From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 2 23:07:01 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F0316A4B3 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 23:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lakemtao06.cox.net (lakemtao06.cox.net [68.1.17.115]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CBDA43FDD for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 23:07:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kitbsdlists@HotPOP.com) Received: from fortytwo ([68.109.49.234]) by lakemtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with SMTP id <20031003060658.CKWQ10862.lakemtao06.cox.net@fortytwo>; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 02:06:58 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 01:05:54 -0500 From: Vulpes Velox To: SoloCDM , "FreeBSD-Questions (Request)" Message-Id: <20031003010554.3e452f0f.kitbsdlists@HotPOP.com> In-Reply-To: References: <200310021459.h92Exhbn017254@clunix.cl.msu.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.3claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.9) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: "FreeBSD-Questions \(Request\)" Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. RedHat X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 06:07:01 -0000 On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:47:51 -0600 (MDT) SoloCDM wrote: > On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, SoloCDM wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:43:39 -0600 (MDT) > > From: SoloCDM > > Reply-To: SoloCDM , > > "FreeBSD-Questions (Request)" > > To: "FreeBSD-Questions (Request)" > > Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. RedHat > > > > On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Jerry McAllister wrote: > > > > > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:59:42 -0400 (EDT) > > > From: Jerry McAllister > > > To: deedsmis@aculink.net > > > Cc: "FreeBSD-Questions (Request)" > > > Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. RedHat > > > > > > > Why do the ISOs seem to be three CDs of 600Mb each for RedHat > > > > compared to 1.5 CDs for FreeBSD? I thought the files were larger > > > > with FreeBSD and its tarballs. > > > > > > > Does FreeBSD offer all the packages from A to Z in their CDs? > > > > > > Well, sort of. FreeBSD itself does not offer any CDs. It has some > > > ISO-s. Recently FreeBSD decided to quit putting out ISOs with all > > > the source for all the ports. So, the two ISO-s called disk1.iso > > > and disk2.iso contain the installation system, the full operating > > > system and some of the more popular ports. They used to put out two > > > more ISO-s that contained the rest of the ports in a four ISO set, > > > but FreeBSD no longer does that. You can easily obtain any and all > > > of it through FreeBSD because the ISO-s have the complete ports tree > > > skeleton from which you can install any of the ports directly over the > > > net - and that is how you really want to install ports anyway. > > > > > > BUT, some other companies package the larger sets on CDs - usually 4 > > > CDs. Try FreeBSD Mall, for example. There are a couple of others as > > > well. Those sets have the whole schmear. > > > > > > The other combination is to download the mini-iso which has > > > essentially just the installation system and the OS and everything > > > else in then brought down over the net during installation. > > > > > > > Does FreeBSD come with an installation package? > > > > > > Yes. You boot the install CD and voila. > > > > > > > Is FreeBSD Linux or UNIX? > > > > > > FreeBSD is BSD which has its origins in the Berkeley U written version > > > of Bell Labs UNIX way way back in deep and dark history long before > > > Linux was ever conceived, let alone birthed. > > > > All of you did a great job of describing many features of BSD. It > > makes it enticing. > > > > When RedHat started out, it had some conveniences, but it quickly > > become so bizarre and discombobulated that I am feed-up, a voodoo act > > and standing on one's head is involved. Most of the so-called-experts > > in RPMs don't know what they're doing from one minute to the next. > > Usually installing the tarball (my form of description) is the only > > available option. > > > > So many of the RPM distributors are inventing and reinventing new ways > > to reroute the file to its original location. Often the files go > > through 6 links before you capture the original file. That doesn't > > include the original program from recognizing other renamed filenames > > that produce optional executions. This usually keeps some of the RPM > > installations from installing, *unless*, all the rubble is ripped out > > before you start. Often that *breaks* the whole structure/hierarchy > > apart. > > > > Now distributors have moved to an option that supposedly entices > > enterprises. Usually it forces the installations to conform to their > > type of networking. > > > > Is it possible to go from one distribution version to another (4.x to > > 5.x) without entirely removing the old version? Do the upgrades with > > the ports allow this possibility? > > > > Can packages and their dependencies be removed through a package that > > does the uninstalling? > > What CPU (i386, i486, i586, ...) are the packages compiled and geared > towards? on the x86 side it is i386 for 4.x and i486 for 5.x...