FreeBSD article was interesting

[bkurt]

I just read the article comparing FreeBSD to the linux 2.4 kernel. I didn't really know that FreeBSD was that such a better performer in that many ways. So I guess my question is why Linux and not FreeBSD??

[Beowulfs_Ghost]

After using FreeBSD on servers for almost a year, and as my workstation for the past couple months, I often wonder that myself.

The thing is, Linux developement doesn't hurt FreeBSD. I have KDE and Gnome and GIMP running on FreeBSD. I can also run Linux binaries (like Real Player 8 for Linux).

So any open source Linux projects can easily be ported to FreeBSD. And closed source binaries can also be run.

FreeBSD was also used to do rendering for The Matrix; http://www.freebsd.org/news/press-rel-1.html

[*Lo*Tek*]

I think the reason why Linux is more popular even though FreeBSD would outperform it in some aspects is that:

It's easier for newbies to get Linux as compared to FreeBSD... Users could pick any one of the distros that are available in stores everywhere...

The graphical installation that's a standard in some Linux distros is more appealing to the eye of a newbie (even though a text-based UI would prove to be a faster one)...

More so, the fact that some Linux distros would support more peripherals as compared to FreeBSD is a plus factor (can't seem to make my SB Live! work in FreeBSD)...

There are more sources on information for Linux as compared to FreeBSD (AFAIK)...

I can't imagine a newbie from the Windows world who won't get intimidated with an installation that starts with configuring the kernel through a text-based interface...

[scott_R]

besides, could you imagine the MS fud over BSD? Instead of the pathetic claims of communism, they could say "BSD is the devil! Look at their logo! BSD users worship satan!", etc. :)

[Beowulfs_Ghost]

The thing is, Linux also started off with text based installs. The current FreeBSD install is a menu based one, and pretty easy to navigate.

And kernel configuration in FreeBSD is a snap. It just consists of commenting out the lines of stuff you don't want. If I don't want NTFS support, I put a # infront of the NTFS line. An GUI based one would be pretty easy to whip up, but I don't think anyone has done it yet. Any one comfortable with recompiling the kernel, should also be comfortable with working a text editor.

I was able to get my sound card working under FreeBSD (TB Montego) using a hacked third party driver. I could never get it to work in Linux. But hardware support is simpler in FreeBSD. Linux varies from distro to distro. And installing 3rd party drivers vary from distro to distro. With FreeBSD, either FreeBSD supports it, or it is supported by a third party, or it ain't supported.

So if the BSD people were to start using an X based installer, and put out lots of documentation (as if "the little" documentation they have wasn't already top-notch) then FreeBSD would be as popular as Linux?

The thing about Linux being more popular then FreeBSD is a fluke. And a fluke that seems to piss off hard-core FreeBSD users to no end. No one could have predicted it. But the FreeBSD remains technicaly superior, and the resent deals with BSDi will most likely keep it that way for awhile.

[MBMarduk]

I'm also interested in this BSD thang, prolly a long term try maybe...though I did NOT know you could run Linux binaries on it. Is this 100% true, or just most of the time?

Originally posted by scott_R:
..."BSD is the devil! Look at their logo! BSD users worship satan!", etc. :)

There's nothing wrong with Satan, man!
-Man

[Beowulfs_Ghost]

The only Linux binary I haven't gotten to work is the MochaSoft 5250 terminal. On their web site, they say it works with Red Hat 6.1, and they don't won't to here of any problems with other distros. It keeps giving me an error about not finding a gtk lib. I'm sure I could trick it into working by putting a copy of that lib in a file path similar to Red Hat's, but I didn't bother.

Most of the time, I can just compile Linux stuff from source, so having binary compatability is moot. The only thing I regularly use it for, is for Real Player 8, and it hasn't crashed so far (using it almost daily for the past 3 weeks).

[ColdPack]

I've messed with FreeBSD only a little. Right now (as of last night) I am test-driving NetBSD and it really is nice. Configuration is quite simple with the online documentation and "man rc.conf" got things going just as I like in less than 10 minutes!
So far, while not as "easy" and "pretty" as some linux distros, I am really impressed with NetBSD.
Also, for those looking for security, NetBSD is truly secure out of the box, even with a "full installation". If you want stuff like KDE and Netscape and blah blah blah, you can get it easily with "pkg_add". Works just as well (so far) as debian's apt-get... if finds and installs dependencies as well! :D
It really is nice. I'll play more with it and let y'all know how it goes if you want.

[Swapper]

I'm impressed by the previous posts and it's giving me the itch to install FreeBSD as well. What hardware config are you guys using? Would I be able to install FreeBSD on this:

P100
32MB
1GB HD?

[vhg119]

i'll try freebsd but i'll stick to developing for linux. I believe in the gpl. linux use to be far more crappier than freebsd. A couple of years passed by and look at it now. Kernel 2.4. just give it a little more time and it might be equivilent to freebsd or surpass it in terms of speed, stability, and hardware support. Linux has been used to render Titanic, and i THINK X-MEN also. but i'm not sure.

[Beowulfs_Ghost]

Swapper;

I had FreeBSD installed on a P133, 32 MB, 1.5 gig HD. I usd it as a e-mail and DNS server for a small network. I also install X on it so I owuld have something to play with.

With the limited HD space, you'll need to be careful what you install. The ports collection can make this easy, and it can make it hard. It makes it easy, because you can pick and choose exaclty what you want to install. It can make it hard, because installing stuff is so easy, you may go crazy installing anything you want on a whim.

When I installed FreeBSD on my home machine, all I had was 2 gigs. After doing the installation, I had 52% used. I'm now up to 92% full, because I could just bring in any app I wanted at the spur of the moment.

"A couple of years passed by and look at it now. Kernel 2.4. just give it a little more time and it might be equivilent to freebsd or surpass it in terms of speed, stability,"

FreeBSD developement is not at a stand still. FreeBSD is developed by a sort of board of directors elected by various FreeBSD developers. Not only do they oversee the kernel developement, but developement of the OS as a whole. This is one of the reasons FreeBSD administarion is so straight forward and consistant. Linux kernel developement is still at the whim of Linus. Even the mighty IBM couldn't change that. While Linus may make a kick *** kernel, a company (*cough* Red Hat *cough*) can then wrap that kernel with crappy utils, and a terrible administration system, and promote it as "The Linux OS".

"Linux has been used to render Titanic, and i THINK X-MEN also. but i'm not sure."

The Titanic thing was hotly debated at the time, because it was a Linux/WinNT cluster. Some of the people who actualy worked with that cluster argued that most of the work was done by WinNT. Others said it was done with Linux, and NT only played a minor support role. I've never heard a straight answer as to how involved Linux was in the rendering for Titanic.

From other reports I've heard, Matrix was done using Linux software, on FreeBSD machines. The fact that they got decent performance while emulating Linux in FreeBSD speaks volumes.

[andrzej]

There is one thing in favor of Linux: the licence. AFAIK GPL makes impossible to close the source that whas once opened. The BSD licence does allow it. So when BSD gets popular and people are dependent on it, developpers (one company (!) not one community) could just close the source, change licencing scheme and start to make money. Scary.

Someone tell me I'm wrong, please !

[Beowulfs_Ghost]

First off, FreeBSD isn't owned by a company. It is run by a group of volunteers.

And secondly, once the code is open, and in the public, it can't just be "closed".

There is nothing to stop Linus from changing the license under which the Linux kernel is distributed. He could deside to put 2.6 under the BSD, or Artistic license, or close it all together. But if he closed it, all the 2.4 code will still be in the public domain.

The BSD license is considered _more_ open then the GPL. The viral nature of the GPL can make things difficult for developers. But with BSD, you can use BSD's tools, but keep the code to yourself, so long as you give credit to BSD. BSD gives you a choice of how to deal with your code, the GPL doesn't.

[andrzej]

I'd need to consult a lawyer :confused:

See this discussion... http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/23/1313224.shtml

Obviosly: things already released will stay released. No objections here.

Sorry for the "company" (but what's the role of BSDi here? just curious...).
Anyway, it seems to me that the "group of volunteers" who develop FreeBSD is very well defined and relatively small. By "closing the source" I meant that this group as a whole could decide not to release any open source updates and make FreeBSD not free (I know it's theory and those people are devoted open source supporters). But if they did, it's unlikely that some other group would continue the development from the last available free release.

Is "closing" possible with GPL ?
Would Linus need to have consent (impossible) of everyone who ever contributed code to the kernel to change the licence of the next release ? Or, is he the sole author owning all rights and thus can close the next release ?

GPL software seems to be "self-protecting". It may happen that it's a good thing.

Andrzej

[Beowulfs_Ghost]

The thing about the FreeBSD team, is that it doeasn't leave developement to the whims of one person. They have rules that they have to follow. The core team is elected by the developers to sort of "man the rudder" for FreeBSD. If they close the source, I'm sure they would be voted out a the next election. And the FreeBSD developement team, is by no means small.

The way you close the source, is by switching the license you use. All Linus would have to do is put the next kernel under a different license, and 'voila' you have a closed Linux kernel. I think the whole "long wait" for 2.4 proved who owned the Linux Kernel. Even IBM with their millions could change that.

The sticking point of the GPL is its viral nature. If M$ wanted to use BSD's TCP/IP stack, they could, and keep their OS closed, so long as they give BSD credit for the TCP/IP stack.

If M$ was to use the Linux TCP/IP stack, they would have to open up their code. No ifs/ands/buts.

Whether this viral attribute of the GPL is a Good Thing [tm] is up in the air. Anyone who makes their living writing software will tell you they avoid it like the plauge. If they use any GPL code in their code, it's game over for them. Their project now belongs to the community, and they'll have to find a new job.

[lkue]

I tried OpenBSD a while ago. It is very stable and secure. But the thing that sucks about *BSD is this: say you here that Enlightenment 0.17 is out, or gimp 1.2.1 is out. You grab the source and try to compile . . . and it does not cooperate!! So you can go check and see if they are in the ports collection yet, which may or may not be true. As a firewall, it can't be beat!! IPfilter is WAY better than iptables, in my opinion! But as a desktop/everyday OS, it's not for the weak of heart.

[Beowulfs_Ghost]

Actual, I just got the above mentioned 5250 emulator working. Just had to grap a libgtk-1.2 package.

As an everyday OS, FreeBSD is fine. Most everything for Linux, has been ported. And if it hasn't been ported, you can usualy be run with the binary compatability.

[getek]

The X-Men used SGI machines. There is a huge amount of information about that at the SGI web site. I'm pretty sure it said that they were all running IRIX.

[Tyr-7BE]

Damn...you people are making me want to give FreeBSD a spin. From what I hear, it's very server-oriented?