Submitted by “With all of the BSD variants available for download, it’s easy to incorrectly assume all of them are pure, incompatible forks from each other. Actually, there are more shades of BSD out in the world than just separate forks. One in particular made the news a couple of weeks ago when it was commercially acquired. The BSD in question is PC-BSD. The company that bought it is iXsystems, a systems deployment and integrator firm out of San Jose that has pretty strong experience implementing *BSD, Unix and Linux systems for its customer base. So, why did the company up and buy PC-BSD?”
I always thought Linux was the next Linux.
I hope they don’t play the BSD card and close things up
(they could at least partially).
Somehow I doubt that a “ecosystem” of distributions is possible without a strong license like GPL.
Peace.
Edited 2006-10-26 16:37
They won’t do that. Why? Because they know that if they did, the same day, a fork would rise, based on their source code and released open-source.
Actually no. The fork could be of the last version of the code which was made available, but every modification thereafter could be closed off. There are quite a few examples of this.
Exactly, but the fork can follow its own way, benefiting from the source code before it gets closed.
Actually PC-BSD has so many GPL components that it can’t go closed source. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Edited 2006-10-26 17:25
I wouldn’t hazard to state definitely, but even if there were GPL components, the source to those can be made available but with the rest of the system being closed.
If memory serves, even when a BSD is done by a company which initially intends to keep it open, historically they do eventually close it off, making it entirely proprietary. I think that is the case, but don’t rely on my faulty memory for this to be completely accurate.
If memory serves, even when a BSD is done by a company which initially intends to keep it open, historically they do eventually close it off, making it entirely proprietary. I think that is the case, but don’t rely on my faulty memory for this to be completely accurate.
The opposite is true too. Think about it: How many companies ended up opening their source code and releasing their product open-source?
let’s try not to make this to yet another bsd vs. gpl flamewar
another? nah. its one long ongoing one…
its like a bonfire and fuel. just toss some more on it and watch it come back to life…
I hope they don’t play the BSD card and close things up (they could at least partially).
I hope the GNU sycophants don’t pull the FUD card and start talking out their asses about what might, maybe, possibly happen.
Oh, wait.
Lets hope PC-BSD is the next Linux. I would love to see the BSD’s get more recognition than they do now, but without all the zealotry that surrounds Linux.
…but without all the zealotry that surrounds Linux.
Dream on. What you call zealotry is just passion for a product we like. What technical, complex product (as opposed to products like salt and sugar which are very popular with zero passion) has ever become popular without a passionate appeal?
PC-BSD will become popular if and only if it has a good number of passionate advocates.
One man’s passion is another man’s zealotry!
Personally I hope that the better operating systems rise to the top based on technical merit and their respective price to performance ratios. Let’s leave passion where it belongs, i.e. the bedroom
Let’s leave passion where it belongs, i.e. the bedroom
No, please, no computers in my bedroom.
Oh, wait
It’s a thin line between passion and fanaticism.
>PC-BSD will become popular if and only if it has a good number of passionate advocates.
It will be popular if it stays “true”. Any kind of hype would be the death of this flavour in the long run and a great damage to FreeBSD too.
BSD is BSD! It’s no Linux.
What you call passion for a product I call obsessive. I believe in free choice and all that, its when the really hard core advocates come out for linux that really turns me off on it. We know linux is out there and what our choices are. Its good at some tasks but sucks at others. But having a linux advocate scream “use linux!” to solve all the world’s computing problems is just ridiculous. This is the road I’d rather not see any of the BSD’s take.
What you call passion for a product I call obsessive. I believe in free choice and all that, its when the really hard core advocates come out for linux that really turns me off on it. We know linux is out there and what our choices are. Its good at some tasks but sucks at others. But having a linux advocate scream “use linux!” to solve all the world’s computing problems is just ridiculous. This is the road I’d rather not see any of the BSD’s take.
If the BSD’s want to become more popular then they need to get better hardware support. Seriously. They also need to convince people that the capacity for forking is not as extreme as it may seem, OR not as much of a problem as it seems, OR both.
They also need to promote themselves more – but if you think that BSD users don’t go around saying “Linux (or Insert Your Favourite OS Here) is crap, people should use BSD”, you’re dead wrong. There’s also plenty “the GPL is thievery” crap.
As for linux users “screaming ‘use linux’ to solve all the world’s computing problems’; dream on. Linux is an operating system, and therefore it can be adapted to any application anyone chooses to put on it. It’s also a much more credible choice than others for a variety of purposes.
“If the BSD’s want to become more popular then they need to get better hardware support.”
I just love these standard, inaccurate cookiecutter arguments. You need to get a clue. Seriously.
“They also need to convince people that the capacity for forking is not as extreme as it may seem, OR not as much of a problem as it seems, OR both.”
There are less than 10 BSD’s. How many Linux distros are there?
“There’s also plenty “the GPL is thievery” crap.”
Just like there’s a lot of “BSD is dead” and “BSD licensed code can be closed” crap going around.
Edited 2006-10-27 02:49
Original statement: “If the BSD’s want to become more popular then they need to get better hardware support.”
A reply: “I just love these standard, inaccurate cookiecutter arguments. You need to get a clue. Seriously.”
I worked with FreeBSD trying to get it to install on a computer that is known to work great with Linux and does. When I tried FreeBSD, the install, while easy, was the only good part of my experience.
FreeBSD is not as smooth as Linux on hardware. It lacks drivers and critical commercial support that Linux gets on an everyday basis. So this observation is correct and is even admitted to by FreeBSD developers.
“FreeBSD is not as smooth as Linux on hardware.”
That’s a pretty widereaching conclusion to come to from trying to get it installed on one computer. I could say the same about Linux using my own experience (Ubuntu did not support my ralink wifi, openbsd did). Also, FreeBSD != BSD.
Edited 2006-10-27 03:37
But that’s my point.
Any computer upon which Linux runs nicely and FreeBSD has problems is one more strike against the system.
Regardless of the reason for the difficulty, when Linux installs and works out of the box (several distros mind you) and FreeBSD chokes and is a pain to get working–if working at all, it is one more testimonial to the fact that FreeBSD has a way to go to reach parity with Linux in terms of ease of installation.
I tried it on every system I could get my hands on. One major version even tanked before loading the install program (NetBSD 3.0). So don’t give me the cookie-cutter argument, because it won’t wash.
“So don’t give me the cookie-cutter argument, because it won’t wash.”
Funny then how I have been installing OpenBSD systems for a living for 6+ years on all kinds of brand and whitebox systems yet I have never had any major piece of hardware not be supported. Sure, there have been devices that wasn’t initially supported because they where new or really oddball but this has always been fixed in newer versions. You know, just like how Linux (or any OS other than maybe Windows) doesn’t magically support every new or existing piece of hardware 2 seconds after it is released or discovered.
So sorry, but “BSD has bad hardware support” is a blanket statement that doesn’t wash.
True statement. I have also installed OpenBSD on many systems over the last few years and it has always worked. Last night I decided I would try out PC-BSD again and downloaded 1.2 and 1.3. I couldn’t even get either to boot on two different boxes or Qemu. Not sure whats going on with the project but something is broken. Last time I tried it was 1.1 and it worked ok, not great, but it at least booted. Again, I know I’m beating a dead horse, but OpenBSD does have more hardware support than the other BSD’s and more integrated security. And I’m not just talking about CPU support, yes I know what everyone is going to say “But NetBSD will run on a toaster”, yes it will, but there isnt a whole lot going on in a toaster. If said toaster had a Wifi card or ACPI you’d be screwed.
I am passionate about kosher salt.
when one works around a machine buildt on pure logic (no matter how illogical it can appear to behave some times, it still is logical. its just that the observer do not have the full data set.) the part of the brain that deals with emotions gets little stimuli.
i theorize that zealotry is either a way to exercise, or a over-reaction based on lack of practice.
still, given that different people is zealots about different subjects (sports anyone?), the theory is at best incomplete.
if it isnt religion, politics or sports, what else do one have that one can be passionate about?
if it isnt religion, politics or sports, what else do one have that one can be passionate about?
… how about being passionate about your life?
it’s there all the time anyway, 24/365, so why spend this time mostly in a lukewarm way?
but then again, those topics are whats most often used to define what kind of life one lives.
ie, you vote for a specific party or person based on your life (or what you want/hope your life to be). same with sports and religion.
life alone becomes very darwinian…
I don’t know how you expect BSD to get more recognition without the “zealotry”. Perhaps it is its lack of “zealotry” that keeps BSD forever in the back seat.
I’ve always heard that BSD is what Linux wanted to be…
I downloaded and installed the Beta PCBSD 1.3 version. All in all it is a very nicely done OS. The biggest problem at the moment is the lack of ready to install programs under their package installer. If they can get enough programs ported then it just might become popular. I do like it and have it running on my desktop PC.
One positive, I don’t know what they are doing but they managed to set my display to the correct 1280×1024 resolution. This is something the Linux distro’s I am trying have failed to do. They always dump me to 1024×768 and Then I have to manually tweak the xorg.conf file to make it work right.
Yet another guy trying to make BSD noise.
I find funny that some people does want to become the “next Linux”. Have you guys realized that the VAST MAJORITY of what you call “linux” is actually not Linux neither GNU or BSD, but just “FOSS”?
In other words, the parts of “linux” that really matter (gnome, kde, X.org, openoffice, apache, mysql, GCC) are ALREADY available for BSDs. The one difference is the kernel, the libc and a few key libraries.
So BSD won’t be the “next Linux”. If BSD gets more used, it’ll continue to be gnome, kde, X.org, apache, gcc, mysql. I don’t think it matters at all wheter the kernel is Linux or BSD or Solaris, or even Haiku. It’ll continue being FOSS with just another name.
Edited 2006-10-26 17:33
Diego, I doubt these guys want to be the next Linux. If they wanted, they would have used a Linux kernel. They based their OS on FreeBSD because of FreeBSD’s maturity, strengh and robustness.
> So BSD won’t be the “next Linux”. If BSD gets more
> used, it’ll continue to be gnome, kde, X.org, apache,
> gcc, mysql. I don’t think it matters at all wheter the
> kernel is Linux or BSD or Solaris, or even Haiku. It’ll
> continue being FOSS with just another name.
Correction: It’ll continue being FOSS *UNIX* with just another name (and kernel). Many FOSS OSes aren’t UNIX-centered and don’t use gnome, kde, X.org, apache, gcc, and mysql.
yes, indeed. love it.
I am happy with that, maybe this will help get at least one BSD into more of the spotlight as I know there are avid Linux users who have never even heard of BSD. With a bigger PC-BSD name, I think it will give a bigger FreeBSD name. Just need something to also get OpenBSD a lot more exposure and I think it will help with all this Linux craze. As it’s been said several times over, Linux is for people who hate Microsoft, BSD is for people that love Unix. I am not sure PC-BSD will be the next Linux, but I’ve tried every release since it was based on Free 6, and just never liked the default install, had to go through the system and change a lot of the setup. But with this acquisition now, since iXsystems can sell stuff with PC-BSD installed, maybe they can help fund full time development and kick PC into more high gear, so that Kris can take on Windows and Mac the way he would like to, but built on the security and stabilization of BSD. So I really can’t say it will be the next Linux, but I would say it could help turn people on to a true Unix-type system, and not a Unix-like system.
Well if you want to get technical, BSD is not a Unix either, but a Unix-like system. The Open Group has the trademark and get to determine what is and is not officially a Unix. None of the BSDs are, according to them.
FreeBSD is currently the most popular *BSD OS, but DragonFlyBSD (a fork of FreeBSD) is going to be the most “modern” and “efficient” BSD, so, having a “desktop layer” on top of DragonFlyBSD (like PCBSD on top of FreeBSD) would be great!!!
Why is DragonFlyBSD better than FreeBSD? Backing your statement would help us understand.
“Why is DragonFlyBSD better than FreeBSD? Backing your statement would help us understand.”
He does not need to do so. He said so, so it must be true. No need to back it up with any facts of any sorts.
“Is going to be” rather sums up the merits of the statement. Lots of things are going to be, or would have been only if…
First, I’d like to state thatt the heading of the article is not well formed. BSD cannot get a Linux by principle. Please consider the proper use of the correct termini technici over journalistic buzz words.
Furthermore, let’s not get info flame wars BSD ./. Linux, GPL ./. BSDL etc. – it won’t be any productive.
I like the PC-BSD approach of a pre-tuned FreeBSD for the average user. This’ll make BSD more interesting for the “desktop used at home” as well as in professional contexts. Their PBI package system is quite cool. Admittedly, there are some things I don’t like in PC-BSD, but no one forces me to use it. I’ll continue using a “real” FreeBSD which I can configure by myself. Newbies who are not firm with CLI and system architecture will find PC-BSD most interesting; I gave it around some people here, most of them had never used a computer before, and they are now very comfortable with PC-BSD.
PC-BSD folks, go on! More than 15,000 ported applications and a solid base system should lead BSD to more success.
I’ll continue using a “real” FreeBSD which I can configure by myself.
Remember PIF
http://faqs.pcbsd.org/14_304_en.html
Dragonfly certainly has some interesting (and quite radical) ideas, but whether they’re more efficient remains to be proven.
“PC-BSD will become popular if and only if it has a good number of passionate advocates.”
Windows became popular. Where were its passionate advocates?
Personally (don’t be offended), the Linux community (or commune for a better word) will never get anywhere in my op.
Once upon a time I was a passionate advocate of Windows, or at least the Win32 kernel, and I wasn’t alone. But Windows almost falls into the salt and sugar category because you have to have some OS, and there didn’t used to be a lot of choice.
Don’t worry, I’m not offended. The Linux community is already in a terrific position and getting better all the time. And PC-BSD may also vault ahead to a terrific position as well.
Windows became popular. Where were its passionate advocates?
I believe they live in a place called Redmond.
Or Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Look, MS make good products, OK? Windows is not one of them, and never has been. At 15GB and already critically compromised, the next version isn’t going to be, either.
Edited 2006-10-26 21:32
Windows became popular. Where were its passionate advocates?
Sorry, can’t resist!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1274983729713522403&q=ballm…
.
LOL that was very good. Here’s another one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1769003739231727974&q=ball…
What a mad guy!
This is what i think has made a difference between PC-BSD and other projects. Our forum has been very, very friendly so far. People help each other despite of differences in knowlege.
In other projects i have seen elitist behavior that is not on PC-BSD. Not to say some of us dont have their bad days.
I am one of the people translating pc-bsd (as well as DesktopBSD) and i truely belive we can do very well if current philosophy remains unchanged.
Cheers,
RF
VERY good. when i first caught wind of PC-BSD i thought ‘hey, thats cool’ it is, very easy to use, simple installer and pre-set up gui, while not for the hard core these are very nice features for a lot of peeple. also its ‘package management’ reminds me of somewhat of OS X (HEY, ALOS BSD BASED, W00T!)
while i myself am a linux user, i do try to keep a foot in the door of all the OS’s i can find. any support of a company for any FOSS software be it BSD root open solaris root or linux root can only help the FOSS groups as a whole.
now, if i could just get the mamnagemnt here to relize win2ksp4 is NOT the last OS they will ever need.
Hey, this is a thought (that hopefully someone would like).
why not try to sell or at least offer preconfigured installs of PCBSD / Any BSD.
What I’m thinking here is SMB fileserver with 3-4 easy backup methods preconfigured and network shares configured etc.
There’s so many companies out there who are like 2-10 people who can’t afford any IT guy that needs a fileserver that just works out of the box or is very easy to understand. Since all workstations by definition is Windows for these companies, any Windows server is natural.
Seriously, why not just make a preconfigured station where you have some additional dirs where obvious which is already setup in Samba and in the Unix users part where it’s simply stated that copy your current data in there and it’ll be shared. Then a simple “group install” adding user names/passwords and simply one group.
Finally on top of that would be a preconfigured backup script that automatically would store all data in the shared dirs and the only choices would be a) Complete/incremental on what basis (daily/weekly etc). And the second option would be method as in. DVD backup, CD backup, Online backup (FTP) and Tape.
I can PROMISE that the above solution based on PCBSD for 50$ would sell HUGE time to SMB companies. Especially with some good documentation about restoring etc.
PCBSD is a natural choice for this and will be competitive.
PC-BSD is the next BeOS..only without the going under thing.
I want to know why more people arent building OpenBSD distros. Everyone in the BSD world is jumping on the FreeBSD bandwagon, but anybody that knows about the different forks, knows that OpenBSd is significantly more secure and stable
That’s an interesting question. I’ve used FreeBSD and currently use NetBSD on one desktop, but I’ve never even considered using OpenBSD. I think the reason is that the other BSDs are so secure that OpenBSD just doesn’t address a perceived need.
I agree that all of the BSD’s are very secure, but most of the security that they have is because of OpenBSD’s innovations. Nothing against the others, but why not go right to the source of the all these security technologies and just use OpenBSD?
Dude, OpenBSD’s hard disk partitioner is horrendous.
True, it’s in no way intuitive, but functional. But if someone were to build a nice LiveCD/Install CD for OBSD that utilized something like gparted, it would make a kickass system
>I agree that all of the BSD’s are very secure, but most of the security that they have is because of OpenBSD’s innovations. Nothing against the others, but why not go right to the source of the all these security technologies and just use OpenBSD?<
I don’t think you really understand the underpinnings of the OpenBSD project. By it’s very nature it could not be used in the same manner as freebsd or netbsd. The reason OpenBSD is so secure is because virtually every package that goes into OpenBSD is heavily scrutinized, broken down and put back together (sometimes several times) prior to the package being allowed into ObenBSD proper.
In a fork of OpenBSD you would essentially lose the large majority of that security and stability by installing packages that were not tested, retested and configured by OpenBSD… eg… xorg, kde, gnome, and almost anything that would make for a good desktop distro.
OpenBSD is designed to be a solid stable and socure server os and nothing more. Turning it into a desktop os would simply make it like every other BSD out there.
Edited 2006-10-27 00:13
I understand what you are saying, but its not entirely true. Yes, the OpenBSD team does control what goes into the source tree, and that’s why its so stable and secure; however, all of the programs that would make OpenBSD a useful desktop OS are compiled and tested by the OpenBSD team, they’re what makes up the OpenBSD Ports Tree. And Xorg is already included with OBSD anyway. I dont think it would be all that bad to take obsd and add a nice WM that has been fully tested by the obsd and distribute it. At least at that point the core OS would be fully tested and known to be secure and stable. If users can find a way to install enough crap on obsd to make it less stable then no OS is safe.
“The reason OpenBSD is so secure is because virtually every package that goes into OpenBSD is heavily scrutinized,”
This is not entirely true. All code that goes into the base system is scrutinized, yes, but this is not true for the packages/ports. There’s simply not enough manpower to audit gigantic packages like GNOME, OpenOffice and KDE completely. This means that ports are generally not as well audited as the base system.
“OpenBSD is designed to be a solid stable and socure server os and nothing more.”
While OpenBSD is a very solid and secure server OS it’s not the primary goal of the project:
http://openbsd.org/goals.html
For example, with PF, OpenOSPFD and OpenBGPD it makes for an awesome router.
“Nothing against the others, but why not go right to the source of the all these security technologies and just use OpenBSD?”
It’s not intended to be an everyman’s desktop OS and thus it’s not suitable. It could be but it would take some serious work. Another factor is that there are far more freebsd users and thus perhaps a bigger interest in putting together a desktop “variant”.
Btw, I use OpenBSD on my desktop every day and has done so for more than 6 years.
I guess rather than dragging this *BSD debate out too long, let me just clarify what I am trying to say:
Any OS can become less stable/secure with more junk loaded on it. It just seem like starting out with the most stable/secure fork will ultimately lead to a better distro in the end.
Edited 2006-10-27 01:05
PC-BSD May Be the Next Linux
Perhaps the next OSX or the one you can install also on non-apple hardware.
I was going to give PC-BSD a try, but then looking at the PBI’s on the website they seem a few versions behind which put me off. For example, konversation is at version 0.19, but on my linux box i am using version 1.01. I am not saying that the linux distribution i use is better than PC-BSD, just saying that on initial impressions with PC-BSD it seems the PBI’s are a few versions behind which puts me off