Re: Why BSD?
SNIP --DUN DUNH-- Dude, that is the worst sound for an admin to hear. Never heard it while working on any of my bsd boxes. Heard it twice this weekend. Upgrading a windas 2000 sbs to windas 2003 sbs box. Then I went Aiee. I like the fact that freebsd just works with no problems or stupid crap. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why BSD?
I have to ask: Why FreeBSD rather than Linux? Honest question. It makes you smarter. I learnt more about computing and networking setting up freebsd boxes for 1 month than years of being a gui jockey for the other systems, including linux. Now the tables have been turned. I am in control of them they are no longer in control of me. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why BSD?
This is not a troll. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2 on a spare SCSI drive and am compiling kernels, updating ports, etc,etc. Thus far, other than some minor hassles, it's equivilent to my Debian sid. I have to ask: Why FreeBSD rather than Linux? My personal experience. 4 years ago I had never installed a UNIX like OS, however I am an engineer so I read the manual first. I tried to find a coherent set of documentation in regards to Linux but because it is a huge munge of lots of different projects (Kernel, GNU, packages the distro has decided to add, everything else you actually need manually built by you) there is nothing coherent. I found a lot of arguments about licencing, source over binary, what should be in a distro and what shouldn't. Those arguments are still going on today. A friend pointed me a www.freebsd.org and loe-and-behold instructions on how to install and use the OS. Since then, I have never had to stray far from that site or this email list. - I have never experienced a failed system upgrade other than my own stupidity. - I have never experienced a system hang other than using alpha/beta software manually installed. - I have never been unable to install a port unless it was broken. - If that were'nt reason enough, I also can upgrade the whole thing once a month with NO pain. I guess this is a reflection of the managed, controlled environment under which system and ports are developed for FreeBSD. I guess what I'm saying is... it's dependable environment and I'm not just talking about the software. Phil. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why BSD?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Jesse Guardiani wrote: Jason M. Leonard wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Jesse Guardiani wrote: Jeff Elkins wrote: This is not a troll. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2 on a spare SCSI drive and am compiling kernels, updating ports, etc,etc. Thus far, other than some minor hassles, it's equivilent to my Debian sid. I have to ask: Why FreeBSD rather than Linux? Honest question. For me, this question has been answered twice in different attempts to give linux a try. I'm a Sys Admin, and we run FreeBSD almost exclusively at work. However, every new employee we hire walks into the building with an attitude that Linux is somehow better than FreeBSD because they're heard so much about it and haven't heard anything about FreeBSD. So, on two separate occasions, I decided to give linux a try. Both ended miserably: *snip* Occasion 2.) Got sick of Win 98 SE on my wife's computer, so I decided to give Linux a second chance. This time I WANTED to go with Red Hat, since it's arguably the most popular Linux distro. However, one look at their new licensing made me change my mind in favor of Gentoo - The most BSD-like Linux distro. Maybe I was doing something wrong, but I couldn't find an automated install process. I had to read a text file and copy and paste install commands by HAND to get Gentoo installed. This was painful and tedious. It took probably 4 hours to install. Their motto is freedom of choice or something similar. Well where is my freedom to choose a quick install??? Pros: Very nice BSD-like portage system. Top notch. Cons: Terrible install process. Took forever. A couple of weeks ago I acquired a 4x50 slot Overland Neo tape library for the purpose of backing up several 1T volumes that live on FreeBSD file servers. Unfortunately I could not find backup server software for FreeBSD that would allow me to back up volumes that span multiple tapes. [...] Needless to say, I will be implementing a better--and no doubt Linuxless--backup solution as soon as possible. Well, bacula will allow you to span multiple tapes. Be warned: Bacula+FreeBSD is in it's infancy, and you'll need 4.9-RELEASE or 5.2-RELEASE or higher in order to reliably use the multi-tape backup spanning functionality (a bug in the pthreads implementation of earlier versions of FreeBSD would cause data loss on the last 500k or so of tape). But this is what I'm currently implementing at work. We require nearly 1T of backup space too, and I intend to eek every last gig of space from my tapes. Again, bacula+FreeBSD is in it's infancy. I'm currently working with Kern, bacula's author, to get some issues worked out. And I have a few small patches that would probably make your life easier. But I definately see bacula as being a good backup solution for FreeBSD in the near future. Bacula also allows you to back up to disk. 160G large capacity ATA hard disks have a better cost/MB ratio than many tapes out there currently. Something to think about... http://www.bacula.org Thanks. I have thought about Bacula, actually. The problem is this: There is no concept of a Pool of backup devices (i.e. if device /dev/nst0 is busy, use /dev/nst1, ...). I have twenty 1T volumes spread out over four FreeBSD file servers; I have 200 110G SDLT1 (no compression for me because most of my data is audio) tapes in a library with two SDLT1 drives. The library supports up to 16 drives, and I hope to get at least a couple more in there this year. I have to be able to write to multiple devices simultaneously. :Fuzz ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why BSD?
what about security between the two ? which if either is better secure ? easier to secure ? more likely to be cracked ? lets say for newbies mostly. thanks all - Original Message - From: Puna [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 7:53 PM Subject: Re: Why BSD? It's also about quality of the underlying work. On average, Linux base code runs 10% faster under FreeBSD. Linux works toward patches for what everyone wants because it competes for the Windows market share. FreeBSD works toward solutions because it competes with no one. Jonathan T. Sage wrote: Chris wrote: On Friday 23 January 2004 10:40 pm, Jeff Elkins wrote: This is not a troll. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2 on a spare SCSI drive and am compiling kernels, updating ports, etc,etc. Thus far, other than some minor hassles, it's equivilent to my Debian sid. I have to ask: Why FreeBSD rather than Linux? Honest question. Thanks, Jeff Show us your feet! If they are Hobbit-like, it's a Troll *Laffs* Hah! Honestly though Jeff - You sound like an experienced user, at the risk of starting the war again, It really boils down to a lot of personal preference. We use freebsd because we like freebsd, we like the communitiy, etc, etc, etc. My choice boils down to 2 things. /usr/ports/.../... # make install and /usr/src # make world(ish) From the server standpoint, if you know what your doing, given enough time, you can do pretty much anything you could want to with either. ~jon ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why BSD?
Am Samstag, 24. Januar 2004 09:26 schrieb Mark: what about security between the two ? There are ways for both to harden your system. which if either is better secure ? In which cases? easier to secure ? It's a fact of patches and a fact of your ability to use 'vi' ;) more likely to be cracked ? I think both systems have they're holes a rat can come in. Regards, Thorsten ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why BSD?
On Friday 23 January 2004 10:40 pm, Jeff Elkins wrote: This is not a troll. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2 on a spare SCSI drive and am compiling kernels, updating ports, etc,etc. Thus far, other than some minor hassles, it's equivilent to my Debian sid. I have to ask: Why FreeBSD rather than Linux? Honest question. Thanks, Jeff That's a question to which each individual will have a valid, different answer. I think there are styles of operating system organization that are compatible with different user mentalities. I could never get an intuitive feel for running/configuring RedHat; and yet there are so many users that swear by it. I could use YAST; but hated the fact that it would overwrite my manual configuration changes. I was comfortable with Slackware; but manually searching for dependencies for apps not included in the distro sucked. Being comfortable with Slackware, testing FreeBSD was the logical next step. Based upon my own use of the computer (multitasking while performing clinical data analysis using PostgreSQL), I found that FreeBSD was more robust. Specifically, apps would become visibly sluggish in Linux while FreeBSD remained very responsive. ...and then there's the license issue -- let's agree to disagree; and let it stop there. Your issues and answers will be much different than mine; but just as valid. YMMV has never been more true. Choice is as important as a practical issue as it is as a principle. Best regards, Andrew Gould ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why BSD?
This is not a troll. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2 on a spare SCSI drive and am compiling kernels, updating ports, etc,etc. Thus far, other than some minor hassles, it's equivilent to my Debian sid. I have to ask: Why FreeBSD rather than Linux? Honest question. Thanks, Jeff why not? -rian _ Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here. http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why BSD?
Mark writes: what about security between the two ? which if either is better secure ? easier to secure ? more likely to be cracked ? lets say for newbies mostly. There's an old saying: The least safe part of any car is the nut behind the wheel.. Both Linux and *BSD are quite secure ... if one takes the time to understand your security needs, investigates the tools necessary to address them, designs the solution correctly, and keeps everything up to date. If not, not. There really is no shortcut here. There are simple things one can do - like disabling unused services in inetd - but if one wants the real stuff (firewall, logging, secure sockets, fully encrypted remote access, intrusion detection and notification, et alia) then they should be prepared to do the work. Robert Huff ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why BSD?
Jeff Elkins wrote: This is not a troll. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2 on a spare SCSI drive and am compiling kernels, updating ports, etc,etc. Thus far, other than some minor hassles, it's equivilent to my Debian sid. I have to ask: Why FreeBSD rather than Linux? Honest question. For me, this question has been answered twice in different attempts to give linux a try. I'm a Sys Admin, and we run FreeBSD almost exclusively at work. However, every new employee we hire walks into the building with an attitude that Linux is somehow better than FreeBSD because they're heard so much about it and haven't heard anything about FreeBSD. So, on two separate occasions, I decided to give linux a try. Both ended miserably: Occasion 1.) I bought a new laptop. I was having trouble getting suspend and resume to work under FreeBSD, so I decided to give linux a try. I decided on Debian linux (woody originally, and later unstable and finally the testing branch). Installation went smoothly, but I immediately ran into massive problems with the console driver. 4 or 5 lines of text were hidden below the bottom of my LCD. Very frustrating. I later found out that I couldn't use DRI/DRM with Debian because the version of XFree86 wasn't current enough. I ran into many many other problems, but some of these may have simply been due to the learning curve for a new O/S. gpm behaved badly, difficult to install wireless drivers, etc... Pros: Great packaging system. Upgrades were comparatively as easy as FreeBSD, once you learned a few tricks - like upping the amount of RAM the package tools could use. Binary security updates were a great feature that FreeBSD is only now attempting to implement. Cons: Very difficult to actually figure out how to use new software. Incredible lack of `man` pages, which are replaced by terrible and usually unintelligible `info` pages. Excruciatingly out-of-date packages. It takes *years* for new releases to come out, and even the testing branch (most unstable branch they have) lags months behind other distributions in some areas (like XFree86). Switched back to FreeBSD. Installed 5.1-RELEASE. Toughed it out and got suspend-resume working. Couldn't be happier. This laptop is still in service and happily runs FreeBSD 5.2-RELEASE every day. Occasion 2.) Got sick of Win 98 SE on my wife's computer, so I decided to give Linux a second chance. This time I WANTED to go with Red Hat, since it's arguably the most popular Linux distro. However, one look at their new licensing made me change my mind in favor of Gentoo - The most BSD-like Linux distro. Maybe I was doing something wrong, but I couldn't find an automated install process. I had to read a text file and copy and paste install commands by HAND to get Gentoo installed. This was painful and tedious. It took probably 4 hours to install. Their motto is freedom of choice or something similar. Well where is my freedom to choose a quick install??? Pros: Very nice BSD-like portage system. Top notch. Cons: Terrible install process. Took forever. Just as I got X11 installed and configured, my dog hit the reset button on my case. The computer wasn't even DOING anything. It was just sitting at a command prompt. However, upon rebooting the machine my ReiserFS filesystem was TOTALY hosed. This NEVER happens under FreeBSD. At this point there was NO WAY I was going to wade through another 4 hour install session, so I gave up and installed FreeBSD 5.2-RC1 (now upgraded to -RELEASE). Now, maybe I just got unlucky both times. It happens. I know. Even FreeBSD acts strange on some hardware. And maybe one day I'll give Linux a 3rd chance, but it isn't today, and probably won't be anytime soon. Also, the enormous number of Linux distros makes Linux very unappealing to me. I've heard Linux described as Managed Chaos before, and I agree. It just doesn't compliment my way of doing things very well. But hey, maybe it will for you. YMMV. Hope the above rant helps a little. Also, here's an article I found a few weeks ago that is very in-line with my experiences using *BSD and Linux: http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php -- Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator WingNET Internet Services, P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605 423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f) http://www.wingnet.net
Re: Why BSD?
Hi, folks, All these very intelligent, well-reasoned, sometimes philosophical answers--mine is nothing like that. A company for which I want to work uses FreeBSD extensively, so I'm learning something about it at home. That simple, John A see me fulminate at http://www.jzip.org/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why BSD?
On Saturday 24 January 2004 03:26 pm, Jesse Guardiani wrote: Occasion 2.) Got sick of Win 98 SE on my wife's computer, so I decided to give Linux a second chance. This time I WANTED to go with Red Hat, since it's arguably the most popular Linux distro. However, one look at their new licensing made me change my mind in favor of Gentoo - The most BSD-like Linux distro. Slackware + portage would be interesting. Andrew Gould ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why BSD?
- Original Message - From: Jesse Guardiani [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 3:26 PM Subject: Re: Why BSD? Jeff Elkins wrote: This is not a troll. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2 on a spare SCSI drive and am compiling kernels, updating ports, etc,etc. Thus far, other than some minor hassles, it's equivilent to my Debian sid. I have to ask: Why FreeBSD rather than Linux? Honest question. For me, this question has been answered twice in different attempts to give linux a try. I'm a Sys Admin, and we run FreeBSD almost exclusively at work. However, every new employee we hire walks into the building with an attitude that Linux is somehow better than FreeBSD because they're heard so much about it and haven't heard anything about FreeBSD. So, on two separate occasions, I decided to give linux a try. Both ended miserably: For me, this is what severely soured my stomach to Linux. I ran Redhat quite a few years ago for about 3 months. Granted, it wasn't as easy as it is now. This version had no gui installer and you had to know the ftp site location to point the installer to back then. FreeBSD wasn't much easier at the time as I recall so that was not really an issue. Well, I then I decided that I wanted to learn bind. But the OS version of course wasn't current so I went and grabbed the rpm for my version of linux that was current. I then went to uninstall the existing system bind portion and it gave an error that permission was denied. I was logged in from console as root, and it wouldn't allow me to uninstall it, nor would it allow me to install over it or upgrade it. So, I blew it away. -- Micheal Patterson Network Administration TSG Incorporated 405-917-0600 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why BSD?
On Friday 23 January 2004 11:40 pm, Jeff Elkins wrote: This is not a troll. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2 on a spare SCSI drive and am compiling kernels, updating ports, etc,etc. Thus far, other than some minor hassles, it's equivilent to my Debian sid. I have to ask: Why FreeBSD rather than Linux? Honest question. Thanks for the answers and links! Jeff ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why BSD?
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Jesse Guardiani wrote: Jeff Elkins wrote: This is not a troll. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2 on a spare SCSI drive and am compiling kernels, updating ports, etc,etc. Thus far, other than some minor hassles, it's equivilent to my Debian sid. I have to ask: Why FreeBSD rather than Linux? Honest question. For me, this question has been answered twice in different attempts to give linux a try. I'm a Sys Admin, and we run FreeBSD almost exclusively at work. However, every new employee we hire walks into the building with an attitude that Linux is somehow better than FreeBSD because they're heard so much about it and haven't heard anything about FreeBSD. So, on two separate occasions, I decided to give linux a try. Both ended miserably: *snip* Occasion 2.) Got sick of Win 98 SE on my wife's computer, so I decided to give Linux a second chance. This time I WANTED to go with Red Hat, since it's arguably the most popular Linux distro. However, one look at their new licensing made me change my mind in favor of Gentoo - The most BSD-like Linux distro. Maybe I was doing something wrong, but I couldn't find an automated install process. I had to read a text file and copy and paste install commands by HAND to get Gentoo installed. This was painful and tedious. It took probably 4 hours to install. Their motto is freedom of choice or something similar. Well where is my freedom to choose a quick install??? Pros: Very nice BSD-like portage system. Top notch. Cons: Terrible install process. Took forever. A couple of weeks ago I acquired a 4x50 slot Overland Neo tape library for the purpose of backing up several 1T volumes that live on FreeBSD file servers. Unfortunately I could not find backup server software for FreeBSD that would allow me to back up volumes that span multiple tapes. I had had good luck with BRU back in my UUNET days, so I decided to give their BRU-Pro software, which offers a FreeBSD client, a whirl. The server software only runs on Linux, but I really needed to get these backups done and so I said to myself one Linux box won't be so bad. I, too, had heard of the BSD-like Gentoo and decided to start there. After over three painful hours of installtion my machine just hung following a reboot. Joy. It was about 5am. I downloaded the next Linux distro I could find ISOs for--Mandrake 9.2. Much to my surprise the Mandrake install was quick and painless. Woot! I thought I was home free. But then I read this on the BRU-Pro site: Requirements: Linux system Running kernel 2.2.19 - 2.2.25 or 2.4.23 Hmm, I was running 2.4.22. Maybe that was close enough? If you choose to use a 2.4 kernel older than 2.4.23 or the updated RH 2.4.9-34, you're literally gambling with your data! These are the ONLY kernel revisions we support. I guess not. And lo, I began to learn about upgrading the Linux kernel. For about half an hour, then I decided this was taking up way too much of my life and decided to go the RPM route. Except--DUN DUNH--there is no 2.4.23 RPM kernel upgrade for Mandrake because apparently they are having some sort of issue with it. GREAT! So then I read this: If you are having issues with BRU-Pro on your system, we recommend Red Hat 6.2 with the 2.2.19 kernel, Mandrake 7.2 w/2.2.19, Mandrake 8.0, or Caldera 2.4 as the best version of Linux. Red Hat, 6.2, eh? Yes, fine, at this point I'll try anything. I download. I burn ISOs. The installer crashes halfway through the install, not surprising considering my box is a dual Xeon with 2G RAM. Hours pass, I will spare the details, but after trying to match up several different distros of Linux to this chart: Linux users running BRU-Pro 2.0 under a 2.4.x kernel need to be aware of SCSI subsystem issues in the various 2.4.x kernels. We have run tests and researched all 2.4.x kernels through 2.4.20 and have discovered the following: (GREEN = good, RED = bad). * 2.4.2-2 Shipped with Red Hat 7.1 - Stable * 2.4.2 Stock - Issues with SCSI Generic under Adaptec and Symbios chipsets * 2.4.3 Stock - Stable * 2.4.4/5/6 Stock - __alloc errors on SCSI I/O * 2.4.6-2 Shipped in Red Hat 7.2 BETA - Stable * 2.4.7 Stock - Stable * 2.4.8/9/10/11 Stock - Issues with busfree and __alloc errors * 2.4.9-34 Red Hat - Stable (Most stable kernel for Red Hat 7.2) (***USE THIS KERNEL***) * 2.4.12/13/14 Stock - Stable, but ENOSPACE bug * 2.4.18-3 Red Hat - Stock kernel for 7.3 - UPGRADE THIS! Lots of SG errors * 2.4.18-10 Red Hat - Stable (Latest Kernel for 7.3), ENOSPACE bug and problems with the 3c59x driver * 2.4.19 Stock - Bad, ENOSPACE bug and problems with the 3c59x driver * 2.4.20-19.9 - Bad, ENOSPACE bug back again. * 2.4.20 plus st patch - Stable, ENOSPACE bug fixed I finally wound up back with Mandrake 9.2 running a 2.4.24 experimental kernel that seems to do the trick. Sort of. The whole thing is rather cranky
Re: Why BSD?
BSD is arguably more popular. Mac OS X uses BSD code for portions of the kernel and the userland. 10.3 uses FreeBSD 5.0 code, and previous releases used FreeBSD 3.2 or NetBSD code. SInce Apple is the number one supplier of *NIX, i'd say that is a good reason. Apple has shipped more OS X units than all the linux distros. The other question on my mind is the future of Linux. The GNU would prefer everyone to switch to GNU HURD which is a Mach kernel style operating system. The remaining momentum for Linux is large companies that got on the bandwagon late like IBM, and Sun. Personally, I never think of IBM as a trend setter. If they were, everyone would be using OS/2 right now. (my OS/2 box is really dusty!) Also, there are two groups of distros of linux.. the large ones that only care about $$$ and the small indepenants that have terrible installers, limited support, and weak compatibility. Software for linux is tested on redhat, suse, or debian. If you don't run the $$$ distros, good luck. On the BSD end, i can count the distros practically on one hand. large projects: FreeBSD, NetBSD medium: OpenBSD, OpenDarwin small: DragonFly, ClosedBSD, PicoBSD the last two are actually freebsd derivatives used for specific purposes. Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] FoolishGames.com (Jewel Fan Site) JustJournal.com (Free blogging) 'Re-implementing what I designed in 1979 is not interesting to me personally. For kids who are 20 years younger than me, Linux is a great way to cut your teeth. It's a cultural phenomenon and a business phenomenon. Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much prefer it to Linux.' -- Bill Joy, Wired Article 2003 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why BSD?
Jason M. Leonard wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Jesse Guardiani wrote: Jeff Elkins wrote: This is not a troll. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2 on a spare SCSI drive and am compiling kernels, updating ports, etc,etc. Thus far, other than some minor hassles, it's equivilent to my Debian sid. I have to ask: Why FreeBSD rather than Linux? Honest question. For me, this question has been answered twice in different attempts to give linux a try. I'm a Sys Admin, and we run FreeBSD almost exclusively at work. However, every new employee we hire walks into the building with an attitude that Linux is somehow better than FreeBSD because they're heard so much about it and haven't heard anything about FreeBSD. So, on two separate occasions, I decided to give linux a try. Both ended miserably: *snip* Occasion 2.) Got sick of Win 98 SE on my wife's computer, so I decided to give Linux a second chance. This time I WANTED to go with Red Hat, since it's arguably the most popular Linux distro. However, one look at their new licensing made me change my mind in favor of Gentoo - The most BSD-like Linux distro. Maybe I was doing something wrong, but I couldn't find an automated install process. I had to read a text file and copy and paste install commands by HAND to get Gentoo installed. This was painful and tedious. It took probably 4 hours to install. Their motto is freedom of choice or something similar. Well where is my freedom to choose a quick install??? Pros: Very nice BSD-like portage system. Top notch. Cons: Terrible install process. Took forever. A couple of weeks ago I acquired a 4x50 slot Overland Neo tape library for the purpose of backing up several 1T volumes that live on FreeBSD file servers. Unfortunately I could not find backup server software for FreeBSD that would allow me to back up volumes that span multiple tapes. [...] Needless to say, I will be implementing a better--and no doubt Linuxless--backup solution as soon as possible. Well, bacula will allow you to span multiple tapes. Be warned: Bacula+FreeBSD is in it's infancy, and you'll need 4.9-RELEASE or 5.2-RELEASE or higher in order to reliably use the multi-tape backup spanning functionality (a bug in the pthreads implementation of earlier versions of FreeBSD would cause data loss on the last 500k or so of tape). But this is what I'm currently implementing at work. We require nearly 1T of backup space too, and I intend to eek every last gig of space from my tapes. Again, bacula+FreeBSD is in it's infancy. I'm currently working with Kern, bacula's author, to get some issues worked out. And I have a few small patches that would probably make your life easier. But I definately see bacula as being a good backup solution for FreeBSD in the near future. Bacula also allows you to back up to disk. 160G large capacity ATA hard disks have a better cost/MB ratio than many tapes out there currently. Something to think about... http://www.bacula.org -- Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator WingNET Internet Services, P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605 423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f) http://www.wingnet.net ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why BSD?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:40:39PM -0500, Jeff Elkins wrote: This is not a troll. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2 on a spare SCSI drive and am compiling kernels, updating ports, etc,etc. Thus far, other than some minor hassles, it's equivilent to my Debian sid. I have to ask: Why FreeBSD rather than Linux? http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/ may help Gautam ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why BSD?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 23 January 2004 10:40 pm, Jeff Elkins wrote: This is not a troll. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2 on a spare SCSI drive and am compiling kernels, updating ports, etc,etc. Thus far, other than some minor hassles, it's equivilent to my Debian sid. I have to ask: Why FreeBSD rather than Linux? Honest question. Thanks, Jeff Show us your feet! If they are Hobbit-like, it's a Troll *Laffs* - -- Best regards, Chris -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAEgLwD5P/gMAbw2MRAn+NAJ9aMoNW8v8B6QzaE3w5HpjBLBtwmgCfXp0q Gl36EXkIJxEHW+uY3Lvfvzc= =seP7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why BSD?
Chris wrote: On Friday 23 January 2004 10:40 pm, Jeff Elkins wrote: This is not a troll. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2 on a spare SCSI drive and am compiling kernels, updating ports, etc,etc. Thus far, other than some minor hassles, it's equivilent to my Debian sid. I have to ask: Why FreeBSD rather than Linux? Honest question. Thanks, Jeff Show us your feet! If they are Hobbit-like, it's a Troll *Laffs* Hah! Honestly though Jeff - You sound like an experienced user, at the risk of starting the war again, It really boils down to a lot of personal preference. We use freebsd because we like freebsd, we like the communitiy, etc, etc, etc. My choice boils down to 2 things. /usr/ports/.../... # make install and /usr/src # make world(ish) From the server standpoint, if you know what your doing, given enough time, you can do pretty much anything you could want to with either. ~jon -- Yesterday upon the stair I saw a man who wasn't there, he wasn't there again today, oh how i wish he'd go away Jonathan T. Sage Theatrical Lighting / Set Designer Professional Web Design [HTTP://www.JTSage.com] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [See Headers for Contact Info] pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why BSD?
It's also about quality of the underlying work. On average, Linux base code runs 10% faster under FreeBSD. Linux works toward patches for what everyone wants because it competes for the Windows market share. FreeBSD works toward solutions because it competes with no one. Jonathan T. Sage wrote: Chris wrote: On Friday 23 January 2004 10:40 pm, Jeff Elkins wrote: This is not a troll. I've installed FreeBSD 5.2 on a spare SCSI drive and am compiling kernels, updating ports, etc,etc. Thus far, other than some minor hassles, it's equivilent to my Debian sid. I have to ask: Why FreeBSD rather than Linux? Honest question. Thanks, Jeff Show us your feet! If they are Hobbit-like, it's a Troll *Laffs* Hah! Honestly though Jeff - You sound like an experienced user, at the risk of starting the war again, It really boils down to a lot of personal preference. We use freebsd because we like freebsd, we like the communitiy, etc, etc, etc. My choice boils down to 2 things. /usr/ports/.../... # make install and /usr/src # make world(ish) From the server standpoint, if you know what your doing, given enough time, you can do pretty much anything you could want to with either. ~jon ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
