“GNU/Linux is the most popular operating system built with free/open source software. However, it is not the only one: FreeBSD is also becoming popular for its stability, robustness and security. In this article, I’ll take a look at their similarities and differences.”
This article sounds _a lot_ like a rehash of two Dru Lavigne ONLamp.com articles from 2004-5:
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2004/11/11/FreeBSD_Basics.html
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2005/01/13/FreeBSD_Basics.html
This article covers the same sub-topics and uses the same examples, but Dru’s articles have much more detail.
This is very much a surface-level only comparison of the two.
Ok if you want to see a couple screenshots or if you’ve never seen or heard of FreeBSD.
“Ok if you want to see a couple screenshots or if you’ve never seen or heard of FreeBSD.”
Judging about an OS from screenshots… In fact, some FreeBSD boxed don’t even have a screen.
I’d like to comment on some passages from the article, please forgive me, but I cannot resist.
[…] rather the sysctl command shows all the information about the hardware devices attached to the system and can also be used for configuring and tuning them.”
This is not completely true. First, the pciconf command, usually “pciconf -lv | less” is your friend here. Furthermore, kldload and the modules are used to activate hardware that does not have the proper driver included in the kernel (in which case the driver would be loaded by default at startup).
On FreeBSD the startup scripts exist in the /etc/rc.d/ directory (for the system) and in the /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ directory (for third-party applications). These scripts use parameters such as start or stop to control which scripts run at startup (start and reboot) and shutdown.
This is correct, but I’d like to mention that FreeBSD does not have runlevels. Single user mode can commanded by “shutdown now” from multi user mode, or “boot -s” at startup. The scripts in the directories mentioned above are executed by the /etc/rc mechanism. Keywords indicate the precedence and the start order (REQUIRES, PROVIDES). Some of them do not only know “start” and “stop” parameter, “status” and “restart” are also available.
According to FreeBSD’s ports:
In FreeBSD terminology a port is a collection of files designed to automate the process of compiling a software application from source code.
Ports do not only install software, they can do a lot more, such as searching (“make search name=foo”), updating (“make update”), packaging (“make package”), de- / reinstalling (“make deinstall”, “make reinstall”), and of course some addidional stuff such as “make extract”, “make patch” or “make clean”. An additional Makefile.local can be used to tweak compiling parameters and options (fine for mplayer).
FreeBSD’s standard shell is the C shell which is able to do completition (“set autolist”) and can be made looking useful with the usual UNIX prompt (set promptchars = “%#”, set prompt = “%n@%m:%~%# “)
The Bourne shell (/bin/sh) does belong to the standard installation of FreeBSD, this is important because most scripts are sh scripts (rather than bash scripts).
About installation:
Allocate disk space and install a boot manager: FreeBSD uses slices to divide a hard drive.
Inside these slices (which would be called “primary partitions” elsewhere), FreeBSD usually organizes its partitions to contain the root directory, swap, tmp, var, usr and home file systems. All of them are “inside” a slice by default.
[…] you must create a slice for FreeBSD. This slice will have four partitions:
1. Partition a for root filesystem.
2. Partition b for swap area.
3. Partition e for /var filesystem.
4. Partition f for /usr filesystem.
There is an “auto” function to create them. You’re welcome to create some more, because you can see there’s no home entry in the list above. You’re free to symlink /home = /usr/home (or even /tmp = /usr/tmp), but a bit of diversion gives you advantages, such as easy dump & restore or the ability to tweak file system parameters for the different partitions.
For example, you could create something like this:
/dev/ad0s1a = /
/dev/ad0s1b = swap
/dev/ad0s1e = /tmp
/dev/ad0s1f = /var
/dev/ad0s1g = /usr
/dev/ad0s1h = /home
But I’d like to make you aware of a disadvantage: You cannot change partition sizes very easily. So, if your /usr runs out of space… or /home is full… you see?
The size of each partition depends on the size of your hard drive: you can assign space for each partition at your convenience (space is not much of a problem in modern PCs that usually have hard drives with 80GB or more).
You can press PF1 in the sysinstall menu in order to get help setting good values for the partitions. There are some recommendations (such as swap = 2 x max. RAM), but most values are defined by your own preferences and usage intentions.
If you only want to use FreeBSD as a base for KDE or Gnome, you don’t need to touch the OS too much. To make the default CLI tools behaving a lot more comfortable, you need to tweak some files. But describing this would be too much for the article which just gives a short overview and does not go into detail very much.
FreeBSD is a high quality OS with an excellent documentation (man, handbook, howtos) and advanced features, and it’s a joy to use. I must know it, I’m using it on a daily basis since 1998.
One important note at the end: FreeBSD is an OS, it’s not a distribution like the many Linusi that do come with the Linux kernel, the GNU userland and a graphical environment (usually KDE or Gnome), along with the usual applications. You’re free to install them all on FreeBSD, but they’re not included with the OS by default. You can even run the Linux applications on FreeBSD, if you like (thanks to FreeBSD’s Linux ABI).
My resumee for the article: Nice comparison. Not much substance, but nice.
Judging about an OS from screenshots… In fact, some FreeBSD boxed don’t even have a screen
Er, well there was a sysinstall screenshot which does not require X11. My point was the article was low on content, period.
Was it you who modded me down for that? I would like to think that whatever troll did that would at least have the guts to offer a retort to the points he disagreed with.
“Er, well there was a sysinstall screenshot which does not require X11. My point was the article was low on content, period.”
I do agree with you. There was another screenshot with KDE on it. Could be done running KDE on any other OS.
“Was it you who modded me down for that?”
Definitely not. Reason: I do not use the mod system. IfI have a different opinion, I do express it using words which I enter via the keyboard; I do not just click the [-] button.
I modded you up because I think you’re right with your opinion about the article – and because I don’t think your opinion deserves a 0 mod value.
You didn’t have to do that, but that was nice of you.
And I like your approach to discussion: arguing the points instead of anonymously clicking -/+.
“FreeBSD is also becoming popular for its stability, robustness and security.”
Tell us something we didn’t know YEARS ago…PLEASE.
I’m not normally punchy on a very public forum, but couldn’t we have NEWS instead of old hat???
Is FreeBSD as easy to use for newbies as GNU/Linux? Is it trying to be?
“Is FreeBSD as easy to use for newbies as GNU/Linux?”
You need to be able to do a few things on your own (such as reading, thinking, pressing keys on the keyboard), but it’s not very hard. The FreeBSD’s main web site offers a great handbook, along with other good documentation, that will help you in most cases.
“Is it trying to be?”
No, why should it? Of course it does, especially in the shape of derived OSes such as DesktopBSD and PC-BSD, which is an excellent adoption to a newbie’s needs. Graphical installer, KDE default, wizards, and the PBI package install system.
Is FreeBSD as easy to use for newbies as GNU/Linux? Is it trying to be?
Since when Linux is “easy”? Linux got 25 different package management systems, 50+ different kernel trees- (anyone got “vanilla” kernel in production environment?), 500+ distributions- not compatible with each other, unbelievable bloated runlevels, inconsistent documentation.
After you experience working on FreeBSD for some time you’ll realise that “everything makes sense” (TM) and documentation/handbook is enough for noobs/starters.
Among all the Unix-like OS’s, Linux is supposed to be the easiest to use.
http://osgeek.blogspot.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
Any relationship to this one? Its rather obvious and this advert for your wanna-be blog too.
“Is FreeBSD as easy to use for newbies as GNU/Linux? Is it trying to be?” – By osgeek
do you feel the irony?
No!
Apologies for the signature advert.
It is true that under FreeBSD “everything makes sense”, but for professional user and, probably, not for ordinary consumer. PC-BSD is something else, it is quite easy to use. I have never tried SUSE 10.2 or latest Ubuntu, but they are probably, similar to PC-BSD in terms of ease of use.
You should ask yourself first what is an “ordinary consumer”? Grandma? Give grandma some Ubuntu and da PC and go away, if she can install it all alone, it’s suitable…
Sometime in future people will not be able at all to shutdown or power up a computer on their own. So there will be “experts” who can do that and some people will keep lamenting about it. You cannot feed the average user, because the average user doesn’t want to learn something.
“Computers Are Hard
Accept it. Move on. Your life will be much simpler.
Accept that it’ll take work. Accept that it’ll take learning. Accept that it’ll take trial and error. Accept that it’ll mean just accepting things without understanding why until further down the road. Once you do that, you’ll discover that learning computer technology isn’t like opening an envelope and seeing what’s inside; it’s like watching a rose open, petal by petal… and no matter how long you watch, there’s always another petal with another layer of beauty beneath it.”
http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/winstupid/winstupid5.php
You cannot feed the average user, because the average user doesn’t want to learn something.
Isn’t it what Microsoft did? Windows is no brainer, normal users get used to it quickly, just trying things. They don’t have to read handbooks or search in forums.
To respond to Almindor, yes I know your pain. I used to be a Linux/BSD user, but I was wasting waaaayyy too much time learning and debugging it. I’m now back on Windows XP. My time is valuable, and especially my hours of sleep.
>Is FreeBSD as easy to use for newbies as GNU/Linux?
Yes!
As easy like Gentoo, Slackware, Debian, ArchLinux and so on. What’s GNU/Linux? A kernel plus a userland with GNUish software. So your question should be is FreeBSD installer as easy usable like the installer of the Windows-copycats Fedora, Ubuntu etc. No, why should it? It’s suitable for the average user who is found of learning something.
IMHO it`s very easy to admin, but I think they have became kinda linuxish unfortunately, maybe in favour of popularity.
“IMHO it`s very easy to admin, but I think they have became kinda linuxish unfortunately, maybe in favour of popularity.”
Could you be more precise, please? I’m really interested.
I know DesktopBSD and PC-BSD aiming to be like the most Linux distributions (OS + KDE + lots of software in a colourful clickabe install wizard), but what components or movements of FreeBSD are “linuxish”?
I mean the “feel of the system”, there are some tools that are trying to be more user friendly than efficient.
A lot of userland tools are abandoning Unix principles, especially the Linux ones. For example: “no output on succesful operation”, do you know any pkg install tool which remains silent if you install something?
another example: “one task one tool” Why would you need fetures inplemented into a command line tool, if you can use |grep or |sort for those tasks?
I`m just conservative when it comes to Unix.
I mean the “feel of the system”, there are some tools that are trying to be more user friendly than efficient.
For me, an inefficient program is not friendly, especially not to me, the user…
“A lot of userland tools are abandoning Unix principles, especially the Linux ones.”
I always thought the Linux style utilities were suffering from the GNU long options (where BSD’s tools usually use the simple options), such as “tar xjf /dev/fd0” or “usbdevs -dov”, in opposite to “gphoto2 –get-all-raw-data –and-some-more-options=here”).
“For example: “no output on succesful operation”, do you know any pkg install tool which remains silent if you install something?”
Ah, I see now. The same goes for editors like vi: it does what you tell it to do and only speaks to you if something went wrong. No answer == success. One advantage: You can automate things using shell scripts and don’t need any redirection > /dev/null 2>&1 in order to keep the output silent if there is no problem, or just to keep your startup log free of blahblah.
Another idea comes to my mind thinking about your argument: While Linux is more like WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get), BSD (and other UNIXes too) are more like YAFIYGI (you asked for it, you got it). No clue where I read this. Okay, that’s very general, don’t mind…
“another example: “one task one tool” Why would you need fetures inplemented into a command line tool, if you can use |grep or |sort for those tasks?”
That’s an experience I’m very comfortable with. Each tool solves a specific range of tasks what it is intended for. Nothing more. There are wrappers that utilize other tools or mechanisms (such as gmencoder to mencoder, transcode etc. or portinstall / portupgrade to the ports and packages subsystem), this is a valid option.
“I`m just conservative when it comes to Unix.
“
Be sure, I do understand this. Because english is not my native language, I first had not an idea what you were talking about. Now, after the examples given, I do understand.
If you’re using many different UNIX systems (SGI IRIX, HP-UX, Solaris, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD etc.) and you need to get along with them, you’re happy to have the usual commands working the same way – and having them available everywhere, be it grep, sort, uniq, sed or just sh. Of course, they’re different, but I’m right when I say the many Linusi have differences, too, allthough they are all called “Linux”. But this has been mentioned before.
And you can just put “alias foobar foobar -v” into you shell rc, if you like it verbose.
haha, good one
Maybe it was because it`s nor mine.
Cheers
Sure, A newbie wouldn’t even know which *nix they were using. To them it’s just KDE or Gnome.
For detailed comparisons of many GNU/Linux and BSD systems, check out the Distribution Comparator at http://polishlinux.org/choose/comparison/
FreeBSD is a very good server OS, it`s better in some aspects than Linux, maybe worse in others.
But my favourite OS is NetBSD.
I’ve been using NetBSD for a long time on different platforms (amd64/i386/macppc/mac68k). It’s, along with OpenBSD, the only two systems I run today for everything.
The article says:
“On GNU/Linux each runlevel has a subdirectory under /etc/ or /etc/rc.d/, depending on the distribution: Debian, for example, uses /etc/. These subdirectories are rc0.d, rc1.d and so on until the last runlevel (there are usually seven runlevels). Each rcx.d subdirectory contains symbolic links to the startup scripts residing in the /etc/init.d/ directory.
On FreeBSD the startup scripts exist in the /etc/rc.d/ directory (for the system) and in the /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ directory (for third-party applications). These scripts use parameters such as start or stop to control which scripts run at startup (start and reboot) and shutdown.”
But that only holds true for some distributions. Some distros, like Slackware, also use the BSD init scheeme and keep all init scripts in /etc/rc.d/ – so the comment that “On GNU/Linux each runlevel has a subdirectory under /etc/ or /etc/rc.d/” is simply not true – it depends on whether or not the distro uses BSD init or SysV init.
FreeBSD is already popular for stability, security, etc. since my first contact with a modern computer.
You can’t really compare FreeBSD to GNU/Linux, because FreeBSD is a full operating system, whereas GNU/Linux is a kernel and a set of userland utilities that can be used to make an operating system. Every distro has a different way of doing things, and therefore each distro is essentially a separate operating system. Instead of comparing FreeBSD to GNU/Linux in general, it should be compared to specific distros, to avoid ambiguity.
This is a very poorly written article by someone who is obviously lacking in basic research and comparison skills. Not worth spending the time to read, IMO.
Just a few of the issues with it:
During the development of FreeBSD, to avoid any legal problems with the owners of the source code, the developers decided to re-engineer the original BSD, rather than copy the source code.
No, they didn’t re-engineer the original BSD, they used the same code, ported to the i386 architecture. They (being the BSD people, not the FreeBSD project) had to rewrite 7 source files in order to get around the AT&T UNIX trademark. Version 2.0 of FreeBSD used the unencumbered sources.
FreeBSD does not use the /proc directory, rather the sysctl command shows all the information about the hardware devices attached to the system and can also be used for configuring and tuning them.
There’s also commands like pciconf, usbdevs which are roughly equivalent to the lspci and lsusb commands. Not everything is done via sysctl.
Runlevels and startup scripts
This whole section is so far off the mark as to be completely useless. There’s not even a mention of how many runlevels each has (Linux 7, FreeBSD 2), nor how many runlevels the SysV init system supports (around 11), nor how they are used.
Kernel
The Linux kernel numbering is all wrong, the info in there is from the pre-2.6 days.
There’s no mention of how the FreeBSD kernel is updated along with the whole OS (so much nicer) while the Linux kernel is just another package that can be updated at any time (causing no end of grief).
There’s also no mention of the methods for building the kernels: a single text file on FreeBSD and a simple set of make commands; a bunch of different methods on Linux, with a long list of commands to run, and then a bunch more to create an initrd image.
Shells
Not even worth talking about this section.
Stopped reading at that point.
It’s the software management/installation system that runs short on FreeBSD. The kernel is OK (for desktop not laptops), the base system is better than linux, it’s more structured than any distro, more documented and even the code of kernel/drivers is much cleaner (not that it matters to users).
The “desktop cripple” of FreeBSD is the ports/packages system. Ports aren’t usable, not by grandpa, but not by me either. Why? Coz I don’t have whole day to recompile openoffice.org (which requires gigs of diskspace btw) to find out that the port of python2.5 was broken and “fixed” just 2 hours ago.
Of course you can use packages, but those are usually older than your grandma too. There are test-repositories but those are less stable than your grandpa.
While I understand the reason behind their packaging system, it has become obsolete. The speed of their managers is also laughable although to be fair I think there are some fixes on the way.
If you compare FreeBSD 6.1 (latest stable) to for example Fiesty Fawn, it’s a clear choice. Not because of some codecs or some other “canonical” stuff. Because in Fiesty you fire up Synaptic (or do apt-get) and you have more or less latest software in minutes. In FreeBSD you either go with pkg_get -r or ports. If you use packages you are using xorg 6.9, and other old software, which isn’t good enough for a desktop. If you use ports, you’ll going to have to wait and pray that someone just this day didn’t break that <insert dependency port with lame maintainer here> port.
Sorry if it sounds like a rant but these are my personal feelings after trying to cope with freeBSD on the desktop for about 6 months. I got it working, but never properly ticking with software I wanted when I needed. (another thing, they sometimes rename their libraries physically which breaks non packaged programs, eg: libgtk1.2.so was renamed to libgtk-1.2.so, with a hitchhiker’s explanation “it was written in the basement for a year”).
Don’t talk nonsense, noone with a sane mind would to this:
>If you compare FreeBSD 6.1 (latest stable) to for example Fiesty Fawn,
DesktopBSD/PC-BSD Vs Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse
FreeBSD Vs Debian, ArchLinux, Gentoo, Slackware
Don’t compare apples and oranges!
>Sorry if it sounds like a rant but these are my personal feelings after trying to cope with freeBSD on the desktop for about 6 months.
Sorry but if you can’t do it, go with Ubuntu/Suse – Gentoo isn’t for everyone too.
Latest stable is FreeBSD 6.2.
Don’t talk nonsense, noone with a sane mind would to this:
Ke?
DesktopBSD/PC-BSD Vs Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse
Don’t compare apples and oranges!
Ok, I used PCBSD for about 3 months. Search for “Lazarus” in PBIs and look for author. That’s right, it’s me. Still crappy packaging, see forums of aforementioned “distro” to see why it’s a lengthy list of reasons.
Sorry but if you can’t do it, go with Ubuntu/Suse – Gentoo isn’t for everyone too.
I am with Ubuntu, but I see that “constructive criticism” isn’t the strong side of FreeBSD evangelist.
I have one question for you.. what OS is your MAIN desktop work machine equipped with when you work? Whenever I met “opposition” to ideas like this it was from server-only guys. eg: I was shouting “why is X11 in special dir” LOOONG before they started to move it (and brake things by it). Guess what? No one even considered it to be a good idea.. I wonder what changed their minds (and am surprised something ever did).
“I have one question for you.. what OS is your MAIN desktop work machine equipped with when you work? ”
My Desktop OS is Windows or MacOS X. They both do a wonderful job at getting out of the way (at least until Vista) and letting me work on the servers. I could also use Ubuntu or Fedora as my desktop OS, but they are lacking quite a bit (although not as much as FreeBSD as a desktop.) Regardless, the Windows/Mac with FreeBSD/Debian backend actually works great.
Edited 2007-05-31 18:20
in answer to your more recent post, I use BSD everyday except saturday (when I use windows98 to read newsgroups)
………..
I dont use openoffice.org; however I have about twice as many editors as the following (which don’t include, probably, all the HTML editors/IDE’s i think)
…
abiword (I would sugg. this r.t. openoffice if the latter is problematic)
emacs20 (have used it for Usenet, very impressed)
gedit
leafpad
manedit
nedit
scite
scribes
thoteditor
xenon
……………..
I don’t recc. everything in that list, as a few editors
i’ve not used with good results (maybe 1 of 10 or 2 of 20)
……………….
packages … well i stopped using them a year ago…
unless I am porting an app to a laptop where they serve
super
………….
‘has become obsolete’ whaat? (the speed issue is
being discussed as to-be-fixed; it only applies i think
in the ‘registering package’ phase if a port has a lot
of dependencies.
…………..
stuff breaks way less often than your post intones,
………………..
you may be correct in that the feisty* is quicker, but
the ports *just* needs expertise and experience to
manage (a steep learning curve in some respects but
I have read many threads where in the end it is more
workable than other systems (apt-get or…rpm or…)
…………….
[leaving further discussion out; lack of time, sorry]
I envy you really. I’d like to use FreeBSD because I believe they have the base system and kernel “right”. But for example imagine this situation. I am a “incorporated” student, in other words, I work and study at the same time, and when I get work it’s usually high concentrated amount of work needed to be done fast.
Now imagine that I need to do some php/someSQL stuff with a specific (say latest) mySQL. Ok, no problem right? I just go from ports.. Well wrong, because yesterday I updated python to 2.5 in expectation (as a hobby thing to see the changes) and guess what? The day after, they made 2.4 latest again. But I didn’t get it before my compilation of mysql and other things broke, which already stole 2 hours of my time.
So I spent another 2 hours setting things right.
This DID happen, ask people about the python extempore with 2.5. It wasn’t some “read the updating” thing. They simply made a mistake, and it happens relatively often. The question is, how often do YOU update to see it? If it’s like 1 a month then you won’t see it unless you have bad luck.
I really wish I could use freeBSD, but compare my problem on Ubuntu. I get the stuff ready in about 5 minutes there…
The only possible problem with ubuntu is that it’s release only once 6 months, and it’s packages are bound to this. But it’s usually new enough for my needs, while in freeBSD even the ports are getting outdated (eg: the situation with X not so long ago).
Edited 2007-06-01 07:40
Can somebody explain why is display on Linux so bright ?
I have tried Red Hat, Fedora, SUSE and old Mandrake on 5 graphics cards, 3 monitors, 3 major kernel releases, and 3 different machines. I have to lower contrast and brightness on monitor almost to minimum to make it bearable.
It was one of the major reasons for moving to FreeBSD. The problem does not exist on FreeBSD and Windows.
I have found other people on Internet seeking advice, but there was no proper explanation or remedy.
“xgamma” does not do the trick because it affects contrast in the same time. “xvattr” does not seem to work properly under Linux, while working as expected on FreeBSD. Is there any alternative app for Linux ?
The interesting part is that the both, Linux and FreeBSD, are running Xorg X software. I doubt that it is something that can not be taken care of.
Hmm, I think you should be specific about the release version of each listed distribution. My Fedora Core 6 system does not display such problem.
If the problem you listed affects all Linux distributions, you should report it to Xorg bugzilla with detailed reproduction of the bug.
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/
It seems you have not done such thing. Please do so next time.
Can anyone tell me one; Have freeBSD a journaling filesystem? Like ext3 in linux… I heard that this is only available in something like patch? Or this is future feature in v.7 FreeBSD?
I read that FreeBSD is almost done porting ZFS from Solaris. That means it has the best available filesystem+volume manager now along with Solaris.
“I read that FreeBSD is almost done porting ZFS from Solaris. That means it has the best available filesystem+volume manager now along with Solaris.”
The UFS2 file system does not support journaling because of possible inconsistencies. It uses “soft updates” instead of journaling like Ext3. Metadata is written asynchronously in a certain order, making the “on disk status” of the filesystem being consistent between each writing actions. On journaling filesystems the Metadata is written asynchronously twice: first into the journal, then into the filesystem. After writing to the filesystem they’re deleted from the journal. This leads to possible inconsistencies and disappearing files if any interruption occurs.
Now, with ZFS, along with DTrace, FreeBSD will be really great – I’m awaiting version 7. Until it arrives, UFS2 + Vinum surely do a great job.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=112984
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=106370
Mostly the latter one. The bigger issue is that Eric Anholt just doesn’t seem to have the time to devote to DRI on FreeBSD, and there doesn’t appear to be anyone interested in taking his place.
Back when I was using a radeon 9200, 3D acceleration worked fine and I had no problems using FreeBSD as my primary operating system. It just doesn’t cut it for me these days.
Adam
Edited 2007-06-01 00:21
“Back when I was using a radeon 9200, 3D acceleration worked fine and I had no problems using FreeBSD as my primary operating system. It just doesn’t cut it for me these days.”
For me it does, because I still have this wonderful working hardware available.
drm0: {ATI Radeon If R250 9000} port 0xb800-0xb8ff mem 0xdfdf0000-0xdfdfffff,0xd0000000-0xd7ffffff irq 16 at device 0.0 on pci1
It’s a ATI Technologies Inc. RV250 Radeon 9000/9000 Pro. For my needs as a home user, this configuration works perfectly, and did it since I bought it, and will surely do it for some years. This is because I do not have special needs (such as gamers have).
Today, hardware manufacturers simply don’t build stuff that I’d like to buy… so I’ll stay for a while with the stuff that works instead of buying stuff that might work…
I liked FreeBSD at one time better then linux as a server. FreeBSD is very well documented (The handbook is the best). Stability is a 10. Security is better then ok. An example, it comes installed with Sendmail, not as secure as Postfix. But stronger in other places. Most server (Bind, ISC-DHCP etc) are configured to run in sand-box by just specifying in rc.conf file (vary nice). But the real problem for me is in the mascot they chose to use. Being a Christian, I found it hard to ignore. I tried to convince myself by reading the article on why they chose that mascot. It worked for a while, but I’m not able to support or use something that would bring honor to the one that is responsible for the conditions that mankind is in today. And the one that slandered the one who gave me life, Jehovah God. The bible does not say that Satan is a red guy with horns carring a pitchfork but everyone knows who it represents. This may be off subject a bit but not really, when you are considering why people use one or the other. I would venture to say I’m not alone in why I do not use FreeBSD.
You sir are a bigot. Being an atheist all I can say is that I am shocked and horrified by presence of people such as you on this world. The level of ignorance you represent is astounding… This comment is intentionally attacking the former person and all like him so feel free to mod down.
<offtopic>
I would have expected everything but this reason. Obviously the FreeBSD mascot is everything but evil. He’s just a piece of paper on your CD insert or colored pixels on your computer. It does no harm to anybody, nor does it have people harm anymone. It looks actually friendly. One has to make the difference between good and evil. Is a plush mascot evil? Is some one who starts a war based on made up proves in Iraq evil? Think about it… I see you’re a Jehovah’s Witness so I can’t but tell you my “story” with Jehovah’s Witnesses. These guys broke my family and let my cousin die because they wouldn’t let the doctor do the blood transfusion she needed. Now this is evil. When these folks reimburse all the money they sucked from my uncle and when they bring back my cousin, they will have my respect again.
With such narrow-minded and selfish mentality, I understand why people are so evil and start wars here and there in the name of God. By doing so, they serve the Devil. Think about it.
<offtopic>
I used to be a Linux user, and one day I say a picture of what they call “Tux”, which is for me the Lord of Darkness. Tux is a black penguin, and as you know, black is associated with satanism, and those gothic teenagers dressed in black who go out at night and who gather in cemeteries. I formated by computer right away.
“I used to be a Linux user, and one day I say a picture of what they call “Tux”, which is for me the Lord of Darkness. Tux is a black penguin, and as you know, black is associated with satanism, and those gothic teenagers dressed in black who go out at night and who gather in cemeteries. I formated by computer right away.”
If this is true – really true – you’re a funny guy. Not that you’re judging just from appearance, you’re cultivating stereotypes and prejudices, too. Let’s hope they don’t fall back at you.
black != evil
gothic != satanism
satanism != gathering on cemetaries
You’ve got no clue what you’re talking about, heh?
The Tux penguin has a white abdomen. In eastern culture, the colour white is associated with death, so the penguin is the symbol of death in eastern and western culture.
And FreeBSD has a devil (no, of course it’s a daemon), which must come from hell, so FreeBSD is from hell, too. And that’s why it’s evil.
Don’t mind, I’m just poking fun. Just open your “Windows” and let happiness and joy into your room.
PS. I don’t know why your comment got modded up…
I don’t know why your comment got modded up
Maybe because people read the comments about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and got my joke.
I yet have to find a comment from Doc Pain that isn’t modded up. Very strange
Other than that, yes, an application that has no functionality won’t be successful, obviously. But an application that is meant for the average joe and that doesn’t shine will have a hard time to compete with other exising similar applications. Looks and feel does make a difference. I bet more opensource applications would have more success if they had a better look and feel. For me, most opensource applications aren’t visually appealing and I’d rather pay to have something that looks good if I’m to work in front of it for hours.
“Maybe because people read the comments about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and got my joke.”
English is not my native language, so I beg for excuse.
“I yet have to find a comment from Doc Pain that isn’t modded up. Very strange :-)”
No, not strange. From the statistics: “Number of Comments: 582 (433 voted up, 2 voted down)” – go grep them.
“Other than that, yes, an application that has no functionality won’t be successful, obviously.”
I do think there are lots of pieces of software with really poor functionality that “impress” with their appealing GUI, so maybe this makes them successful, too. Maybe appealing GUIs are a means to relative bad programming?
“But an application that is meant for the average joe and that doesn’t shine will have a hard time to compete with other exising similar applications.”
“Looks and feel does make a difference.”
The most important problem here is that people are searching for similarities in look & feel. They want to have what they already know. This is the reason why so many business software made it from the office to Joe Q. Sixpack’s home PC even if the software is not meant for him (in terms of easy usability).
Look & feel is an aspect of preconfiguration. As you know from many Linux distributions, they come with KDE or Gnome preinstalled and preconfigured. Whenever I see such a KDE, I tend to think… uh, does this look ugly! So I spend the first half hour of usage time in reconfiguration (focus follows mouse, decorations, color schemes etc.). I think many people do so. The “trick” for the distribution developers is to find a preconfiguration that meets the expectations of their target group. Depending on who this target group is, a look & feel concept may be more or less appealing.
“I bet more opensource applications would have more success if they had a better look and feel. “
I think it’s more about integration into KDE or Gnome which will make a difference. And the look & feel of KDE and Gnome will have a certain effect on success. (I do measure success in usage share, rather than the oh joy oh glory oh market share.)
“For me, most opensource applications aren’t visually appealing and I’d rather pay to have something that looks good if I’m to work in front of it for hours.”
Here our different opinions occur: I find that most commercial applications look odd, outdated and somewhat strange to me. I could name some, but I’m sure you know what comes to my mind.
But I know applications in Linux and UNIX world that are not a joy to use due to their strange GUI. I could name a few here, too. In most cases, I find the translation from English to German very strange, incorrect or inconsistent, so I usually use software in English (everything except OpenOffice) allthough I’m in Germany.
There are applications that do a great job – and they don’t have any GUI, so look & feel is about command line options and output schemata here. But this class of (often underestimated) software is not what you’re talking about.
I know a program for administration used by psychological therapeuts. It violates every preset, any windowing concept, every handling concept that is propagated by “Windows”, it even changes standard colors. It was a pain to use and not worth any money, because – next to the ugly GUI – it’s work was a pain, too. It even wasn’t able to do lexicographical sorting properly! It contained spelling errors (my favourite one: “Intelegenztest” – intellegence test – very intelligent, isn’t it?) and did wrong calculations. On the other hand, it did cost approx. 150 Euro per 3 months!
The number on the price tag does not imperatively imply any software quality, be it in function or in look & feel.
The development stream “Linux to the desktop” will surely improve this situation. KDE and Gnome did a lot good work here.
Finally, know that you have a tool for each task that does this particular task best. You just have to know which tool it is. And if you are familiar with it, you can even get along with its strange GUI.
No, not strange. From the statistics: “Number of Comments: 582 (433 voted up, 2 voted down)” – go grep them.
This is what I find strange. I went ahead and modded you up as you’re a good guy.
I did not want to get in a religious discussion in a OS forum and I was not attacking FreeBSD. I was just trying to show how some may not even base their decision on a technical matter. Not even taking a look at it based on a non-technical thing. People make decisions based on appearance all the time. Advertisers spend millions of dollars making their products as appealing as possible. I was showing how I view it. And I know I’m not alone. I called to cancel my CD subscription and the nice lady I spoke with said that the mascot was one of the biggest complaints people had.
Edited 2007-06-01 18:41
People make decisions based on appearance all the time.
Now, this is absolutely true. Open-source projects fail to understand it.
“People make decisions based on appearance all the time.
Now, this is absolutely true. Open-source projects fail to understand it.”
I agree with this. It does tell a lot about educated judging, doesn’t it? But that’s psychology. Sadly…
But as you see the development of open source projects, they concentrate on appearance more and more. In most cases, this can be seen as an advantage, but sometimes, when the look seems to be more important to the developer than the function, these projects fail. A nice colourful GUI with dancing elephants, yes, but no good functionality…
Another development I see is the habit of applications doing more and more things (while needing more disk space, RAM and CPU speed). Instead of having simple programs for simple tasks that you “plug together” as you like, people tend to think of one program that does everything, such as a CD/DVD ripper with video decoder and encoder and streaming server and recording facility and built in mail client and web browser and illegal file sharing client… you can add more features if you like.
Modularity is able to fix the problem here, for example, generic plugins for recording CDs / DVDs, for printing, for sending files via mail etc. are provided by the desktop environment itself and any application may use it, be it a media player or a document processor.
I don’t want to insult anyone. But I may say this: Because computers are available for everyone, both educated and dumb people, software needs to serve the dumb ones, too, because they are the ones who bring the money into the shop. This does not sound very nice, I know. It’s a very dichotomic differentiation that is not representative for reality, but just see it as a thinking approach…
You see some Linux distributions today fitting theese needs (eye candy), while they are able to be usable for educated people, too.
In my opinion, OSes like FreeBSD do not see people judging from appearance as their targets. These ones will be more happier with PC-BSD or DesktopBSD, if any BSD is needed, or with Linux (SuSE, Ubuntu, Fedora etc.)
We’ll see when computers start thinking and people will stop thinking once and for all…