Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 02:16:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@nwlink.com> To: "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> Cc: fred@fredbox.com, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD guide for Linux admins Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.1000913004552.19529A-100000@utah> In-Reply-To: <200009130256.e8D2uub389960@saturn.cs.uml.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > Jason C. Wells writes: > > > The biggest thing from an admin side is that FreeBSD doesn't have Sys V > > init scripts. THANK GOODNESS. You actually have to give the command line > > Slackware Linux works this wa y. The BSD system's only real advantage > is boot performance... not that you should need to reboot often. You seem to have entered a conversation out of context. The man wanted to know differences. He wanted to help Linux guys in his shop know differences so they can work on a new BSD box. I told him what I knew. Another told him where I erred. You have added some things. It was all good right up until you pissed me off. You just kind of popped up. Did you just come here to cause trouble? You have done very little to help! No wait, there you are: Making grog mad. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=572385+574942+/usr/local/www/db/text/1999/freebsd-hackers/19990829.freebsd-hackers There are a couple other messages in there whre you seem to be invoved in some controversy. So let me address this stranger's points. Forgive me if I seem a bit tight. To subscribers, stop reading unless you really want to see this. > Like AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS, the BSD boot scripts would be a > mess to automatically modify during software installation. Oh but they aren't hard to modify. In fact they don't get modified at all. And they aren't autoexec and config.sys by any stretch of the imagination. Init runs "rc" which runs rc.network, rc.firewall and friends. Locally added software scripts are seperate files kept is /usr/local/etc/rc.d. There are no issues of 'chkconfig --level 3 sendmail on' and the added layer of 'script start' and 'script stop'. Again pointing out differences. Don't you agree that boot differences should be known to these guys who asked for help. > > A HUGE issue during install is that Linux insists on using the DOS based > > partitioning scheme. FreeBSD is utterly more flexible in this regard. > > Linux has an LVM. **WHACK** There is an ext2 resizer tool to go with > it, so the Linux admins can adjust the size of existing filesystems. WHACK? OK, you point out the added flexibility of resizing partitions. That sounds cool to me. I never had to do it so I didn't know about it. But guess what? Those Linux guys, they knew about it. They are the ones whom Fred was trying to help. Not me. Go whack someone else! > Isn't it about time FreeBSD got ported to the PC? Huh? FreeBSD runs on Intel. It is also capable of using DOS partitions. It is not "stuck" with them on Intel though. That is the flexibility I was talking about. > > BSD doesn't have the 128MB swap partition limit. > > Linux hasn't had that in a long, long time... "Long, long" is 9 months? I must have read some stale docs on Redhat 6.1 then, because that is where I got this crazy idea. I was corrected on this by a previous poster, whom I thanked. > > Consider this scenario. > > You have 1024 MB of ram. You want 2048 MB of swap. > > ....but of course only BSD would be wasteful enough to need 2 GB. Cdrom.com had 2 GB of RAM and served 5,000 simultaneous FTP users. In this case you might even use 4 GB of swap according to the 2 * physical memory rule of thumb. Wasteful has nothing to do with it. You were just being spiteful at this point. And the point was to show how 15 partitions can be a liability. (Hey I opened with a disclaimer that I was biased.) But moreover, it was to show those Linux guys an important difference so they could do good work. > > Another BIG thing IMO is that there are no "glibc version of the month" > > So, when did FreeBSD development stop? Huh? You are missing the big flick on this one. FreeBSD's libraries are not developed seperately from the kernel. There is strict concurency. There is a definite and important difference for a Linux admin to know about if that admin will be working mith BSD. I can state this with certainty. The libs that come with the base system will never be out of whack with the kernel or userland binaries of the base system in FreeBSD. It is not an issue for us. Again, indicating differences to help the linux guys in Fred's shop to work on a new BSD box. > Source RPMs are available. OK. > > Redhat will add a new group with each new users name by default. BSD will > > not. No big deal, just be careful to check your user adds after your done > > to see if they are what you expected. > > Why: this, an 002 umask, and SysV group inheritance combine to make > group projects easier. See the Red Hat documentation for details. My conclusion was "just be careful to check" that you got the behavior desired. But let's philosophize on perms and groups a bit! Putting every one in different groups and using more lax perms to compensate for a non-existent group structure is lazier, not easier. I would rather 755 everything and keep the number of groups to a minimum, than 775 everything and let groups propogate. Having a new group for each user kind of defeats the granularity afforded to the admin by using groups. But this is a matter of preference. Something about differences and helping Linux guys comes to mind. > Compiling just for the hell of it is a waste of CPU time. > It is also nice to have a /usr that doesn't need to be backed up. No it's not. Your not the first Linuxite I have heard this from. Face to face discussions with Linux guys have caused me to believe tha compiling scares the shit out of a lot of Linux users. I can see why too. Glibc was a big pain when I came to Linux with my "compiling is good" philosophy. There are a great deal of options one wants to set for themselves. Take PHP for instance. You may want Postgres support and not any other database. You may want PNG support and no GIF support. "Roll your own" is the way vast numbers of BSDites do it. This is an important difference... yada yada yada. Look, it's about freedom (speech) to set up your system the way you want it. Not the way some guy from Redmond or Santa Clara wants to give it to you. Compiling is a good thing. And to conclude, go away! And don't bother replying unless you like talking to the bit bucket. You jerk! Thank you, Jason C. Wells To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOL.3.96.1000913004552.19529A-100000>