Re: A quality operating system
On 9/6/2011 10:44 AM, Michael Doyle wrote: Lots of other people have given good answers. I'm just chiming in on points 3 and 7 On 20 Aug 2011, at 05:47, Evan Busch wrote: What is a quality operating system? I work as a database developer in an SME. I support end users on Mac OSX and Windows XP .. Windows Vista clients, and Windows 2008, FreeBSD and SuSE linux servers. Of these, the FreeBSD servers give least trouble. For non-techie users, usually but not always the OS X people have fewer problems. I collect OSs, and I've always found the ideal of an OS interesting, so I try to use as many as I can. Of the massive amount of OSs I own, my favorites, have always been these: For Windows - Windows 2000, Windows 7 Linux - Slackware SuSE Debian Mandriva when they don't screw it up. SUSE is my favorite though by far. I used it for a LONG time as my main OS, and I've LOVED it. I also used it on my Laptop, and on my Servers, and not once had any real issues. I did have to help a few people new to it realize that Yast2 came in a non-GUI style too, by simply typing yast while in an X-Term, or, without a GUI loaded at all with a normal shell. I also love the Dependency tracking it had when I used it on my Servers where I was doing something as a project; I could set up a machine to do testing on, where I would have an FTP Server running, SSH running, and so on, and then, also use it as a Desktop, just to see how it would run. Well, when you have that much crap installed, if you realize any given package is giving you problems, or you don't like it, and want to get rid of it, you could simply click on Check Dependencies and even while installing, it would look at everything you'd selected, and if it found anything, pop up a menu that allowed you to get rid of what you wanted, and then it would show you if anything would break when you did so, and, allow you to either get rid of those as well, or, select new options. I wish FreeBSD did this but ah well. FreeBSD is my favorite BSD in general, but I am starting to LOVE PC-BSD, which is basically FreeBSD with some really nice tools, and a pretty paint job, from what I've seen so far. In his view, and now mine, a quality operating system is reliable, streamlined and clearly organized. That is hard to disagree with Yea, I'd have to agree with a few of my own thoughts: In MY person view, a good OS, is one that can do what you want it to do, AND what you NEED it to do, isn't overly complex for no reason, is stable, AND secure. Reliability and Stability, being related, is something I take very VERY high up. I don't like unstable OSs. And I've tried quite a few. When I used to be in college, there was a guy there who LOVED Windows. And I couldn't understand how someone who was, by all means, fairly intelligent, could think it was even OK for a Server OS like Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, came, with a default install, WITH WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER!!! I mean first, I get that they'd want to make that available if it was needed for something But, an ENTERPRISE EDITION OS coming out of the box, with Windows Media Player installed by default Why Why would a Server need a Media Player? And why would they allow one that's had a host of security issues over the years? I couldn't understand that at all, and still can't, since the guy I mentioned, could never give a good enough excuse. Especially considering that a Server should not EVER have down time because the admin had to install patches for a MEDIA PLAYER, and then, was required to reboot the damn thing because of it. (3) Horrible documentation. This is my specialty and has been since the early 1980s. The FreeBSD documentation is wordy, disorganized, inconsistent and highly selective in what it mentions. It is not the product of professionals but it also not the product of volunteers with a focus on communication. It seems pro-forma, as in, it's in the documentation, so don't bother me. The web site compounds this error by pointing us in multiple directions instead of to a singular resource. It is bad enough that man pages are separate from your main documentation tree, but now you have doubled or trebled the workload required of you without any benefit to the end user. I personally find the documentation that comes as part of the install and the documentation on the FreeBSD website EASIER to use and more complete than any alternatives I use on a regular basis. I've seen some bad documentation in my time, but FreeBSD, has rarely been a culprit... The FreeBSD Docs that are installed, are great, and then, the books you can buy, are amazing. I own every book you can get from the FreeBSD Mall, except a PC-BSD book. I think there may be ONE other, but other than those two, I own them all. And I Love them. My favorite is a toss up between The Complete FreeBSD and FreeBSD Unleashed. The Web site is also great, and the search function, works better than some. (7
Re: A quality operating system
Lots of other people have given good answers. I'm just chiming in on points 3 and 7 On 20 Aug 2011, at 05:47, Evan Busch wrote: What is a quality operating system? I work as a database developer in an SME. I support end users on Mac OSX and Windows XP .. Windows Vista clients, and Windows 2008, FreeBSD and SuSE linux servers. Of these, the FreeBSD servers give least trouble. For non-techie users, usually but not always the OS X people have fewer problems. In his view, and now mine, a quality operating system is reliable, streamlined and clearly organized. That is hard to disagree with (3) Horrible documentation. This is my specialty and has been since the early 1980s. The FreeBSD documentation is wordy, disorganized, inconsistent and highly selective in what it mentions. It is not the product of professionals but it also not the product of volunteers with a focus on communication. It seems pro-forma, as in, it's in the documentation, so don't bother me. The web site compounds this error by pointing us in multiple directions instead of to a singular resource. It is bad enough that man pages are separate from your main documentation tree, but now you have doubled or trebled the workload required of you without any benefit to the end user. I personally find the documentation that comes as part of the install and the documentation on the FreeBSD website EASIER to use and more complete than any alternatives I use on a regular basis. (7) Disorganized website. Again, what are you comparing it to? I can often find my way to exactly the information I am looking for on the FreeBSD site using the search tool and menu structure within that site. To search for answers about Windows server, Windows desktop or OSX problems, I tend to rely on external search engines (Bing, Google) to trawl through the sites, and it takes longer to find the answers I need Michael Doyle mdo...@cooperationireland.org -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html#Why Sorry, it's looks roughly applicable here. I'm guilty too, but I don't want/use binary upgrades. -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/A-quality-operating-system-tp4717703p4765099.html Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
Maybe I can play Diplomat here, considering that I use both BSD and Linux and Windows, and I won't pretend to care about any of your feelings and just be Honest: On 8/20/2011 2:09 PM, Michael Sierchio wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Dave Pooser dave-free...@pooserville.com wrote: 3) Updates are a mess. It's cool that I *can* compile a new kernel, but that I *have* to is ridiculous. Updating a server should not be more difficult than yum update -- full stop. Are you lazy, or stupid? man freebsd-update OK, I too use freebsd-update to update my base system, but, other than the port manager tools, I've PERSONALLY watched portupgrade -aF basically break a system. I saw one person say Well you can't upgrade one version of Red Hat to another but really, who here actually cares about Red Hat? I came from SUSE and Slackware, both of which have had very well thought out upgrades for a while. (Slackware didn't for a while, but apparently slackpkg does this now) but SUSE was always easy to upgrade. I think one thing I can personally agree with when it comes to what was said, is the whole thing about patching; Why isn't there yet a tool that will simply grab ALL security patches? I mean Debian can do apt-get update apt-get upgrade and then grab everything from the Kernel's patches to xmms patches, install them, and I'm done. Try that on any version of BSD before PC-BSD came around. I get that a lot of BSD people are programmers and like looking at source code, but personally, not being a coder, I don't CARE what flags something uses I think if FreeBSD had an all purpose patching tool, it would be a lot better. I mean sure, you use freebsd-update and it updates the base system, but anything you use on the machine is usually a port of some sort, and doing those When I first started using FreeBSD, I was looking at how to install patches for security, and I was like WTF I have to do what? I'm not quite sure why no one has ever made a tool that grabs all security patches and installs them for you, but they should. It would be REALLY nice if FreeBSD had freebsd-update that worked on ports too, because the process of updating those, it IS a little much. I've been using FreeBSD since 4.0 and to be 100% Honest, I've never once managed to actually upgrade a system. And that's while sitting with the FreeBSD.org Docs sitting open on another machine going down the list of what I was supposed to do. It was time consuming, and compiling things Again, not a programmer. The guy who said updating should be no more than yum update had a point. I get why ports are separated and all that, but why not compromise and have a way to install security patches on both at the same time? I recently installed PC-BSD on my Laptop, and the fact that it grabs patches for me and installs them, more than proves it could be added over to FreeBSD. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On 03/09/2011 10:17, Allen wrote: Try that on any version of BSD before PC-BSD came around. I get that a lot of BSD people are programmers and like looking at source code, but personally, not being a coder, I don't CARE what flags something uses However, I, as a systems administrator that has to herd a bunch of servers and get maximum performance out of them care very much indeed exactly what flags and so forth are used to compile software. Even in these days of multi-gigabyte RAM and terabyte disk, keeping application memory usage as slim as possible and stripping out pointless processes is important for good performance. I saw a comment once on -- I think is was the BIND mailing list -- where an admin said that anyone using software to provide a commercial service really should be compiling it themselves, rather than using the default packages that come with their OS precisely because it gives you this control. What struck me was that he clearly wasn't a FreeBSD user. With the FreeBSD ports you can tune everything to your requirements, and still benefit from the advantages of using the OSes package management system. Linux distros that tout themselves as Server OSes I find frustrating. Really they pretty much all come out of the box setup for desktop use. Who cares about wireless networking on a server that's going to be wired into a rack for its entire life? Or automounting removable media? Or GUIs? Stripping out the pointless fluff and turning off all the software that defaults to on really does negate the convenience of their packaging. I think if FreeBSD had an all purpose patching tool, it would be a lot better. I mean sure, you use freebsd-update and it updates the base system, but anything you use on the machine is usually a port of some sort, and doing those When I first started using FreeBSD, I was looking at how to install patches for security, and I was like WTF I have to do what? I'm not quite sure why no one has ever made a tool that grabs all security patches and installs them for you, but they should. It would be REALLY nice if FreeBSD had freebsd-update that worked on ports too, because the process of updating those, it IS a little much. I've been using FreeBSD since 4.0 and to be 100% Honest, I've never once managed to actually upgrade a system. And that's while sitting with the FreeBSD.org Docs sitting open on another machine going down the list of what I was supposed to do. It was time consuming, and compiling things Again, not a programmer. Yeah. Ports and base being distinct is a big deal in FreeBSD-land. But you are right to the extent that it would be useful to be able to use much the same tools to manage both. There's been fairly regular mutterings over the years about making the base system install something like pkgs, but nothing has ever come of it. There's also an interesting thread over on the freebsd-ports@ mailing list about going in almost completely the other direction -- making a software packaging system that is OS agnostic, so (for instance) all of *BSD could effectively use the same ports tree. Oh, and have much better capabilities for dealing with binary packages, and are which in which FreeBSD is really quite weak. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: A quality operating system
Hi, Reference: From: Allen unix.hac...@comcast.net Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 05:17:51 -0400 Message-id: 4e61f0bf.9030...@comcast.net Allen wrote: Maybe I can play Diplomat here, considering that I use both BSD and ..^ Linux and Windows, and I won't pretend to care about any of your .^ feelings and just be Honest: ^^^ Point of order: Inconsistent statement at beginning. Find a dictionary look up what a diplomat is ! I stopped reading. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below, not above; Indent with ; Cumulative like a play script. Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. http://www.softwarefreedomday.org 17th Sept, http://berklix.org/sfd/ Oct. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 09:04:28PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote: Quoth Chad Perrin on Saturday, 27 August 2011: I've decided to provide the professional response Evan claims to crave: Dear Evan, We appreciate your feedback on the quality, scope, and focus of our software and documentation. We always strive to provide the highest quality products and service to all of our customers, and constantly seek new ways to improve on perfection. The input of our customers is a key element of our strategy to consistently provide what they need in a timely and responsible fashion. Your ticket number is d3b07384d113edec49eaa6238ad5ff00. Your case worker is Robert Jones. Your ticket is: [ ] Pending Action [ ] Open [X] Closed: Complete Your account has been charged $14.99 for successful completion. Note that this special 25% reduced support pricing will only apply for actions until September 15th. Take advantage of the discounts now! If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to use the support form on the Website. Thank you for your business. Perfect, except you didn't charge enough -- and you didn't ask him to complete a survey. In retrospect, I see that you are of course correct about the charge. I considered doing something with a survey, but it was a lot of work constructing something using soul-sucking corporate customer service lingo, and I just didn't have the energy left to write anything about a survey. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp9rSli0MpHu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A quality operating system
--As of August 28, 2011 9:10:34 AM -0600, Chad Perrin is alleged to have said: On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 09:04:28PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote: Quoth Chad Perrin on Saturday, 27 August 2011: I've decided to provide the professional response Evan claims to crave: Dear Evan, We appreciate your feedback on the quality, scope, and focus of our software and documentation. We always strive to provide the highest quality products and service to all of our customers, and constantly seek new ways to improve on perfection. The input of our customers is a key element of our strategy to consistently provide what they need in a timely and responsible fashion. Your ticket number is d3b07384d113edec49eaa6238ad5ff00. Your case worker is Robert Jones. Your ticket is: [ ] Pending Action [ ] Open [X] Closed: Complete Your account has been charged $14.99 for successful completion. Note that this special 25% reduced support pricing will only apply for actions until September 15th. Take advantage of the discounts now! If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to use the support form on the Website. Thank you for your business. Perfect, except you didn't charge enough -- and you didn't ask him to complete a survey. In retrospect, I see that you are of course correct about the charge. I considered doing something with a survey, but it was a lot of work constructing something using soul-sucking corporate customer service lingo, and I just didn't have the energy left to write anything about a survey. --As for the rest, it is mine. What do you mean? All you need is some random link to a random survey URL. The fact that the survey doesn't mention anything about the product in question, the type of issue addressed, what type of response he was given, or anything else actually pertaining to his situation is totally irrelevant. As is the fact that the survey won't be read by anyone. ;) Daniel T. Staal --- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. --- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:21:06PM -0400, Daniel Staal wrote: What do you mean? All you need is some random link to a random survey URL. The fact that the survey doesn't mention anything about the product in question, the type of issue addressed, what type of response he was given, or anything else actually pertaining to his situation is totally irrelevant. As is the fact that the survey won't be read by anyone. ;) 1. It would need to be prefaced by another bloviating line of corporate doublespeak. 2. Have you heard the phrase the straw that broke the camel's back? Your assessment of the nature of the survey itself is pretty accurate, though. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpSLOkZJrGZZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A quality operating system
On Thursday 25 August 2011 01:39:54 Polytropon wrote: Last, suppose you issue a general invitation for people to go over to your house for a free dinner, with food that you know (because you helped in preparing it!) in your heart and taste to be excellent, well prepared and nutritious. And all of a sudden I storm at your door and yell for all the guests that already know what you know about the food, without even tasting anything, that a very good and knowledgeable friend of mine told me that the kitchen is as dirty as hell, the food tastes terrible and that all the guests will get diarrhea and probably die if they eat anything. What would you do? Wow, what a nice analogy! =^_^= Thanks Man. :) I can almost feel sorry for poor Evan. I think he doesn't know what he's missing here. -- Mario Lobo http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br FreeBSD since 2.2.8 [not Pro-Audio YET!!] (99% winblows FREE) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
I can see this will be important here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: But allow me to say that _if_ you are interested in contributing in _that_ way, you should always bring examples and name _concrete_ points you're criticizing, instead of just mentioning wide ranges of this doesn't conform to my interpretation of what 'professional' should look like. The problem with your statement is that it does not allow for general critique, which is also needed. If something shows up in more than one place, it is a general critique. In most cases, documentation requires you to have a minimal clue of what you're doing. There's terminology you simply have to know, and concepts to understand in order to use the documentation. See the Wikipedia page above -- the problem isn't one of user competence, but of poorly-written documentation that is fundamentally disorganized. Have you looked at any of the documentation coming out of Redmond right now? How do you think FreeBSD's documentation stands up to that? Different kinds of users have different preferences. Some like to use the web, like to use Wikis and discussion boards. Others like to use structured web pages. Again, other like web pages too, but want to have as much information in _one_ (long) page. And there are those who do not want to depend on the web - those like man pages. The question isn't form, but content. If you're used to some specific _way_ of documentation, you will maybe value anything that's _different_ from that way as being inferior, non-professional, or less helpful. I think I'm talking about professional level documentation, not a specific style. Also keep in mind that especially for developers, the SOURCE CODE also is an important piece of documentation. Here FreeBSD is very good, compared to other systems. We're talking end-user documentation here. Here the one size fits all problem arises. It's really hard to make documentation for everybody. I disagree. It's very clear what must be done because multiple archetypes exist. Note the presence of :-) and the abilities of english native speakers who are much more able to express between the lines than I am, for example. If so, it's just them trying to cover up the inherently defensive and reactionary nature of their comments. Would they send such an email on a business list? You can predict that everywhere. Just go to any halfway specialized setting and make claims about something not meeting your requirements I've never had this problem when the claims have been stated professionally -- only here. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
Quoth Evan Busch on Saturday, 27 August 2011: In most cases, documentation requires you to have a minimal clue of what you're doing. There's terminology you simply have to know, and concepts to understand in order to use the documentation. See the Wikipedia page above -- the problem isn't one of user competence, but of poorly-written documentation that is fundamentally disorganized. Have you looked at any of the documentation coming out of Redmond right now? How do you think FreeBSD's documentation stands up to that? Oh please. I have to use that crap that comes out of Redmond on a daily basis. They never think things through and only answer the most shallow questions, and their How tos make their little Was this helpful? seem sarcastic. -- .O. | Sterling (Chip) Camden | http://camdensoftware.com ..O | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | http://chipsquips.com OOO | 2048R/D6DBAF91 | http://chipstips.com pgp6mKqpPvBBw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A quality operating system
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 01:56:16PM -0500, Evan Busch wrote: I can see this will be important here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: But allow me to say that _if_ you are interested in contributing in _that_ way, you should always bring examples and name _concrete_ points you're criticizing, instead of just mentioning wide ranges of this doesn't conform to my interpretation of what 'professional' should look like. The problem with your statement is that it does not allow for general critique, which is also needed. If something shows up in more than one place, it is a general critique. You haven't shown *one* example of inadequate or confusing documentation. In most cases, documentation requires you to have a minimal clue of what you're doing. There's terminology you simply have to know, and concepts to understand in order to use the documentation. See the Wikipedia page above -- the problem isn't one of user competence, but of poorly-written documentation that is fundamentally disorganized. Have you looked at any of the documentation coming out of Redmond right now? How do you think FreeBSD's documentation stands up to that? FreeBSD documentation blows away anything Redmond gives you. Where's the documentation for Windows Explorer for Vista on microsoft.com? A link will do. Different kinds of users have different preferences. Some like to use the web, like to use Wikis and discussion boards. Others like to use structured web pages. Again, other like web pages too, but want to have as much information in _one_ (long) page. And there are those who do not want to depend on the web - those like man pages. The question isn't form, but content. If you're used to some specific _way_ of documentation, you will maybe value anything that's _different_ from that way as being inferior, non-professional, or less helpful. I think I'm talking about professional level documentation, not a specific style. By your own admission you don't even use FreeBSD so how on earth can you constructively criticise? Answer: you can't. Also keep in mind that especially for developers, the SOURCE CODE also is an important piece of documentation. Here FreeBSD is very good, compared to other systems. We're talking end-user documentation here. In a lot of cases the source IS end-user documentation? BTW, how does that compare with Redmond? Here the one size fits all problem arises. It's really hard to make documentation for everybody. I disagree. It's very clear what must be done because multiple archetypes exist. Well do it. Put up or shut up. Note the presence of :-) and the abilities of english native speakers who are much more able to express between the lines than I am, for example. If so, it's just them trying to cover up the inherently defensive and reactionary nature of their comments. They're inherently defensive and reactionary because you're trolling. Would they send such an email on a business list? Who cares? It's not a business list. You can predict that everywhere. Just go to any halfway specialized setting and make claims about something not meeting your requirements I've never had this problem when the claims have been stated professionally -- only here. OK, so you'll be able to provide links then? Thought not. -- Frank Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html pgpOyNBeZtNxw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A quality operating system
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Sat Aug 27 13:58:08 2011 Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:56:16 -0500 From: Evan Busch antiequal...@gmail.com To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A quality operating system I can see this will be important here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: But allow me to say that _if_ you are interested in contributing in _that_ way, you should always bring examples and name _concrete_ points you're criticizing, instead of just mentioning wide ranges of this doesn't conform to my interpretation of what 'professional' should look like. The problem with your statement is that it does not allow for general critique, FALSE TO FACT. He did =not= say that _only_ cricicisms of specific points were allowed. One can point to a specific instance, or possibly a small number of them, and _then_ say something like ,'these are a few examples of this problem, it occurs _throughout_ the document. ... which is also needed. If something shows up in more than one place, it is a general critique. If you can't be botheed to identify _even_one_ specific instance of the 'general critique', you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. The latter types are _much_ more likely to get listened to than the former. Your choice. As one of the first-mentioned types, all you are doing it wasting the time of people who might have used that time to 'do something' about it. In most cases, documentation requires you to have a minimal clue of what you're doing. There's terminology you simply have to know, and concepts to understand in order to use the documentation. See the Wikipedia page above -- the problem isn't one of user competence, but of poorly-written documentation that is fundamentally disorganized. Feel free to demonstrate how you think it _should_ be done. grin Have you looked at any of the documentation coming out of Redmond right now? Yup. That which comes with the O/S. How do you think FreeBSD's documentation stands up to that? FAR more comprehensive. FAR more informative. FAR more _useful_. grin ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Saturday 27 August 2011 16:58:06 Frank Shute wrote: On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 01:56:16PM -0500, Evan Busch wrote: [Snip..] If so, it's just them trying to cover up the inherently defensive and reactionary nature of their comments. They're inherently defensive and reactionary because you're trolling. Would they send such an email on a business list? Who cares? It's not a business list. You can predict that everywhere. Just go to any halfway specialized setting and make claims about something not meeting your requirements I've never had this problem when the claims have been stated professionally -- only here. OK, so you'll be able to provide links then? Thought not. Well, I don't know about everybody else but I don't believe that the aim of this gentleman's OP was about being constructive, at all. Like somebody had already said here, he was just a kid that threw a rock on a wasp's nest, didn't have legs to run fast enough, and now he is crying all over the place because he got stung. So, to exhaust everything I have to say on this subject, I will try to translate the best I can, two popular sayings here in my country. I hope I can make their meaning get through. To his criticism on documentation: To a good 'understander', a half-word is enough. To his deliriously vague critique on FreeBSD in general: The dogs always bark. But the caravan steadily moves on. -- Mario Lobo http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br FreeBSD since 2.2.8 [not Pro-Audio YET!!] (99% winblows FREE) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 09:48:45PM -0300, Mario Lobo wrote: So, to exhaust everything I have to say on this subject, I will try to translate the best I can, two popular sayings here in my country. I hope I can make their meaning get through. I think both translations carried quite a lot of relevant meaning. Good job. To his criticism on documentation: To a good 'understander', a half-word is enough. That has a very Tao Te Ching feel to it. To his deliriously vague critique on FreeBSD in general: The dogs always bark. But the caravan steadily moves on. That has a very folk-wisdom feel to it. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpsxeSZ4OIKD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A quality operating system
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:56:16 -0500, Evan Busch wrote: I can see this will be important here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: But allow me to say that _if_ you are interested in contributing in _that_ way, you should always bring examples and name _concrete_ points you're criticizing, instead of just mentioning wide ranges of this doesn't conform to my interpretation of what 'professional' should look like. The problem with your statement is that it does not allow for general critique, which is also needed. If something shows up in more than one place, it is a general critique. No. General critique would require to be general, means: it would have to apply in all (or at least most) places. To advance from specific to general critique, it would be useful to show at least _some_ examples where it would apply, and then say something like: There's more around the corner. But _before_ considering general statements, specific ones would have to be discussed, just to make sure the one that came to your mind wasn't an exception of the rule. From logic, you should know that allquantified statements (those including all, none, every, as well as none or never) are easy to disprove: Only one (!) counter- example is required. A = q ^ w ^ e ^ r ^ t ^ z ^ u ^ i - false === (at least) one of (q, w, e, r, t, z, u, i) is false, to put it into a formal expression. In most cases, documentation requires you to have a minimal clue of what you're doing. There's terminology you simply have to know, and concepts to understand in order to use the documentation. See the Wikipedia page above -- the problem isn't one of user competence, but of poorly-written documentation that is fundamentally disorganized. Oh again you put additional emphasize on it: fundamentally. This implies there's a general problem with the documentation. Could you please _name_ that problem, instead of just mentioning that there is one? Have you looked at any of the documentation coming out of Redmond right now? Oh god no! Why wouold I look into disorganized documentation that cannot even be received by blind users, and that invents arbitrary words for established technical terminology, changing all the time? :-) How do you think FreeBSD's documentation stands up to that? Wery well I'd say: It can be accessed offline, for free, and by all audiences (including exceptional ones such as blind or deaf users). Different kinds of users have different preferences. Some like to use the web, like to use Wikis and discussion boards. Others like to use structured web pages. Again, other like web pages too, but want to have as much information in _one_ (long) page. And there are those who do not want to depend on the web - those like man pages. The question isn't form, but content. Form and content have to be matching when you're talking quality. Would you accept a letter from your local tax administration that is correct by content, but written on used toilet paper? On the other hand, how would you think about a book that is pure crap, but written on golden paper with leather? If you're used to some specific _way_ of documentation, you will maybe value anything that's _different_ from that way as being inferior, non-professional, or less helpful. I think I'm talking about professional level documentation, not a specific style. Professional always implies a specific target audience which has the abilities to learn how to use a given kind of documentation. As I said, mainframe documentation is _very_ different from what you might know, but it is _extremely_ professional for those who deal with it - to solve problems. Also keep in mind that especially for developers, the SOURCE CODE also is an important piece of documentation. Here FreeBSD is very good, compared to other systems. We're talking end-user documentation here. Suddenly? I just thought we would talk professional documentation here... By the way, a thing like end-user documentation does not exist. End users do not need documentation. They don't read anything. At _most_, they'd look at colored pictures, but not act according to them. Documentation is the first thing they throw away (in many cases right before they throw away installation media), because they don't need what they don't know. Do I have a strange look at end users? Maybe, but according to my observations and experiences, it's a realistic look. Yours might be quite different. Here the one size fits all problem arises. It's really hard to make documentation for everybody. I disagree. It's very clear what must be done because multiple archetypes exist. Then, how would you suggest a one size fits all documentation should look like? Maybe you can point to a resource available on the Internet to show what you have in mind. I'd be interested in seeing if the
Re: A quality operating system
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 05:09:26AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:56:16 -0500, Evan Busch wrote: I've never had this problem when the claims have been stated professionally -- only here. But the claims HAVEN'T been stated professionally. You didn't bring _one_ example, not for unprofessional documentation, not for professional documentation. You're missing the basic structure of a professional argumentation, which consists of making a statement or a claim, then offering arguments that backup the claim, and additionally bring examples for those arguments. I've decided to provide the professional response Evan claims to crave: Dear Evan, We appreciate your feedback on the quality, scope, and focus of our software and documentation. We always strive to provide the highest quality products and service to all of our customers, and constantly seek new ways to improve on perfection. The input of our customers is a key element of our strategy to consistently provide what they need in a timely and responsible fashion. Your ticket number is d3b07384d113edec49eaa6238ad5ff00. Your case worker is Robert Jones. Your ticket is: [ ] Pending Action [ ] Open [X] Closed: Complete Your account has been charged $14.99 for successful completion. Note that this special 25% reduced support pricing will only apply for actions until September 15th. Take advantage of the discounts now! If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to use the support form on the Website. Thank you for your business. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpexUTkHQxQ5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A quality operating system
Quoth Chad Perrin on Saturday, 27 August 2011: On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 05:09:26AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:56:16 -0500, Evan Busch wrote: I've never had this problem when the claims have been stated professionally -- only here. But the claims HAVEN'T been stated professionally. You didn't bring _one_ example, not for unprofessional documentation, not for professional documentation. You're missing the basic structure of a professional argumentation, which consists of making a statement or a claim, then offering arguments that backup the claim, and additionally bring examples for those arguments. I've decided to provide the professional response Evan claims to crave: Dear Evan, We appreciate your feedback on the quality, scope, and focus of our software and documentation. We always strive to provide the highest quality products and service to all of our customers, and constantly seek new ways to improve on perfection. The input of our customers is a key element of our strategy to consistently provide what they need in a timely and responsible fashion. Your ticket number is d3b07384d113edec49eaa6238ad5ff00. Your case worker is Robert Jones. Your ticket is: [ ] Pending Action [ ] Open [X] Closed: Complete Your account has been charged $14.99 for successful completion. Note that this special 25% reduced support pricing will only apply for actions until September 15th. Take advantage of the discounts now! If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to use the support form on the Website. Thank you for your business. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Perfect, except you didn't charge enough -- and you didn't ask him to complete a survey. -- .O. | Sterling (Chip) Camden | http://camdensoftware.com ..O | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | http://chipsquips.com OOO | 2048R/D6DBAF91 | http://chipstips.com pgpsGadxArr2u.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A quality operating system
On 08/25/2011 07:39 AM, Polytropon wrote: [...] and you have to get all the strange concepts in line, beginning with drive letters and ending in reboots after few changes.:-) The FreeBSD documentation even keeps that in mind: It mentions the Windows terms for things just in case some reader is already spoiled with those deviant terminology (e. g. when explaining what a slice is). [...] Uhuh! Just noticed it. Good tolerance point :-) -- RMA. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
I didn't expect this much response. Some interesting stuff: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Test Rat ttse...@gmail.com wrote: There is an ongoing discussion on arch@ about this. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2011-August/011412.html This is an excellent discussion. Thank you. On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Dave Pooser dave-free...@pooserville.com wrote: My own take: 1) I really don't see the Handbook as all that great. It's Every professional documentarian I've encountered agrees with you. It's inconsistent, wordy, and has no concept of the order of introduction of its concepts. No professional software package would ship with documentation this bad. The multiple grammatical errors only enhance the sense of its fundamentally confused nature as a document. On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: Well, in _this_ area, I would also agree that work should be done to concentrate documentation, e. g. make an essence from knowledge and examples in mailing lists, web forums and so on. But there are too many of them, and you simply cannot put all the possible things into the one documentation project. This isn't as big of a project as you make it seem. In fact, it will reduce your workload and that of your users. I think the comments above provide a good starting point for actual discussion. As far as people proving my point about the BSD community being reactionary: (1) This is a good discussion. Thank you for mentioning it. On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Odhiambo Washington odhia...@gmail.com wrote: That whole paragraph is some irrelevant assertion. (2) On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Open Slate Project o...@aloha.com wrote: Perhaps you would be happier at an Apple Store. (3) On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Hasse Hansson ha...@thorshammare.org wrote: Happy Trolling :-) (4) On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Michael Sierchio ku...@tenebras.com wrote: Are you lazy, or stupid? man freebsd-update (5) On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 1:31 PM, mikel king mikel.k...@olivent.com wrote: I do not think it is worth wasting important list bandwidth on your flame fodder. These angry non-sequiturs just reek of defensiveness. I think I predicted these behaviors when I spoke of cliques and the nasty, elitist side of geek culture. On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Gary Gatten ggat...@waddell.com wrote: Well This should spawn some interesting responses. I shall sit back and enjoy - Original Message - From: Evan Busch [mailto:antiequal...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:47 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: A quality operating system Hi, I make decisions about hardware and software for those who work with me. Talking with my second in command this morning, we reached a quandary. Ron is completely pro-Linux and pro-Windows, and against FreeBSD. What is odd about this is that he's the biggest UNIX fanatic I know, not only all types of UNIX (dating back quite some time) but also all Unix-like OSen. I told him I was considering FreeBSD because of greater stability and security. He asked me a question that stopped me dead: What is a quality operating system? In his view, and now mine, a quality operating system is reliable, streamlined and clearly organized. Over the past few years, FreeBSD has drifted off-course in this department, in his view. Let me share the points he made that I consider valid (I have deleted two as trivial, and added one of my own): (1) Lack of direction. FreeBSD is still not sure whether it is a desktop OS, or a server OS. It is easy for the developers to say well, it's whatever you want, but this makes the configuration process more involved. This works against people who have to use these operating systems to get anything done. In his view, a crucial metric here is the ability to estimate time required for any task. It may be a wide window, but it should not be as wide as anywhere from 30 minutes to 96 hours. In his experience, FreeBSD varies widely on this front because in the name of keeping options open, standardization of interface and process has been deprecated. (2) Geek culture. Geek culture is the oldest clique on the internet. Their goal is to make friends with no one who is not like them. As a result, they specialize in the arcane, disorganized and ambiguous. This forces people to go through the same hoops they went through. This makes them happy, and drives away people who need to use operating systems to achieve real-world results. They reduce a community to hobbyists only. (3) Horrible documentation. This is my specialty and has been since the early 1980s. The FreeBSD documentation is wordy, disorganized, inconsistent and highly selective in what it mentions. It is not the product of professionals but it also not the product of volunteers with a focus
Re: A quality operating system
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:02:18 -0500, Evan Busch wrote: I didn't expect this much response. You always get what you deserve on this list. :-) No, seriously: There are participants of this list who understand complains and other statements in a critical tone as inspiration for improvement. But allow me to say that _if_ you are interested in contributing in _that_ way, you should always bring examples and name _concrete_ points you're criticizing, instead of just mentioning wide ranges of this doesn't conform to my interpretation of what 'professional' should look like. As long as you are professional and fair, you will get a polite and substantial (!) response. Every professional documentarian I've encountered agrees with you. It's inconsistent, wordy, and has no concept of the order of introduction of its concepts. No professional software package would ship with documentation this bad. Depends. Have a look at IBM's mainframe or midrange documentation. For those who are working with this very special kind of documentation, it may appear fully understandable, helpful and direct. For hobbyists or newbies, it may look to be the complete opposite: Not understandable, no structure, way too verbose, and not helpful at all. You can also see how Sun publishes documentation for their Solaris OS. Did publish. Past tense. :-) In most cases, documentation requires you to have a minimal clue of what you're doing. There's terminology you simply have to know, and concepts to understand in order to use the documentation. Different kinds of users have different preferences. Some like to use the web, like to use Wikis and discussion boards. Others like to use structured web pages. Again, other like web pages too, but want to have as much information in _one_ (long) page. And there are those who do not want to depend on the web - those like man pages. If you're used to some specific _way_ of documentation, you will maybe value anything that's _different_ from that way as being inferior, non-professional, or less helpful. Also keep in mind that especially for developers, the SOURCE CODE also is an important piece of documentation. Here FreeBSD is very good, compared to other systems. The multiple grammatical errors only enhance the sense of its fundamentally confused nature as a document. Oh, then don't visit the non-english translations of the documentation. :-) On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: Well, in _this_ area, I would also agree that work should be done to concentrate documentation, e. g. make an essence from knowledge and examples in mailing lists, web forums and so on. But there are too many of them, and you simply cannot put all the possible things into the one documentation project. This isn't as big of a project as you make it seem. In fact, it will reduce your workload and that of your users. I have worked on documentation projects (in the medical and technical sector) before, and it was relatively easy because you KNEW enough, e. g. who your clients are, how they read, what they need to know, and what they already do know, so you had a good basis for creating documentation that fits there needs. Here the one size fits all problem arises. It's really hard to make documentation for everybody. What should be in there? How much detail is needed? What can the reader conclude himself? Which terminology is he already familiar with? I think the comments above provide a good starting point for actual discussion. It would help if you could just bring some examples for what is lacking in your opinion. As far as people proving my point about the BSD community being reactionary: [...] These angry non-sequiturs just reek of defensiveness. Note the presence of :-) and the abilities of english native speakers who are much more able to express between the lines than I am, for example. I think I predicted these behaviors when I spoke of cliques and the nasty, elitist side of geek culture. You can predict that everywhere. Just go to any halfway specialized setting and make claims about something not meeting your requirements, telling the people they are not professional and lack the most fundamental things. Of course there will be some who thing you're just trolling them, because to _them_, that's exactly what you do, even if you have other intentions. Interpretation heavily depends on specific discussion cultures. The way you communicate on this list, for example, is very different from how you write Twitter messages, SMS, or act in a different online community (e. g. like WoW gamers with their terminology and cultural techniques). -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to
Re: A quality operating system
Baloney. Sure, nothing human is perfect, that includes the people behind FreeBSD and also the OS. But compared to (gasp!,) windoz and linux, (not too bad, but it's as non-secure as windoz!,) FreeBSD and OpenBSD standout for one reason, their better. I would like to see negotiate a deal to give us pre-built java-enabled browsers. A few other things, too. On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:02:18 -0500, Evan Busch wrote: I didn't expect this much response. You always get what you deserve on this list. :-) No, seriously: There are participants of this list who understand complains and other statements in a critical tone as inspiration for improvement. But allow me to say that _if_ you are interested in contributing in _that_ way, you should always bring examples and name _concrete_ points you're criticizing, instead of just mentioning wide ranges of this doesn't conform to my interpretation of what 'professional' should look like. As long as you are professional and fair, you will get a polite and substantial (!) response. Every professional documentarian I've encountered agrees with you. It's inconsistent, wordy, and has no concept of the order of introduction of its concepts. No professional software package would ship with documentation this bad. Depends. Have a look at IBM's mainframe or midrange documentation. For those who are working with this very special kind of documentation, it may appear fully understandable, helpful and direct. For hobbyists or newbies, it may look to be the complete opposite: Not understandable, no structure, way too verbose, and not helpful at all. You can also see how Sun publishes documentation for their Solaris OS. Did publish. Past tense. :-) In most cases, documentation requires you to have a minimal clue of what you're doing. There's terminology you simply have to know, and concepts to understand in order to use the documentation. Different kinds of users have different preferences. Some like to use the web, like to use Wikis and discussion boards. Others like to use structured web pages. Again, other like web pages too, but want to have as much information in _one_ (long) page. And there are those who do not want to depend on the web - those like man pages. If you're used to some specific _way_ of documentation, you will maybe value anything that's _different_ from that way as being inferior, non-professional, or less helpful. Also keep in mind that especially for developers, the SOURCE CODE also is an important piece of documentation. Here FreeBSD is very good, compared to other systems. The multiple grammatical errors only enhance the sense of its fundamentally confused nature as a document. Oh, then don't visit the non-english translations of the documentation. :-) On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: Well, in _this_ area, I would also agree that work should be done to concentrate documentation, e. g. make an essence from knowledge and examples in mailing lists, web forums and so on. But there are too many of them, and you simply cannot put all the possible things into the one documentation project. This isn't as big of a project as you make it seem. In fact, it will reduce your workload and that of your users. I have worked on documentation projects (in the medical and technical sector) before, and it was relatively easy because you KNEW enough, e. g. who your clients are, how they read, what they need to know, and what they already do know, so you had a good basis for creating documentation that fits there needs. Here the one size fits all problem arises. It's really hard to make documentation for everybody. What should be in there? How much detail is needed? What can the reader conclude himself? Which terminology is he already familiar with? I think the comments above provide a good starting point for actual discussion. It would help if you could just bring some examples for what is lacking in your opinion. As far as people proving my point about the BSD community being reactionary: [...] These angry non-sequiturs just reek of defensiveness. Note the presence of :-) and the abilities of english native speakers who are much more able to express between the lines than I am, for example. I think I predicted these behaviors when I spoke of cliques and the nasty, elitist side of geek culture. You can predict that everywhere. Just go to any halfway specialized setting and make claims about something not meeting your requirements, telling the people they are not professional and lack the most fundamental things. Of course there will be some who thing you're just trolling them, because to _them_, that's exactly what you do, even if you have other intentions. Interpretation heavily depends on specific discussion cultures. The way
Re: A quality operating system
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:48:46 -0400, Henry Olyer wrote: Sure, nothing human is perfect, that includes the people behind FreeBSD and also the OS. And even if the OS is perfect, its 3rd party applications may be not. But compared to (gasp!,) windoz and linux, (not too bad, but it's as non-secure as windoz!,) FreeBSD and OpenBSD standout for one reason, their better. In security-related settings, you're _happy_ about this attitude. If you want a special feature, you're smart enough to enable it yourself. This often is better than stuffing all the visible holes and hoping there's just a limited amount of invisible ones that don't harm your security. In most real-life cases, that's just a nice wish, but not reality. :-) I would like to see negotiate a deal to give us pre-built java-enabled browsers. A few other things, too. But that's where politics and lawyer-blahblah enter the field. Why is there no browser with _all_ the available plugins (and even if they just run per compatibility layer) available? Or a media player (as a package) that plays _all_ types of media? Why are non-english languages often a task with trouble? Why doesn't OpenOffice come with dictionaries? And so on. I could complain all day long. :-) People complain that some things don't work out of the box. But in many cases, the FreeBSD OS is the wrong party to address. There are other parties who are interested in _not_ allowing others to include Java, media codecs and so on in a default install, and some software manufacturers refuse to support FreeBSD (which is their right, but doesn't make it any better). The same applies to restricted support for incompatible hardware. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
Hi Evan; Please allow me some comments. On Wednesday 24 August 2011 23:02:18 Evan Busch wrote: I didn't expect this much response. That's a bit naive and shows how much you don't know this list. Some interesting stuff: Here, this is mostly the case. Even the trolls are so. On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Test Rat ttse...@gmail.com wrote: There is an ongoing discussion on arch@ about this. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2011-August/011412.html This is an excellent discussion. Thank you. You bet! Full of technical details and concrete arguments. On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Dave Pooser dave-free...@pooserville.com wrote: My own take: 1) I really don't see the Handbook as all that great. It's Every professional documentarian I've encountered agrees with you. It's inconsistent, wordy, and has no concept of the order of introduction of its concepts. No professional software package would ship with documentation this bad. The multiple grammatical errors only enhance the sense of its fundamentally confused nature as a document. Well, I think the handbook has got its name wrong. To me, it should have been called handybook. What you're saying sounds more like you wanted the handbook to be a usage tutorial, which it's NOT what it is supposed to be. If you put micro$oft's docs into this picture, prepare you wallet for tons of books. And in microsoft's case, it has an obligation to take you by the hand, and IT DOESN'T !. I've been using FBSD since 2.2.8. When I first heard of it, I first did my homework: Googled for its history, its architecture, its inner workings, compatibility, etc.. (all of these are IN the handbook, by the way!) and opinions/usage by others. When I went to the handbook for the first time (not straight to it but by chance while googling for some solution), I was already a user for a good while. I already knew what FreeBSD was about, so whatever I found on the handbook was already familiar to me!. The only time I resort straight to the handbook is to the hardware compatibility list whenever I'm thinking of buying something new for the server/desktop, but BEFORE I actually buy it. For everything else, man pages and the lists are my lord and my shepard. I think Polytropon put it very well: In most cases, documentation requires you to have a minimal clue of what you're doing. There's terminology you simply have to know, and concepts to understand in order to use the documentation. As far as people proving my point about the BSD community being reactionary: (1) [snip..] Let's ponder over this in a rational and cold way. First: You never mentioned in your post for how long you have been using FreeBSD or if you have even used it at all, which its obvious simply by lack of specific details, so your critique looses the by experience tag from the start. That's a no-no for this list, which will not measure distances to help people that already tried to help themselves. Second, throughout your post, it sounds like your thoughts sprung up, not from your own quest and research, but from somebody (Ron) who is completely pro- Linux and pro-Windows, and against FreeBSD (hummm...) and that is the biggest UNIX fanatic I know(100x hummm...). And Ron's millage with FreeBSD is never mentioned also, so that kinda drops the critique's credibility tag to the floor. Last, suppose you issue a general invitation for people to go over to your house for a free dinner, with food that you know (because you helped in preparing it!) in your heart and taste to be excellent, well prepared and nutritious. And all of a sudden I storm at your door and yell for all the guests that already know what you know about the food, without even tasting anything, that a very good and knowledgeable friend of mine told me that the kitchen is as dirty as hell, the food tastes terrible and that all the guests will get diarrhea and probably die if they eat anything. What would you do? -- Mario Lobo http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br FreeBSD since 2.2.8 [not Pro-Audio YET!!] (99% winblows FREE) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:24:51 -0300, Mario Lobo wrote: Well, I think the handbook has got its name wrong. To me, it should have been called handybook. What you're saying sounds more like you wanted the handbook to be a usage tutorial, which it's NOT what it is supposed to be. That's a valid point of view. When you compare how other publications, named Handbook look like e. g. in the mainframe area, you'll be surprised what quality they are: They're aimed at a totally different audience, and they have different concepts of how to present information. If you put micro$oft's docs into this picture, prepare you wallet for tons of books. And in microsoft's case, it has an obligation to take you by the hand, and IT DOESN'T !. Additionally, keep in mind to buy the whole set _new_ with each version of Windows being sold. Windows knowledge has the habit of not being portable, so what you knew from, let's say, almost 10 years old Windows XP doesn't apply in newer versions anymore. You have to relearn many things. This shows: NO kind of documentation frees you from constant learning - if you want to keep using new technology. The only time I resort straight to the handbook is to the hardware compatibility list whenever I'm thinking of buying something new for the server/desktop, but BEFORE I actually buy it. Shoudln't it be mandatory to _think_ BEFORE acting in any regards? Oh sorry, I forgot: PC on, brain off. :-) I think Polytropon put it very well: In most cases, documentation requires you to have a minimal clue of what you're doing. There's terminology you simply have to know, and concepts to understand in order to use the documentation. Thanks. I did have to learn this the hard way: In order to really profit from good documentation, you need to understand what it says. Even in Windows land, where you have to learn new and arbitrary vocabulary for established things (that everyone else can name correctly), and you have to get all the strange concepts in line, beginning with drive letters and ending in reboots after few changes. :-) The FreeBSD documentation even keeps that in mind: It mentions the Windows terms for things just in case some reader is already spoiled with those deviant terminology (e. g. when explaining what a slice is). Second, throughout your post, it sounds like your thoughts sprung up, not from your own quest and research, but from somebody (Ron) who is completely pro- Linux and pro-Windows, and against FreeBSD (hummm...) and that is the biggest UNIX fanatic I know(100x hummm...). And Ron's millage with FreeBSD is never mentioned also, so that kinda drops the critique's credibility tag to the floor. What's the word that may apply here? Prejudice? Last, suppose you issue a general invitation for people to go over to your house for a free dinner, with food that you know (because you helped in preparing it!) in your heart and taste to be excellent, well prepared and nutritious. And all of a sudden I storm at your door and yell for all the guests that already know what you know about the food, without even tasting anything, that a very good and knowledgeable friend of mine told me that the kitchen is as dirty as hell, the food tastes terrible and that all the guests will get diarrhea and probably die if they eat anything. What would you do? Wow, what a nice analogy! =^_^= -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:13:32 -0500, Jorge Biquez wrote: Seriously I would like to see or hear about the comparison chart between all OSs. And a question arrive to my mind... if for some reason, I know it is impossible, but if for some reason FreeBSD would stop existing... serious users of FreeBSD, what would be your next OS? Why? Surely one of the other BSDs (OpenBSD as 1st choice, NetBSD as second), maybe some of the more UNIX-like Linusi (the too complicated ones, maybe those relying on source), and of course Solaris and Mac OS X are worth mentioning here. Those systems could be productive and good to maintain if FreeBSD should ever disappear. Personally, I have experiences with OpenBSD, Solaris and IRIX mainly, as well as some smaller Mac OS skills, so those would be my point of orientation. Of course, _what_ to use them for would be determining the choice. But again allow me to express that this is my very individual opinion that doesn't neccessarily apply to others. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
Allow me some short :-) comments. On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 16:18:50 -0400, Alejandro Imass wrote: Disagree. I've worked with FreeBSD since 6.2 and it's only been getting better and better. FreeBSD is getting faster and better whilst Linux really seems to have drifted from direction like you say. Using it since 4.0, I've always been impressed that updating the system meant a speed improvement. More functionality and shorter startup times were things you could actually _see_ in operation. So if you kept the same hardware and updated the OS, it always got better. Sadly, it's the 3rd party software you traditionally install by the ports collection that takes away those advantages. leading to a slower system. Like in Windows land, you need to upgrade your hardware to keep the _same_ speed. Additionally, there often is functionality that gets lost and cannot be restored again because the programmers removed it in the attempt to improve their programs. May I name a few? I may. :-) The xzgv viewer, after being updated to Gtk+ (instead of Gtk) hast lost the ability to adjust image brightness and contrast. Keyboard interaction removed some features. The Opera web browser now can't access a normal LPR system anymore. It seems to require CUPS, and even if this is installed and configured, it doesn't print (at least not in my case). The file dialogs, as well as the handling of some context menues got really crippled. Configuration has been moved to a Registry-like pile of... you know. Functioning programs like Sylpheed 1 (using Gtk) also get removed from the ports tree because they are obsolete. In the past few days of horror, I was lucky to be able to _use_ this program because it worked - unlike its modern counterparts. I could carry on for many pages (or days). :-) Let's just say that if you want to have a stable system, there _may_ be cases where it's wise to install _once_ and then keep using, _not_ touching it anymore. But you could achieve such states with nearly any OS, so it's not specific to FreeBSD here. I don't think there is any doubt that FreeBSD as such is more a server-oriented OS that can be configured as a high-end Workstation. PC-BSD on the other hand is aiming more for the Laptop and Workstation user whilst maintaining it's FBSD core intact. There are other specialized FreeBSD derivates for specific uses and purposes. We haven't experienced this ever. Both with Linux and FreeBSD you will experience this depending mainly on hardware support. It's got nothing to do with the OS but with the fact that HW manufacturers don't support Open Source simply because they hardware is getting cheaper every day being replaced by software that eats up the central CPU. In many cases, they invent something new instead of simply conforming to existing standards. Just imagine you would need a driver for your hard disk. :-) Honestly I don't understand where you are getting this from. I don't seem to have experienced anything like what you are describing. On the contrary, I find FreeBSD to very organized and well maintained. In this regards (being organized): See man hier and compare to what different Linusi store where. Then try to find out where Windows stores things. Good luck. :-) This is so funny because I loved FreeBSD from the start precisely because it had a one and only handbook, not like Linux where every distro does whatever the hell they want with their docs. Like having no documentation, leaving it to the users to write the documentation in some arbitrary Wikis. :-) Also, the way that Linux distros change the original projects and configuration files layout is really anoying to me. Portability across different distributions can be quite problematic, it's like transitioning configuration material from Solaris to HP-UX or to IRIX, which are different operating systems. FreeBSD stays aligned with the original project and lays out the installation and configuration structure that is faithful to the original project. The strength within this concept is that you can _predict_ where you'll _find_ certain things, without _searching_ for them. This is the strength of logic and deduction. The opposite is don't care, put it into an arbitrary place or put it in many different places, choose something new when updating. And of course, if you use FreeBSD you probably use the ports system and try to install everything from source anyway. I think a major problem is that many users still expect that installing software means opening a web browser, using google to find something, then download it, then go through some wizard with high interaction, step by step, handholding the system, and then rebooting. This also implies that they expect every program to care for its own updates. A centralized means like it's present in FreeBSD is, in my opinion, much more logical and modern than those stange and old-fashioned concept that usually is employed to get spyware on
Re: A quality operating system
On 08/23/11 10:24, Polytropon wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:13:32 -0500, Jorge Biquez wrote: Seriously I would like to see or hear about the comparison chart between all OSs. And a question arrive to my mind... if for some reason, I know it is impossible, but if for some reason FreeBSD would stop existing... serious users of FreeBSD, what would be your next OS? Why? Surely one of the other BSDs (OpenBSD as 1st choice, NetBSD as second), maybe some of the more UNIX-like Linusi (the too complicated ones, maybe those relying on source), and of course Solaris and Mac OS X are worth mentioning here. Those systems could be productive and good to maintain if FreeBSD should ever disappear. ciao, i reference to rule #10 of RFC1925 that states : One size never fit all from my point of view it is a truth also in OS, not only in networking. as long as my goal is a videogame station the quality OS maybe very different from the one i will consider qualitative for a webfarm. in short the goal drives choice, and from my experience (over 35 years in IT) FreeBSD is the best-fit for use in internetworking, partially due to his resilence, partially for the overall quality of the kernel, partially for the ease-of-use, the ease-to-understood, open-source software availability and more minor properties it is relatively simple to build and maintain a webfarm with FreeBSD as the *exclusive* OS without fear of hackers, spam, virus and almost all internet-zoo. in short : i *love* FreeBSD, if ever it will die feel there are more and more volunteers to bulid a new one that will honour the twelve networking rules cheers Alessandro ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On 21/08/2011 03:47, Jorge Biquez wrote: Hello. I insist Can we know what was the OS you all decided to use ? Thanks Jorge Biquez ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org I have five machine 3 are running FreeBSD 8.2 and 2 are running FreeBSD 8.1 And 2 are running amd64 :) FreeBSD, what else? -- David Demelier ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Matthew Seaman m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk wrote: On 21/08/2011 05:13, Jorge Biquez wrote: if for some reason, I know it is impossible, but if for some reason FreeBSD would stop existing... serious users of FreeBSD, what would be your next OS? If the FreeBSD project disbanded (for some unimaginable reason), then I guess I'd have to choose an OS based on one of the forks of FreeBSD code base that would undoubtedly be created as a reaction to that. About the only thing that could conceivably cause FreeBSD to disband would be some sort of deep schism and internecine conflict within the developer community. Even so, the usual course is for one of the schismatic groups to leave in a huff and start their own project, leaving the rump of the original to lick its wounds and carry on. We've survived the biggest schism so far: the dropping of Beastie as the default image in /boot/loader.conf and the introduction of the sex toy logo. Since the community could survive this dual tragedy, I'm optimistic it'll survive almost ANYTHING. :-) -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Aug 21, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Adam Vande More wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Daniel Staal dst...@usa.net wrote: --As of August 20, 2011 7:01:07 PM -0700, Carl G Smith is alleged to have said: I have heard that the OS X OS is based on FreeBSD. Is this true? --As for the rest, it is mine. Partially. It combines a mostly Mach kernel with some FreeBSD-derived userland and interfaces, then adds a proprietary window manager and UI on top of the rest. So the largest single source of code is probably FreeBSD, but neither the kernel or the part most people interact with isn't. This is incorrect. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-advocacy/2008-August/003674.html I read the article... and it says that the largest single source of code when it was written was FreeBSD. 21MM lines out of 39MM overall. Now since then they've released a lot of new features and what-not so I doubt it still holds at 53.8% but I would bet it is still the single largest source of code. Does it matter? No. Thank you. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 11:13:32PM -0500, Jorge Biquez wrote: Hello. ;=) Thanks for the comments.. :=) No, I am curious what they decided to use that covers all the points , at least better that FreeBSD. Seriously I would like to see or hear about the comparison chart between all OSs. And a question arrive to my mind... if for some reason, I know it is impossible, but if for some reason FreeBSD would stop existing... serious users of FreeBSD, what would be your next OS? Why? I'd have to do some serious thinking about the comparative benefits of DragonFly BSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and a number of Linux distributions. I have a sneaking suspicion I'd end up with NetBSD or OpenBSD, though. Note that I'm talking about my primary OS of choice. I use OSes other than FreeBSD already for specific purposes (i.e., Win7 for portability testing, OpenBSD for firewall/router). -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpn8Fh8rz5P5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A quality operating system
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 11:13:32PM -0500, Jorge Biquez wrote: Hello. ;=) Thanks for the comments.. :=) No, I am curious what they decided to use that covers all the points , at least better that FreeBSD. Seriously I would like to see or hear about the comparison chart between all OSs. And a question arrive to my mind... if for some reason, I know it is impossible, but if for some reason FreeBSD would stop existing... serious users of FreeBSD, what would be your next OS? Why? Take care all I would/use NetBSD and OpenBSD beside FreeBSD. If NetBSD or OpenBSD would stop existing, I would never upgrade my systems :) Fortunately, I have no doubts about existing of BSDs... JB At 09:09 p.m. 20/08/2011, Ryan Coleman wrote: I use FreeBSD 9, 8.2 and 8.1. OS X 10.7 (Lion) Windows 7 Professional (64-bit), Windows Vista Ultimate (64-bit) and Windows XP Professional (32-bit). iOS 4, Blackberry 6 and Android 2.2.2. Oh, you weren't asking me. Sorry. :-p On Aug 20, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Jorge Biquez wrote: Hello. I insist Can we know what was the OS you all decided to use ? Thanks Jorge Biquez ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- Christian Barthel Public-Key: http://bc.user-mode.org/bc.asc Mail: b...@nyx.user-mode.org Web: http://bc.user-mode.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
in FreeBSd is similar (many times identical) to they way they would be set-up if you installed these packages from source. And of course, if you use FreeBSD you probably use the ports system and try to install everything from source anyway. (4) Elitism. To a developer, looking at some inconsistent or buggy interface and thinking, If they can't do this, they don't belong using FreeBSD anyway is too easy of a thought. Yet it looks to me like this happens quite a bit, and this is for the elite has become the default orientation. This is problematic in that there are people out there who are every bit as smart as you, or smarter, but are not specialized in computers. They want to use computers to achieve results; you may want to play around with your computer as an activity, but that is not so for everyone. I don't want to be insulting, but honestly I think this is a load of crap. There is elitism in both Linux and FreeBSD and as you say all over the Internet. That is a fact of hacking and you have to live with it. I also share time in the Perl community and many others and they are just the same or worse. mainly intolerant to the lazy. We are all volunteers here and we usually try to help those that have first helped themselves. Using open Source is not for the faint of heart, and it's a fact for all Open Source, not specific to FreeBSD. (5) Hostile community. For the last several weeks, I have been observing the FreeBSD community. Two things stand out: many legitimate questions go ignored, and for others, response is hostile resulting in either incorrect answers, haughty snubs, and in many cases, a refusal to admit when the Yes. I agree with you here, and I could rant out quite a bit on some 'attitude' problem at least on this list, but again, I've seen this everywhere so I don't get personally affected by it. Furthermore, since I don't feel I have contributed enough to this project I don't think I'm in a position to criticize other folks that have been here longer and that contribute more than I do. I believe that one has to gain that right, and again, the Open Source culture so it's not a FreeBSD-only problem like you are trying to convey. problem is FreeBSD and not the user. In particular, the community is oblivious to interfaces and chunks of code that have illogical or inconsistent interfaces, are buggy, or whose function does not correspond to what is documented (even in the manpages). I think you should point to some examples here or lose credibility. It could very well be the case, and since you are saying this you must also have many good and obvious examples, which I personally haven't seen. (6) Selective fixes. I am guilty of this too, sometimes, but when you hope to build an operating system, it is a poor idea. Programmers work on what they want to work on. This leaves much of the unexciting stuff in a literal non-working state, and the entire community oblivious to it or uncaring. As Ron detailed, huge parts of FreeBSD are like buried land mines just waiting to detonate. They are details that can invoke that 30 minute to 96 hour time period instantly, usually right before you need to get something done. Man, where are you getting all this? I've used FreeBSD for several years now. i have been able to major upgrades (6 to 7 to 8) something that I have NEVER been able to do with ANY Linux. Again I think if you are to state these claims you should really be more specific. (7) Disorganized website. The part of the FreeBSD project that should set the tone for the community, the FreeBSD website, reflects every one of these criticisms. It is inconsistent and often disorganized; there is no clear path; resources are duplicated and squirreled away instead of organized and made into a process for others to follow. It is arcane, nuanced and cryptic for the purpose of keeping the community elitist, hobbyist and hostile to outsiders. Again, what are you talking about? I feel that you switch from a real concerned and serious person to troll-like in several parts of your post. Maybe it's because you are stating the biased opinions of someone else, or simply because it's just a collection of unfounded rants you collected from a frustrated development team? In addition, huge portions of it break on a regular basis and seem to go unnoticed. The attitude of that's for beginners, so we don't need it persists even there. With the graphic design of the website I have no problem, but the arrangement of resources on it reflects a lack of presence of mind, or paying attention to the user experience. What breaks? Where? All of this adds up to a quality operating system in theory that does not translate into quality in reality. By this part of your post I think you boss simply doesn't like FreeBSD period. You don't have to come here and make up all this stuff just to justify that. Heck I may have my problems with several people here, but that doesn't
Re: A quality operating system
On 21/08/2011 05:13, Jorge Biquez wrote: if for some reason, I know it is impossible, but if for some reason FreeBSD would stop existing... serious users of FreeBSD, what would be your next OS? If the FreeBSD project disbanded (for some unimaginable reason), then I guess I'd have to choose an OS based on one of the forks of FreeBSD code base that would undoubtedly be created as a reaction to that. About the only thing that could conceivably cause FreeBSD to disband would be some sort of deep schism and internecine conflict within the developer community. Even so, the usual course is for one of the schismatic groups to leave in a huff and start their own project, leaving the rump of the original to lick its wounds and carry on. Any damage is generally only a temporary thing: eventually it makes the whole community stronger due to cross fertilization between the various different branches. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: A quality operating system
Evan Busch antiequal...@gmail.com writes: [...] Even when you get big parts of the operating system correct, it's the thousand little details that have been forgotten, ignored or snootily written off that add up to many hours of frustration for the end user. This is not necessary frustration, and they get nothing out of it. It seems to exist because of the emotional and social attitudes of the FreeBSD team. There is an ongoing discussion on arch@ about this. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2011-August/011412.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 07:47, Evan Busch antiequal...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I make decisions about hardware and software for those who work with me. Talking with my second in command this morning, we reached a quandary. Ron is completely pro-Linux and pro-Windows, and against FreeBSD. What is odd about this is that he's the biggest UNIX fanatic I know, not only all types of UNIX (dating back quite some time) but also all Unix-like OSen. I told him I was considering FreeBSD because of greater stability and security. He asked me a question that stopped me dead: What is a quality operating system? In his view, and now mine, a quality operating system is reliable, streamlined and clearly organized. Over the past few years, FreeBSD has drifted off-course in this department, in his view. Let me share the points he made that I consider valid (I have deleted two as trivial, and added one of my own): (1) Lack of direction. FreeBSD is still not sure whether it is a desktop OS, or a server OS. It is easy for the developers to say well, it's whatever you want, but this makes the configuration process more involved. This works against people who have to use these operating systems to get anything done. I think it's not about being sure. It's there for you to use the way you like. There is only 1 FreeBSD. If you want to build a server, FreeBSD does it. If you want a Desktop, it does it too. You just need to have an open mind. Surely, I did not ever hear anyone say FreeBSD should be used as a Desktop OS though. It's meant to be a server. There is PC-BSD project which is working to create a Desktop environment of FreeBSD. If you guys want a Desktop, you need to head in that direction. In his view, a crucial metric here is the ability to estimate time required for any task. It may be a wide window, but it should not be as wide as anywhere from 30 minutes to 96 hours. In his experience, FreeBSD varies widely on this front because in the name of keeping options open, standardization of interface and process has been deprecated. That whole paragraph is some irrelevant assertion. The time taken by an OS to process some work does not depend on the name of the OS. It depends on the hardware, applications being used and the underlying processing. Would he care to tell us exactly how Linux (whichever it is) does this estimation? Based on what? (2) Geek culture. Geek culture is the oldest clique on the internet. Their goal is to make friends with no one who is not like them. As a result, they specialize in the arcane, disorganized and ambiguous. This forces people to go through the same hoops they went through. This makes them happy, and drives away people who need to use operating systems to achieve real-world results. They reduce a community to hobbyists only. I haven't experienced this in the FreeBSD community, as long as a new user asks questions smartly. Most people, not just the geeks, and including you, wouldn't want to spend time with a crystal ball trying to figure out what someone wants to do if they do not ask their questions in a way that is clear and forthright. (3) Horrible documentation. This is my specialty and has been since the early 1980s. The FreeBSD documentation is wordy, disorganized, inconsistent and highly selective in what it mentions. It is not the product of professionals but it also not the product of volunteers with a focus on communication. It seems pro-forma, as in, it's in the documentation, so don't bother me. The web site compounds this error by pointing us in multiple directions instead of to a singular resource. It is bad enough that man pages are separate from your main documentation tree, but now you have doubled or trebled the workload required of you without any benefit to the end user. Well, everytime I want to do something on FreeBSD, I always find the documentation. If it is not sufficient, the source code is there, and the developers are there. I just need to raise the issue with the developers. This has never failed me. The documentation is done by volunteers and is open for everyone who finds a mistake to correct it and send patches. Isn't that what Open Source is all about? I have never tried to compare FreeBSD and MS Windows documentation at any time. The distinction between those behind the two is quite clear. (4) Elitism. To a developer, looking at some inconsistent or buggy interface and thinking, If they can't do this, they don't belong using FreeBSD anyway is too easy of a thought. Yet it looks to me like this happens quite a bit, and this is for the elite has become the default orientation. Could you please qualify that allegation by examples? You can include the URLs where this is exhibited. This is problematic in that there are people out there who are every bit as smart as you, or smarter, but are not specialized in computers. They want to use computers to achieve results; you may
Re: A quality operating system
Perhaps you would be happier at an Apple Store. I lost you at documentation. Obviously you have not read the handbook, or one of the excellent books -- Absolute BSD for example. -- Gary Dunn, Honolulu Open Slate Project http://openslate.org http://www.facebook.com/openslate Twitter @openslateproj Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 23:47:04 -0500 Evan Busch antiequal...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I make decisions about hardware and software for those who work with me. Talking with my second in command this morning, we reached a quandary. Ron is completely pro-Linux and pro-Windows, and against FreeBSD. What is odd about this is that he's the biggest UNIX fanatic I know, not only all types of UNIX (dating back quite some time) but also all Unix-like OSen. I told him I was considering FreeBSD because of greater stability and security. He asked me a question that stopped me dead: What is a quality operating system? In his view, and now mine, a quality operating system is reliable, streamlined and clearly organized. Over the past few years, FreeBSD has drifted off-course in this department, in his view. Let me share the points he made that I consider valid (I have deleted two as trivial, and added one of my own): (1) Lack of direction. FreeBSD is still not sure whether it is a desktop OS, or a server OS. It is easy for the developers to say well, it's whatever you want, but this makes the configuration process more involved. This works against people who have to use these operating systems to get anything done. There is no difference between the two, only what one uses it as. In his view, a crucial metric here is the ability to estimate time required for any task. It may be a wide window, but it should not be as wide as anywhere from 30 minutes to 96 hours. In his experience, FreeBSD varies widely on this front because in the name of keeping options open, standardization of interface and process has been deprecated. This makes zero sense with out any further information. (2) Geek culture. Geek culture is the oldest clique on the internet. Their goal is to make friends with no one who is not like them. As a result, they specialize in the arcane, disorganized and ambiguous. This forces people to go through the same hoops they went through. This makes them happy, and drives away people who need to use operating systems to achieve real-world results. They reduce a community to hobbyists only. (3) Horrible documentation. This is my specialty and has been since the early 1980s. The FreeBSD documentation is wordy, disorganized, inconsistent and highly selective in what it mentions. It is not the product of professionals but it also not the product of volunteers with a focus on communication. It seems pro-forma, as in, it's in the documentation, so don't bother me. The web site compounds this error by pointing us in multiple directions instead of to a singular resource. It is bad enough that man pages are separate from your main documentation tree, but now you have doubled or trebled the workload required of you without any benefit to the end user. I find it questionable if the person saying this has ever dealt with either Windows or Linux in any notable manner. Windows has documentation and lots of it. Every single bit of it extremely disorganized. In general with Linux I've found it is generally missing lots of information when it is present at all. (4) Elitism. To a developer, looking at some inconsistent or buggy interface and thinking, If they can't do this, they don't belong using FreeBSD anyway is too easy of a thought. Yet it looks to me like this happens quite a bit, and this is for the elite has become the default orientation. This is problematic in that there are people out there who are every bit as smart as you, or smarter, but are not specialized in computers. They want to use computers to achieve results; you may want to play around with your computer as an activity, but that is not so for everyone. Inconsistent and/or buggy? With out context this is pointless. (5) Hostile community. For the last several weeks, I have been observing the FreeBSD community. Two things stand out: many legitimate questions go ignored, and for others, response is hostile resulting in either incorrect answers, haughty snubs, and in many cases, a refusal to admit when the problem is FreeBSD and not the user. In particular, the community is oblivious to interfaces and chunks of code that have illogical or inconsistent interfaces, are buggy, or whose function does not correspond to what is documented (even in the manpages). And this person likes Linux? (6) Selective fixes. I am guilty of this too, sometimes, but when you hope to build an operating system, it is a poor idea. Programmers work on what they want to work on. This leaves much of the unexciting stuff in a literal non-working state, and the entire community oblivious to it or uncaring. As Ron detailed, huge parts of FreeBSD are like buried land mines just waiting to detonate. They are details that can invoke that 30 minute to 96 hour time period instantly, usually right before you need to get something done. No context... (7) Disorganized website
SV: A quality operating system
Happy Trolling :-) /Hasse -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] På vegne af Evan Busch Sendt: den 20 augusti 2011 06:47 Til: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Emne: A quality operating system Hi, I make decisions about hardware and software for those who work with me. Talking with my second in command this morning, we reached a quandary. Ron is completely pro-Linux and pro-Windows, and against FreeBSD. What is odd about this is that he's the biggest UNIX fanatic I know, not only all types of UNIX (dating back quite some time) but also all Unix-like OSen. I told him I was considering FreeBSD because of greater stability and security. He asked me a question that stopped me dead: What is a quality operating system? In his view, and now mine, a quality operating system is reliable, streamlined and clearly organized. Over the past few years, FreeBSD has drifted off-course in this department, in his view. Let me share the points he made that I consider valid (I have deleted two as trivial, and added one of my own): (1) Lack of direction. FreeBSD is still not sure whether it is a desktop OS, or a server OS. It is easy for the developers to say well, it's whatever you want, but this makes the configuration process more involved. This works against people who have to use these operating systems to get anything done. In his view, a crucial metric here is the ability to estimate time required for any task. It may be a wide window, but it should not be as wide as anywhere from 30 minutes to 96 hours. In his experience, FreeBSD varies widely on this front because in the name of keeping options open, standardization of interface and process has been deprecated. (2) Geek culture. Geek culture is the oldest clique on the internet. Their goal is to make friends with no one who is not like them. As a result, they specialize in the arcane, disorganized and ambiguous. This forces people to go through the same hoops they went through. This makes them happy, and drives away people who need to use operating systems to achieve real-world results. They reduce a community to hobbyists only. (3) Horrible documentation. This is my specialty and has been since the early 1980s. The FreeBSD documentation is wordy, disorganized, inconsistent and highly selective in what it mentions. It is not the product of professionals but it also not the product of volunteers with a focus on communication. It seems pro-forma, as in, it's in the documentation, so don't bother me. The web site compounds this error by pointing us in multiple directions instead of to a singular resource. It is bad enough that man pages are separate from your main documentation tree, but now you have doubled or trebled the workload required of you without any benefit to the end user. (4) Elitism. To a developer, looking at some inconsistent or buggy interface and thinking, If they can't do this, they don't belong using FreeBSD anyway is too easy of a thought. Yet it looks to me like this happens quite a bit, and this is for the elite has become the default orientation. This is problematic in that there are people out there who are every bit as smart as you, or smarter, but are not specialized in computers. They want to use computers to achieve results; you may want to play around with your computer as an activity, but that is not so for everyone. (5) Hostile community. For the last several weeks, I have been observing the FreeBSD community. Two things stand out: many legitimate questions go ignored, and for others, response is hostile resulting in either incorrect answers, haughty snubs, and in many cases, a refusal to admit when the problem is FreeBSD and not the user. In particular, the community is oblivious to interfaces and chunks of code that have illogical or inconsistent interfaces, are buggy, or whose function does not correspond to what is documented (even in the manpages). (6) Selective fixes. I am guilty of this too, sometimes, but when you hope to build an operating system, it is a poor idea. Programmers work on what they want to work on. This leaves much of the unexciting stuff in a literal non-working state, and the entire community oblivious to it or uncaring. As Ron detailed, huge parts of FreeBSD are like buried land mines just waiting to detonate. They are details that can invoke that 30 minute to 96 hour time period instantly, usually right before you need to get something done. (7) Disorganized website. The part of the FreeBSD project that should set the tone for the community, the FreeBSD website, reflects every one of these criticisms. It is inconsistent and often disorganized; there is no clear path; resources are duplicated and squirreled away instead of organized and made into a process for others to follow. It is arcane, nuanced and cryptic for the purpose of keeping the community elitist, hobbyist and hostile to outsiders. In addition, huge
Re: A quality operating system
Hello. Very interesting... let's see the answers from the experts By the way maybe answer me off topic... so then what was your choice of OS? Jorge Biquez At 11:47 p.m. 19/08/2011, you wrote: Hi, I make decisions about hardware and software for those who work with me. Talking with my second in command this morning, we reached a quandary. Ron is completely pro-Linux and pro-Windows, and against FreeBSD. What is odd about this is that he's the biggest UNIX fanatic I know, not only all types of UNIX (dating back quite some time) but also all Unix-like OSen. I told him I was considering FreeBSD because of greater stability and security. He asked me a question that stopped me dead: What is a quality operating system? In his view, and now mine, a quality operating system is reliable, streamlined and clearly organized. Over the past few years, FreeBSD has drifted off-course in this department, in his view. Let me share the points he made that I consider valid (I have deleted two as trivial, and added one of my own): (1) Lack of direction. FreeBSD is still not sure whether it is a desktop OS, or a server OS. It is easy for the developers to say well, it's whatever you want, but this makes the configuration process more involved. This works against people who have to use these operating systems to get anything done. In his view, a crucial metric here is the ability to estimate time required for any task. It may be a wide window, but it should not be as wide as anywhere from 30 minutes to 96 hours. In his experience, FreeBSD varies widely on this front because in the name of keeping options open, standardization of interface and process has been deprecated. (2) Geek culture. Geek culture is the oldest clique on the internet. Their goal is to make friends with no one who is not like them. As a result, they specialize in the arcane, disorganized and ambiguous. This forces people to go through the same hoops they went through. This makes them happy, and drives away people who need to use operating systems to achieve real-world results. They reduce a community to hobbyists only. (3) Horrible documentation. This is my specialty and has been since the early 1980s. The FreeBSD documentation is wordy, disorganized, inconsistent and highly selective in what it mentions. It is not the product of professionals but it also not the product of volunteers with a focus on communication. It seems pro-forma, as in, it's in the documentation, so don't bother me. The web site compounds this error by pointing us in multiple directions instead of to a singular resource. It is bad enough that man pages are separate from your main documentation tree, but now you have doubled or trebled the workload required of you without any benefit to the end user. (4) Elitism. To a developer, looking at some inconsistent or buggy interface and thinking, If they can't do this, they don't belong using FreeBSD anyway is too easy of a thought. Yet it looks to me like this happens quite a bit, and this is for the elite has become the default orientation. This is problematic in that there are people out there who are every bit as smart as you, or smarter, but are not specialized in computers. They want to use computers to achieve results; you may want to play around with your computer as an activity, but that is not so for everyone. (5) Hostile community. For the last several weeks, I have been observing the FreeBSD community. Two things stand out: many legitimate questions go ignored, and for others, response is hostile resulting in either incorrect answers, haughty snubs, and in many cases, a refusal to admit when the problem is FreeBSD and not the user. In particular, the community is oblivious to interfaces and chunks of code that have illogical or inconsistent interfaces, are buggy, or whose function does not correspond to what is documented (even in the manpages). (6) Selective fixes. I am guilty of this too, sometimes, but when you hope to build an operating system, it is a poor idea. Programmers work on what they want to work on. This leaves much of the unexciting stuff in a literal non-working state, and the entire community oblivious to it or uncaring. As Ron detailed, huge parts of FreeBSD are like buried land mines just waiting to detonate. They are details that can invoke that 30 minute to 96 hour time period instantly, usually right before you need to get something done. (7) Disorganized website. The part of the FreeBSD project that should set the tone for the community, the FreeBSD website, reflects every one of these criticisms. It is inconsistent and often disorganized; there is no clear path; resources are duplicated and squirreled away instead of organized and made into a process for others to follow. It is arcane, nuanced and cryptic for the purpose of keeping the community elitist, hobbyist and hostile to outsiders. In addition, huge portions of it break on a regular basis and seem to go
Re: A quality operating system
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:47:04PM -0500, Evan Busch wrote: Hi, I make decisions about hardware and software for those who work with me. Talking with my second in command this morning, we reached a quandary. Ron is completely pro-Linux and pro-Windows, and against FreeBSD. What is odd about this is that he's the biggest UNIX fanatic I know, not only all types of UNIX (dating back quite some time) but also all Unix-like OSen. I told him I was considering FreeBSD because of greater stability and security. He asked me a question that stopped me dead: What is a quality operating system? One that works reliably - like FreeBSD. I hope it is confy under that bridge. jerry ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On 8/20/11 1:49 AM, Test Rat ttse...@gmail.com wrote: There is an ongoing discussion on arch@ about this. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2011-August/011412.html Thanks for posting that link; it covered some of the reasons I'm retiring my office FreeBSD servers in favor of Solaris and Linux. My own take: 1) I really don't see the Handbook as all that great. It's great that a volunteer team put it together, but when I compare it to https://access.redhat.com/knowledge/docs/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/ or http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E19963-01/index.html, I don't think the FreeBSD handbook compares well. 2) Lack of geek-on-the-street support. If I'm looking for an experienced Linux administrator, I'll get thousands of applications; for a Solaris administrator, I'll get hundreds. For a BSD admin? Maybe half a dozen? 3) Updates are a mess. It's cool that I *can* compile a new kernel, but that I *have* to is ridiculous. Updating a server should not be more difficult than yum update -- full stop. 4) Poor support from running FreeBSD under virtualization. When I start to think about deploying a new server, I'll generally spin up a new VM on my workstation or on an ESXi host. If I have trouble with that VM, my first response is not going to be to try again with the same OS, it's going to be to fall back to a configuration I know works. There are some things I liked a lot about FreeBSD -- its support for DTrace and ZFS was the reason I looked into it in the first place. But from where I sit, technologies like that are just duct-taped on to the base system rather than integrated. (For example, why isn't there something like the [Open]Solaris beadm, where the system creates a ZFS snapshot automatically before any major updates to let you revert to not just an earlier kernel but an earlier world?) Just my $.02. -- Dave Pooser Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com ...Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece, but to slide across the finish line broadside, thoroughly used up, worn out, leaking oil, and shouting GERONIMO!!! -- Bill McKenna ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 23:47:04 -0500 Evan Busch antiequal...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I make decisions about hardware and software for those who work with me. Talking with my second in command this morning, we reached a quandary. Ron is completely pro-Linux and pro-Windows, and against FreeBSD. Ron must be a pretty persuasive fellow. Obviously, his bias has already rubbed off on you. :-) What is odd about this is that he's the biggest UNIX fanatic I know, not only all types of UNIX (dating back quite some time) but also all Unix-like OSen. Odd is putting it mildly. I told him I was considering FreeBSD because of greater stability and security. He asked me a question that stopped me dead: What is a quality operating system? In a word, FreeBSD. In his view, and now mine, a quality operating system is reliable, streamlined and clearly organized. You mean, like FreeBSD. Over the past few years, FreeBSD has drifted off-course in this department, in his view. Let me share the points he made that I consider valid (I have deleted two as trivial, and added one of my own): (1) Lack of direction. FreeBSD is still not sure whether it is a desktop OS, or a server OS. It is easy for the developers to say well, it's whatever you want, but this makes the configuration process more involved. This works against people who have to use these operating systems to get anything done. In his view, a crucial metric here is the ability to estimate time required for any task. It may be a wide window, but it should not be as wide as anywhere from 30 minutes to 96 hours. In his experience, FreeBSD varies widely on this front because in the name of keeping options open, standardization of interface and process has been deprecated. If I'm understanding the main thrust of this argument, you'd prefer that FreeBSD, like many Linux distros (or Windows), force the same desktop/interface/user environment on everyone from the get-go. Many here would disagree with such a philosophy (myself, included). (2) Geek culture. Geek culture is the oldest clique on the internet. Their goal is to make friends with no one who is not like them. As a result, they specialize in the arcane, disorganized and ambiguous. This forces people to go through the same hoops they went through. This makes them happy, and drives away people who need to use operating systems to achieve real-world results. They reduce a community to hobbyists only. This is sheer nonsense. Unless you have some salient information to backup such an assertion, it's not worth responding to. (3) Horrible documentation. Say what!?!?!? This is my specialty and has been since the early 1980s. The FreeBSD documentation is wordy, disorganized, inconsistent and highly selective in what it mentions. It is not the product of professionals but it also not the product of volunteers with a focus on communication. It seems pro-forma, as in, it's in the documentation, so don't bother me. The web site compounds this error by pointing us in multiple directions instead of to a singular resource. It is bad enough that man pages are separate from your main documentation tree, but now you have doubled or trebled the workload required of you without any benefit to the end user. This is just plain crazy. Where would you suggest the man pages go? The base set of man pages document the base system, and as such, are situated exactly where they belong. As for shoddy documentation, spend a week or two with any Linux distro, and see how quickly you run up against inconsistencies between the man pages and the actual functionality built into certain programs. Options mentioned in the man pages often don't exist in reality, and vice versa. (4) Elitism. To a developer, looking at some inconsistent or buggy interface and thinking, If they can't do this, they don't belong using FreeBSD anyway is too easy of a thought. Yet it looks to me like this happens quite a bit, and this is for the elite has become the default orientation. This is problematic in that there are people out there who are every bit as smart as you, or smarter, but are not specialized in computers. They want to use computers to achieve results; you may want to play around with your computer as an activity, but that is not so for everyone. (5) Hostile community. For the last several weeks, I have been observing the FreeBSD community. Two things stand out: many legitimate questions go ignored, and for others, response is hostile resulting in either incorrect answers, haughty snubs, and in many cases, a refusal to admit when the problem is FreeBSD and not the user. In particular, the community is oblivious to interfaces and chunks of code that have illogical or inconsistent interfaces, are buggy, or whose function does not correspond to what is documented (even in the manpages). Points (4) and (5) seem to be addressing very similar ideas, and again
Re: A quality operating system
My comments inline. Summary: utter rubbish. On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Evan Busch antiequal...@gmail.com wrote: (1) Lack of direction. FreeBSD is still not sure whether it is a desktop OS, or a server OS. Not at all the case. FreeBSD is a server OS. Desktop features get considerably less support. Much effort goes into filesystem work, kernel optimization, networking and firewall components. (2) Geek culture. Geek culture is the oldest clique on the internet. Their goal is to make friends with no one who is not like them. I am the counterexample to this strawman argument. I feel entirely welcome by the geeks, but I treat them like people and probably get the same in return for that very reason. (3) Horrible documentation. This is my specialty and has been since the early 1980s. The FreeBSD documentation is wordy, disorganized, inconsistent and highly selective in what it mentions. The documentation is incomplete. It is not valid to criticize folks for being selective when there are limited resources and many possible tasks to perform. But hey, it's a volunteer effort, so... if you think you can string whole sentences together without slaying the language to the root, please contribute. (4) Elitism. To a developer, looking at some inconsistent or buggy interface and thinking, If they can't do this, they don't belong using FreeBSD anyway is too easy of a thought. I don't see any validity to this at all. You attribute motive (and dialogue) that doesn't exist. Many command line utilities have inconsistent interfaces - there are reasons for this, usually historical and for backward compatibility. Deal with it. GNU/Linux isn't any better here. POSIX-compliance won't save you. (5) Hostile community. (6) Selective fixes. See above. It is not valid to criticize someone for being selective - you might have a different order to your priority list - which, by the way, feel free to share. (7) Disorganized website. I seem to find everything I need there, what are you looking for? Sadly, Ron is right. FreeBSD is not right for us, or any others who care about using an operating system as a means to an end. You overreached there. I use it as a means to an end every day. I built high performance systems, high performance firewalls, high-availability, always-on services. FreeBSD is my first and best choice for these. Also for embedded systems. You can say it's not for you, but you sound like a spoiled little turd when you assert that right-thinking people everywhere will come to the same conclusion as I did, having spent several minutes pondering the matter while popping pimples. Regards (very slight), Michael Sierchio ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Dave Pooser dave-free...@pooserville.com wrote: 3) Updates are a mess. It's cool that I *can* compile a new kernel, but that I *have* to is ridiculous. Updating a server should not be more difficult than yum update -- full stop. Are you lazy, or stupid? man freebsd-update ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:47:04PM -0500, Evan Busch wrote: I make decisions about hardware and software for those who work with me. Talking with my second in command this morning, we reached a quandary. Ron is completely pro-Linux and pro-Windows, and against FreeBSD. What is odd about this is that he's the biggest UNIX fanatic I know, not only all types of UNIX (dating back quite some time) but also all Unix-like OSen. I told him I was considering FreeBSD because of greater stability and security. He asked me a question that stopped me dead: What is a quality operating system? In his view, and now mine, a quality operating system is reliable, streamlined and clearly organized. This is why I like FreeBSD, relative to MS Windows, Apple MacOS, or any Linux distribution I've encountered. Over the past few years, FreeBSD has drifted off-course in this department, in his view. To the extent that is true (and I'm sure one could easily build a list of minor points where this is the case), it is still far less so than with Linux-based systems -- and MS Windows has *never* been reliable, streamlined, and clearly organized by any reasonable standard at all. One must wonder about your associate's confirmation biases. Let me share the points he made that I consider valid (I have deleted two as trivial, and added one of my own): (1) Lack of direction. FreeBSD is still not sure whether it is a desktop OS, or a server OS. It is easy for the developers to say well, it's whatever you want, but this makes the configuration process more involved. This works against people who have to use these operating systems to get anything done. From where I'm sitting, FreeBSD looks like a server OS that works great as a desktop OS -- for precisely the reasons that it makes a great server OS. What it does *not* do as well is serve as a toy or appliance for people who just want to spend all their time in Microsoft Office, Visual Studio, or Adobe Creative Suite. In his view, a crucial metric here is the ability to estimate time required for any task. It may be a wide window, but it should not be as wide as anywhere from 30 minutes to 96 hours. In his experience, FreeBSD varies widely on this front because in the name of keeping options open, standardization of interface and process has been deprecated. This argument doesn't make much sense to me. What kind of task is so wildly variable in its estimable completion time on FreeBSD without being so variable on, say, MS Windows or one of the bazillions of Linux distributions? (2) Geek culture. Geek culture is the oldest clique on the internet. Their goal is to make friends with no one who is not like them. As a result, they specialize in the arcane, disorganized and ambiguous. This forces people to go through the same hoops they went through. This makes them happy, and drives away people who need to use operating systems to achieve real-world results. They reduce a community to hobbyists only. I do not see a reasoned argument here. What I see is a lot of hand-waving and finger pointing with nary a supporting argument to back it up. I'll stop short of calling it trolling, for the moment. (3) Horrible documentation. This is my specialty and has been since the early 1980s. The FreeBSD documentation is wordy, disorganized, inconsistent and highly selective in what it mentions. It is not the product of professionals but it also not the product of volunteers with a focus on communication. It seems pro-forma, as in, it's in the documentation, so don't bother me. The web site compounds this error by pointing us in multiple directions instead of to a singular resource. It is bad enough that man pages are separate from your main documentation tree, but now you have doubled or trebled the workload required of you without any benefit to the end user. If you want horrible documentation, stick with MS Windows and Linux-based systems. Seriously, the FreeBSD Handbook is better documentation even for Linux-based systems than the vast majority of Linux books. Manpage coverage in FreeBSD is better than in the vast majority of Linux distributions by an order of magnitude. Source code documentation is better in FreeBSD than in the majority of Linux-specific and GNU code that I've seen (and it's even better for OpenBSD and NetBSD, from what I've seen). I don't know where you're getting these ideas. In short, the best user documentation I've seen for Unix-like OSes is FreeBSD documentation; the best developer documentation I've seen for Unix-like OSes is OpenBSD documentation, though FreeBSD also does well, and Linux . . . well, it does less well, but at least it's leagues ahead of MS Windows. I hear good things about *some* areas of developer documentation for MacOS these days, though. (4) Elitism. To a developer, looking at some inconsistent or buggy interface and thinking, If they can't do
Re: A quality operating system Trolling For A Quality Operating System
On Aug 20, 2011, at 12:47 AM, Evan Busch wrote:
Hi,
I make decisions about hardware and software for those who work with me.
Talking with my second in command this morning, we reached a quandary.
Ron is completely pro-Linux and pro-Windows, and against FreeBSD.
What is odd about this is that he's the biggest UNIX fanatic I know,
not only all types of UNIX (dating back quite some time) but also all
Unix-like OSen.
I told him I was considering FreeBSD because of greater stability and
security.
He asked me a question that stopped me dead:
What is a quality operating system?
In his view, and now mine, a quality operating system is reliable,
streamlined and clearly organized.
Over the past few years, FreeBSD has drifted off-course in this
department, in his view.
Let me share the points he made that I consider valid (I have deleted
two as trivial, and added one of my own):
{SNIP}
Fondly,
Evan
I do not think it is worth wasting important list bandwidth on your flame
fodder. Therefore I dropped this off in a post to give it the careful
consideration is truly deserves -
Trolling For A Quality Operating System http://bit.ly/qUTAeh
Regards,
Mikel King
BSD News Network
http://bsdnews.net
skype: mikel.king
http://twitter.com/mikelking
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
Allos me to share some individual thoughts. Note that those are _my own_ and maybe do _not_ apply to anyone else. Still they may be helpful for inspiration, and just if it's only a different point of view. On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 23:47:04 -0500, Evan Busch wrote: He asked me a question that stopped me dead: What is a quality operating system? In his view, and now mine, a quality operating system is reliable, streamlined and clearly organized. There's more: To me as a sysadmin and developer, documentation is also a quality indicator. FreeBSD has excellent manpages, and many of the 3rd party software available follows this approach (e. g. man mplayer, even man opera); however, GUI-centric applications and those seeming to come from rapid application development environments lack a good documentation (e. g. man firefox and all the KDE programs). Documentation doesn't just cover binaries in FreeBSD. You'll find that also kernel interfaces, library calls, configuration files and maintenance procedures are documented, and you can access all this information in a limited system state, such as offline-only operations. Furthermore, there is the FreeBSD Hanbook and the FAQ. Finally, there's the friendly community traditionally being helpful and polite on the mailing lists. There are also web forums. This is what I would collect as documentation. Additionally, the source code of the system is very tidy and easy to deal with. (1) Lack of direction. FreeBSD is still not sure whether it is a desktop OS, or a server OS. It is a multi-purpose OS. You can even run it on microcontrollers. What would that be? Sub-desktop? It's even non-PC, if you stick to the established terminology. As _because_ FreeBSD is a multi-purpose OS, it performs well both on servers and on desktops. I have many servers running it (and other UNIXes too, like OpenBSD and Solaris), and I'm also using it exclusively (!) on my home desktop since version 4.0, _not_ lacking any functionality that's essential to me. Of course, other users have quite different opinions and personal experiences. It is easy for the developers to say well, it's whatever you want, but this makes the configuration process more involved. A logical conclusion of multi-functional. This works against people who have to use these operating systems to get anything done. Depends on the people. If I compare FreeBSD to other OS and OS-like software, there's _more_ time I have to invest getting _them_ to do what I need than I do with FreeBSD. Again, this highly depends on individual knowledge, experience, skills, and of course the task that should get done. (2) Geek culture. Geek culture is the oldest clique on the internet. Their goal is to make friends with no one who is not like them. Oh, that's a highly debatable consideration. From my point of view, friends being in the BSD camp are absolutely not _like_ me. In fact, it's a very heterogenous collection of _very_ different people. As a result, they specialize in the arcane, disorganized and ambiguous. This forces people to go through the same hoops they went through. Nobody does learn without doing mistakes. Of course, you cannot make all imaginable mistakes on your own, so it's worth learning from others, but still, going through hoops makes you develop skills that can be universally applied. An example is that if you can master FreeBSD, you can master any other BSD, and even any other UNIX, as well as most Linusi. Those _basic_ skills are the fact why UNIX people are not afraid of learning new things, and because they _do_ so, they are so expensive when hired. You do not pay me for the 5 minutes I need to fix your problem that costs you 100,000$ each hour it persists - you pay me because I _can_ do so. :-) This makes them happy, and drives away people who need to use operating systems to achieve real-world results. People do not use operating systems. They don't even use programs. In their (mostly limited) understanding, they use some kind of magical appliance that solves a problem. Still some of them understand the computer as a tool to achieve a goal, and from their real-world knowledge, they are able to conclude that you need to know how to use a tool in order to get a job done. However, many people fail to conclude that. They reduce a community to hobbyists only. Well, I won't say that. There are whole businesses that run by the power of FreeBSD and through the power of the geek culture. Keep in mind that ordinary people _never_ moved something, in _no_ regards. It has always been the exceptions who got things invented. (3) Horrible documentation. This is my specialty and has been since the early 1980s. The FreeBSD documentation is wordy, disorganized, inconsistent and highly selective in what it mentions. Interesting, compared to my introduction statement about the documentation. What you write here would - in my experience - apply to Linux and Windows
Re: A quality operating system
+10 I really like ppl thinking, that someone will create/develop/maitain an OS just for them. There are hundreds of chocices: OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, + forks, Windoze, hundreds (and growing) of different linux distros, Solaris, Minix, vxworks, even MSDOS :) Feel free to choose. If there will be one suitable OS for every existing task, there will be no need for tge rest. Come on. Do you really thing that a group of ppl coding in free time to create an OS to primary fullfill their needs and really liking what they are doing, because it's their hobby, would stop because one starts to rant? It's like I would criticize... lemme think ... Justin Bieber writing him: Hey lady, ... ehm, beg me pardon, man... d'oh ...child. I don't like your music, please find another style and your CD booklets sucksalot, do something or I will stop listening to you and start buy Ke$ha's CDs Who cares? There are milions that listen to Justin regardless of my opinion, because they like her. :) It's the same with FreeBSD. Not everyone likes the style, but really many do. (and it's really usefull and great indeed, comparing it to JB was a joke) Nobody forces you to use FBSD. I found NO constructive critics in your e-mail. I personally use OpenBSD, FreeBSD and Linux, depending on my needs and I'm really happy for the HUGE VALUE I'm getting FOR FREE. I would not pay a cent for Windoze, having bugs either, crappy licences, viruses, horrible documentation. Where's the real difference except the price? So either post some relevant request/bugs/ideas or use something fullfilling your needs. Fun to read the thread anyway :) Sincerely Peter On 20 Aug 2011 20:13, Michael Sierchio ku...@tenebras.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Dave Pooser dave-free...@pooserville.com wrote: 3) Updates are a mess. It's cool that I *can* compile a new kernel, but that I *have* to is ridiculous. Updating a server should not be more difficult than yum update -- full stop. Are you lazy, or stupid? man freebsd-update ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:12:00PM -0500, Dave Pooser wrote: 1) I really don't see the Handbook as all that great. It's great that a volunteer team put it together, but when I compare it to https://access.redhat.com/knowledge/docs/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/ or http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E19963-01/index.html, I don't think the FreeBSD handbook compares well. I disagree. 2) Lack of geek-on-the-street support. If I'm looking for an experienced Linux administrator, I'll get thousands of applications; for a Solaris administrator, I'll get hundreds. For a BSD admin? Maybe half a dozen? Try hiring a Linux guy with at least a little FreeBSD familiarity instead, and get him to self-educate. Too often, people try to hire people with thirty years of experience in ten year old technologies, and what they end up with is a bunch of barely competent liars on their staffs. Get someone with technical talent who is at least marginally familiar and expect the person to *learn*. Anyone you hire is going to need to learn about your particular business needs anyway, so that the majority of past experience will not be directly applicable. Trying to pretend otherwise just results in getting mediocre choices where you could have had someone that would be truly excellent when given half a chance. People who want to learn, and are good at learning, are far more valuable than people think. Having a resume with all the right bullet points is almost worthless by comparison, when what you really want is an effective employee. 3) Updates are a mess. It's cool that I *can* compile a new kernel, but that I *have* to is ridiculous. Updating a server should not be more difficult than yum update -- full stop. Define have to. 4) Poor support from running FreeBSD under virtualization. When I start to think about deploying a new server, I'll generally spin up a new VM on my workstation or on an ESXi host. If I have trouble with that VM, my first response is not going to be to try again with the same OS, it's going to be to fall back to a configuration I know works. There is, unfortunately, not as much support for running FreeBSD in virtualization environments (ignoring jails for the moment) as for other OSes. That's not really a problem with FreeBSD, though. I can see it being a reason to choose a different OS for cases where you need a particular set of veritualization requirements met, but I do not see it being a reason to tell everyone that FreeBSD sucks. There are some things I liked a lot about FreeBSD -- its support for DTrace and ZFS was the reason I looked into it in the first place. But from where I sit, technologies like that are just duct-taped on to the base system rather than integrated. (For example, why isn't there something like the [Open]Solaris beadm, where the system creates a ZFS snapshot automatically before any major updates to let you revert to not just an earlier kernel but an earlier world?) Maybe that has something to do with the fact that ZFS was designed for OpenSolaris, while FreeBSD developers are working hard at integrating it for users without (much?) help from the ZFS developers at Oracle (who would really rather that nobody used FreeBSD anyway, for the most part). Of course, FreeBSD is leagues ahead of both MS Windows and any Linux distribution in the ZFS support department. I don't know much about DTrace, but I suspect there are similar factors involved there. Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com Funny -- that's a Mac site. It seems like you shouldn't be considering MS Windows, Linux-based systems, Solaris, or FreeBSD anyway. You should take the eat your own dogfood approach, and use Mac servers and desktops. I guess you really *are* just trolling. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpxtvfZNj87I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A quality operating system
--As of August 20, 2011 12:12:00 PM -0500, Dave Pooser is alleged to have said: 3) Updates are a mess. It's cool that I *can* compile a new kernel, but that I *have* to is ridiculous. Updating a server should not be more difficult than yum update -- full stop. --As for the rest, it is mine. Oh, how I *wish* it was that easy on a Linux box... Have you ever actually tried to update RedHat from one version to another? It can't be done. No support. Oh, I suppose you could install everything manually, but if you miss something and break it, that's your problem. The only recommended way is 'wipe, reinstall, copy everything in from backup.' Having to do that at work made me miss freebsd-update... (And if you are complaining about user-land programs: Try portmanager. Or one of the other fine tools in the ports system.) (Oh, and as for comparing the Handbook with RedHat's knowledge base... I'll admit there are flaws in the Handbook. But the knowledge base shows the distinct impressions of being run through marketing. There's quite a lot of 'And then you can use this shiny feature!' without any 'To configure, read the following:'.) Daniel T. Staal --- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. --- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:09:53 -0700 Michael Sierchio articulated: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Dave Pooser dave-free...@pooserville.com wrote: 3) Updates are a mess. It's cool that I *can* compile a new kernel, but that I *have* to is ridiculous. Updating a server should not be more difficult than yum update -- full stop. Are you lazy, or stupid? man freebsd-update I have never wasted my time with it personally; however, I thought I read somewhere that it did not work if the user had built a custom kernel. From what I have seen written regarding it, you have to move the custom kernel out of the way and replace it with the generic kernel, run the freebsd-update program and then re-install the custom kernel and then rebuild that. Assuming that is correct, I can safely say that only a masochist would find that solution given the numerous possibilities for catastrophic failure any serious consideration. Obviously the KISS principal was considered important in this scenario. -- Jerry ✌ jerry+f...@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or ignored. Do not CC this poster. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
--As of August 20, 2011 4:22:45 PM -0400, Jerry is alleged to have said: I have never wasted my time with it personally; however, I thought I read somewhere that it did not work if the user had built a custom kernel. From what I have seen written regarding it, you have to move the custom kernel out of the way and replace it with the generic kernel, run the freebsd-update program and then re-install the custom kernel and then rebuild that. Assuming that is correct, I can safely say that only a masochist would find that solution given the numerous possibilities for catastrophic failure any serious consideration. Obviously the KISS principal was considered important in this scenario. --As for the rest, it is mine. Exactly how would you want to do a binary upgrade on a custom-configured kernel? (I.E.: A custom binary.) And can you name any OS that can do that? Although you don't have to replace the kernel with the generic, if you are doing a source upgrade. You should be able to do a standard source upgrade. (Making sure, of course, that your custom kernel's configuration is still valid for the newer source.) I might *recommend* replacing with a generic during the upgrade, just because it's safer to be upgrading to the tested kernel, but it shouldn't be required. Daniel T. Staal --- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. --- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:22:45 -0400, Jerry wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:09:53 -0700 Michael Sierchio articulated: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Dave Pooser dave-free...@pooserville.com wrote: 3) Updates are a mess. It's cool that I *can* compile a new kernel, but that I *have* to is ridiculous. Updating a server should not be more difficult than yum update -- full stop. Are you lazy, or stupid? man freebsd-update I have never wasted my time with it personally; however, I thought I read somewhere that it did not work if the user had built a custom kernel. That's correct. The freebsd-update program is _not_ to be used for few specific cases, i. e. the OS version is a -STABLE or even -CURRENT one, or the user is running a non-GENERIC kernel. In such cases, updating from source is inteded, as freebsd-update is a very good tool for binary updating following the -RELEASE path (releases and security patches). _That_ is what it is designed for. It's not a one size fits all program. From what I have seen written regarding it, you have to move the custom kernel out of the way and replace it with the generic kernel, run the freebsd-update program and then re-install the custom kernel and then rebuild that. But this does still apply _only_ in cases where you're using a X.Y-pZ release of the OS, if I understood everything correctly. Assuming that is correct, I can safely say that only a masochist would find that solution given the numerous possibilities for catastrophic failure any serious consideration. Obviously the KISS principal was considered important in this scenario. There is another important principal: FIRST think, THEN do. In case of problems, restore from backup (which should be good practice in any updating scenario anyway, as in general and in every regards). :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: That's correct. The freebsd-update program is _not_ to be used for few specific cases, i. e. the OS version is a -STABLE or even -CURRENT one, or the user is running a non-GENERIC kernel. In such cases, updating from source is inteded, as freebsd-update is a very good tool for binary updating following the -RELEASE path (releases and security patches). _That_ is what it is designed for. It's not a one size fits all program. freebsd-update works quite well and quickly on systems with a custom kernel with the additional caveat you *should* rebuild and install the kernel afterward, and even this isn't always necessary. This is assuming you're on RELEASE or some BETA. Depending on your configuration, you may wish to set some additional parameters which are well documented. As for the whole upgrading is too hard, well let's just say if you can't handle a make buildkernel; make installkernel command you would be looking at termination if that person had somehow tricked their way into employment. The kindest thing I can say about anyone who thinks yum upgrade or apt-get dist-upgrade to be some form of Shangri-La is they enjoy the premise of ignorance = bliss. Threads like this(vague generalities) really bring out the fubar, and I would encourage anyone reading to research any fantastical claim(positive or negative) prior to bringing credulity into the process. Any of the technical claims concerning FreeBSD seems to be exquisitely covered in the Handbook. Anyone who thinks the OP wasn't trolling should learn a lesson here. Most here prefer certain software for one reason or another, yet I would put forward we don't feel the need to tell the alternatives they suck because we don't understand the way it works. This person went beyond such an ethical boundary and made all these assertions prior to engaging the community. As if that wasn't enough, statements like spending 48 hrs configuring an audio driver reveal the absurdity of these vagaries. Finally, review the op's email address which is the final nail in troll coffin if it wasn't neutrino-proof already. The only logical conclusion that can deduced from such behavior is this a a more devolved form of the BSD is dying troll. -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On 8/20/11 1:09 PM, Michael Sierchio ku...@tenebras.com wrote: Are you lazy, or stupid? man freebsd-update You know, someone more clever than you might have read enough of the message to realize that since I specifically referenced DTrace support as a FreeBSD advantage, I would have to be using a custom kernel, which pretty much kills the freebsd-update advantage. Add a modicum of self awareness and you might also realize that you're the poster child for the original poster's point 5, Hostile Community. Frankly, I don't give that argument against the FreeBSD community a ton of weight because *every* technical mailing list has some bitter losers with no social skills, but it might be food for thought, if you ever do that sort of thing. -- Dave Pooser Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com ...Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece, but to slide across the finish line broadside, thoroughly used up, worn out, leaking oil, and shouting GERONIMO!!! -- Bill McKenna ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Dave Pooser dave-free...@pooserville.comwrote: On 8/20/11 1:09 PM, Michael Sierchio ku...@tenebras.com wrote: Are you lazy, or stupid? man freebsd-update You know, someone more clever than you might have read enough of the message to realize that since I specifically referenced DTrace support as a FreeBSD advantage, I would have to be using a custom kernel, which pretty much kills the freebsd-update advantage. Add a modicum of self awareness and you might also realize that you're the poster child for the original poster's point 5, Hostile Community. Frankly, I don't give that argument against the FreeBSD community a ton of weight because *every* technical mailing list has some bitter losers with no social skills, but it might be food for thought, if you ever do that sort of thing. In your supposed deep thought of freebsd-update's capabilities, can you explain why you view a custom kernel as killing an advantage? I suspect when we actually delve into the technical details we will have an answer to Michael's question, and you may not like the flavor of the food. -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On 8/20/11 4:38 PM, Adam Vande More amvandem...@gmail.com wrote: freebsd-update works quite well and quickly on systems with a custom kernel with the additional caveat you *should* rebuild and install the kernel afterward, and even this isn't always necessary. This is assuming you're on RELEASE or some BETA. An honest question here-- how many people run production servers on RELEASE, never mind BETA? Mine has been running on STABLE, first 8.1 and then 8.2. I hold no brief for the original poster; I think he probably was trolling. I'm pretty sure Vadim Goncharov was NOT trolling on freebsd-arch when he wrote the message Test Rat referenced http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2011-August/011412.html. And guess what his post listed as the biggest hinderance to wider adoption? === 1. Social (psychologic) problems of community (marketing, docs, ...). This is the most important one, because all technical problems are just won't get solved because are even not viewed as problems. The FreeBSD Project does not listen to users' needs. The typical response when poor user want something is: we don't need this, we won't change for you, with where are your patches? at best. Then many users go out when see such attitude toward them. The key points are: 1) *The competent user is not zealot*. 2) The system is *for users, not for developers*. === I probably would have been wiser not to respond to this thread at all; once the OP threw the bait out there people were bound to get angry and defensive. But Vadim's post resonated with me, as he covered many of the reasons I'd decided to retire FreeBSD in my company, so I figured I'd add one more perspective. -- Dave Pooser Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com ...Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece, but to slide across the finish line broadside, thoroughly used up, worn out, leaking oil, and shouting GERONIMO!!! -- Bill McKenna ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
Meanwhile, the OP has run away giggling like a juvenile who just threw a rock at a hornets nest. On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Adam Vande More amvandem...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Dave Pooser dave-free...@pooserville.comwrote: On 8/20/11 1:09 PM, Michael Sierchio ku...@tenebras.com wrote: Are you lazy, or stupid? man freebsd-update You know, someone more clever than you might have read enough of the message to realize that since I specifically referenced DTrace support as a FreeBSD advantage, I would have to be using a custom kernel, which pretty much kills the freebsd-update advantage. Add a modicum of self awareness and you might also realize that you're the poster child for the original poster's point 5, Hostile Community. Frankly, I don't give that argument against the FreeBSD community a ton of weight because *every* technical mailing list has some bitter losers with no social skills, but it might be food for thought, if you ever do that sort of thing. In your supposed deep thought of freebsd-update's capabilities, can you explain why you view a custom kernel as killing an advantage? I suspect when we actually delve into the technical details we will have an answer to Michael's question, and you may not like the flavor of the food. -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
Le Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:46:58 -0500, Dave Pooser dave-free...@pooserville.com a écrit : An honest question here-- how many people run production servers on RELEASE, never mind BETA? Mine has been running on STABLE, first 8.1 and then 8.2. Me! Because if it works, don't break it.. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
All of this adds up to a quality operating system in theory that does not translate into quality in reality. You alienate users and place the burden upon them to sort through your mess, then sneer at them. You alienate business, professional and artistic users with your insistence on hobbyism. These people have full lives; 48 hour sessions of trying to configure audio drivers, network cards or drive arrays are not in their interest. Even when you get big parts of the operating system correct, it's the thousand little details that have been forgotten, ignored or snootily written off that add up to many hours of frustration for the end user. This is not necessary frustration, and they get nothing out of it. It seems to exist because of the emotional and social attitudes of the FreeBSD team. Sadly, Ron is right. FreeBSD is not right for us, or any others who care about using an operating system as a means to an end. FreeBSD is a hobby and you have to use it because you like using it for the purpose of using it, and anything else will be incidental. 1) Is someone pointing a gun to you and forcing you to use FreeBSD? 2) A system is as good as its users, and you my friend might not be an adequate user 3) If you don't like it Don't Use it! 4) Many of your opinions are just that opinions and not facts. They remind me of the saying Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one :) 5) The community is excellent and very helpful. Sure some questions might go unanswered, but in any list you have all kinds of folks, folks that are very helpful and folks who tell you to READ and find out for yourself. Also, if you want additional support you may also pay for it. There is no such thing as a Free Lunch. There are several BSD certification courses you may take and be a true power user. 6) Every system out there has its advantages disadvantages. You don't have to come insult the people who run/use FreeBSD just because it does not suit your tastes. 7) For the audio drivers network cards part, Have you asked about it? Have you done some work? Have you run $ su - passwd # kldload snd_driver # cat /dev/sndstat # ifconfig -a and check which interfaces are shown and have tried to prompt network with one of them? Do you expect everything to be done for you like other systems who have spoiled you? You can compare FreeBSD to other systems and it has been shown that it is a Giant among Giants. If you wanted some handholding along they way, you could have tried PC-BSD. 8) I have used many systems, and I have had some difficulties with FreeBSD. Is it FreeBSD's fault? No of course not! I have found help from many caring users and fixed many of them. I shot myself in the foot several times and complained to myself why does FreeBSD seem too hard? It is what you make of it. You have to invest some time, and don't expect things to just happen. 9) If you came across with a different tone or perspective, then you could get more positive feedback. You are attacking a community that does not OWE you anything. You could have made some suggestions but in a friendly way not like you did. 10) Have a nice day and enjoy your OS of choice be it whatever it is. Regards, Antonio Happy FreeBSD user. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
I use FreeBSD 9, 8.2 and 8.1. OS X 10.7 (Lion) Windows 7 Professional (64-bit), Windows Vista Ultimate (64-bit) and Windows XP Professional (32-bit). iOS 4, Blackberry 6 and Android 2.2.2. Oh, you weren't asking me. Sorry. :-p On Aug 20, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Jorge Biquez wrote: Hello. I insist Can we know what was the OS you all decided to use ? Thanks Jorge Biquez ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
RE: A quality operating system
-Original Message- From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Antonio Olivares Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 6:06 PM To: Evan Busch Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A quality operating system All of this adds up to a quality operating system in theory that does not translate into quality in reality. You alienate users and place the burden upon them to sort through your mess, then sneer at them. You alienate business, professional and artistic users with your insistence on hobbyism. These people have full lives; 48 hour sessions of trying to configure audio drivers, network cards or drive arrays are not in their interest. Even when you get big parts of the operating system correct, it's the thousand little details that have been forgotten, ignored or snootily written off that add up to many hours of frustration for the end user. This is not necessary frustration, and they get nothing out of it. It seems to exist because of the emotional and social attitudes of the FreeBSD team. Sadly, Ron is right. FreeBSD is not right for us, or any others who care about using an operating system as a means to an end. FreeBSD is a hobby and you have to use it because you like using it for the purpose of using it, and anything else will be incidental. 1) Is someone pointing a gun to you and forcing you to use FreeBSD? 2) A system is as good as its users, and you my friend might not be an adequate user 3) If you don't like it Don't Use it! 4) Many of your opinions are just that opinions and not facts. They remind me of the saying Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one :) 5) The community is excellent and very helpful. Sure some questions might go unanswered, but in any list you have all kinds of folks, folks that are very helpful and folks who tell you to READ and find out for yourself. Also, if you want additional support you may also pay for it. There is no such thing as a Free Lunch. There are several BSD certification courses you may take and be a true power user. 6) Every system out there has its advantages disadvantages. You don't have to come insult the people who run/use FreeBSD just because it does not suit your tastes. 7) For the audio drivers network cards part, Have you asked about it? Have you done some work? Have you run $ su - passwd # kldload snd_driver # cat /dev/sndstat # ifconfig -a and check which interfaces are shown and have tried to prompt network with one of them? Do you expect everything to be done for you like other systems who have spoiled you? You can compare FreeBSD to other systems and it has been shown that it is a Giant among Giants. If you wanted some handholding along they way, you could have tried PC-BSD. 8) I have used many systems, and I have had some difficulties with FreeBSD. Is it FreeBSD's fault? No of course not! I have found help from many caring users and fixed many of them. I shot myself in the foot several times and complained to myself why does FreeBSD seem too hard? It is what you make of it. You have to invest some time, and don't expect things to just happen. 9) If you came across with a different tone or perspective, then you could get more positive feedback. You are attacking a community that does not OWE you anything. You could have made some suggestions but in a friendly way not like you did. 10) Have a nice day and enjoy your OS of choice be it whatever it is. Regards, Antonio Happy FreeBSD user. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org I have heard that the OS X OS is based on FreeBSD. Is this true? Carl G Smith c...@carlgsmith.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Saturday 20 August 2011 19:47:07 Fish Kungfu wrote: Meanwhile, the OP has run away giggling like a juvenile who just threw a rock at a hornets nest. You bet! The OP (and Rob) were probably just bored, but Vadim Goncharov was definetly NOT! (Thanks Test Rat!) http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2011-August/011412.html. That got me worried. It does provide a global picture as to why some of OP's bad feelings about the future of FreeBSD can pop up. -- Mario Lobo http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br FreeBSD since 2.2.8 [not Pro-Audio YET!!] (99% winblows FREE) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
RE: A quality operating system
--As of August 20, 2011 7:01:07 PM -0700, Carl G Smith is alleged to have said: I have heard that the OS X OS is based on FreeBSD. Is this true? --As for the rest, it is mine. Partially. It combines a mostly Mach kernel with some FreeBSD-derived userland and interfaces, then adds a proprietary window manager and UI on top of the rest. So the largest single source of code is probably FreeBSD, but neither the kernel or the part most people interact with isn't. Daniel T. Staal --- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. --- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
Hello. ;=) Thanks for the comments.. :=) No, I am curious what they decided to use that covers all the points , at least better that FreeBSD. Seriously I would like to see or hear about the comparison chart between all OSs. And a question arrive to my mind... if for some reason, I know it is impossible, but if for some reason FreeBSD would stop existing... serious users of FreeBSD, what would be your next OS? Why? Take care all JB At 09:09 p.m. 20/08/2011, Ryan Coleman wrote: I use FreeBSD 9, 8.2 and 8.1. OS X 10.7 (Lion) Windows 7 Professional (64-bit), Windows Vista Ultimate (64-bit) and Windows XP Professional (32-bit). iOS 4, Blackberry 6 and Android 2.2.2. Oh, you weren't asking me. Sorry. :-p On Aug 20, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Jorge Biquez wrote: Hello. I insist Can we know what was the OS you all decided to use ? Thanks Jorge Biquez ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: A quality operating system
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 05:12:19PM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Duane == Duane Hill du...@duanemail.org writes: Duane Saturday, August 20, 2011, 6:23:05 PM, wrote: Le Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:46:58 -0500, Dave Pooser dave-free...@pooserville.com a écrit : An honest question here-- how many people run production servers on RELEASE, never mind BETA? Mine has been running on STABLE, first 8.1 and then 8.2. Me! Because if it works, don't break it.. Duane Me too. Been running FreeBSD release versions on servers for Duane years. AOLme too/AOL ditto -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpvP25yvJAcq.pgp Description: PGP signature
A quality operating system
Hi, I make decisions about hardware and software for those who work with me. Talking with my second in command this morning, we reached a quandary. Ron is completely pro-Linux and pro-Windows, and against FreeBSD. What is odd about this is that he's the biggest UNIX fanatic I know, not only all types of UNIX (dating back quite some time) but also all Unix-like OSen. I told him I was considering FreeBSD because of greater stability and security. He asked me a question that stopped me dead: What is a quality operating system? In his view, and now mine, a quality operating system is reliable, streamlined and clearly organized. Over the past few years, FreeBSD has drifted off-course in this department, in his view. Let me share the points he made that I consider valid (I have deleted two as trivial, and added one of my own): (1) Lack of direction. FreeBSD is still not sure whether it is a desktop OS, or a server OS. It is easy for the developers to say well, it's whatever you want, but this makes the configuration process more involved. This works against people who have to use these operating systems to get anything done. In his view, a crucial metric here is the ability to estimate time required for any task. It may be a wide window, but it should not be as wide as anywhere from 30 minutes to 96 hours. In his experience, FreeBSD varies widely on this front because in the name of keeping options open, standardization of interface and process has been deprecated. (2) Geek culture. Geek culture is the oldest clique on the internet. Their goal is to make friends with no one who is not like them. As a result, they specialize in the arcane, disorganized and ambiguous. This forces people to go through the same hoops they went through. This makes them happy, and drives away people who need to use operating systems to achieve real-world results. They reduce a community to hobbyists only. (3) Horrible documentation. This is my specialty and has been since the early 1980s. The FreeBSD documentation is wordy, disorganized, inconsistent and highly selective in what it mentions. It is not the product of professionals but it also not the product of volunteers with a focus on communication. It seems pro-forma, as in, it's in the documentation, so don't bother me. The web site compounds this error by pointing us in multiple directions instead of to a singular resource. It is bad enough that man pages are separate from your main documentation tree, but now you have doubled or trebled the workload required of you without any benefit to the end user. (4) Elitism. To a developer, looking at some inconsistent or buggy interface and thinking, If they can't do this, they don't belong using FreeBSD anyway is too easy of a thought. Yet it looks to me like this happens quite a bit, and this is for the elite has become the default orientation. This is problematic in that there are people out there who are every bit as smart as you, or smarter, but are not specialized in computers. They want to use computers to achieve results; you may want to play around with your computer as an activity, but that is not so for everyone. (5) Hostile community. For the last several weeks, I have been observing the FreeBSD community. Two things stand out: many legitimate questions go ignored, and for others, response is hostile resulting in either incorrect answers, haughty snubs, and in many cases, a refusal to admit when the problem is FreeBSD and not the user. In particular, the community is oblivious to interfaces and chunks of code that have illogical or inconsistent interfaces, are buggy, or whose function does not correspond to what is documented (even in the manpages). (6) Selective fixes. I am guilty of this too, sometimes, but when you hope to build an operating system, it is a poor idea. Programmers work on what they want to work on. This leaves much of the unexciting stuff in a literal non-working state, and the entire community oblivious to it or uncaring. As Ron detailed, huge parts of FreeBSD are like buried land mines just waiting to detonate. They are details that can invoke that 30 minute to 96 hour time period instantly, usually right before you need to get something done. (7) Disorganized website. The part of the FreeBSD project that should set the tone for the community, the FreeBSD website, reflects every one of these criticisms. It is inconsistent and often disorganized; there is no clear path; resources are duplicated and squirreled away instead of organized and made into a process for others to follow. It is arcane, nuanced and cryptic for the purpose of keeping the community elitist, hobbyist and hostile to outsiders. In addition, huge portions of it break on a regular basis and seem to go unnoticed. The attitude of that's for beginners, so we don't need it persists even there. With the graphic design of the website I have no problem, but the arrangement of resources on it reflects a lack of presence
Re: A quality operating system
Well This should spawn some interesting responses. I shall sit back and enjoy - Original Message - From: Evan Busch [mailto:antiequal...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:47 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: A quality operating system Hi, I make decisions about hardware and software for those who work with me. Talking with my second in command this morning, we reached a quandary. Ron is completely pro-Linux and pro-Windows, and against FreeBSD. What is odd about this is that he's the biggest UNIX fanatic I know, not only all types of UNIX (dating back quite some time) but also all Unix-like OSen. I told him I was considering FreeBSD because of greater stability and security. He asked me a question that stopped me dead: What is a quality operating system? In his view, and now mine, a quality operating system is reliable, streamlined and clearly organized. Over the past few years, FreeBSD has drifted off-course in this department, in his view. Let me share the points he made that I consider valid (I have deleted two as trivial, and added one of my own): (1) Lack of direction. FreeBSD is still not sure whether it is a desktop OS, or a server OS. It is easy for the developers to say well, it's whatever you want, but this makes the configuration process more involved. This works against people who have to use these operating systems to get anything done. In his view, a crucial metric here is the ability to estimate time required for any task. It may be a wide window, but it should not be as wide as anywhere from 30 minutes to 96 hours. In his experience, FreeBSD varies widely on this front because in the name of keeping options open, standardization of interface and process has been deprecated. (2) Geek culture. Geek culture is the oldest clique on the internet. Their goal is to make friends with no one who is not like them. As a result, they specialize in the arcane, disorganized and ambiguous. This forces people to go through the same hoops they went through. This makes them happy, and drives away people who need to use operating systems to achieve real-world results. They reduce a community to hobbyists only. (3) Horrible documentation. This is my specialty and has been since the early 1980s. The FreeBSD documentation is wordy, disorganized, inconsistent and highly selective in what it mentions. It is not the product of professionals but it also not the product of volunteers with a focus on communication. It seems pro-forma, as in, it's in the documentation, so don't bother me. The web site compounds this error by pointing us in multiple directions instead of to a singular resource. It is bad enough that man pages are separate from your main documentation tree, but now you have doubled or trebled the workload required of you without any benefit to the end user. (4) Elitism. To a developer, looking at some inconsistent or buggy interface and thinking, If they can't do this, they don't belong using FreeBSD anyway is too easy of a thought. Yet it looks to me like this happens quite a bit, and this is for the elite has become the default orientation. This is problematic in that there are people out there who are every bit as smart as you, or smarter, but are not specialized in computers. They want to use computers to achieve results; you may want to play around with your computer as an activity, but that is not so for everyone. (5) Hostile community. For the last several weeks, I have been observing the FreeBSD community. Two things stand out: many legitimate questions go ignored, and for others, response is hostile resulting in either incorrect answers, haughty snubs, and in many cases, a refusal to admit when the problem is FreeBSD and not the user. In particular, the community is oblivious to interfaces and chunks of code that have illogical or inconsistent interfaces, are buggy, or whose function does not correspond to what is documented (even in the manpages). (6) Selective fixes. I am guilty of this too, sometimes, but when you hope to build an operating system, it is a poor idea. Programmers work on what they want to work on. This leaves much of the unexciting stuff in a literal non-working state, and the entire community oblivious to it or uncaring. As Ron detailed, huge parts of FreeBSD are like buried land mines just waiting to detonate. They are details that can invoke that 30 minute to 96 hour time period instantly, usually right before you need to get something done. (7) Disorganized website. The part of the FreeBSD project that should set the tone for the community, the FreeBSD website, reflects every one of these criticisms. It is inconsistent and often disorganized; there is no clear path; resources are duplicated and squirreled away instead of organized and made into a process for others to follow. It is arcane, nuanced and cryptic for the purpose of keeping the community elitist, hobbyist
