Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:54:19 -0700 (PDT) From: backyard <backyard1454-bsd@yahoo.com> To: Jeff Rollin <jeff.rollin@gmail.com>, backyard1454-bsd@yahoo.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Newbie Experience Message-ID: <20060913025419.3985.qmail@web83109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <8a0028260609120605h5c3e0dfey4b0976bf93d2c3d1@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
{expunged the old, typ}
> > > >
> > > > I've only been around since FreeBSD 5.4
> myself,
> > > and
> > > > found during installs that sysinstall would
> get
> > > > confused if you changed your mind and went
> > > backwards
> > > > through the menus to reconfigure options. it
> seems
> > > > like the one in 6.1 is a lot better, but maybe
> I
> > > just
> > > > move back and forth less...
> > > >
> > > > That being said once it is installed it is a
> > > million
> > > > times easier to maintain and upgrade then any
> > > Linux
> > > > I've used. I had an old Digital 486 I had to
> > > install
> > > > Redhat 7.3 thinking I could easily update to
> the
> > > > latest kernel. I found I had to go through so
> many
> > > > dependancies to do so I finally said whatever
> > > kernel
> > > > was there was good enough. Talk about having
> to be
> > > a
> > > > GNU guru to get things installed correctly
> without
> > > > clobbering the old stuff and running into
> > > trouble...
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm unconvinced you could take FreeBSD 4 box and
> run
> > > the kernel from 6.1 on
> > > it without changing anything else.
> > >
> >
> > well cvsupping to Rel_5 and running a make
> buildworld
> > && make buildkernel && make install kernel a
> reboot
> > some mergemaster magic an installworld some more
> > mergemaster magic and then cvsupping to Rel_6 and
> > repeating is still lighttyears easier then
> watching
> > the Linux kernel build stop, downloading the
> sources,
> > configuring the dependancy properly, uninstalling
> the
> > old, and reintalling the new. Especially when you
> will
> > be tracing dependancies for weeks, unless your a
> > pretty good programmer, which I am not, and know
> the
> > dependancy chain of the core system. My point was
> the
> > relative ease of upgrading, not the technical
> points
> > of having missing object stubs. Of course you
> can't
> > put a cummins deisel in a pinto without working on
> the
> > frame first.
>
>
> Shrug. I've had problems trying to recompile the
> FreeBSD kernel too.
It happens, I will admit it. I find things like
enabling wpa_supplicant and forgeting device wlan is
what trips me up most, or things along those lines...
dependancies can be frustrating at best... And I have
had experiences where a "patch" had a few typos in the
commit and nothing works until it is recommitted
correctly. I'm not going to even try to say FreeBSD is
always sunshine and linux is farts. I still like the
fullscreen console on my linux console, vs the tiny
have utilized LCD on my FreeBSD console with my Dell
Inspiron 1100. Know there has to be a fix, but haven't
liked the answers I've read so far...
>
> > Of late I was using Gentoo which I found to be
> > > FreeBSD
> > > > like with its portage system, until recently
> when
> > > it
> > > > seems they changed many system level interface
> > > stuff
> > > > sometime after April 2006 and now I cannot
> seem to
> > > > update it.
> > >
> > >
> > > The developers say you should not leave updating
> too
> > > long... True, if you
> > > are running FBSD 5.1 and need to update to 6.1,
> 5.3
> > > is still there on the
> > > servers, but you do have to go through the steps
> of
> > > installing that
> > > intermediate version.
> >
> > well it was current as of april 8th when I made
> the
> > tape. I went on vacation in May and got back on or
> > about the 17th of May. Updating HAS NOT WORKED
> SINCE
> > THEN. so if waiting 6 weeks is too long then so be
> it.
>
>
> 6 weeks too long? 6 months, *maybe*.
>
yeah between that tape which was the last update I
recall doing (always TAPE things up before messing
with it, learned that the hard way toooooooooo many
times) and me getting back home from Tortola to plug
in to the net and update portage and try to update. At
that point I was only updating, and PAM was Blocking.
I deleted it, the update failed at some point I got
sick turned off the box and without PAM could never
log back in. VERY FRUSTRATING, and I actually liked
Gentoo a whole lot. But updating the penguin has never
gone smooth for me in the long run...
> I'm not going to constantly be emerging an update on
> a
> > daily basis to stay current, especially since
> > Openoffice seems to change its release tag
> everyother
> > day on Gentoo and it puts a machine out of
> commission
> > for 8-12 hours to build it. When:
> >
> > emerge --update --deep --newuse --emptytree world
> >
> > fails with PAM blocking, mozilla blocking, and now
> > Xorg blocking as well as some other odds and ends
> > thats when I say BSD is for me. to me it is
> > incomprehensible why I cannot rebuild the system
> tree
> > from scratch without software blocking the build.
> It
> > was fun while it lasted, and it was nice to be
> away
> > from winblows but in my experience linux is
> slower, a
> > pain to configure, impossible to update, and a
> project
> > started to emulate Unix. I'd much rather spend my
> time
> > learning Unix, then fighting with the emulator.
>
>
> That was my point, that BSD was rewritten from the
> ground up to avoid AT&T
> patents. So whilst some might consider BSD "real
> unix", it's really only
> "emulating" V7 with Berkeley extensions.
>
BSD was always trying to rewrite the original AT&T
code, while being compatible with the specification.
They were researching how they could make the system
more functional, more stable, more network friendly.
Many of the features of later AT&T releases were from
BSDs Work and research, FFS, TCP/IP, just to name a
couple. FreeBSD extended this and did run into trouble
in some of its earlier releases with AT&T "patents" (I
would have to check my law books as I'm still studying
for the patent bar, but software patents are still a
fairly new concept. in the hey day of AT&T Unix I'm
fairly certain the courts regarded algorithms to be
applications of computer science; science of course
being unpatentable by statutory bar. however the
processes that defined what Unix was may have been in
fact patentable, as a process can be patented.
computers required some trickery to get it done in
that it produced a tangeble result. However running
the computer as an os would do produces no tangeble
result and so would likely be barred.) and copyrights
when the tradename was sold to Novell and the fun
began...
rewritting your code to follow the written standardize
spec for Unix while avoiding copywritten code does not
make you an emulator; it makes you an implementation.
Linux does not follow the spec so much as writing a
time sharing process oriented kernel with a system
that is independant of Unix and its defined
subsystems. It seeks to operate like Unix, but not be
Unix. That to me is an emulation of Unix. It seeks to
do all the things Unix can do, but not in a way that
is what unix is.
FreeBSD cannot call itself Unix because Title 35 of
the USC, not because it is not necessarily unix. Linux
is the kernel of the GNUnix system, but it alone can't
be unix, because even when in a distribution of a
linux system the core utilities do not follow the
standards of Unix. They operate how the GNU community
has come to expect them to using new options and
non-standards compliant switches and interfaces. Their
intent has always been to start from scratch with
their own thing following a general POSIX spec where
possible, but staying away from the overall Unix spec,
and those nasty Copyright issues. They wanted to bake
their own cake, and have been fairly succesful at it;
but some folks just like pie.
> >
> > > Even a full system rebuild has blocking
> > > > packages that boggle my mind as they were
> compile
> > > from
> > > > source originally...
> > >
> > >
> > > Stuff usually blocks if something about the way
> it's
> > > installed has changed
> > > in an incompatible way - X.org moving from
> > > monolithic to modular builds, for
> > > example. This doesn't seem to have anything to
> do
> > > with (binary) packages.
> > >
> >
> > well if I just delete the blockers and let them be
> > fixed in the rebuild via them being dependancies
> it
> > still fails. and use flags are basically useless
> in
> > binary packages right? I don't like packages, I
> like
> > to see that the port(age) will build on my
> machine,
> > because I am a firm believer if you build it, it
> will
> > run... Not to mention you can set the options you
> > want.
>
>
> My point was that binary packages and blocking are
> two separate issues.
>
I guess my point was I try to avoid packages like the
plauge. What can I see I like to see the nonsense
flying across a console while it is compiling from
source... I find that over time it starts to make a
lot of sense and let me see if I have other issues.
Plus I often am using deprecated boxes my office has
thrown away. and the proper CFLAGS on a pentium2
266Mhz machine MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE when compared to
generic code.
> > >
> > > Linux is chaos?
> >
> > ABSOLUTELY, but only because I am not a developer,
> and
> > know of C code... I find you have to be completely
> on
> > top of what it is and then some to get anything
> done.
> > None of the core utilities seem to work together
> with
> > a common configuration. But this is my biased
> opinion.
> > Each POSIX system follows a spec, how they follow
> it
> > is up to them. I find Linux takes a helical route
> > occastionally emergeing from event horizons. Plus
> can
> > any one really list what and why the kernel was
> > changed since its creation??? No even Linus can do
> > that,
>
>
> Do you have proof of it?
>
> patches come in from everywhere,
>
>
> But are only accepted if they get the go-ahead from
> the "core team", to use
> a FreeBSD term...
>
yeah of course these patches come from everyone
thinking they can help/hack their way around problems.
And I meant the accepted patches are all documented or
at least recorded as to what they changed as far as
"documentation" is concerned.
I know you can get FreeBSD 1.0 based on in parts the
original 4.4BSD-Lite Tape, which at that point
contained only minor amounts of AT&T code anyway, some
of the licensing issues were sentances in man pages.
The major point is BSD/FreeBSD was is a research
project that was always given specific features to
add, and all the patches were recorded so you could
get a snapshot of every accepted patch to the system
that was ever posted.
Linux was never centralized in development until
recently. It all started when Linus was trying to get
through College and had to do something for his
thesis/senior project in computer science. Its goals
were to make it run on i386 computers at the time and
get as much functionality as possible. It now strives
for POSIX compliance and is documented. My
understanding is that serious documentation started
around the 2.x.y kernel. All older kernels had no
central repository other then what Linus included in
his releases, and then their are all the vendor
patches like Redhat, Gentoo, and everyone else. While
they maybe documented somewhere, they're not/weren't
in a centralized repository.
I guess my main point of the whole discussion is there
is one FreeBSD project tree, but Linux has its tree,
and all the vendors versions floating around. To me
that is chaos
> and weren't
> > docuemented until releatively recently. That is
> Chaos
> > my friend...
> > >
> > > Sysinstall does take a few installs to get down
> pat,
> > > > but once you do it can be setup almost in your
> > > sleep.
> > > > You do need to get used to the differences of
> Unix
> > > vs
> > > > most PC OSs whereby you need to in laymens
> term
> > > > partition twice. A feature I love because it
> keeps
> > > > fstab making sense.
> > > >
> > > > Like anything you can't expect to try
> something
> > > > completely new without expecting to fall on
> your
> > > face
> > > > a few times. I wouldn't just through on scuba
> gear
> > > and
> > > > dive the Atlantic Ocean in search of the
> > > Titanic... I
> > > > would expect to have to read, maybe take some
> > > classes
> > > > (mess up FreeBSD bad and start over) and try
> in a
> > > pool
> > > > instead of the ocean a few times (use
> non-mission
> > > > critical machines to learn with)
> > > >
> > > > The unfortunate truth is Unix is not Microsoft
> > > > Windows, well some might consider it
> > > unfortunate...
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, I think you mean "fortunate truth"!
> > >
> > > Windows tells you what to do, what software you
> must
> > > > use, what drivers you must use, where you must
> > > install
> > > > things, what daemons listen to what ports and
> > > their is
> > > > little you can do to change it. Unix is just a
> set
> > > of
> > > > simple commands strung together in scripts and
> > > pipes
> > > > that can do whatever you want it to do. X11 is
> not
> > > > Unix it is a software package designed to
> allow
> > > > netrocentric GUI applications to talk to a
> screen,
> > > > keyboard and mouse. Its a monster in and of
> > > itself...
> > > > Complete with its own documentation...
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately it takes some time to learn how
> to
> > > work
> > > > with FreeBSD and Unix in general. Some people
> have
> > > > been doing it there whole professional lives
> and
> > > > probably still are amazed when they see a new
> > > little
> > > > trick come out of some new hackers "toolbox."
> > > There
> > > > are a few simple rules, and the rest is on
> you.
> > > It's
> > > > Unix's greatest strength and weakness rolled
> into
> > > one.
> > > > Please don't give up on FreeBSD because of one
> bad
> > > > experience. Take the time to mess around with
> it
> > > and
> > > > learn the basics and go from there. Or stick
> with
> > > > Linux its up to you. I will guarantee that
> when it
> > > > comes to upgrading the Linux box you will come
> > > back to
> > > > FreeBSD real quick...
> > >
> > >
> > > Or Gentoo, Ubuntu or SuSE! ;-)
> >
> > if you must but I'm done with that penguin and its
> a
> > messy break up. I've always liked what Linux was
> > doing, but I HATE the way it does it, and thats my
> > totally biased opinion.
>
>
> Well, at least you're honest!
I find it is the only way to get away with being a
stubborn prick. Well sometimes you can get away with
it anyway... 8^)
>
> Jeff Rollin
-brian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060913025419.3985.qmail>