5/27 In what ways are FreeBSD superior to a good Linux distro?
\_ Why do you hate Windows?
\_ Why do you hate Linus?
\_ *BSD has a better IP stack.
\_ In what way?
\_ Aren't they the same now?
\_ Yeah, because Linux copied Unix! --SCO
\_ They are? When did Linux change it?
\_ there's an actual CVS tree for the kernel?
\_ setting up software raid in freebsd still sucks
ass.
\_ software raid sucks everywhere. Real men use hardware.
After the third time your linux kernel drops a drive on a
whim, you'll learn.
\_ there are nice tools for setting up software raid in
linux. freebsd uses this thing called "vi"
actually when your machine fails, there's this thing
called "ed"
\_ Solaris LVM and Irix's lvm are way better.
\_ we're not comparing against Solaris and Irix. Why does
this keep getting deleted?
\_ Does anyone use Veritas Volume Manager for Linux?
I bet it works fine, since all the other Veritas products
I have used rocked. But it is not free.
\_ To be fair, you can't compare vinum (freebsd sw raid) to
linux sw raid; the featuresets aren't the same. Vinum is
more equivalent to EVMS (http://evms.sourceforge.net
\_ *BSD has a highly organized and structured "way" of doing things.
On every BSD box you always know where to look for config files,
how to install/remove new software. Things don't radically change
or require reading through obscure and often outdated HOW-TO pseudo
documents. Linux is good if you're not the admin or you *need*
the cutting edge. If you just want your machines to work and never
want to touch them again, get *BSD. --linux admin by day
\_ it seems like you're answering the wrong question. The question
wasn't about *BSD vs * Linux. It was FreeBSD vs a [one] good
Linux distro. And, BTW I use RH/Fedora/RHEL and I consider them
fairly well structured too. I know where the config files or
say init scripts are support to be. And I prefer their packages
(when they exist) to the FreeBSD ports.
\_ Really? You prefer RH? To *anything*? RH is the garbage of
the *nix world. I'd take just about any other *nix, free or
commercial over RH for almost anything. Is that just because
you know RH best so you're just used to the pain like Windows
admins and users?
\_ I don't prefer RH for absolutely everything but it works
more than well enough for my type of environment (computer
labs, computing clusters, servers that support all that,
etc) and I definitely prefer it for this type of job than
say FreeBSD or Solaris. I have used Debian and I have
my reasons for not choosing either Debian or FreeBSD.
Besides, from my personal observations, the FreeBSD
afficionados who tend to dismiss RedHat as a piece of
crap usually don't know how to run a RedHat system
or say even use rpm properly and just keep repeating
the anti-Linux FUD they see on *BSD mailing lists or
newsgroups.
\_ The organization goes beyond that, too. The ports tree/packages
are awesome. Maintaining a BSD box is infinitely easier than,
say, redhat.
\_ Ports suck. I like the idea in principle, but the
implementation of ports is by far the worst feature of
FreeBSD, in my opinion. -- ilyas
\_ I disagree. try upgrading openssl on FreeBSD. you know,
getting /usr/lib/libssl.* upgraded, not just plopping down
new files in /usr/local/*. Much easier on RedHate (as much
as I bitch and moan about it). Just grab an RPM or even
an SRPM if you want to tweak things, and it goes in. --Jon
\_ cd /usr/src/contrib/openssl
less INSTALL
\_ This is why the port is there. So you don't have to
buildworld on every openssl bug report.
Not to mention when you get the new rpm (if there is
one), it always seems to break some other package because
some internal in openssl was changed.
\_ redhat isn't great of a linux example, IMO. pick a
distribution that isn't broken (gentoo, debian)
\_ Every BSD box? Really? You think NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD all
have the same way to install new software and place config
files?
\ Compared to say redhat versus gentoo versus suse? you bet.
\_ presumably, you're not running redhat, gentoo, and suse.
You should be comparing a distribution to a BSD branch.
\_ On a linux box, applications dump all over the filesystem.
Changing network settings by creating files in /proc/* is
fucking idiotic, for example. Documentation for linux is
\_ man sysctl
\_ that's not what the docs say to do.
\_ I believe that was already covered by the next
statement about "out of date".
out of date, if it exists at all. I haven't used netbsd in a
\_ point taken
while but for open and free: (cd /usr/ports/foo/appname ; make
install) is pretty straight forward. No rpm hell. No
\_ rpms suck ass... rpms != linux
\_ emerge, apt-get
\_ What does apt have that assures you you're not
installing trojaned code?
\_ apt works with rpm
\_ signatures in rpms, debsigs
wondering if the binaries I'm downloading were corrupted. BSD
just works. You have some counter examples?
\_ how do you know that the source you're compling from
ports wasn't corrupted?
\_ The ports directory has MD5 checksums of the source
tarballs. Unless your ports tree is corrupt, you'll
be warned if you download a corrupt source tarball.
\_ well OK then, how do you know that your MD5 checksums
of the source tarballs are accurate?
\_ You got them when you installed your OS. If they
are fucked, bad ports are the least of your
worries.
\_ You have to re-get them when the ports MD5s
change, right? |
http://csua.com/feed/