Re: Review of FreeBSD 5.4
From: Thomas Schweikle (tps_at_vr-web.de)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:38:05 +0200
Mike Cox schrieb:
> +Alan Hicks+ <firstname.lastname@example.orgWORK> writes:
> Debian is so old, that who wants it. And wasn't the newest release a
> complete screwup with everything breaking even afte all their testing?
Could not confirm this. I am using debian for about seven years
now. Not more, but not less problems compared to FreeBSD.
If you like to have a bleeding edge system using debian --- just go
for "unstable". It is much like going with FreeBSD-CURRENT ...
If this is to much risk for you, "testing" could be an alternative.
> Well, if Linus can't do his job as well as when they had bitkeeper,
> the linux kernel suffers. When the kernel suffers, everyone who uses
> linux suffers. And besides, who are we kidding, how does Git
> (bitkeeper's replacement) even measuer up? Are we to think that Linus
> could come up with a source control system in one week where PhDs are
> working on them for years (think of the guy that worked on SAMBA and
> caused the bitkeeper license to be revoked, he has a PhD and was
> reverse engineering bitkeeper).
PhD isn't at all a quality measure. It something you reached
sometime. It doesn't at all tell about the person reaching it years
ago keeping knowledge actual and up to date. It is a lot like "I've
won the iron man contest --- four years ago". This doesn't prove
you'll win it next year.
PhD is only to some extend something like: he has proved he is able
to work in an scientific way. It does not prove at all if he is
doing so all the time.
>> > Soon, I couldn't even build kernels from
>> > kernel.org because a lot of times Linus wouldn't even test compile a
>> > new release!
>> I'm calling bullshit here. If your kernel wasn't compiling, it's not
>> because no one test compiled the release, but rather because you
>> pooched your box, or are running a brain dead distro (and yes, that was
>> a bit of a flame, I apologize).
>> > Fedora Core 4 was the last straw. This pig was a 4 CD
>> > download, and the default install ate my Windows partition!
>> Sorry, your fault. Anyone who proclaims to have used Linux for the
>> last 5 years should know better than to select the "blow it all away
>> and start from scratch" default install.
> Which proves how retarded the default install is. It should be like
> medicine where the first rule is "do no harm". FreeBSD didn't touch
> my data at all.
Sure? I know a lot of people who made it: the other OS they already
had installed and configured was gone afterwards. Or: it was the
only OS starting. FreeBSD being installed, but not reachable.
>> > After
>> > spending 2 weeks on dialup downloading Fedora, I'd had enough of
>> > Linux.
>> *cough* I've gotta call bullshit again. Two weeks is an awfully long
>> time to spend downloading anything when $4.00 will get some one to mail
>> you a copy that will be available in 5 business days.
> I don't like giving my CC details to fly by night companies on the
> net. Got a problem with that?
OK. Go to the next bookstore, buy a CD. AFAIK they sell some with
"Fedora Core 4" on them.
>> > I happened to be subscribed to comp.unix.solaris when the news of
>> > Solaris 10 being free arrived. I was beside myself, and was eager to
>> > have the exact OS the big boys do.
>> Define "big boys", because not everyone that runs Solaris is "big", and
>> not everyone that is "big" runs Solaris.
> Banks, Huge corporations, governments all run Solaris. SUN is big
> iron, no question about that.
Sure? AFAIK most of them use VMS or OS/390, a view rely on BS/2000.
Solaris? If ever, only for web services --- but some use Linux
(based on SuSE, RedHat, or Debian) for that matter.
>> > I tried FreeBSD 5.4. The first thing I noticed when I went to
>> > www.freebsd.org was the documentation. This was quality stuff, as I'd
>> > noticed with SUN's Solaris 10 docs. I read through the install book
>> > and was amazed at the detail it went through.
>> Yeah, props to the whole FreeBSD documentation team on a job well done
>> (and continually well done might I add).
>> > So I decided to try it. I went to the ftp site, and began downloading
>> > the ISOs. Two days later, I was ready to burn the disks.
>> Wait, you downloaded two isos worth of FreeBSD disks in 2 days on
>> dial-up and it took 2 _weeks_ to download _4_ isos of Fedora Core 4?
> The fedora core ftp site is a lot slower. Could it be that the TCP/IP
> network stack isn't as fast as BSD's?
> Either that or they have a lot
> more people downloading Fedora Core than BSD.
Yes. There not enough mirrors around.
> I suspect it is both,
> and also remember that most people just download the one BSD CD and
> use pkg_add or ports to get what they want.
Same for SuSE (using yast -install xyz), Debian (apt-get install
xyz), Gentoo (emerge xyz), ...
"Ports" is AFAIK the first and oldest idea of handling package
dependencies, but it isn't the only system available.
> I don't understand BSD style inits. I'm a fan of Sys V. The reason
> is I like to have different runlevels for different things. For
> example, a server (this is in Linux) runlevel I configure to be
> runlevel 4, and 5 I turn off most server functions and have it a pure
> x11 desktop system. That I can only reboot, shutdown and go to
> runlevel 1 in FreeBSD seems awefully limiting. That is the only
> downside of FreeBSD other than not having DTrace and excellent muliti
> CPU kernel support like Solaris 10.
I tend to have one system configured to use one runlevel all the
time, only changing it if it is necessary. Thus this "runlevel"
system isn't really useful for me. But you are right: it comes in
handy in certain situations.
>> > I was eager to try jails which I read were comparable to Solaris 10
>> > Zones. I had no clue as how to use them so I opened up the jails
>> > manpage. Wow wow wow. Why doesn't Linux have manpages this good!?
>> > Those manpages even explained how to use the command and gave an
>> > example!
>> I think you'll find that certain apps do indeed have man pages that
>> good in linux, but for the record, the BSDs do tend to have better man
>> pages and documentation on the core system.
>> > The system commands are not GNU commands or utilities for the most
>> > part. BASH is not even a default shell. For some reason, they seem
>> > better. None of those silly GNU extensions must be the reason.
>> I think you'll find yourself wanting a lot of those "silly GNU
>> extenstion" because they add quite a bit of functionality. In fact,
>> it's arguable as to which userland is better, the BSD tools, or the GNU
>> tools. A lot of BSD people wind up using the GNU tools for quite a bit
>> of their work thanks to those extensions.
> Nope, not missing them at all.
Oh yes. I am missing them. And about the manpages: just try "info
xyz" instead. GNU does use texinfo. It is a bit a pity, but
hopefully both --- "info" and "man" --- will vanish sometime:
replaced by something more useful like compressed html-pages
readable by a simple browser having related information right away
following a link.
>> > Well, overall FreeBSD 5.4 rocks, and is way better than linux.
>> Linux is just a kernel. FreeBSD 5.4 is an operating system. Compare
>> FreeBSD to Fedora Core, Slackware, Mandrake, SuSE, Debian, Crux,
>> RockLinux, etc., but don't just use the blanket term "Linux", because
>> you're kidding yourself and fooling no one.
> Next you'll be telling me that its GNU/Linux. Listen, Linux is
> commonly used as a general term for a Linux distribution. When people
> speak of the kernel, they always say "Linux Kernel".
> SuSE linux: was good before Novell bought them
> Mandrake: never tried it
> Debian: too old, like running windows 95,
> Slackware: Never tried it, seems to attract elitists
> Fedora Core: Wouldn't touch it again
> Linux was good until Rht switched its business model. Sure it had
> problems, like the 2.4 scheduler, but it had more features than BSD.
> Now with FreeBSD 5.4 out, that's not the case anymore.
Oh no. This point remains: just try to compile java on FreeBSD.
Or think about OpenOffice.
>> > The
>> > linux kernel development process is not effective, and Theo Raadt says
>> > security is not a Linux priority. He should know, he writes the most
>> > secure OS in the world, which happens to be OpenBSD.
>> Arguably most secure OS, but that's not one argument I'll disagree
>> with. Now, as for security not being a priority for Linux, that's
>> bullshit again. It is not necessarily the highest priority in the
>> linux kernel, but it is a priority (among many). Theo's highest
>> priority is security, so compared to OpenBSD's kernel, the linux kernel
>> doesn't focus as much on security. Big surprise!
> Well there was an article on slashdot recently which had a link that
> said that Windows and Linux were about equal in security nowadays.
Yes and no at the same time. FreeBSD does have the same problems
Linux has. If you are looking for a really secure OS, go with
BS/2000, OS/390, Plan 9, or VMS. If you do not need this high level
security, try OpenBSD. Maybe SE-Linux is good enough too.
With any of them there is at least one big problem:
BS/2000, OS/390, Plan 9, VMS: there is no GUI other than text
available (OK: for Plan 9 and VMS X11 is ported. But it is not a
default install and it is not supported).
OpenBSD and SE-Linux do have a GUI. X11 is right away installable.
But: lots of applications you are used to are not available for
OpenBSD. SE-Linux makes it difficult to run them, if they are not
supported by the SE-Linux team.
Windows and most commercial Unix Systems have long bug fix periods
compared to FreeBSD or Linux Distributions.
I myself couldn't find an ideal OS. They all suck at some point.
Sometimes you'll get there fast, sometimes it takes longer. It
depends on what you want to do with the OS chosen:
On a desktop system you'll get to that point really fast using any
of the commercial Unix systems, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Slackware, and
you'll find yourself lost a bit later using Debian, Gentoo or
FreeBSD. You'll get further with SuSE, RedHat, Mandrake. At the
moment you'll get furthest using Windows.
On a server system this is different. You'll reach the point fastest
using Windows, followed by most commercial Unix systems. With
OpenBSD, NetBSD, Debian you'll find your way, but is may be hard.
Not that hard would be using FreeBSD or Debian. Most Linux
distributions make live easy. Windows makes live easiest, but only
if you intend not to use things not delivered by Microsoft (this is
why Windows shows up at the first place too).
With embeded systems again an other ranking: you'll aint get Windows
running on most of them. Same for all commercial Unix systems.
You'll have the Linux kernel running on some of them. FreeBSD or
OpenBSD may work. NetBSD does work (it is likely ported).
> Raadt has a point, and linux is going in the wrong direction.