Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 01:53:02 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: abelits@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us Cc: jbryant@tfs.net, dennis@etinc.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Commercial vendors registry Message-ID: <199704140653.BAA00534@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970413203337.6395A-100000@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us> from Alex Belits at "Apr 13, 97 10:03:26 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Vendors mostly like that at least _some_ > support for them is offered (by distributions vendors such as Red Hat -- > there is one "distributor" for FreeBSD -- Walnut Creek, but it doesn't > really organize or supports anything of that kind). > I am not involved with WC, but I heard that they do have support. > > One can hate > rms/gnu/fsf but the idea of OS that can be built other way than "make > world" > Don't hate them, I just don't agree with their philosophy and economics. > > and not fall apart instantly, distribution that supports upgrades > that could be done by user with minimal knowledge about OS internals > You mean the kernel of the week syndrome? > > attractive for commercial vendors than FreeBSD with its closed-group > attitude. > Please contribute -- we aren't closed. There is the issue of having quality control or not. We choose the former. > > Example from "noncommercial" world: the idea of "ports" that > don't have to be supported by actual author/maintainer of a program but > can include "FreeBSD-specific" patch (most likely to some ancient version) > and doomed to instantly become outdated without original author's support > vs. Linux users tradition of using author's sources that are definitely > supported directly or Red Hat's rpm system that has its flaws but makes it > way harder for knowledgeable user to shoot himself in the foot. > Actually, I find alot of #ifdef FreeBSD and configure's that work directly with FreeBSD. Much software works directly out of the box directly from the vendor/developer. You have the option of using the ports collection so that you have fewer problems or want to install directly out-of-the-box. Note also that the CDROM contains the apps that can be freely redistributed (unlike certain Zmodem or Kermit distributions.) > > Both Linux and FreeBSD change fast, although FreeBSD comes in one > monolithic distribution, and any attempt to get something fixed throws > user into -CURRENT (no pun intended but it seems appropriate) with all its > instability and experiments around. > Not true, 2.2.X is a new released codebase. It isn't -current. Things get fixed in the 2.2.X base. I wouldn't be suprised if 2.1.X is also still being supported for existing apps, on an as needed basis. BTW, -current isn't always stable -- and end users should use it only for experimentation, or they should support it entirely themselves. Luckily, you can always check out a system source tree for any point in history (or release) with the CVS tree (which is publically available -- and you can have your own, local copy.) That enables people to support themselves when running -current more easily (when absolutely needed.) BTW, I have absolutely no trouble maintaining a CVS tree on my machine at home with a 28.8K modem. There are various distribution mechanisms for the FreeBSD CVS tree, and you can choose the one that works best for you. > > If vendors that now support Linux had > to switch to 2.1.x kernel just to keep with library changes I believe, > they had used OpenNT by now. > What about the users who have problems with the shared-libs of the week problem? Which version of Netscape/Staroffice, etc. with which shared-libs? The only time that I have problems mixing/matching shared libs is when running Linux apps on FreeBSD or Linux apps on Linux. > > FreeBSD technically is a nice OS. Organization of its development and > distribution looks umm... unhealthy. > You mean a central group of people who are trying to maintain quality and branding (FreeBSD)? Or a bunch of distributions with a bunch of different combinations of shared libs and apps (and kernel versions, Linux)? I prefer a coherent development path/group. It is pretty good that we have 70+- committers that can modify the tree directly, and don't have chaos. In fact, we are pretty well organized. > > P.S. If anyone cares -- I use both Linux and FreeBSD, do applications > development and spend approximately equal amount of time on both, so I'm > quite aware of flaws, bugs and concept differences in both systems. > That is interesting, because I have played with both and NT substantially, (even though I am a FreeBSD developer), and your impressions are not the same as mine. However, I do know what is going on in FreeBSD in detail. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704140653.BAA00534>