Re: ARP tables in FreeBSD (vs Linux)
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Nikos Vassiliadis nv...@gmx.com wrote: Was the rate of ARPs the problem? Nikos, unfortunately, I'm not sure. It was one of those things where in an effort to quickly fix things, I split up the collision domain and used a router to handle the ARP. Right now, a 7201 router has about 15K ARPs, and the system is much slower. In similar situations later (when a router is not handy), I would like the option of using a FreeBSD box (hence the reason I posed the question here on the forum). -- Also on LinkedIn? Feel free to connect if you too are an open networker: scubac...@gmail.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: ARP tables in FreeBSD (vs Linux)
On May 27, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Rogelio wrote: It was one of those things where in an effort to quickly fix things, I split up the collision domain and used a router to handle the ARP. Right now, a 7201 router has about 15K ARPs, and the system is much slower. I'm not surprised. Even good switches tend to have max ARP table sizes of 4000 of 8000 entries; your 7201 or the Linux gateway previously might be encountering slowdowns because the switches are constantly needing to relearn ARP table entries which have been dropped. Anyway, regardless of your router platform, it's not a preferable situation to put thousands of MACs into a single collision domain, much less tens of thousands. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ 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: ARP tables in FreeBSD (vs Linux)
On 5/23/2011 10:46 PM, Rogelio wrote: I found that a certain Linux gateway was having a difficult time with thousands of ARP entries (about 13K concurrent ARP entries in 10 min from ISP subscribers), so I put it behind a Cisco 7201 router and added an IP helper to the interface. Now it seems to be working much much better. Was the rate of ARPs the problem? Or the size of the ARP table? Nikos ___ 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
ARP tables in FreeBSD (vs Linux)
I found that a certain Linux gateway was having a difficult time with thousands of ARP entries (about 13K concurrent ARP entries in 10 min from ISP subscribers), so I put it behind a Cisco 7201 router and added an IP helper to the interface. Now it seems to be working much much better. In the future, I'd like to possibly use a FreeBSD box for this, but I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions, experience, or tips on how FreeBSD handle ARP compared to Linux. Or should I just keep this sort of thing dedicated to network appliances? -- Also on LinkedIn? Feel free to connect if you too are an open networker: scubac...@gmail.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: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the software admin told me that the permissions should be very open on the directories and files so i made them 0777. the software worked like a charm for about 2 months but after that at some point the client couldn't access the files on the samba server. if it could work for 2 months and then refused - something must have been changed on the client software side. No Mr. Puchar nothing changed on the client side. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:43:03 +0200 (CEST) Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the software admin told me that the permissions should be very open on the directories and files so i made them 0777. the software worked like a charm for about 2 months but after that at some point the client couldn't access the files on the samba server. if it could work for 2 months and then refused - something must have been changed on the client software side. Yes, something must have changed. Most likely the problem had nothing to do with FreeBSD against Linux. I appears that the fresh setup fixed it. -- Manfred Usselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Manfred Usselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:43:03 +0200 (CEST) Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the software admin told me that the permissions should be very open on the directories and files so i made them 0777. the software worked like a charm for about 2 months but after that at some point the client couldn't access the files on the samba server. if it could work for 2 months and then refused - something must have been changed on the client software side. Yes, something must have changed. Most likely the problem had nothing to do with FreeBSD against Linux. I appears that the fresh setup fixed it. I have never said that it has something to do with FBSB. And unfortunately i didn't had the time to debug it to find out the problem. I would like to know what happened there. The good thing is that a future client of my company works with the same accounting software and the server runs FBSD so if something goes wrong i'll have the time to debug properly. all the best, v -- Manfred Usselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
if it could work for 2 months and then refused - something must have been changed on the client software side. No Mr. Puchar nothing changed on the client side. so what changed on server side so it stopped working after 2 months? in unix there are no magic things - things works or not. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
i didn't had the time to debug it to find out the problem. I would like to know what happened there. The good thing is that a future client of my company works with the same accounting software and the server runs FBSD so if something goes wrong i'll have the time to debug properly. it may be some new problems with locking if you say about accounting software. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
Charles Mason wrote: On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am very interrested by feedback of real world samba admins running it with FreeBSD or Linux , my boss push hardly to use Linux but I would much prefer FreeBSD do what your boss wants. it's his company, and it's his right to make bad decision ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If he's a good boss (as the poster seem to be implying) then he will be asking because he hasn't made his mind up his mind completely, but yeah don't get fired over it :) From what I have seen, both are perfectly capable and since its samba that will be doing most of the actual work its probably doesn't matter that much. Of course the next question if he goes with Linux, is which distro. Perhaps the question should be FreeBSD v Red Hat v Ubuntu v SUSE v latest flavour of the month. Since keeping it patched is essential, these sorts of admin features do matter. I am not sure what File System you plan on using but FreeBSD does have one killer feature Linux doesn't, ZFS. Linux thanks to licensing issues doesn't really have a solid implementation yet (although there have been attempts). If you need its features and can put a decent amount of RAM in to the file server, to good be a good choice and perhaps just the angle you are looking for. To be honest I haven't used ZFS in serious production yet although I have been running it at home on my DIY 1.25tb NAS without any issues for nearly a year. Still if you have spent a lot an expensive RAID system disabling it and using ZFS's superior (unless you really spent a lot on that RAID hardware) redundancy may not go down to well. Hope that's of some help. Charlie M Hello Thanks for your answer, filesystem is not really my problem I'll use a Netapp server for home directories. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
hello list, a little story about samba and FreeBSD. I had to make a file server for a company that uses a program for accounting. that software works with lots of files to do the job. the software admin told me that the permissions should be very open on the directories and files so i made them 0777. the software worked like a charm for about 2 months but after that at some point the client couldn't access the files on the samba server. The files were there with the correct permissions but the software refused to access them with an error that they don't exist. I've tried to debug samba but couldn't find a clue, i have updated FreeBSD because i thought that the problem is with seekdir because the software was usign lot of files and directories. That didn't solve the problem either. I have searched the web for a guidance but couldn't find any. The interesting part comes when the company decided to change the OS to openSUSE. That did the trick. So first thing that comes in mind is that FreeBSD + samba + that accounting software just don't work together. I didn't had the chance to debug it as i should because they needed a fix ASAP. I have always used FreeBSD for web/file/VoIP server and never had a problem. I even have a FBSD box that server as a file server and there are lots of files and 10 depth directories and it works like a charm. I have no conclusions, is just a story of my own to help you make an opinion. all the best, v On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Frank Bonnet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charles Mason wrote: On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am very interrested by feedback of real world samba admins running it with FreeBSD or Linux , my boss push hardly to use Linux but I would much prefer FreeBSD do what your boss wants. it's his company, and it's his right to make bad decision ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If he's a good boss (as the poster seem to be implying) then he will be asking because he hasn't made his mind up his mind completely, but yeah don't get fired over it :) From what I have seen, both are perfectly capable and since its samba that will be doing most of the actual work its probably doesn't matter that much. Of course the next question if he goes with Linux, is which distro. Perhaps the question should be FreeBSD v Red Hat v Ubuntu v SUSE v latest flavour of the month. Since keeping it patched is essential, these sorts of admin features do matter. I am not sure what File System you plan on using but FreeBSD does have one killer feature Linux doesn't, ZFS. Linux thanks to licensing issues doesn't really have a solid implementation yet (although there have been attempts). If you need its features and can put a decent amount of RAM in to the file server, to good be a good choice and perhaps just the angle you are looking for. To be honest I haven't used ZFS in serious production yet although I have been running it at home on my DIY 1.25tb NAS without any issues for nearly a year. Still if you have spent a lot an expensive RAID system disabling it and using ZFS's superior (unless you really spent a lot on that RAID hardware) redundancy may not go down to well. Hope that's of some help. Charlie M Hello Thanks for your answer, filesystem is not really my problem I'll use a Netapp server for home directories. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Valentin Bud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hello list, a little story about samba and FreeBSD. I had to make a file server for a company that uses a program for accounting. that software works with lots of files to do the job. the software admin told me that the permissions should be very open on the directories and files so i made them 0777. the software worked like a charm for about 2 months but after that at some point the client couldn't access the files on the samba server. The files were there with the correct permissions but the software refused to access them with an error that they don't exist. I've tried to debug samba but couldn't find a clue, i have updated FreeBSD because i thought that the problem is with seekdir because the software was usign lot of files and directories. That didn't solve the problem either. I have searched the web for a guidance but couldn't find any. The interesting part comes when the company decided to change the OS to openSUSE. That did the trick. So first thing that comes in mind is that FreeBSD + samba + that accounting software just don't work together. I didn't had the chance to debug it as i should because they needed a fix ASAP. I have always used FreeBSD for web/file/VoIP server and never had a problem. I even have a FBSD box that server as a file server and there are lots of files and 10 depth directories and it works like a charm. I have no conclusions, is just a story of my own to help you make an opinion. Are you using the same samba config file from FreeBSD on OpenSUSE? Do you mind showing us that smb.conf -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Oh My God! They killed init! You Bastards! --from a /. post ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
Hello list, On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Odhiambo Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Valentin Bud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hello list, a little story about samba and FreeBSD. I had to make a file server for a company that uses a program for accounting. that software works with lots of files to do the job. the software admin told me that the permissions should be very open on the directories and files so i made them 0777. the software worked like a charm for about 2 months but after that at some point the client couldn't access the files on the samba server. The files were there with the correct permissions but the software refused to access them with an error that they don't exist. I've tried to debug samba but couldn't find a clue, i have updated FreeBSD because i thought that the problem is with seekdir because the software was usign lot of files and directories. That didn't solve the problem either. I have searched the web for a guidance but couldn't find any. The interesting part comes when the company decided to change the OS to openSUSE. That did the trick. So first thing that comes in mind is that FreeBSD + samba + that accounting software just don't work together. I didn't had the chance to debug it as i should because they needed a fix ASAP. I have always used FreeBSD for web/file/VoIP server and never had a problem. I even have a FBSD box that server as a file server and there are lots of files and 10 depth directories and it works like a charm. I have no conclusions, is just a story of my own to help you make an opinion. Are you using the same samba config file from FreeBSD on OpenSUSE? Do you mind showing us that smb.conf. Unfortunately i didn't configured the OpenSUSE server so i don't have access to the box. AFAIK the configuration is the same. Standard samba config file just changing the netbios name and adding the shares. In the next few weeks i will be able to access the box and i will come back with the both setups. I forgot to mention that i used FBSD 6.2. all the best, v -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Oh My God! They killed init! You Bastards! --from a /. post ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
the software admin told me that the permissions should be very open on the directories and files so i made them 0777. the software worked like a charm for about 2 months but after that at some point the client couldn't access the files on the samba server. if it could work for 2 months and then refused - something must have been changed on the client software side. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
Valentin Bud wrote: hello list, a little story about samba and FreeBSD. I had to make a file server for a company that uses a program for accounting. that software works with lots of files to do the job. the software admin told me that the permissions should be very open on the directories and files so i made them 0777. the software worked like a charm for about 2 months but after that at some point the client couldn't access the files on the samba server. The files were there with the correct permissions but the software refused to access them with an error that they don't exist. I've tried to debug samba but couldn't find [...] Here's another story. Our accounting packages also dump their files, databases and settings onto network drives. This is what we tend to do: 1.- Create a dedicated network drive for every software package with its own letter. Let's say package XYZ gets letter Y:. All users connecting to Samba must load network drive for XYZ as Y:. Otherwise some client instances may complain that the database was installed on Y: but there's nothing because it is actually somewhere else. 2.- Create user xyz and group xyz. Then map the XYZ network drive as xyz:xyz. By this, we avoid permission problems. 3.- Whenever we call tech support, we tell them that our network drives are located on a Windows 2003 machine. This saves us unnecessary headaches and warranty issues. We've been doing this for years and it works like a charm. Regards, Mikhail. -- Mikhail Goriachev Webanoide ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
Frank Bonnet schrieb: I am on the way to setup a brand new Samba server with OpenLDAP backend I am very interrested by feedback of real world samba admins running it with FreeBSD or Linux , my boss push hardly to use Linux but I would much prefer FreeBSD so good arguments are welcome ( my boss is a smart guy , if I give enough litterature that says FreeBSD is better, he will be OK ) In the dark ages of FreeBSD 5.x ;) we've used Linux (Debian, RedHat) but nowadays I would certainly prefer FreeBSD again, because: - The software in the ports is close to what comes from upstream, Linux-Distros often keep old versions or inhouse modifications which can lead to disasters like e.g. the Debian OpenSSL bug or unuseable LDAP-servers that are delivered with RedHat. - Linux-Distros are conservative in updating software versions or fixing bugs in their so called stable releases. In most cases (RedHat, Debian) the fixes are backported to older versions, in other cases (Ubuntu) fixes may break your system or bugs are simply ignored. If you need a newer version of a certain software, you will very soon find yourself using backports from foreign repositories or start rolling your own packages. But if you have to leave the package management system of your distro anyway, why not use the comfort of FreeBSD ports? - Once you are familiar with it, FreeBSD is easier to manage IMHO, it's clean and mostly well documented. - FreeBSD has jails. :) More seriously I'm also searching for eventuals benchmarks that compare those two configurations. I don't think that there are great performance differences nowadays. bye, Uwe ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
Hello I am on the way to setup a brand new Samba server with OpenLDAP backend I am very interrested by feedback of real world samba admins running it with FreeBSD or Linux , my boss push hardly to use Linux but I would much prefer FreeBSD so good arguments are welcome ( my boss is a smart guy , if I give enough litterature that says FreeBSD is better, he will be OK ) More seriously I'm also searching for eventuals benchmarks that compare those two configurations. Thanks a lot. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
I am very interrested by feedback of real world samba admins running it with FreeBSD or Linux , my boss push hardly to use Linux but I would much prefer FreeBSD do what your boss wants. it's his company, and it's his right to make bad decision ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
On Friday 17 October 2008 10:42:05 Wojciech Puchar wrote: do what your boss wants. it's his company, and it's his right to make bad decision This is off-topic, but I wholly disagree. As a professional employee, it's my job to advise my boss on technological matters, and to persuade him to change course if I think he's making a bad decision. I'm not paid to do data entry, but to know enough about my job to know what's best for my employer. The final decision is his, but until he's made it, I'll do what I can to steer him. -- Kirk Strauser ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am very interrested by feedback of real world samba admins running it with FreeBSD or Linux , my boss push hardly to use Linux but I would much prefer FreeBSD do what your boss wants. it's his company, and it's his right to make bad decision ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If he's a good boss (as the poster seem to be implying) then he will be asking because he hasn't made his mind up his mind completely, but yeah don't get fired over it :) From what I have seen, both are perfectly capable and since its samba that will be doing most of the actual work its probably doesn't matter that much. Of course the next question if he goes with Linux, is which distro. Perhaps the question should be FreeBSD v Red Hat v Ubuntu v SUSE v latest flavour of the month. Since keeping it patched is essential, these sorts of admin features do matter. I am not sure what File System you plan on using but FreeBSD does have one killer feature Linux doesn't, ZFS. Linux thanks to licensing issues doesn't really have a solid implementation yet (although there have been attempts). If you need its features and can put a decent amount of RAM in to the file server, to good be a good choice and perhaps just the angle you are looking for. To be honest I haven't used ZFS in serious production yet although I have been running it at home on my DIY 1.25tb NAS without any issues for nearly a year. Still if you have spent a lot an expensive RAID system disabling it and using ZFS's superior (unless you really spent a lot on that RAID hardware) redundancy may not go down to well. Hope that's of some help. Charlie M ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 04:34:00PM +0200, Frank Bonnet wrote:
Hello
I am on the way to setup a brand new Samba server with OpenLDAP backend
I am very interrested by feedback of real world samba admins running it
with FreeBSD
or Linux , my boss push hardly to use Linux but I would much prefer FreeBSD
so good arguments are welcome ( my boss is a smart guy , if I give enough
litterature that says FreeBSD is better, he will be OK )
More seriously I'm also searching for eventuals benchmarks that compare
those two configurations.
Linux-based systems and FreeBSD systems should support Samba roughly
identically well. I seem to recall seeing some benchmarks for FreeBSD
network server operations under heavy load just crushing comparative
Linux-based servers, but I don't recall where.
Anyway, if you can find benchmarks to that effect, or at least benchmarks
that don't show Linux substantially beating FreeBSD, you should be
covered. Add in some stuff about how FreeBSD is better (for your
purposes, at least) in general, regardless of the specific Samba stuff,
and you should have a win.
FreeBSD support for Samba is, in my limited experience (haven't used
Samba much in the last four years), excellent. So is Samba support on,
for instance, Debian. I believe you'll have to look outside of Samba
support for reasons to pick one over the other.
--
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
print substr('Just another Perl hacker', 0, -2);
pgpfTFH33bcA2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 05:13:45PM +0100, Charles Mason wrote: From what I have seen, both are perfectly capable and since its samba that will be doing most of the actual work its probably doesn't matter that much. Of course the next question if he goes with Linux, is which distro. Perhaps the question should be FreeBSD v Red Hat v Ubuntu v SUSE v latest flavour of the month. Since keeping it patched is essential, these sorts of admin features do matter. And did this bug ever get addressed? If so, when/what commit? http://www.vnode.ch/fixing_seekdir The workaround is very, very painful when it comes to directories which have many files. That workaround is to disable the name cache entirely in Samba: directory name cache size = 0 -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
On Friday 17 October 2008 18:55:19 Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 05:13:45PM +0100, Charles Mason wrote: From what I have seen, both are perfectly capable and since its samba that will be doing most of the actual work its probably doesn't matter that much. Of course the next question if he goes with Linux, is which distro. Perhaps the question should be FreeBSD v Red Hat v Ubuntu v SUSE v latest flavour of the month. Since keeping it patched is essential, these sorts of admin features do matter. And did this bug ever get addressed? If so, when/what commit? http://www.vnode.ch/fixing_seekdir lib/libc/gen/readdir.c revision 1.15 date: 2008/05/05 14:05:23; author: kib; state: Exp; lines: +7 -6 Do not read away the target directory entry when encountering deleted files after a seekdir(). The seekdir shall set the position for the next readdir operation. When the _readdir_unlocked() encounters deleted entry, dd_loc is already advanced. Continuing the loop leads to premature read of the target entry. Submitted by: Marc Balmer mbalmer at openbsd org Obtained from: OpenBSD MFC after: 2 weeks -- Mel Problem with today's modular software: they start with the modules and never get to the software part. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
decision This is off-topic, but I wholly disagree. As a professional employee, it's my job to advise my boss on technological matters, yes - advise no - persuade! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
If he's a good boss (as the poster seem to be implying) then he will be asking because he hasn't made his mind up his mind completely, but yeah don't get fired over it :) in most cases and with system doing ONLY samba, both linux and freebsd will work fine. so his boss is not smart for sure persuading his employer linux (or whatever), instead of just saying make it work fine, whatever you do ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
Uit een eerder bericht (17-10-2008 17:42): do what your boss wants. it's his company, and it's his right to make bad decision A boss hires someone that knows what he/she is talking about and relies on his/her vision. To get informed this person might get his/her information before he/she decides what the best solution might be; I do hope he/she doesn't take any notice on your stupid reply. Jos Chrispijn ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
A boss hires someone that knows what he/she is talking about and relies on his/her vision. so - he/she should not persuade what OS will be, just WHAT should be done. To get informed this person might get his/her information before he/she decides what the best solution might be; I do hope he/she doesn't take any notice on your stupid reply. what reply is stupid ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing Samba : FreeBSD Vs Linux ?
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Frank Bonnet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello I am on the way to setup a brand new Samba server with OpenLDAP backend I am very interrested by feedback of real world samba admins running it with FreeBSD or Linux , my boss push hardly to use Linux but I would much prefer FreeBSD so good arguments are welcome ( my boss is a smart guy , if I give enough litterature that says FreeBSD is better, he will be OK ) More seriously I'm also searching for eventuals benchmarks that compare those two configurations. Thanks a lot. Hi This is probably not a reliable or objective comparison, but I get much better performance at home b/w a fbsd7/windows vista client and a fbsd6.2 server (freenas) over a 11g wireless network than in the office b/w a windows xp client and an ubuntu 8.04 server over a 100 Mbps ethernet network (even if I am the only person using the server). my server at home runs on an assembled 1.8 GHz athlon xp system with 512 MB RAM. The one in the office is a Wipro NetPower server with a 3 GHz Pentium 4 and 2 GB RAM. both servers run the default samba versions they came with, and both clients are kept upto date it could possibly be a problem with the default ubuntu server configuration, but i have not checked it out yet -- Gautham Ganapathy http://lisphacker.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mmap on freebsd vs linux
Hi All, i am looking into implementing a piece of the V4L interface. this involves mmap'ing from userspace into kernelspace. in mplayer, this is what is called: tvi_v4l2.c: priv-map[i].addr = mmap (0, priv-map[i].buf.length, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, priv-video_fd,priv-map[i].buf.m.offset); the file descriptor parameter is the file descriptor of the opened capture device. the offset parameter should be filled in by the opened device. does mmap work on freebsd as it works on linux? ie: can i mmap any device? are there constraints on the device which should be met? regards, usleep ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mmap on freebsd vs linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: does mmap work on freebsd as it works on linux? ie: can i mmap any device? are there constraints on the device which should be met? U ... man 2 mmap? Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mmap on freebsd vs linux
I'm not really an expert on this but here goes... On Wednesday 18 April 2007 18:05:44 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, i am looking into implementing a piece of the V4L interface. this involves mmap'ing from userspace into kernelspace. in mplayer, this is what is called: tvi_v4l2.c: priv-map[i].addr = mmap (0, priv-map[i].buf.length, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, priv-video_fd,priv-map[i].buf.m.offset); the file descriptor parameter is the file descriptor of the opened capture device. the offset parameter should be filled in by the opened device. A device won't fill in anything. A driver must. does mmap work on freebsd as it works on linux? ie: can i mmap any device? are there constraints on the device which should be met? You can mmap anything, but only if you get a (frame-) buffer of known size will it be useful to actually do something with it. The mplayer code probably takes the offset from what it knows about capture size (which for PAL/NTSC is known if also the YUV output type is known). You also need some signalling to know when to read the (new) buffer data again. I'd also advise to cast the address to caddr_t and the offset to off_t types. Will probably help compiling on 64 bits archs. And using both PROT_READ and PROT_WRITE seems non-sensical. You only want to read the buffer not (directly) write to it, unless perhaps if it contains more than just the framedata. That would seem bad design to me though, if you have to write to the same buffer that also contains data that you absolutely dont want to overwrite. I'm not familiar with v4l but simple and working mmap examples for FreeBSD with bktr and for saa are here: http://freebsd.ricin.com/kbtv/kbtv-1.2.4/bt848/bt848.c and http://freebsd.ricin.com/kbtv/kbtv-1.2.4/saa/saa.c Scroll down to Framebuffer. The buffer size is determined by the frame pixel size and by which YUV type is being used. The latter determines how much data is used on average per pixel, so you can calculate the datasize. See how bktr has offset 0 while saa has offset SAA_MMAP_T0_OFFSET. Both are what they are because of how their drivers are organized. See mmap(2) for the nitty-gritty on mmap. In general: if it segfaults or spontaneously reboots you likely made a mistake with the buffer size or offset :) HTH, Dan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 18 Jan 2006, at 17:17, Nikolas Britton wrote: On 1/17/06, Philip Hallstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The computer is currently without keyboard, mouse or monitor. I am adding applications to the computer via ssh while I work. As soon as I get openbox and tightvnc installed, I'll switch to tightvnc so I can disconnect without disrupting jobs. (Hmm, I wonder if I'll have to add a mouse or keyboard at that point.) /usr/ports/sysutils/screen Screen is a full-screen window manager that multiplexes a physical terminal between several processes (typically interactive shells). Each virtual terminal provides the functions of a DEC VT100 terminal and, in addition, several control functions from the ANSI X3.64 (ISO 6429) and ISO 2022 standards (e.g. insert/delete line and support for multiple character sets). There is a scrollback history buffer for each virtual terminal and a copy-and-paste mechanism that allows moving text regions between windows. nohup foobar ~/foobar.log tail -f ~/foobar.log If you think that is even vaguely equivalent to screen, then I cannot suggest strongly enough that you actually try it. Ceri -- That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all. -- Moliere PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: -Original Message- From: Adam Nealis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:13 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Graham Bentley; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: FreeBSD vs Linux --- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you say to the people who want to do some research before putting the time into installing it? I would suggest going to http://www.freebsd.org/docs.html and reading the FAQ (especially section 1) and the handbook for a start. This should give you an idea of the approach and the level of technical awareness you will need. The community and support sections should help you get a feel for how the OS is actually received. And if you have questions that aren't answered there, what then? Then come to this list, or approach some other forum that looks like it might be able to help. I am pointing this out because the process of asking questions on the mailing list is a legitimate means of research. Not everyone I agree. wants to just spend the time installing it and then deciding if they like it. Some want to do some research first, and that involves asking questions on the mailing list. Framing the question as a is freebsd better than linux kind of question is perfectly legitimate. I disagree with that. The guidelines for using this list recommend searching it first for answers. As you probably know, a fairly standard guideline in internet mailing lists is for newcomers to lurk. I have seen the subject of this thread many, many times. It is reasonably assumed that responsible internet users know to read the guidelines first. The idea is to both reduce repetition of questions, and to help the newcomer/ lurker to determine if this question has already been answered to their satisfaction faster than by posting to the list. If we as the FreeBSD community cannot answer that question, then why are we wasting our time with it? The question is too general. There are too many answers. It depends on context and depends on what one views as better. It is very _subjective_. Adam. ___ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
-Original Message- From: Adam Nealis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 2:59 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Graham Bentley; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux I disagree with that. The guidelines for using this list recommend searching it first for answers. As you probably know, a fairly standard guideline in internet mailing lists is for newcomers to lurk. I have seen the subject of this thread many, many times. It is reasonably assumed that responsible internet users know to read the guidelines first. The idea is to both reduce repetition of questions, and to help the newcomer/ lurker to determine if this question has already been answered to their satisfaction faster than by posting to the list. Except that both FreeBSD and Linux are constantly changing. Problems that are cited in one discussion are often taken care of or become moot issues because of other changes. If both the FreeBSD and Linux distributions were static and never changed then you would be correct, the answer is in the archives, dig it out. But that is not the case. Frankly, arguments like Is abortion right or wrong are based on issues that are far, far, far more static than either FreeBSD or Linux, yet those constantly come up over and over again in the public eye. If we as the FreeBSD community cannot answer that question, then why are we wasting our time with it? The question is too general. There are too many answers. It depends on context and depends on what one views as better. It is very _subjective_. I didn't say it was a good question, I said it was a legitimate question. Big difference. If you have ever worked a technical support desk you would know the difference between these types of questions. If you want to offer support to a questioner asking which is better, you need to explain why the question needs to be narrowed down and the only way to do this is to engage in a 2-way dialog with the questioner to find out what he needs. I think the problem with the which is better question in the group is that in the past, far too often, it's been trolls asking this question. They ask then when people try to engage them in a 2-way discussion they remain silent, or reply with irrelevant or completely stupid and idiotic responses. And unfortunately, a lot of axe-grinders on the list like to respond to trolls. But you don't want to lose sight of the fact that sometimes, the poster is simply ignorant of FreeBSD and Linux, and is asking this question because they simply don't know any better. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
What do you say to the people who want to do some research before putting the time into installing it? Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Graham Bentley Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:28 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Damn, I just fell into the same old trap. This is a questions list about FreeBSD. I already use it (as well as other OS's) What do I care about the arguments for and against xy and z? Thinking about it now, if I was asking the same question and someone said Why not try out FreeBSD and make your own mind up! I may think they where being a tad dismissive however there can never be any substitue for hands on experience !! To that guy (wherever he is now) :- Download FreeBSD and get it installed, its great! Come back and ask if you have any problems or questions and we will do our best to help :)) Happy FreeBSD'ing !!! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.19/231 - Release Date: 1/16/2006 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
--- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you say to the people who want to do some research before putting the time into installing it? I would suggest going to http://www.freebsd.org/docs.html and reading the FAQ (especially section 1) and the handbook for a start. This should give you an idea of the approach and the level of technical awareness you will need. The community and support sections should help you get a feel for how the OS is actually received. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Graham Bentley Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:28 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Damn, I just fell into the same old trap. This is a questions list about FreeBSD. I already use it (as well as other OS's) What do I care about the arguments for and against xy and z? Thinking about it now, if I was asking the same question and someone said Why not try out FreeBSD and make your own mind up! I may think they where being a tad dismissive however there can never be any substitue for hands on experience !! To that guy (wherever he is now) :- Download FreeBSD and get it installed, its great! Come back and ask if you have any problems or questions and we will do our best to help :)) Happy FreeBSD'ing !!! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.19/231 - Release Date: 1/16/2006 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
What do you say to the people who want to do some research before putting the time into installing it? Ted http://www.freesbie.org/ ;-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 01:19:38 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you say to the people who want to do some research before putting the time into installing it? Ted http://www.freebsd.org/ http://www.freebsddiary.org/topics.php http://www.onlamp.com/bsd/ http://www.freebsdforums.org/forums/index.php? http://www.ixsystems.com/cgi-bin/store/bsdlive.html http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=freebsdbtnG=Google+Search and don't forget: Have Fun! Andrew Gould ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
--- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danial Thom Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:54 AM To: Dick Davies; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. Ok, what do you guys live in a shoe or something? For pete's sake, how can so many people be so patently clueless and still be able to find food and shelter? Do you really have no idea how things work? Are you really so brainwashed by the geeky liberals that you have lost your ability to think? MS doesn't have to pay vendors, you toad. Vendors write drivers for windows because the market is substantial Actually, it's a lot worse than that, most times. The vendors usually aren't the ones that write drivers, it is the chipset manufacturers that usually write a stock driver that they supply with the chipset, with the idea that the vendor is supposed to use this as an example of how the chipset it to be handled when they write their own driver. All to often, though, the vendor merely repackages the chipset manufacturer's example driver. More rambling, useless points from Ted. Whether its written from scratch or not is irrelevant. The point is that in order to produce a windows driver you have to buy the dev kit, and MS doesn't pay them to do it. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
-Original Message- From: Adam Nealis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:13 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Graham Bentley; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: FreeBSD vs Linux --- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you say to the people who want to do some research before putting the time into installing it? I would suggest going to http://www.freebsd.org/docs.html and reading the FAQ (especially section 1) and the handbook for a start. This should give you an idea of the approach and the level of technical awareness you will need. The community and support sections should help you get a feel for how the OS is actually received. And if you have questions that aren't answered there, what then? I am pointing this out because the process of asking questions on the mailing list is a legitimate means of research. Not everyone wants to just spend the time installing it and then deciding if they like it. Some want to do some research first, and that involves asking questions on the mailing list. Framing the question as a is freebsd better than linux kind of question is perfectly legitimate. If we as the FreeBSD community cannot answer that question, then why are we wasting our time with it? Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
-Original Message- From: Danial Thom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 12:36 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Dick Davies; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: FreeBSD vs Linux More rambling, useless points from Ted. Whether its written from scratch or not is irrelevant. The point is that in order to produce a windows driver you have to buy the dev kit, Danial, do your homework next time. This isn't true. See the following: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/ddk/orderddkcd.mspx The cost of the Microsoft DDK is for shipping and handling only. (about $15) You don't have to buy it. Of course it works best with the MS C tools. People have also written Kernel Mode Drivers under the Windows Driver Model using gcc, see the following: http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/en/index.html There's also 3rd parties like the following: http://www.computer-solutions.co.uk/chipdev/windriver.htm who produce software that they claim will create drivers without the DDK and MS doesn't pay them to do it. My point was that if you actually spend some serious coin on some decent hardware instead of the dumpster diving you seem to be recommending, Danial, that you won't find that many problems getting drivers for UNIX systems. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
is freebsd better than linux kind of question is perfectly legitimate. Is FreeBSD more suitible as a desktop system with a 200mHz pentium-pro and a 4 gigabyte hard-drive than windows 3.11 on dos 6.22 on vmware on top of Solaris 10? is perfectly legitimate. Is FreeBSD better than Slackware? is legitimate. Is FreeBSD better than a generic kernel stuck onto an unknown useland being packaged by a 14-year-old AOL subscriber? is probably legitimate. Is FreeBSD better than *? is not. If we as the FreeBSD community cannot answer that question, then why are we wasting our time with it? I think this is a false dichotomy. Either that or I'm going to die tomorrow. -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:13 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux is freebsd better than linux kind of question is perfectly legitimate. Is FreeBSD more suitible as a desktop system with a 200mHz pentium-pro and a 4 gigabyte hard-drive than windows 3.11 on dos 6.22 on vmware on top of Solaris 10? is perfectly legitimate. Is FreeBSD better than Slackware? is legitimate. Is FreeBSD better than a generic kernel stuck onto an unknown useland being packaged by a 14-year-old AOL subscriber? is probably legitimate. Is FreeBSD better than *? is not. Anyone asking the question has an idea of what ? is, so your next logical question in preparing an answer is what version of linux This is implied, of course. If we as the FreeBSD community cannot answer that question, then why are we wasting our time with it? I think this is a false dichotomy. Either that or I'm going to die tomorrow. I can answer that question for me. My question to you is, if you cannot tell me why you think FreeBSD is better than any Linux distribution, then why are you bothering with it? Do you seek out inferior products to use, perchance? Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 08:03:15PM +0100, Mathias Menzel-Nielsen wrote: My hardware is fully supported by FreeBSD and in fact some of it was supported earlier on FreeBSD than on Linux. For example, the Brooktree bktr(4) Video-Capture driver existed first on FreeBSD, also high-speed cd-burning was not possible on Linux without eating all available cpu-time, before kernel 2.6 -- at that time FreeBSD burned my cd's at 52x-speed without noticeable cpu-usage. Multimedia was always a glance on FreeBSD -- dvd-playback/record, xvid-encoding, tv-capturing, blender -- all ever worked like a champ. Additionally to that, i would never move back to a linux distro, simply because their archaic package-management is not half as reliable in day-to-day-use as the FreeBSD ports tree. I am running the same FreeBSD install since 4.9 and it was easy and non-problematic to update to even major release changes. Even if that criticism doesnt apply as much to gentoo, which has some good efforts to use a ports-tree under Linux, I just prefer the original :) Same here. Using FreeBSD as a multimedia workstation and very happy with it. There are still a few shortcomings though, like missing MIDI recording (not playback) functionality and no support for my Pinnacle DC10+ Zoran video capture card; but if I need that, I'd just dual-boot into gentoo (which *does* feel a lot like FreeBSD from an admin POV and the main reason I picked that distro, just to feel more at home), do whatever is needed, and then reboot into FreeBSD. Not ideal, but workable. Regards, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Damn, I just fell into the same old trap. This is a questions list about FreeBSD. I already use it (as well as other OS's) What do I care about the arguments for and against xy and z? Thinking about it now, if I was asking the same question and someone said Why not try out FreeBSD and make your own mind up! I may think they where being a tad dismissive however there can never be any substitue for hands on experience !! To that guy (wherever he is now) :- Download FreeBSD and get it installed, its great! Come back and ask if you have any problems or questions and we will do our best to help :)) Happy FreeBSD'ing !!! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danial Thom Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:54 AM To: Dick Davies; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. Ok, what do you guys live in a shoe or something? For pete's sake, how can so many people be so patently clueless and still be able to find food and shelter? Do you really have no idea how things work? Are you really so brainwashed by the geeky liberals that you have lost your ability to think? MS doesn't have to pay vendors, you toad. Vendors write drivers for windows because the market is substantial Actually, it's a lot worse than that, most times. The vendors usually aren't the ones that write drivers, it is the chipset manufacturers that usually write a stock driver that they supply with the chipset, with the idea that the vendor is supposed to use this as an example of how the chipset it to be handled when they write their own driver. All to often, though, the vendor merely repackages the chipset manufacturer's example driver. Vendors don't write drivers for freebsd because: 1) the market is too small 2) Some don't want to release source, as they'll lose more to taiwanese cloners than they will make selling to 'nix users. 3) X sucks, so why risk having people badmouth your cards? Some of this is true but most of the reason is merely that the chipset manufacturers don't write the drivers so there's nothing for the vendor to repackage. And the chipset manufacturers only write a single driver for the largest OS in market share simply because their customers (the card vendors) won't buy the chipsets if an example driver doesen't exist, and to the chipset manufacturer, every single scrap of time spent writing a driver is wasted effort, whether the driver is for Windows or some other OS. If you actually go out and buy decent quality hardware that costs more money, where the vendors do in fact just use the chipset maker-supplied driver as a base to work from, you will find drivers for lots of different non-Windows operating systems. But you won't find that hardware in the bargin bin at Fry's. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Windows almost runs everything Quite the opposite, try running some application from a few years back on windows 200 or XP, big chance it won't work. Unix has not matured yet to compete with Microsoft. Yeah, let's just forget that UNIX had stuff like network support before windows even existed... Windows has a few edged on Unix, DirectX for example, but on many points UNIX is really in the lead, the fact that you can't get a driver for some specific card doesn't have anything do to with maturing, but with commerce, Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, FreeBSD is non-profit and can't afford such things... Windows has crap driver management, where you can simply use the ICH driver for just about all Intel integrated sound chips, while you have to get(download) a different driver for all the different chips on windows... Who has matured? Unix community simply did not get their act together and try to build an OS for the masses. The main argument for Unix is it is Free, but compatibility and upgrade paths are different issues. Upgrading is a pain on windows, upgrading from 98 to 2000 more or less needs a format and clean install, while on FreeBSD you have much more flexibility, so you can upgrade much easy er. Let's not talk about the windows update site, and 15 reboots required.. Unix is for the masses, the only problem it has is a proper user friendly GUI. With Windows on the other hand, you *HAVE* to do things as the Microsoft programmers envisioned and liked things, and lacks a lot of flexibility that FreeBSD does have, which makes FreeBSD for the masses, it doesn't matter if your an average end-luser, or a nerd, or whatever, everyone can do what they want the way they want to do it, you really don't have that kind of flexibility with windows. Everyone should use whatever they prefer to use, but there a couple of very good arguments in favor of FreeBSD, and while there are also arguments in favor of windows they are fewer... Say whatever you want, but the Unix permission system is better than Window's, it much more simple and elegant, which means less headache's, less mistakes and more security. The same goes for window's configuration, the registry, it's not a bad idea, but horribly failed, now you have a huge file with a lot of data, half of it redundant, and the worst is that it's undocumented. FreeBSD simply has a set of configuration files, mostly in /etc and /usr/local/etc most of them have a man page, and an example file in /usr/share/examples/etc This again is simpler, which, again, means less headaches, less mistakes and better security, performance etc. There are tons of examples like this, the fact that windows XP is 1.3 GB in size (Minimal!) is enough to know that windows is loaded with complicated shit, while the much simpler and elegant approach in FreeBSD works better. It's same as physics or biology really, I came across this quote recently: If you encounter a formula more that a quarter of a page long, then forget it, nature doesn't make things that complicated. Nature has been In development for billions of years, and learned that simplicity is the key, why do anything different with computers? Windows does... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
[Let me first point out I've seen about 4 different 'unix/windows is teh gayz0r' threads on completely unrelated mailing lists in the last 24 hours. If I sound bored rigid with the whole subject that might be why.] Can we please stop comparing *NIX to windows. They're nothing like each other. Like all software, they bothsuck in their own unique ways, it's just that BSD sucks in areas I mainly don't care about, and windows sucks at most of the things I do care about. On 18/01/06, Martin Tournoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Windows almost runs everything Quite the opposite, try running some application from a few years back on windows 200 or XP, big chance it won't work. So what? That's exactly the same for FreeBSD, even it's core apps. And vendors rush to support MS' new OSes. Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. Upgrading is a pain on windows, upgrading from 98 to 2000 more or less needs a format and clean install, while on FreeBSD you have much more flexibility, so you can upgrade much easy er. Have you ever brought 4.x up to 6.x? It doesn't sound like it. There are tools to solve this for windows, and there has been for a long time. Try updating 200 FreeBSD boxes, then try the same with a decent imaging system for windows. Unix is for the masses, the only problem it has is a proper user friendly GUI. Then it isn't for the masses. Deal with it. With Windows on the other hand, you *HAVE* to do things as the Microsoft programmers envisioned and liked things, and lacks a lot of flexibility that FreeBSD does have Can you justify that at all? If what you're saying boils down to 'you have the source' then I don't think that applies to 99% of users. Say whatever you want, but the Unix permission system is better than Window's, it much more simple It's also very outdated and has been reinvented several times. RBAC, SeLinux and MAC would indicate it's not flexible enough for most people. The same goes for window's configuration, the registry, it's not a bad idea, but horribly failed, now you have a huge file with a lot of data, half of it redundant, and the worst is that it's undocumented. FreeBSD simply has a set of configuration files, mostly in /etc and /usr/local/etc most of them have a man page, and an example file in /usr/share/examples/etc That's not in itself a good thing. As I understand it, the registry is a central place for storing configuration details. /etc has nothing like that. Think of something simple like a webserver docroot. Apache obviously needs to know about that, so might your ftp server, your backup/mirror scripts and so on. If you ever change that directories location, you'll have to update everything that references that path. That's a pain in the arse, and it's only one of dozens of annoyances with /etc. The arguments you're making above equally apply to 4.x /etc, and I don't think you'd argue that rcNG is a vast improvement. Have a look at things like Solaris SMF and you realise that rcNG isn't as good as it could be either. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Greetings Greg ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give a look at gentoo it's inspired by FreeBSD, and is linux as well the portage system works great... and as a personal opinion: Use gentoo for Home / Desktop / Office use use FreeBSD For web/ftp/file/ etc.. Servers. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 2006-01-18 16:55, Matias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Give a look at gentoo it's inspired by FreeBSD, and is linux as well the portage system works great... and as a personal opinion: Use gentoo for Home / Desktop / Office use use FreeBSD For web/ftp/file/ etc.. Servers. Nah. Why use something that is BSD-like when you can get the Real Thing(TM) for free? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Jan 18, 2006, at 10:55 AM, Matias wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Greetings Greg ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give a look at gentoo it's inspired by FreeBSD, and is linux as well the portage system works great... and as a personal opinion: Use gentoo for Home / Desktop / Office use use FreeBSD For web/ftp/file/ etc.. Servers. What the heck? No one has mentioned how Plan 9 TROUNCES FreeBSD AND Linux! In EVERYTHING! I've installed it on my notebook, my home server, three workstations, my Palm Pilot, telephone, coffeemaker, and my GE Refrigerator's ice maker. We had a power hiccup three days ago and my house became sentient! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. Ok, what do you guys live in a shoe or something? For pete's sake, how can so many people be so patently clueless and still be able to find food and shelter? Do you really have no idea how things work? Are you really so brainwashed by the geeky liberals that you have lost your ability to think? MS doesn't have to pay vendors, you toad. Vendors write drivers for windows because the market is substantial and because if they don't write drivers no-one who runs windows will buy their cards. Like DUH!. In fact, you have to PAY MS to get the devkit to build drivers for windows. Vendors don't write drivers for freebsd because: 1) the market is too small 2) Some don't want to release source, as they'll lose more to taiwanese cloners than they will make selling to 'nix users. 3) X sucks, so why risk having people badmouth your cards? If vendors are going to support a *nix, they'll support linux. The market is much larger. dt __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 18/01/06, Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. Ok, what do you guys live in a shoe or something? MS doesn't have to pay vendors, you toad. Did you read what I just typed Daniel? Because you're coming across as a bit of an ignorant twat. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 1/17/06, Philip Hallstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The computer is currently without keyboard, mouse or monitor. I am adding applications to the computer via ssh while I work. As soon as I get openbox and tightvnc installed, I'll switch to tightvnc so I can disconnect without disrupting jobs. (Hmm, I wonder if I'll have to add a mouse or keyboard at that point.) /usr/ports/sysutils/screen Screen is a full-screen window manager that multiplexes a physical terminal between several processes (typically interactive shells). Each virtual terminal provides the functions of a DEC VT100 terminal and, in addition, several control functions from the ANSI X3.64 (ISO 6429) and ISO 2022 standards (e.g. insert/delete line and support for multiple character sets). There is a scrollback history buffer for each virtual terminal and a copy-and-paste mechanism that allows moving text regions between windows. nohup foobar ~/foobar.log tail -f ~/foobar.log ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matias Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 3:55 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? You seem to have never used FreeBSD before. The answer to this question is huge. Your best friend is the internet (i.e. google.com) as people already mentioned. For example imagine that people may understand technical differences!!! Of course even if at the beginning looks like a good post to snob, between thousands of people this subject might have very good results. First: Whether Linux or FreeBSD is better, is totally subjective. I can install FreeBSD and start editing and building a custom kernel in 30 mins. When I sit on a Slackware (pcs in uni), I can use it of course, but I found difficult to build a custom kernel in it and to be honest before I search too much I went back to my FreeBSD. Some commands are slightly different! NO! I refuseAs long as it is available to me, I am sorry I want my FreeBSD mate! In the other hand I find knoppix the ultimate tool. The most impressing *nix like I have ever seen! I cannot go on holidays without my knoppix cd lately! That's because --I-- like it! Second: FreeBSD is everywhere...In computing... Remember this while reading, studying, googling for computers in the future! Now that I said googling what about http://www.google.com/bsd After typing your question to google as other people recommended, I recommend you type it to the above link too :) Third: UNIX was before Linux. --- I would like to ask two different questions on top of yours to complicate or maybe make things more interesting. Why there are many(!) Linux distos out there: http://www.linux.org/dist/list.html but only one freebsd? What is stopping people from making their own UNIX distributions, similar to FreeBSD? What are the differences between FreeBSD and SCO UNIXR? Greetings Greg ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give a look at gentoo it's inspired by FreeBSD, and is linux as well the portage system works great... and as a personal opinion: Use gentoo for Home / Desktop / Office use use FreeBSD For web/ftp/file/ etc.. Servers. Just want to say that I believe freebsd can be used for a very large list of things. Every time I perform something new using freebsd I realize that are other, the Operating Systems that cannot do some things...or they are just doing them really simply! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Dick Davies = Sorry for sending you this mail twice, accidently pressed enter...(shoudn't eat and write e-mails at the same time...) So what? That's exactly the same for FreeBSD, even it's core apps. And vendors rush to support MS' new OSes. There's a very big dump of unmaintained software, whenever I want to play an old classic game like cc, x-com or even system shock 2(which is from '99) I have serious problems, and have to resort to emulation software (which is quite different from compat4x for example, which is compatibility and not emulation) I've never had a problem with old software on FreeBSD, there are probably many but much less. Have you ever brought 4.x up to 6.x? It doesn't sound like it. Nope, but I've been reading this mailing list long enough to know it's a real pain, but I'm quite sure it is possible. Note that I used much easy er and not easy There are tools to solve this for windows, and there has been for a long time. Yet another third-party hack? Try updating 200 FreeBSD boxes, then try the same with a decent imaging system for windows. Shell script...? Unix is for the masses, the only problem it has is a proper user friendly GUI. Then it isn't for the masses. Deal with it. This really wasn't my point, what I tried to say was that UNIX isn't the big user-unfriendly beast some people like you to believe, and that it can serve as user-friendly desktop just as well as Windows can (MacOS is a good example of this) It's also very outdated and has been reinvented several times. RBAC, SeLinux and MAC would indicate it's not flexible enough for most people. Not flexible enough for some people that is, not most, every system has it's ups and downs, and the standard permissions work for just about all desktop PCs and most hobby-servers That's not in itself a good thing. As I understand it, the registry is a central place for storing configuration details. More or less, however, it sucks, open regedit and browse through it and you'll know what I mean, names are cryptic and non-descriptive, the hierarchy doesn't make sense, and worst, it's undocumented.. Which means that hacking the registry is something similair to hacking sendmail.cf Editing ten diffrent files to change one thing is easyer, quicker and leads to less heacache then changing something in the registry... Have a look at things like Solaris SMF and you realise that rcNG isn't as good as it could be either. Never used Solaris so I can't say anything about their SMF, a (very) quick glance reminded me of linux... Anyway, rc isn't perfect, but it works for me, it atleast makes sense... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 18/01/06, Martin Tournoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what? That's exactly the same for FreeBSD, even it's core apps. And vendors rush to support MS' new OSes. There's a very big dump of unmaintained software, whenever I want to play an old classic game like cc, x-com or even system shock 2(which is from '99) I have serious problems, and have to resort to emulation software (which is quite different from compat4x for example, which is compatibility and not emulation) I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying rebuilding world so top still works with a new kernel might not be that much of a leap forward. [Incidentally, breaking backwards compatibilty was a conscious decision by MS, according to: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html (briefly, they'd always tried hard to support older apps, which is where a lot of windows 'bloat' comes from. They dropped that fairly recently, and people (developers) are very unhappy about it) Have you ever brought 4.x up to 6.x? It doesn't sound like it. Note that I used much easy er and not easy :) All I'm saying is these are universal problems. Try updating 200 FreeBSD boxes, then try the same with a decent imaging system for windows. Shell script...? as in: 'a simple matter of programming'? :) My point is you need to write it, whereas you can get a supported solution for MS off the shelf. That sort of thing matters to an IT manager/director, and they decide the budgets. Unix is for the masses, the only problem it has is a proper user friendly GUI. Then it isn't for the masses. Deal with it. This really wasn't my point, what I tried to say was that UNIX isn't the big user-unfriendly beast some people like you to believe, and that it can serve as user-friendly desktop just as well as Windows can (MacOS is a good example of this) True, but OSX doesn't expose the CLI to the same extent BSD does. I wonder how many OSX users have subsequently started using BSD. RBAC, SeLinux and MAC would indicate it's not flexible enough for most people. Not flexible enough for some people that is, not most, every system has it's ups and downs, and the standard permissions work for just about all desktop PCs and most hobby-servers But there is a need for that sort of granularity in many cases. (I for one dislike running webservers as root just so they can open port 80, for instance). It could be (and is) done better elsewhere, but 'good enough' stops it becoming widespread. Never used Solaris so I can't say anything about their SMF, a (very) quick glance reminded me of linux... check docs.sun.com when you have a spare few hours, you'll be surprised. Anyway, rc isn't perfect, but it works for me, it atleast makes sense... Yeah, I much prefer it to the sysvinit nonsense shudder. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
--- Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18/01/06, Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. Ok, what do you guys live in a shoe or something? MS doesn't have to pay vendors, you toad. Did you read what I just typed Daniel? Because you're coming across as a bit of an ignorant twat. Sorry, but I find it impossible that people don't know that vendors pay microsoft to write drivers. And you clearly weren't certain of your answer. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 18:15 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? I have been following this thread (and similar ones over the past few weeks) and would like to offer my perspective on the FreeBSD versus Linux discussion. FWIW, this isn't a troll, so my apologies if it upsets some of the more precious people on this list (and having read the list for the past couple of months you are definitely out there). To explain some background, I used/administered/programmed under Unix throughout the 1980s and 1990s (SysVR3, BSD4.2, Ultrix...), and I have been using Linux (RedHat/Fedora) for the past couple of years. I have recently been using/evaluating FreeBSD. I have no particular axe to grind in favour of either system. It's reasonable to assume that the sorts of people asking a question like what's the difference... or which is better... aren't designing brand-new top-end data centres. They are a lot more likely to be contemplating a move from MS Windows or perhaps have dabbled with Linux and are curious. I would also suggest that a better question than what's better is what is more appropriate. So, that preamble out of the way, my $0.02 is this. The distinction Linux is a kernel; FreeBSD is an O/S is - frankly - the sort of jesuitical sophistry that gets UseNet a bad name. The important things are: EASE OF USE AND INSTALLATION Linux is a much, much easier system to install and configure. No contest. Stick the disks in, it'll pretty much recognise any sound-card and video interface and will work out of the box without pissing about configuring X-windows or recompiling the kernel. I'm sure if you persevere for long enough with FreeBSD it's possible to get a quite usable desktop, with most of the applications that come bundled with a release of Linux. The FreeBSD installation process is like some sort of time-warp back to the 1980s. The argument that most FreeBSD installations are server, so don't require mice etc. is a circular/self-fulfilling one. People - frankly - aren't going to be bothered messing around getting FreeBSD working. Get used to it. COMMUNITY The Linux community is much larger than the FreeBSD one. I have noted certain comments in this mailing list about wanting to stay select, like some sort of digital Albania. To be honest, it's highly likely that your wish will come true. Fortunately there is this mailing list. And a couple of books, although when I went to my local bookstores (large ones, with big sections on computing) each had an entire shelf of Linux books, but none on FreeBSD. Thank goodness for Amazon, so I could get Lehey - which is excellent. The relative size of the communities means two things: there's much more support for Linux and also more applications are ready for Linux. Just like if I compare Linux with Windows. This list relies on a small number of dedicated experts who are generous enough with their time to answer a lot of questions over and over again. However, the FreeBSD community resembles some sort of religious cult at times. If FreeBSD wants to be anything other than a small footnote in the history of computing then it needs to engage a bit more with the 99.99% of the world who neither know - nor care - what it is; and who regard re-compiling a kernel as less of a God-given right and more of a tedious chore. HARDWARE SUPPORT I'd have to say that the hardware support in FreeBSD is probably better than that in Linux. Certainly it is on the hardware I've tested. But, for most people it's still a pain. SERVER APPLICATIONS All the tests I have done, and all I have read suggests that FreeBSD is superb for server applications. Once I have convinced myself of its support for SMB and a couple of other things, then it is highly likely I will be migrating my own servers over to FreeBSD: that's the best recommendation you can get. DESKTOP APPLICATIONS I love FreeBSD's pkg_add etc. and the ports collection is quite cool. But, pretty much all the stuff I want to port or add is there in most Linux distros. Lots of stuff also just doesn't work out of the box like it should. I have to force pkg_add to do strange stuff or there are other strange dependencies. If you're prepared to work on it, then you can get most applications running on FreeBSD, but it's still easier on Linux. SUMMARY IF you are prepared to work on it, FreeBSD looks like a great server operating system. If you're just an ordinary joe who wants a Unix-style OS then Linux is much easier to install, configure etc., has more desktop type applications which work first time etc. If you are building a data-centre which requires highly available servers then FreeBSD is better than Linux. But if you are in that sort of market you already know that, and are probably intending to wait a couple of months until Solaris goes open-source. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 18/01/06, Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18/01/06, Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (actually, no he didn't. your mail clients quoting is insane) (some guy:) Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, (me:) I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. (danial:) Ok, what do you guys live in a shoe or something? MS doesn't have to pay vendors, you toad. (me:) Did you read what I just typed Daniel? Because you're coming across as a bit of an ignorant twat. (danial:) Sorry, but I find it impossible that people don't know that vendors pay microsoft to write drivers. Maybe he meant 'it pays to write drivers for MS' or something? I didn't feel the need to call him names over it. And you clearly weren't certain of your answer. Yeah, I probably should have said something about his mother to help clarify things. sheesh :) -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2006-01-18 16:55, Matias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Give a look at gentoo it's inspired by FreeBSD, and is linux as well the portage system works great... and as a personal opinion: Use gentoo for Home / Desktop / Office use use FreeBSD For web/ftp/file/ etc.. Servers. Nah. Why use something that is BSD-like when you can get the Real Thing(TM) for free? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's just another option. I like very much both of them. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:00:59 + Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Let me first point out I've seen about 4 different 'unix/windows is teh gayz0r' threads on completely unrelated mailing lists in the last 24 hours. If I sound bored rigid with the whole subject that might be why.] Can we please stop comparing *NIX to windows. They're nothing like each other. Like all software, they bothsuck in their own unique ways, it's just that BSD sucks in areas I mainly don't care about, and windows sucks at most of the things I do care about. On 18/01/06, Martin Tournoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Windows almost runs everything Quite the opposite, try running some application from a few years back on windows 200 or XP, big chance it won't work. So what? That's exactly the same for FreeBSD, even it's core apps. And vendors rush to support MS' new OSes. And stuff is updated on other OSes as well. This part all around seems over blown... better APIs come and old ones slowly go away. Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to make drivers for their OS, I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share. Upgrading is a pain on windows, upgrading from 98 to 2000 more or less needs a format and clean install, while on FreeBSD you have much more flexibility, so you can upgrade much easy er. Have you ever brought 4.x up to 6.x? It doesn't sound like it. My vote is to backup and reinstall, on major version bumps. I feel the same regardless of the OS. There are tools to solve this for windows, and there has been for a long time. Try updating 200 FreeBSD boxes, then try the same with a decent imaging system for windows. man 1 dd Unix is for the masses, the only problem it has is a proper user friendly GUI. Then it isn't for the masses. Deal with it. It is not a problem with the interface, but one of a problem with the users. Unix is what ever you want it to be and most people don't know what they want. If some one does not know what they want or what they are doing, they are pretty much screwed regardless of the interface. With Windows on the other hand, you *HAVE* to do things as the Microsoft programmers envisioned and liked things, and lacks a lot of flexibility that FreeBSD does have Can you justify that at all? If what you're saying boils down to 'you have the source' then I don't think that applies to 99% of users. I feel focusing on what the average moron would do and following in line in ones hardware/software/etc decisions in all around a bad move. Use what works and what you like. Say whatever you want, but the Unix permission system is better than Window's, it much more simple It's also very outdated and has been reinvented several times. RBAC, SeLinux and MAC would indicate it's not flexible enough for most people. Nah, it just proves it has been updated in multiple ways. I do agree, what we have currently works nicely. The same goes for window's configuration, the registry, it's not a bad idea, but horribly failed, now you have a huge file with a lot of data, half of it redundant, and the worst is that it's undocumented. FreeBSD simply has a set of configuration files, mostly in /etc and /usr/local/etc most of them have a man page, and an example file in /usr/share/examples/etc That's not in itself a good thing. As I understand it, the registry is a central place for storing configuration details. /etc has nothing like that. Think of something simple like a webserver docroot. Apache obviously needs to know about that, so might your ftp server, your backup/mirror scripts and so on. If you ever change that directories location, you'll have to update everything that references that path. That's a pain in the arse, and it's only one of dozens of annoyances with /etc. The arguments you're making above equally apply to 4.x /etc, and I don't think you'd argue that rcNG is a vast improvement. Have a look at things like Solaris SMF and you realise that rcNG isn't as good as it could be either. The only problem with rcNG is it can't currently handle a dynamic config. I honestly feel this problem of /etc and /usr/local/etc is vastly over stated. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:15:15 + Tim Greening-Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 18:15 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? I have been following this thread (and similar ones over the past few weeks) and would like to offer my perspective on the FreeBSD versus Linux discussion. FWIW, this isn't a troll, so my apologies if it upsets some of the more precious people on this list (and having read the list for the past couple of months you are definitely out there). To explain some background, I used/administered/programmed under Unix throughout the 1980s and 1990s (SysVR3, BSD4.2, Ultrix...), and I have been using Linux (RedHat/Fedora) for the past couple of years. I have recently been using/evaluating FreeBSD. I have no particular axe to grind in favour of either system. Nearly entirely FreeBSD since I started using unix a 5 years ago. I work with Redhat and Fedora a nice bit at work though. It's reasonable to assume that the sorts of people asking a question like what's the difference... or which is better... aren't designing brand-new top-end data centres. They are a lot more likely to be contemplating a move from MS Windows or perhaps have dabbled with Linux and are curious. I would also suggest that a better question than what's better is what is more appropriate. So, that preamble out of the way, my $0.02 is this. The distinction Linux is a kernel; FreeBSD is an O/S is - frankly - the sort of jesuitical sophistry that gets UseNet a bad name. The important things are: EASE OF USE AND INSTALLATION Linux is a much, much easier system to install and configure. No contest. Stick the disks in, it'll pretty much recognise any sound-card and video interface and will work out of the box without pissing about configuring X-windows or recompiling the kernel. I'm sure if you persevere for long enough with FreeBSD it's possible to get a quite usable desktop, with most of the applications that come bundled with a release of Linux. The FreeBSD installation process is like some sort of time-warp back to the 1980s. The argument that most FreeBSD installations are server, so don't require mice etc. is a circular/self-fulfilling one. People - frankly - aren't going to be bothered messing around getting FreeBSD working. Get used to it. Any time you need to start a X server to run the install, you have something drastically wrong with the installer. Nothing happens during the install that requires graphics... does not make a difference if it is FreeBSD or Fedora. Any one who is serious about using unix as a desktop, really needs to be able to configure X for them selves. BTW FreeBSD recognizes the sound card on all my hardware upon a fresh install. COMMUNITY The Linux community is much larger than the FreeBSD one. I have noted certain comments in this mailing list about wanting to stay select, like some sort of digital Albania. To be honest, it's highly likely that your wish will come true. Not been paying to close of attention, but I missed this part... other than the ranting of one or two idiots back there. Fortunately there is this mailing list. And a couple of books, although when I went to my local bookstores (large ones, with big sections on computing) each had an entire shelf of Linux books, but none on FreeBSD. Thank goodness for Amazon, so I could get Lehey - which is excellent. The relative size of the communities means two things: there's much more support for Linux and also more applications are ready for Linux. Just like if I compare Linux with Windows. This list relies on a small number of dedicated experts who are generous enough with their time to answer a lot of questions over and over again. However, the FreeBSD community resembles some sort of religious cult at times. If FreeBSD wants to be anything other than a small footnote in the history of computing then it needs to engage a bit more with the 99.99% of the world who neither know - nor care - what it is; and who regard re-compiling a kernel as less of a God-given right and more of a tedious chore. BAH! If one does not bother to be bloody selective one will find brain dead cult like mentality around all OSes. Yeah, that is what kernel modules are for... Crap like this pisses me off... why the hell should FreeBSD be the OS the does it all for you... what do you get when you want something to do that? crap... If enough FreeBSD users feel the need for this or want it, they will fix it. Hence open source. It is designed to provide a base system to build upon. This is what most people forget when they start demanding it do everything for them. That is not it's job, that would properly be the job of either a port or a seperate distribution that uses FreeBSD as the base. HARDWARE SUPPORT I'd have to say that the hardware support in FreeBSD is probably better
FreeBSD vs Linux
What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Greetings Greg ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Greetings Greg ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php Fabian -- http://www.fabiankeil.de/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
hi, kernel is one of the differences ;) freebsd uses generic kernel. and one other important difference is freebsd doest not support my intel high definition audio card :( so no sound for years :'( [other distros debian, suse ... support my card.] instead of yum or apt-get, you have ports in freebsd.[ which is more efficient! this is my opinion of course ;)] fedora, debian or suse can be used as an OS for PCs, but freebsd mostly used as a server. not much suitable for PC usage. . . . bla bla bla. regards, bye. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Linux is just kernel only. FreeBSD is complete operating system. FreeBSD and Linux have almost similar performance. There are much already discussed about it, a google search will give you more info. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Greetings Greg Whats the difference between a wheelbarrow and a dumptruck? You can't compare things without stating the intended use. They're both operating systems. Thats about where it ends without specifics. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
--- FlashWebHost.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linux is just kernel only. FreeBSD is complete operating system. FreeBSD and Linux have almost similar performance. There are much already discussed about it, a google search will give you more info. Nothing personal, but thats about the dumbest and most wrong (wrongest???) answer that one could possibly contemplate. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 18:42, Mehmet Fatih AKBULUT wrote: but freebsd mostly used as a server. not much suitable for PC usage. I really dislike this canard, I have run FreeBSD on a laptop since 3.4 and support for the hardware has generally been adequate, I guess it depends what you want to use it for. I wouldn't choose FreeBSD as an operating system for a media centre. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
i use freebsd at home too :) [as the only o.s. for my pc] that was 'my opinion'. [dont have sound :'( but still use it :p ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:07:25AM -0800, Danial Thom wrote: --- FlashWebHost.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linux is just kernel only. FreeBSD is complete operating system. FreeBSD and Linux have almost similar performance. There are much already discussed about it, a google search will give you more info. Nothing personal, but thats about the dumbest and most wrong (wrongest???) answer that one could possibly contemplate. DT Actually he's not too far off, Linux really is a kernel, it's not so much of an operating system until you get all the GNU tools to go along with it. Luckily there are distributions that do that for you, or you can go the LFS or DIY route I suppose and download everything yourself. As far as similar performance... well performance has a lot to do with the hardware and applications in question, but I must say there are no major differences between running kde on linux and kde on freebsd on my home pc. So although the answer is incomplete for sure, I certainly wouldn't say that it's the dumbest and/or wrongest reply that could have been given. Of course if the OP would have just googled this could have all been avoided to begin with ;) Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
At the risk of getting flamed...someone somewhere in the Usenet universe summed linux as the most self-incompatible OS. It's one of the unfortunate side-effects of the myriad of different distributions. And a lot of work must be done to compile apps from source in linux if you can't find an rpm bundle. On the other hand, with BSD, when it comes to apps, BSD either can't do it at all or BSD does it VERY well...better than just about any freely available OS. Of course, that depends on your definition of apps. That being said, I use both linux and BSD. At home, I use BSD for things like a firewall, website, fileserver, sendmail...common network applications where I want stability and simplicity. For playing around I use linux...cause if I break it, I can re-install from CD/DVD quickly. So, at home I use BSD for production systems, but linux for more desktop like stuff. At work, its the opposite. We use RHEL3 or 4 for production systems and use Fedora and SuSE for desktop. That's primarily because support comes from an identifiable (call-able) source such as Redhat or Novell and patching of the systems is easy. Not to mention the hardware vendor guarantee's compatibility (mention BSD to them and they look at you funny). Also, some commercial enterprise applications like Oracle database don't run natively on BSD. However, I do use the BSD's for custom things like firewalls and utility systems (cd/dvd burning, etc). --PJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Greetings Greg ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
--- Mike Hernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:07:25AM -0800, Danial Thom wrote: --- FlashWebHost.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linux is just kernel only. FreeBSD is complete operating system. FreeBSD and Linux have almost similar performance. There are much already discussed about it, a google search will give you more info. Nothing personal, but thats about the dumbest and most wrong (wrongest???) answer that one could possibly contemplate. DT Actually he's not too far off, Linux really is a kernel, it's not so much of an operating system until you get all the GNU tools to go along with it. Luckily there are distributions that do that for you, or you can go the LFS or DIY route I suppose and download everything yourself. As far as similar performance... well performance has a lot to do with the hardware and applications in question, but I must say there are no major differences between running kde on linux and kde on freebsd on my home pc. So although the answer is incomplete for sure, I certainly wouldn't say that it's the dumbest and/or wrongest reply that could have been given. Of course if the OP would have just googled this could have all been avoided to begin with ;) No, thats ridiculous. Linux has multiple distributions that use the same kernel. The fact that freebsd only has one distribution doesn't make it any more complete. Performance is markedly different as well. If you only need to do trivial things, then both are suitable. So is Windows or Solaris. Otherwise you just have no idea what you're talking about. DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 1/17/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the essential difference between FreeBSD and Linux (Fedora for instance)? Where can I find any list of differences? What/Where are the advantages of FreeBSD vs Linux? Just google for it, there are plenty of comparisons. Mike -- Michael P. Soulier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. --Albert Einstein ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:38:24AM -0800, Danial Thom wrote: No, thats ridiculous. Linux has multiple distributions that use the same kernel. The fact that freebsd only has one distribution doesn't make it any more complete. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in a combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU, with Linux functioning as its kernel. http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html Google for linux is a kernel. Doesn't make FreeBSD better. Just means that when you say FreeBSD you refer to an entire OS and when you say Linux you refer to a kernel. Mike PS we all know the most important difference anyway: linux has a penguin. ;) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Mehmet Fatih AKBULUT wrote: hi, kernel is one of the differences ;) freebsd uses generic kernel. and one other important difference is freebsd doest not support my intel high definition audio card :( so no sound for years :'( [other distros debian, suse ... support my card.] instead of yum or apt-get, you have ports in freebsd.[ which is more efficient! this is my opinion of course ;)] fedora, debian or suse can be used as an OS for PCs, but freebsd mostly used as a server. not much suitable for PC usage. . . . bla bla bla. regards, bye. imho the seperation of Linux=Multimedia-Home-Use, FreeBSD=Server is no longer valid these days... My hardware is fully supported by FreeBSD and in fact some of it was supported earlier on FreeBSD than on Linux. For example, the Brooktree bktr(4) Video-Capture driver existed first on FreeBSD, also high-speed cd-burning was not possible on Linux without eating all available cpu-time, before kernel 2.6 -- at that time FreeBSD burned my cd's at 52x-speed without noticeable cpu-usage. Multimedia was always a glance on FreeBSD -- dvd-playback/record, xvid-encoding, tv-capturing, blender -- all ever worked like a champ. Additionally to that, i would never move back to a linux distro, simply because their archaic package-management is not half as reliable in day-to-day-use as the FreeBSD ports tree. I am running the same FreeBSD install since 4.9 and it was easy and non-problematic to update to even major release changes. Even if that criticism doesnt apply as much to gentoo, which has some good efforts to use a ports-tree under Linux, I just prefer the original :) in the end, the old question of the best OS is a waste in any case -- just take the os wich suits your needs and makes you feel comfortable. But pushing FreeBSD in the Server-OS -- No multimedia possible-corner does not represents its current state. Sorry, I dont want to start a FreeBSD vs. Linux Discussion -- just giving my 2 cents... greetings Matze ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
any idea when i'll be able to use my sound card on freebsd ;) ? [high definition audio :p] changing the topic ;) missed listening to music :'( [my speakers will get rot soon, dont even know if they still work :p] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:32:30PM +0200, Mehmet Fatih AKBULUT wrote: any idea when i'll be able to use my sound card on freebsd ;) ? [high definition audio :p] changing the topic ;) missed listening to music :'( [my speakers will get rot soon, dont even know if they still work :p] You know it could be worse, you could be using OpenBSD and then you'd never even have a chance at getting a proprietary driver to work. ;) In the meantime why don't you spend $5 and get a cheap sound card to give you something to do while you wait?:) OpenBSD vs. FreeBSD vs. Linux opens up a new old can of worms... or is that an new can of old worms? Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Have similar performance hah Linux is just kernel only. FreeBSD is complete operating system. FreeBSD and Linux have almost similar performance. There are much already discussed about it, a google search will give you more info. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Jan 17, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Danial Thom wrote: No, thats ridiculous. Linux has multiple distributions that use the same kernel. The fact that freebsd only has one distribution doesn't make it any more complete. Actually it is spot on. Linux is a kernel. The various distributions add a ueserland and tools to it but if you go look at the actual definition of Linux you will find it is just a kernel. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Jan 17, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Mehmet Fatih AKBULUT wrote: any idea when i'll be able to use my sound card on freebsd ;) ? [high definition audio :p] changing the topic ;) missed listening to music :'( [my speakers will get rot soon, dont even know if they still work :p] Just get a different sound card. There are lotsof inexpensive sounds cards that are probably supported by FreeBSD for just a few (10-30) $ Btw, this problem happens with Windows, Mac OS X, etc as well. I have been trying to put an extra USB/Firewire card in my G5, and they work, but with weird side effects like hanging IO. My dad had some sound card issues on Windows with supported cards. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux/ vs. OpenBSD
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:02:31 -0500 Mike Hernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:32:30PM +0200, Mehmet Fatih AKBULUT wrote: any idea when i'll be able to use my sound card on freebsd ;) ? [high definition audio :p] changing the topic ;) missed listening to music :'( [my speakers will get rot soon, dont even know if they still work :p] You know it could be worse, you could be using OpenBSD and then you'd never even have a chance at getting a proprietary driver to work. ;) In the meantime why don't you spend $5 and get a cheap sound card to give you something to do while you wait?:) OpenBSD vs. FreeBSD vs. Linux opens up a new old can of worms... or is that an new can of old worms? Mike Hi, My experience with FreeBSD on the laptop has been very good. And even OpenBSD isn't too bad for a laptop these days. Their generic kernel picks up most of the hardware. Rob Lytle -- http://home.comcast.net/~europa100 Rob Lytle Home Page ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
A FreeBSD vs Linux anecdote: I've read several articles over the years talking about how Linux can breathe new life into old computers. After the last couple of weeks, I don't buy it. After combining the hardware from 2 old computers (circa 1996 and 1998 -- anyone remember ISA cards, serial mice and AT cases?) I went through the process of finding a good operating system for it. The computer has a Pentium II 333MHz chip and 384MB RAM; so it's definitely worth keeping. I was unable to successfully install Fedora Core 4, SUSE Linux Professional 9.3, or Ubuntu 5.10. I was given the advice to try old versions of Linux; but how, then, does one deal with security issues? FreeBSD 6.0 and NetBSD 3.0 installed without any problems. The onboard sound chip was dead; so I swapped out the ISA modem for an ISA sound card, which was supported by both *BSD's. The onboard video is supported by both XFree86 and xorg. There are 3 PCI slots, so I added a D-Link Atheros wireless card and a USB2 card to get around most of the motherboard's limitations. For example, the hard drives connected via IDE are limited to ~8GB partitions; however, the computer seems to deal with a 60GB external, USB2 hard drive without problems. The computer is currently without keyboard, mouse or monitor. I am adding applications to the computer via ssh while I work. As soon as I get openbox and tightvnc installed, I'll switch to tightvnc so I can disconnect without disrupting jobs. (Hmm, I wonder if I'll have to add a mouse or keyboard at that point.) Andrew Gould ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
The computer is currently without keyboard, mouse or monitor. I am adding applications to the computer via ssh while I work. As soon as I get openbox and tightvnc installed, I'll switch to tightvnc so I can disconnect without disrupting jobs. (Hmm, I wonder if I'll have to add a mouse or keyboard at that point.) /usr/ports/sysutils/screen Screen is a full-screen window manager that multiplexes a physical terminal between several processes (typically interactive shells). Each virtual terminal provides the functions of a DEC VT100 terminal and, in addition, several control functions from the ANSI X3.64 (ISO 6429) and ISO 2022 standards (e.g. insert/delete line and support for multiple character sets). There is a scrollback history buffer for each virtual terminal and a copy-and-paste mechanism that allows moving text regions between windows. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:57:04 -0700 Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 17, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Danial Thom wrote: No, thats ridiculous. Linux has multiple distributions that use the same kernel. The fact that freebsd only has one distribution doesn't make it any more complete. Actually it is spot on. Linux is a kernel. The various distributions add a ueserland and tools to it but if you go look at the actual definition of Linux you will find it is just a kernel. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net I think the kernel vs OS difference is very important. Linux has a reputation of being very stable. If you survey the many (many, many) Linux distributions, however, I don't think you can justify one reputation for all of them. Advising someone to switch to Linux is dangerous because the advice is horribly incomplete. The advice needs to include information about specific distributions. Linux distributions can differ significantly. At this point, the decision process becomes much more complicated. This also explains why experienced Linux users are tired of hearing newbies ask Which Linux is best? Which distribution should I use? I enjoyed my time using Linux. There are still days when I miss Caldera's eDesktop 2.4. (What other OS let you play pacman _during_ the OS installation?!) I still try Linux distros every now and then for driver support; but greener grass seems to come with taller weeds. Andrew Gould ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:32:30 -0800 (PST) Philip Hallstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The computer is currently without keyboard, mouse or monitor. I am adding applications to the computer via ssh while I work. As soon as I get openbox and tightvnc installed, I'll switch to tightvnc so I can disconnect without disrupting jobs. (Hmm, I wonder if I'll have to add a mouse or keyboard at that point.) /usr/ports/sysutils/screen Screen is a full-screen window manager that multiplexes a physical terminal between several processes (typically interactive shells). Each virtual terminal provides the functions of a DEC VT100 terminal and, in addition, several control functions from the ANSI X3.64 (ISO 6429) and ISO 2022 standards (e.g. insert/delete line and support for multiple character sets). There is a scrollback history buffer for each virtual terminal and a copy-and-paste mechanism that allows moving text regions between windows. Thanks! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Using sound on a Unix box will not give you the same support for that then on a windows box if the sound card problem is with all major os'es then i would think your sound card is ready to be changed out i have a audigy Z2 in my unix box and i have had no errors so fare freebsd doesnt support high definition sound it barely support surround sound using OSS so dont expect to much as of now On Jan 17, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Mehmet Fatih AKBULUT wrote: any idea when i'll be able to use my sound card on freebsd ;) ? [high definition audio :p] changing the topic ;) missed listening to music :'( [my speakers will get rot soon, dont even know if they still work :p] Just get a different sound card. There are lotsof inexpensive sounds cards that are probably supported by FreeBSD for just a few (10-30) $ Btw, this problem happens with Windows, Mac OS X, etc as well. I have been trying to put an extra USB/Firewire card in my G5, and they work, but with weird side effects like hanging IO. My dad had some sound card issues on Windows with supported cards. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
Just get a different sound card. There are lotsof inexpensive sounds cards that are probably supported by FreeBSD for just a few (10-30) $ Btw, this problem happens with Windows, Mac OS X, etc as well. I have been trying to put an extra USB/Firewire card in my G5, and they work, but with weird side effects like hanging IO. My dad had some sound card issues on Windows with supported cards. Chad Oh come on, I've been working with all Linux, FreeBSD and Windows. Getting a different card is not the solution. It is actually an absurd suggestion which goes to prove further that Unix has not matured yet to compete with Microsoft. If you are looking for compatibility, Windows is the answer. You are looking for security and stable releases, FreeBSD is the answer If you are seeking *free* OS with largest compatibility, Linux is the answer If you are seeking performance, FreeBSD is the answer. Windows almost runs everything, FreeBSD is stable, good performance but it is behind Linux when it comes to releasing drivers (example, zero-channel RAID cards weren't supported until very recently and still not quite official). The Linux OS has a much larger community than FreeBSD and hence has more development in it. In my opinion, I think the Unix world had missed the boat on trying to take over MSFT. The new Windows coming out are as stable as the Unix servers. With the Vista Windows, and a dramatic reduction of GUI, you can expect much better OS. Unix community simply did not get their act together and try to build an OS for the masses. The main argument for Unix is it is Free, but compatibility and upgrade paths are different issues. These are my two cents! Tamouh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:00:26PM -0500, Tamouh H. wrote: Just get a different sound card. There are lotsof inexpensive sounds cards that are probably supported by FreeBSD for just a few (10-30) $ Oh come on, I've been working with all Linux, FreeBSD and Windows. Getting a different card is not the solution. It is actually an absurd suggestion which goes to prove further that Unix has not matured yet to compete with Microsoft. That or the user(s). Microsoft doesn't write any sound card drivers, they make manufacturers do it then pay and beg to be included on the master distribution CD/DVD. For a device to work in FreeBSD someone who wants it bad enough to do the work has to have the skills and want it bad enough to do it. Of course wanting is no small part of how such skills are developed. Someone has an unsupported sound card with a Linux example. All the tough details about the hardware are spelled out in the Linux driver. Plenty of FreeBSD drivers have been ported to Linux and vice versa. In the early days of FreeBSD if one wanted a reliable CDROM then it had to be SCSI. Those who were doing the work liked SCSI, SCSI drives were much more consistant between makes and models than non-SCSI. So that was about the only choice one had in FreeBSD. Linux was very IDE-centric. Tuned around mass storage devices which were single-tasking. Resulting in Linux kernels which had an awful time dealing with SCSI devices which could queue multiple requests which might not respond in the exact same order as asked. SCSI was a four letter word in Linux camp. Today FreeBSD does an excellent job of supporting ATAPI, EIDE, and ATA devices. I don't know but expect Linux has matured and handles SCSI much better than in the past as features of ATA devices today closely resemble SCSI. The FreeBSD 6.0 kernel has a wrapper for using binary Windows device drivers. IIRC the main motivator (see above) was for broad WiFi hardware support. Might be able to use Windows sound card drivers for all I know. -- David Kelly N4HHE, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On 17/01/06, David Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone has an unsupported sound card with a Linux example. All the tough details about the hardware are spelled out in the Linux driver. Plenty of FreeBSD drivers have been ported to Linux and vice versa. Danger Will Robinson! The GPL can make Linux - FreeBSD copying^W inspiration very tricksy indeed. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Andrew L. Gould wrote: A FreeBSD vs Linux anecdote: I've read several articles over the years talking about how Linux can breathe new life into old computers. After the last couple of weeks, I don't buy it. After combining the hardware from 2 old computers (circa 1996 and 1998 -- anyone remember ISA cards, serial mice and AT cases?) I went through the process of finding a good operating system for it. The computer has a Pentium II 333MHz chip and 384MB RAM; so it's definitely worth keeping. I was unable to successfully install Fedora Core 4, SUSE Linux Professional 9.3, or Ubuntu 5.10. I was given the advice to try old versions of Linux; but how, then, does one deal with security issues? FreeBSD 6.0 and NetBSD 3.0 installed without any problems. The onboard sound chip was dead; so I swapped out the ISA modem for an ISA sound card, which was supported by both *BSD's. The onboard video is supported by both XFree86 and xorg. There are 3 PCI slots, so I added a D-Link Atheros wireless card and a USB2 card to get around most of the motherboard's limitations. For example, the hard drives connected via IDE are limited to ~8GB partitions; however, the computer seems to deal with a 60GB external, USB2 hard drive without problems. The computer is currently without keyboard, mouse or monitor. I am adding applications to the computer via ssh while I work. As soon as I get openbox and tightvnc installed, I'll switch to tightvnc so I can disconnect without disrupting jobs. (Hmm, I wonder if I'll have to add a mouse or keyboard at that point.) Andrew Gould You probably didn't get past the GUI end of Linux distros. Most distros are tailored to end users nowadays so you have to grind your way through the mucky X junk they require to be installed in order to get to the guts of the distro. Depending on what you are trying to accomplish though, you should use whatever tools best fit the job at hand. Me? I hate FreeBSD desktop use (tried it for 1.5-2 years, but didn't like the means of updating), so I'm sticking with Gentoo for that purpose. My server however? It's a lower end Celeron with FreeBSD on it, and I like it that way because it has just enough tools to share my files between my 2 PCs via NFS and Samba, as well as it's fairly secure and doesn't demand a lot of CPU cycles for compiling stuff necessarily like Gentoo does (even though I schedule it for portupgrade via cron every once in a while). For everything else? My iBook serves as my portable link because Apple makes pretty solid hardware and software, given other hardware vendors and software makers on the market. It's the perfect mix between proprietary and non-proprietary/open-source software (available via Fink and other Cocoa/Carbon developer's sites). So, is there really one perfect solution? No... if there was then everyone would use the same thing. Are there good solutions for particular applications? Yes, and that is why you need to define your goals and expectations before asking others about what you want to accomplish. -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Tamouh H. wrote: Just get a different sound card. There are lotsof inexpensive sounds cards that are probably supported by FreeBSD for just a few (10-30) $ Btw, this problem happens with Windows, Mac OS X, etc as well. I have been trying to put an extra USB/Firewire card in my G5, and they work, but with weird side effects like hanging IO. My dad had some sound card issues on Windows with supported cards. Chad Oh come on, I've been working with all Linux, FreeBSD and Windows. Getting a different card is not the solution. It is actually an absurd suggestion which goes to prove further that Unix has not matured yet to compete with Microsoft. If you are looking for compatibility, Windows is the answer. You are looking for security and stable releases, FreeBSD is the answer If you are seeking *free* OS with largest compatibility, Linux is the answer If you are seeking performance, FreeBSD is the answer. Windows almost runs everything, FreeBSD is stable, good performance but it is behind Linux when it comes to releasing drivers (example, zero-channel RAID cards weren't supported until very recently and still not quite official). The Linux OS has a much larger community than FreeBSD and hence has more development in it. In my opinion, I think the Unix world had missed the boat on trying to take over MSFT. The new Windows coming out are as stable as the Unix servers. With the Vista Windows, and a dramatic reduction of GUI, you can expect much better OS. Where did you read that about Vista? I've seen the beta versions of Vista and they all require cadillac machines with spiffy OpenGL cards, etc, in order to function without a lot of lag and hiccups. And when you turn all the bells and whistles off, Vista is nothing more than a graphics enhanced versions of XP with additional security features, such as required administrator logins, etc like Unix has been doing for years and Mac has been doing for a while. Windows Vista will no doubt require lots of RAM in comparison to XP because the developers/business team will add more features than users can shake a stick at. Yet, sadly enough I do not deny the fact that Windows is required given the software development model and noting where the money lies in software and hardware support. Heck, if Windows didn't exist I doubt I would have a job =D. -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
David Kelly wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:00:26PM -0500, Tamouh H. wrote: Just get a different sound card. There are lotsof inexpensive sounds cards that are probably supported by FreeBSD for just a few (10-30) $ Oh come on, I've been working with all Linux, FreeBSD and Windows. Getting a different card is not the solution. It is actually an absurd suggestion which goes to prove further that Unix has not matured yet to compete with Microsoft. [snip] The FreeBSD 6.0 kernel has a wrapper for using binary Windows device drivers. IIRC the main motivator (see above) was for broad WiFi hardware support. Might be able to use Windows sound card drivers for all I know. I don't think so... wireless cards have a specific grand unified interface called NDIS, whereas I'm 99.9% sure that different vendors have different interfaces for sound cards. Read: http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net/ for more info on NDIS. -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FreeBSD vs Linux
That or the user(s). Microsoft doesn't write any sound card drivers, they make manufacturers do it then pay and beg to be included on the master distribution CD/DVD. For a device to work in FreeBSD someone who wants it bad enough to do the work has to have the skills and want it bad enough to do it. Of course wanting is no small part of how such skills are developed. Someone has an unsupported sound card with a Linux example. All the tough details about the hardware are spelled out in the Linux driver. Plenty of FreeBSD drivers have been ported to Linux and vice versa. Still Microsoft has the upper hand! How about this for an idea, sponsored drivers ? Why not allow such service that if an organization or individual wishes to have a driver written they can sponsor a FreeBSD developer to do it? Where did you read that about Vista? I've seen the beta versions of Vista and they all require cadillac machines with spiffy OpenGL cards, etc, in order to function without a lot of lag and hiccups. And when you turn all the bells and whistles off, Vista is nothing more than a graphics enhanced versions of XP with additional security features, such as required administrator logins, etc like Unix has been doing for years and Mac has been doing for a while. Windows Vista will no doubt require lots of RAM in comparison to XP because the developers/business team will add more features than users can shake a stick at. Yet, sadly enough I do not deny the fact that Windows is required given the software development model and noting where the money lies in software and hardware support. Heck, if Windows didn't exist I doubt I would have a job =D. -Garrett Sorry, I wanted to mean LongHorn server, not the desktop version, for info about windows non-gui: http://www.entmag.com/reports/article.asp?EditorialsID=93 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Jan 17, 2006, at 6:16 PM, Tamouh H. wrote: Still Microsoft has the upper hand! How about this for an idea, sponsored drivers ? Why not allow such service that if an organization or individual wishes to have a driver written they can sponsor a FreeBSD developer to do it? How is that in any way new? The problem is that squeaky wheels are expecting their soundcard to be supported instantly and for free. Yet for some reason they hang around FreeBSD in spite of the soundcard driver deficiency. -- David Kelly N4HHE, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Jan 17, 2006, at 4:31 PM, Dick Davies wrote: On 17/01/06, David Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone has an unsupported sound card with a Linux example. All the tough details about the hardware are spelled out in the Linux driver. Plenty of FreeBSD drivers have been ported to Linux and vice versa. Danger Will Robinson! The GPL can make Linux - FreeBSD copying^W inspiration very tricksy indeed. Its a road already traveled. See: /usr/src/sys/gnu/dev/sound/pci/ -- David Kelly N4HHE, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:32:30 +0200 Mehmet Fatih AKBULUT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any idea when i'll be able to use my sound card on freebsd ;) ? [high definition audio :p] changing the topic ;) missed listening to music :'( [my speakers will get rot soon, dont even know if they still work :p] Try OSS. No clue if the chipset is support, but it is worth a shot. Also that is why I all am picky when picking hardware. I do agree with Matze though. FreeBSD makes a truely awesome multimedia experience. I've not seen any thing as impressive as FreeBSD running fluxbox, the nvidia driver, and and xdesktopwaves. It is pleasantly and graphically pleasing from all perspectives. I use FreeBSD for everything but running a few games and it does all I need nicely. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:00:26 -0500 Tamouh H. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just get a different sound card. There are lotsof inexpensive sounds cards that are probably supported by FreeBSD for just a few (10-30) $ Btw, this problem happens with Windows, Mac OS X, etc as well. I have been trying to put an extra USB/Firewire card in my G5, and they work, but with weird side effects like hanging IO. My dad had some sound card issues on Windows with supported cards. Chad Oh come on, I've been working with all Linux, FreeBSD and Windows. Getting a different card is not the solution. It is actually an absurd suggestion which goes to prove further that Unix has not matured yet to compete with Microsoft. It is easily good enought to compete with Microsoft. Most hardware out there is generally crappy and low end and that does not change regardless of OS. I say it is a good suggestion if they bought the hardware, without checking what is supported. If you are looking for compatibility, Windows is the answer. You are looking for security and stable releases, FreeBSD is the answer If you are seeking *free* OS with largest compatibility, Linux is the answer With the list that FreeBSD supports I've rarely found it a problem to find hardware that works nicely. If you are seeking performance, FreeBSD is the answer. Windows almost runs everything, FreeBSD is stable, good performance but it is behind Linux when it comes to releasing drivers (example, zero-channel RAID cards weren't supported until very recently and still not quite official). The Linux OS has a much larger community than FreeBSD and hence has more development in it. Larger, but I am not really seeing any thing that interesting going on it. In my opinion, I think the Unix world had missed the boat on trying to take over MSFT. The new Windows coming out are as stable as the Unix servers. With the Vista Windows, and a dramatic reduction of GUI, you can expect much better OS. When was FreeBSD trying to take over MSFT? That really seems more likely something assorted linux projects were trying to do by making those OS idiot proof. Unix community simply did not get their act together and try to build an OS for the masses. The main argument for Unix is it is Free, but compatibility and upgrade paths are different issues. I've never had any compatibility problems or problems with upgrade paths with FreeBSD. Any one that bases hardware decisions on what what has most support is going to screw themselves, if they think they can go that route so they can buy any thing. Yes, you can run nearly any thing with XP, but if you don't pay close attention to what you buy, it is still going to majorly suck. Open source unix is not a OS for the masses, but one for those who need it and want it. I use it because all around it is more economical for me. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
