be sure about them.
Ports is something completely different. Is not about OS. Is about you and me and who we love the gui and want to bring gui, easy tools and hapiness to FreeBSD. Well a lot of people in FreeBSD's community don't prefer easy tools. PCBSD exist for this reason. On some things personally I prefer easy tools but's ok. That's it. I prefer that better than Linux mess and linux community. When I came here, my first post was about FreeBSD'S future. I was completely jerk and I was not respect nothing. Today I use FreeBSD more than 2 years. Is alive, strong and for me FreeBSD OS and his community is that I was searching for and here I will stay.


----------



## bbzz (Dec 13, 2012)

With all due respect, I just don't agree.


> To keep FreeBSD from gradually becoming a footnote like Minix or Ultrix, someone needs to start focusing on the needs of the millions of people who are not computer hobbyists.



This is the whole point. FreeBSD will never be for people who aren't "hobbyists", period. Nor it should be; this is what linux is trying to figure out and I don't like where it's going/what has become of it, and it's exactly because it can't satisfy huge auditorium, everyone at the same time.

In fact, as long as it stays true to itself, rather than try to bland/mimic other operating systems, FreeBSD will ensure its existance.


----------



## throAU (Dec 14, 2012)

Auld_Besom said:
			
		

> The PC-BSD people have the right idea (I think - I haven't looked at it):  make a distribution that is complete out of the box.  That can be installed and used _without_ prayer and fasting or chicken-sacrifice.



Exactly.

For desktop use the ABILITY to have a million different Desktop Environments, etc is all well and good, but the 90% just want something that works and is consistent with the rest of the 90%.

I have other things to do with my life than investigating which environment to use, weighing up pros/cons and recompiling software to make it work.

Which is why I (after 10 years in free Unix desktop land) switched to OS X on the desktop.


The reality is, despite the fact that everyone thinks they're totally unique and need a unique solution to their problems, probably 99% of situations out there could be handled in a consistent, standardised way.  Sure, make other options possible - but there should be sane default solutions to typical problems/tasks.

This is something unix (in general) appears to lack, and exactly why apple have made such a killing in the unix desktop market where Linux and the BSDs are floundering after twice as long to get things sorted out.



			
				sk8harddiefast said:
			
		

> I don't think that FreeBSD is not using today's technology.
> zfs, ufs, can mount ext3-4, fat, ntfs, support ssh, nfs, samba,



Again, the problem is that to get a lot of that working, you need to be a nerd.

ZFS shouldn't require me to drop to a shell during install and manually partition my disks.  It should be a tickbox in the installer.

Ditto for needing to hack on text files to configure samba, nfs, etc.


I'm not saying FreeBSD is useless by any stretch (I run it for plenty of internet facing stuff), but it could be so much more competitive.


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Dec 14, 2012)

> Again, the problem is that to get a lot of that working, you need to be a nerd.
> 
> ZFS shouldn't require me to drop to a shell during install and manually partition my disks. It should be a tickbox in the installer.
> 
> Ditto for needing to hack on text files to configure samba, nfs, etc.



I don't disagree about that you are saying but a lot of people complains. We want this and that and the other. Sometimes me too I do it and is my fault. The question should be how to fix that to make FreeBSD better. I am not a FreeBSD guru. Even when I tried to port something I didn't made it. But believe me. If I had the knowledge to include zfs support on installer I had already do it.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 14, 2012)

Yes, I know I said my previous response would be my last one, but two things remain to be said.  ThroAU has already said one of them, but I'll emphasise it.

1. This is not a zero-sum game. 

Doing professionally packaged releases that meet the needs of millions of people doesn't mean turning FreeBSD into something proprietary that hobbyists can no longer play with.  It simply means treating FreeBSD as the professional software it is.  The same level of treatment given with less justification to Linux by groups like Red Hat, Slackware, Ubuntu, Debian and the rest.


2. It is very unhealthy on many levels to deny that something can happen when it already is happening.  

Just like planetary overheating, Linux sucking the oxygen from FreeBSD is not something that might happen at some time in the future.  It is happening now, has been happening for years, and will be the death of FreeBSD if it is allowed to continue just as planetary overheating will be the death of all high-order life on Earth if _it_ is allowed to continue.

Don't remain in denial about what's going on, accept reality and either do what's needed to reverse the decline, or resign yourself to having FreeBSD continue to go the way of Minix and the UCSD P-system, losing seats, maintainers, and support until it drops below the level where it's worth doing new releases.

Although a FreeBSD-based server is superior to a Linux-based one, more hosting companies offer Linux-based servers than FreeBSD-based ones.  There is a reason for that, and anyone who cares about the future of FreeBSD should think long and hard about that reason.  Hint:  it was for broadly the same reason that Ken Olsen used to practically give away PDP-11s and VAXen to universities.


----------



## zspider (Dec 14, 2012)

throAU said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> For desktop use the ABILITY to have a million different Desktop Environments, etc is all well and good, but the 90% just want something that works and is consistent with the rest of the 90%.
> 
> ...



It's called PC-BSD, FreeBSD will never be suitable for the masses and that's just fine with me.


----------



## SirDice (Dec 14, 2012)

I think a lot of the issues Auld_Besom has can be solved if the ports tree would also have a -RELEASE instead of only HEAD. If I remember correctly there was some talk about this some time ago. People that want to can still track the current HEAD, while others can take a -RELEASE and only get security updates. I'm not sure what happened to that discussion but I can imagine it's been shelved for lack of resources.


----------



## morbit (Dec 14, 2012)

SirDice said:
			
		

> I think a lot of the issues Auld_Besom has can be solved if the ports tree would also have a -RELEASE instead of only HEAD. If I remember correctly there was some talk about this some time ago. People that want to can still track the current HEAD, while others can take a -RELEASE and only get security updates. I'm not sure what happened to that discussion but I can imagine it's been shelved for lack of resources.



I think that Auld_Besom has actually raised some good points. Indeed, OS is experienced by enduser as whole. 

Point is, FreeBSD is currently offering huge repository of ports (after Debian, but Debian has overchopped many applications, so it's inflated artificially) and there is no, nor there will ever be enough manpower to offer scrutiny comparable to base system. 

After all, it's alien to port system idea too. Think of it, it's a collections of simple scripts trying to be minimal and using just vanilla sources. It will always be a hobbyist/wizard thing. It is what it is (I personally like it, mainly for using vanilla sources and most of the time additions kept up to minimum.)...

But it will never be industry grade-binary repo similar to RHEL, there is just not enough manpower.

To be fair, there is "something" as port release. There was feature freeze in ports leading up to 9.1, which was lifted now. So one could use packages distributed only with 9.1, treating them as "released". However, reality is, port system is more akin of -STABLE or -CURRENT thing. That's price for fresh software.

If it would depend on me, I would delegate _more_ of the base to ports (yes, e.g. BIND), leaving just _base_ things, to focus on them, moreover this is good idea to me http://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD-ng-detail , and would totally leave release engineering of binary-industrial-grade packages to interested (possibly financially, why not) third party!

adamk, well I like that you can actually run FreeBSD on newer intels. Most of linux numerical success now stems from this, that linux was hobbyist system at home for future sysadmin, and he just doesn't know any better. Not supporting any newer cards will not help it.

Sorry, but I think I must add this also. I don't remember last time I had problem with ports. I just don't install lots of crap... Port system eases you into installing lots of software, but shouldn't fool you into thinking they do not inherently (by design) suck (DE in broad sense for me).

tl;dr? 

FreeBSD should just focus on providing slim excellent base, true to the original spirit of UNIX, not necessarily try to be released _product_ for all-and-every-possible-scenario enduser.


----------



## throAU (Dec 14, 2012)

zspider said:
			
		

> It's called PC-BSD, FreeBSD will never be suitable for the masses and that's just fine with me.



That's probably the case, and it is moving in the right direction, but it's not there yet.

Also, it's not just the desktop - server wise there's a long way to go also.

Setting a home server up as a NAT + firewall box with SMTP and a few other basic services should be no more than putting in some IPs, hostnames and ticking a few boxes with sane defaults.  This stuff isn't rocket science, unless you're doing something really weird and out there, in which case you should know how to do it yourself manually.  But the vast majority of people aren't, they're doing basic things.  And even if i know what I'm doing, doing basic thing shouldn't require significant effort  


Instead of having some sensible defaults like that, which work well enough for the 99%, FreeBSD (and Unix in general, it's *not a problem exclusive to FreeBSD* - don't get me wrong, I'm not having a whinge because I want to pick on FreeBSD, it's my unix of choice on servers) will offer say, 3 different firewall engines, no default out of the box firewall rule set and certainly no template to get it up and running.  I mean, there are standard things you leave open on a firewall and standard things you generally block (e.g., inside IPs on your outside interface, etc).  There's no safe template.  People who want to do unsafe things because they know better should, well.... know better to be able to modify it themselves.  Instead of forcing everybody to start from scratch...

Instead of having a home box doing basic stuff up and running within a couple of hours of first being exposed to FreeBSD (assuming basic network knowledge) the user is forced to learn a bunch of os specific peculiarities before they get very far at all.

Sure, a half competent admin will figure it out.  But there are heaps of people out there who aren't competent admins, and end up configuring open relays, un-firewalled machines, etc.

I guess I'm just saying that it shouldn't be this hard.

I don't expect anyone to think "oh, well we'll start coding this right away", because I know resources are tight.  And no i'm not likely to code it myself because personally I don't need the convenience stuff, and I don't have time.  But I do see things like that as being detrimental to FreeBSD and Unix in general being a viable OS for a heap of people.


----------



## kpa (Dec 14, 2012)

There are reasonable defaults for firewall configuration you can set in rc.conf(5) but only if ipfw(4) is your cup of tea. For pf(4) there's not enough examples included, not even in the handbook which is a shame.


----------



## morbit (Dec 14, 2012)

Speaking of PC-BSD, well I could setup perfectly usable FreeBSD machine for a family member (and did it once), yet the time when he installed PC-BSD on it, and _then_ it started developing problems I was helpless over the phone. I would prefer to just wipe this altogether and start with fresh FreeBSD. So nothing is without consequences. He had easy install, I didn't have an idea what was going on.


----------



## morbit (Dec 14, 2012)

throAU said:
			
		

> Instead of having some sensible defaults like that (...)



FreeBSD is not starting services by default, and I'm grateful for that. 

At least you are forced to know _at minimum_ what are doing.


----------



## throAU (Dec 14, 2012)

morbit said:
			
		

> FreeBSD is not starting services by default, and I'm grateful for that.
> 
> At least you are forced to know _at minimum_ what are doing.



I'm not saying start, or even install things by default.

But if i want to build a box to perform a particular role, then there should be some sort of sensible default way of doing it, with a sensible example configuration.

I mean, lets take sendmail for example.  Pretty common task for a unix box right?

If I was to give 5 different users 1 hour to come up with a sensible smtp configuration for a small single site, we'd end up with 5 different sub optimal configurations. Depending on the skill level, some wouldn't even manage a working configuration in that time, let alone one with sensible grey-listing, anti spam features turned on (greet delay, etc.), DNS block lists, etc.

Again, not FreeBSD specific, but a common unix problem....

Email is (or should be) a basic, cookie cutter task for the vast majority of systems.  Insert IP range to relay for here.  Insert local domains to accept here.  Insert domains to relay for here.  Would you like anti-spam enabled?  Yes/no.  That's as hard as it should be to get something sane.  If you have special requirements, tweak the file yourself...


Sure, the current way is the status quo and how unix has been for decades.  It's not good enough.


----------



## UNIXgod (Dec 14, 2012)

The troll threads on this forum are beginning to get stale. 

http://everything2.com/title/BSD+is+dying


----------

