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: amarok doesn't support id3v2?
On Wednesday 17 August 2011 07:49:13 Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: I made a rather startling discovery tonight while playing with amarok 1.4.10 and the id3v2 port. It seems that if I modify an MP3 files's id3 tags in amarok, it deletes any existing id3v2 tags, leaving only id3v1 tags on the file (as verified with the id3v2 command line tool). This just seems wrong to me. If I understand correctly, taglib, which is used by amarok, does support id3v2, so why isn't amarok taking advantage of this facility? I rebuilt and reinstalled amarok, just to see if it would make any difference, but I'm still seeing the same behavior. I also installed and tried the audio/juk port (also one the of KDE3 multimedia family of packages, and also using taglib), and am seeing the same thing there as well. No id3v2 tags, only id3v1. What's up with this? Anyone? I suspect taglib uses id3v2.4 whereas id3lib (used by id3v2 port) only supports id3v2.3. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: BHyve
On 08/19/11 18:46, Brandon Gooch wrote: On Aug 19, 2011 10:29 AM, Net Warrior netwarrior...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Does anyone know if there is any progress on this project or how can I track/test it? Thanks you- Regards I'm interested in this as well, and I'm hoping that after 9.0 is out the door that we might see a concerted effort (or at least some interest) from developers to push forward with this. I'm quite curious about it myself. ___ 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. The
pf nat with pool addresses
Hi all,
I am trying to use pf nat rules with pool support on FreeBsd 8.0, working
together with ipfw as the main firewall. According to the natting concepts i
faced in manuals and docs, nat concept is to map the source address to the
natted address when sending the packets from that source and then map the
destination address of the related reply packets.
but when I define pf nat rules with a pool of IP addresses not available on
the outside interface ip addresses, the outgoing traffic is natted to one of
the pool addresses but the response is not received via that interface so
the pf can map the destination address to the real one. here is one of my
configs i used during my tests:
*configurations:*
*pf.conf:*
nat on eth1 from { 11.11.11.0/24} to any -
{172.16.10.1,172.16.10.2,172.16.10.3,172.16.10.4,172.16.10.5,172.16.10.6,172.16.10.7,172.16.10.8,172.16.10.9,172.16.10.10}
main system configurations:
eth0: 11.11.11.1
eth1: 172.16.10.64
system A: directly connected to eth0- 11.11.11.11
system B: directly connected to eth1- 172.16.10.65
in this configs the dafult route of system A and system B are the middle
systems connected ip address.
as mentioned, when systemA pings systemB, the ping requests are natted to
172.16.10.1 and received at systemB but systemB doesn't send icmp replies
because it doesn't know to whom it should send the replies (no answer to
system B 's ARP requests about who has the natted IP).
now my question is, isn't it the pf nat responsibilty to manage this
condition and send the ARP replies to SystemB?
or, are my configs wrong?
or i misunderstood the nat concepts?
any ideas or helps are really appriciated as i have to set this nat on my
main system, asap.
Thanks in advance.
___
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: Redirect sound of flash plugin?
On Friday 12 August 2011 17:15:04 Ross wrote: Is it possible to redirect sound of flash plugin? I am running firefox via ssh. Currently I successfully redirected sound of other applications using NAS. How can I do the same with flash? Maybe intercept sound some how. The flash plugin sound goes through libflashsupport, which is a small open source library that allows anyone to implement any sound backend. The libflashsupport currently installed by the flash plugin port (/compat/linux/usr/lib/libflashsupport.so) only supports OSS now. With any luck somebody has already implemented NAS support and all you have to do is replace this library. In case you want to implement it yourself, you can find the source code for our (slightly patched) libflashsupport at http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/127839 Note that the library has to be compiled as a Linux library, not a FreeBSD one. An alternative would be to experiment with libaudiooss, which allows capturing OSS output from any program and send it over NAS. This project looks abandoned though. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
make release always fails
It looks that I am compiling wrong TAG, somehow. I have RELENG_8 sup file: *default host=cvsup3.ua.FreeBSD.org *default base=/share/freebsd/cvsup *default prefix=/share/freebsd/RELENG_8 *default release=cvs tag=RELENG_8 *default delete use-rel-suffix src-all And CVS supfile: *default host=cvsup6.ua.freebsd.org *default base=/share/freebsd/cvsup *default prefix=/share/freebsd/ncvs *default release=cvs *default delete use-rel-suffix src-all ports-all doc-all cvsroot-all First csup both sup-files. Then make buildworld in /usr/src (which is symlink to /share/freebsd/RELENG_8/src). It always succeeds. Then: cd /usr/src/release make release RELEASETAG=RELENG_8 \ PORTSRELEASETAG=HEAD \ BUILDNAME=8.2-STABLE-$DATE \ CHROOTDIR=/share/freebsd/release \ CVSROOT=/share/freebsd/ncvs This is always fails. Each day with different errors. I want to build nightly snapshots (DVDs) of 8.2-STABLE, what am I doing wrong? ___ 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: BHyve
On 19/08/2011 16:01, Net Warrior wrote: Hi Does anyone know if there is any progress on this project or how can I track/test it? It was imported into svn http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/projects/bhyve_ref/ so you could check it out and have a try ;) I'm hoping to hear that its being ported to 9 as thats based off 8.1 at the moment. Vince Thanks you- Regards ___ 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
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
gnome-open won't open my browser
gnome-open is the program that opens your browser when you click on a link in gnome-terminal. Except that recently it's started opening Gedit, the gnome text editor, instead. I have triple super checked to be absolutely sure that the preferred web browser application is my browser (chrome). Since I never use gedit, I have stuck in a kludge, replacing gedit with a one line shell script that runs chrome instead, but that's silly. Any suggestions where gnomo-open is getting the idea to run gedit rather than a browser? R's, John ___ 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: amarok doesn't support id3v2?
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 10:22:28 +0200 Tijl Coosemans t...@coosemans.org wrote: On Wednesday 17 August 2011 07:49:13 Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: I made a rather startling discovery tonight while playing with amarok 1.4.10 and the id3v2 port. It seems that if I modify an MP3 files's id3 tags in amarok, it deletes any existing id3v2 tags, leaving only id3v1 tags on the file (as verified with the id3v2 command line tool). This just seems wrong to me. If I understand correctly, taglib, which is used by amarok, does support id3v2, so why isn't amarok taking advantage of this facility? I rebuilt and reinstalled amarok, just to see if it would make any difference, but I'm still seeing the same behavior. I also installed and tried the audio/juk port (also one the of KDE3 multimedia family of packages, and also using taglib), and am seeing the same thing there as well. No id3v2 tags, only id3v1. What's up with this? Anyone? I suspect taglib uses id3v2.4 whereas id3lib (used by id3v2 port) only supports id3v2.3. Ah, interesting. Hadn't considered such a possibility. Still, I'm puzzled. If I take a perfectly tagged file, modify it in any way inside amarok, and then try to view the tags again using the command line tool id3v2, all the id3v2 tags have been blown away. Is there that radical a change between the ID3 spec version 2.3 and 2.4 that the tags would be completely unrecognizable anymore by id3v2? Thanks for the response. -- Conrad J. Sabatier conr...@cox.net ___ 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: Enabling gjournal without destroying a filesystem?
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:48:33 +0200 Patrick Lamaiziere patf...@davenulle.org wrote: Anyway there was no other way to avoid a long fsck (until SU+Journal in 9.0). Speaking of SU+J: I do happen to be running 9.0-BETA1, and am seeing output from fsck where it at first appears it's going to take advantage of journaling and then dismisses it due to an out-of-date journal (which is why I started investigating gjournal in the first place). Am I doing something wrong here? Can anyone recommend a fix? -- Conrad J. Sabatier conr...@cox.net ___ 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
How much memory does ZFS use?
Someone told me that ZFS is a memory hog and it should be avoided as such. Is this true? How can I understand how much memory particular kernel module consumes? In Solaris there is mdb for that, what is an equivalent in FreeBSD? Yuri ___ 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: How much memory does ZFS use?
Zfs isn't a typical daemon/process. That's like saying databased is a memory hog cause it needs a lot of ram for caching. Zfs ram requirements will depend on your file system i/o load, types/sizes of files, types and rates of file system ops, etc. 512MB may be fine, or you may need 4GB for optimum performance. - Original Message - From: Yuri [mailto:y...@rawbw.com] Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 01:38 PM To: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: How much memory does ZFS use? Someone told me that ZFS is a memory hog and it should be avoided as such. Is this true? How can I understand how much memory particular kernel module consumes? In Solaris there is mdb for that, what is an equivalent in FreeBSD? Yuri ___ 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 font size=1 div style='border:none;border-bottom:double windowtext 2.25pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in' /div This email is intended to be reviewed by only the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system. /font ___ 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 this,
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
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: How much memory does ZFS use?
On 08/20/2011 11:45, Gary Gatten wrote: Zfs isn't a typical daemon/process. That's like saying databased is a memory hog cause it needs a lot of ram for caching. I know it's a kernel module. Zfs ram requirements will depend on your file system i/o load, types/sizes of files, types and rates of file system ops, etc. 512MB may be fine, or you may need 4GB for optimum performance. I meant mostly, for the same type of FS access, how does ZFS memory consumption compare with situation if I used UFS? Also how can I see what memory consumption is for each kernel module? Yuri ___ 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: How much memory does ZFS use?
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Yuri y...@rawbw.com wrote: Someone told me that ZFS is a memory hog and it should be avoided as such. Is this true? A rather ridiculous statement you were told and full of ignorance in my opinion. The 1908 Ford Model T got 25 MPG and my 2006 Mazda Speed6 gets about 21 on the highway. Which one would you rather drive around and entrust with your family's safety? Look at it this way, computer performance has increased very rapidly(particularly in terms of CPU) over the last 30 years with one key exception: disk performance. ZFS, among it's other benefits, does what it can to mask this deficiency by offloading what it to more CPU and memory intensive operations. Offloading(where possible) slow disk to faster CPU and memory resources which many server and desktops already have in abundant excess is an excellent tradeoff IMO. What difference does it make if it's a kernel module or not in terms of memory usage? Either way, set the appropriate tunable to control memory usage and you're done. vfs.zfs.arc_max=2048M -- 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
--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
trouble with ports
$ uname -a FreeBSD libertas.local.camdensoftware.com 8.2-STABLE FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #123: Wed Aug 17 19:23:26 PDT 2011 r...@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/LIBERTAS amd64 Last Monday when I had the problem with panics that Attilio's patch seems to have solved, my system died in the middle of a large portmaster operation. This corrupted a number of entries in the package db, resulting in messages like the following: $ pkg_version -vl\ pkg_version: the package info for package 'firefox-5.0,1' is corrupt pkg_version: the package info for package 'rxvt-unicode-9.11' is corrupt This prevents 'portmaster -a' from working at all, and 'portupgrade -a' will not detect changes to those ports whose info is corrupt. Neither does portversion report on those ports (it acts like they aren't installed). I've found that the problem can be corrected by going into the port directory and doing a 'make install FORCE_PKG_REGISTER=1'. I had to do about a hundred of those. Howveer, there still remain two ports that refuse to be fixed: firefox and rxvt-unicode (as you can see above). They are each getting build errors. I could believe that's a coincidence in the case of firefox (the port is now at version 6.0), but even then I figure someone would have complained. For rxvt-unicode, though, the version has not changed and I was able to build 9.11 before. Here are the tails of the output from each: firefox: /usr/local/bin/python2.7 /usr/ports/www/firefox/work/mozilla-release/dist/sdk/bin/xpt.py link _xpidlgen/exthandler.xpt _xpidlgen/nsCExternalHandlerService.xpt _xpidlgen/nsIExternalProtocolService.xpt _xpidlgen/nsIExternalHelperAppService.xpt _xpidlgen/nsIHelperAppLauncherDialog.xpt _xpidlgen/nsIContentDispatchChooser.xpt _xpidlgen/nsIHandlerService.xpt _xpidlgen/nsIExternalSharingAppService.xpt _xpidlgen/nsIExternalURLHandlerService.xpt In file included from ../../dist/include/jsval.h:48, from ../../dist/include/jspubtd.h:47, from ../../dist/include/nsIDOMWindowInternal.h:17, from ../../dist/include/nsPIDOMWindow.h:47, from ../../dist/include/nsNPAPIPluginInstance.h:45, from ../../dist/include/nsPluginHost.h:48, from /usr/ports/www/firefox/work/mozilla-release/uriloader/exthandler/nsExternalHelperAppService.cpp:112: ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:474: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:474: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:474: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:474: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:474: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:474: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:474: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:474: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:474: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:474: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:474: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:474: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:474: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:474: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:496: error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of 'JS_ALWAYS_INLINE' with no type ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:496: error: expected ';' before 'void' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:500: error: expected `;' before 'template' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:500: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:500: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:622: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:629: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:646: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:653: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' ../../dist/include/jsutil.h:669: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before 'static' In file included from ../../dist/include/jspubtd.h:47, from
Re: amarok doesn't support id3v2?
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 12:10:01 -0500 Conrad J. Sabatier conr...@cox.net wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 10:22:28 +0200 Tijl Coosemans t...@coosemans.org wrote: I suspect taglib uses id3v2.4 whereas id3lib (used by id3v2 port) only supports id3v2.3. Ah, interesting. Hadn't considered such a possibility. Still, I'm puzzled. If I take a perfectly tagged file, modify it in any way inside amarok, and then try to view the tags again using the command line tool id3v2, all the id3v2 tags have been blown away. Is there that radical a change between the ID3 spec version 2.3 and 2.4 that the tags would be completely unrecognizable anymore by id3v2? I asked about this on the id3v2 mailing list, and apparently, it is quite likely that some of the newer tags/frames in 2.4 are tripping up the older id3v2 tool. Gonna do a little hex dumping, etc. to verify, but it sounds like the probable cause. Any replacement suggestions for id3v2? I've gotten used to using this thing in my little custom scripts. Obviously need something new here. Thanks. -- Conrad J. Sabatier conr...@cox.net ___ 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
Re: ZFS and NFS or CIFS
On 8/19/2011 4:05 PM, Henry M wrote: Hi Chris, If you are transferring data from a Windows machine, your best bet would be to use SAMBA. Windows communicates with samba pretty easily. You essentially just mount a network drive, and transfer the files you want. Here are a few links to get you started: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/network-samba.html http://www.freebsddiary.org/samba.php The samba configs are pretty straight forward, you just need to make permissions are correct. Good luck! Regards, Henry Henry, I'm very familiar with Samba as a standalone appliance, have been using it for quite some time. But that wasn't what I wanted to do. It's my understand that ZFS can export to both ZFS *and* CIFS/SMB, I'd like to know how to actually do (maybe utilize is the correct term instead of use) that. If it were as easy as just installing Samba from Ports or Packages, then I would have done so already, but I am trying to teach myself how ZFS can be useful in my environments and not limit myself or taking the long way around. But thank you regardless, if it turns out, I can't accomplish my goal (of utilizing NFS and/or CIFS/SMB from within ZFS) then I will go the tried and true and very traditional route of install Samba. -- Chris Brennan -- A: Yes. Q: Are you sure? A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? http://xkcd.com/84/ | http://xkcd.com/149/ | http://xkcd.com/549/ GPG: D5B20C0C (6741 8EE4 6C7D 11FB 8DA8 9E4A EECD 9A84 D5B2 0C0C) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
