Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:05:30 +0100 From: "Jeff Rollin" <jeff.rollin@gmail.com> To: backyard1454-bsd@yahoo.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Newbie Experience Message-ID: <8a0028260609120605h5c3e0dfey4b0976bf93d2c3d1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060912123120.89833.qmail@web83110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <8a0028260609120316q7ab0d7bcydcaec44fea42e325@mail.gmail.com> <20060912123120.89833.qmail@web83110.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/09/06, backyard <backyard1454-bsd@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > --- Jeff Rollin <jeff.rollin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 11/09/06, backyard <backyard1454-bsd@yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I first installed FreeBSD, circa 2003, > > version > > > > 4.9, the two reasons I chose it over Redhat and > > > > Debian were the simplicity of the installation > > and > > > > good manual. The install process on REdhat and > > > > Debian was awkward, at least for me, and I could > > not > > > > make them work on my old compaq armada laptop. > > In > > > > contrast just following the manual and choosing > > > > default install parameters I got Freebsd working > > > > fast. > > > > > > > > During the installation I actually learned a lot > > > > about unix and Freebsd, the sort of details > > which > > > > are important to know anyway. > > > > > > > > It is hard to find the right balance between > > > > simplicity and functionality. It seems the > > balance > > > > in the Freebsd install is about right. > > > > > > > > anton > > > > > > > > > > I've only been around since FreeBSD 5.4 myself, > > and > > > found during installs that sysinstall would get > > > confused if you changed your mind and went > > backwards > > > through the menus to reconfigure options. it seems > > > like the one in 6.1 is a lot better, but maybe I > > just > > > move back and forth less... > > > > > > That being said once it is installed it is a > > million > > > times easier to maintain and upgrade then any > > Linux > > > I've used. I had an old Digital 486 I had to > > install > > > Redhat 7.3 thinking I could easily update to the > > > latest kernel. I found I had to go through so many > > > dependancies to do so I finally said whatever > > kernel > > > was there was good enough. Talk about having to be > > a > > > GNU guru to get things installed correctly without > > > clobbering the old stuff and running into > > trouble... > > > > > > I'm unconvinced you could take FreeBSD 4 box and run > > the kernel from 6.1 on > > it without changing anything else. > > > > well cvsupping to Rel_5 and running a make buildworld > && make buildkernel && make install kernel a reboot > some mergemaster magic an installworld some more > mergemaster magic and then cvsupping to Rel_6 and > repeating is still lighttyears easier then watching > the Linux kernel build stop, downloading the sources, > configuring the dependancy properly, uninstalling the > old, and reintalling the new. Especially when you will > be tracing dependancies for weeks, unless your a > pretty good programmer, which I am not, and know the > dependancy chain of the core system. My point was the > relative ease of upgrading, not the technical points > of having missing object stubs. Of course you can't > put a cummins deisel in a pinto without working on the > frame first. Shrug. I've had problems trying to recompile the FreeBSD kernel too. > Of late I was using Gentoo which I found to be > > FreeBSD > > > like with its portage system, until recently when > > it > > > seems they changed many system level interface > > stuff > > > sometime after April 2006 and now I cannot seem to > > > update it. > > > > > > The developers say you should not leave updating too > > long... True, if you > > are running FBSD 5.1 and need to update to 6.1, 5.3 > > is still there on the > > servers, but you do have to go through the steps of > > installing that > > intermediate version. > > well it was current as of april 8th when I made the > tape. I went on vacation in May and got back on or > about the 17th of May. Updating HAS NOT WORKED SINCE > THEN. so if waiting 6 weeks is too long then so be it. 6 weeks too long? 6 months, *maybe*. I'm not going to constantly be emerging an update on a > daily basis to stay current, especially since > Openoffice seems to change its release tag everyother > day on Gentoo and it puts a machine out of commission > for 8-12 hours to build it. When: > > emerge --update --deep --newuse --emptytree world > > fails with PAM blocking, mozilla blocking, and now > Xorg blocking as well as some other odds and ends > thats when I say BSD is for me. to me it is > incomprehensible why I cannot rebuild the system tree > from scratch without software blocking the build. It > was fun while it lasted, and it was nice to be away > from winblows but in my experience linux is slower, a > pain to configure, impossible to update, and a project > started to emulate Unix. I'd much rather spend my time > learning Unix, then fighting with the emulator. That was my point, that BSD was rewritten from the ground up to avoid AT&T patents. So whilst some might consider BSD "real unix", it's really only "emulating" V7 with Berkeley extensions. > > > Even a full system rebuild has blocking > > > packages that boggle my mind as they were compile > > from > > > source originally... > > > > > > Stuff usually blocks if something about the way it's > > installed has changed > > in an incompatible way - X.org moving from > > monolithic to modular builds, for > > example. This doesn't seem to have anything to do > > with (binary) packages. > > > > well if I just delete the blockers and let them be > fixed in the rebuild via them being dependancies it > still fails. and use flags are basically useless in > binary packages right? I don't like packages, I like > to see that the port(age) will build on my machine, > because I am a firm believer if you build it, it will > run... Not to mention you can set the options you > want. My point was that binary packages and blocking are two separate issues. > sysinstall isn't all that bad. It could be flashier, > > > it could be graphical, it could be a lot of > > things. If > > > it really bothers you that much you can make > > yourself > > > a livecd system that brings up X and restores a > > basic > > > install, or cvsups whatever system you want on > > your > > > pc/sparc/whatever and builds it from source. that > > is > > > the beauty of Unix. True Unix not an emulator like > > > Linux. > > > > > > I let a lot of BSD comments about Linux go > > "unpunished", but this one has > > always got me. BSD had to be *almost totally > > rewritten* to avoid AT&T > > licensing issues... added to the fact that I > > wouldn't be surprised if it's > > hard to find a single line of code IRIX, Solaris et > > al these days share > > between themselves and with V7. Not only that, but I > > understand that a lot > > of Unix sysadmins download the GNU tools as well, > > because (among other > > things) they do nifty things like being able to > > unzip, gunzip or bunzip a > > tarball before untarring it. And the amount of > > software available from > > people like KDE to install in FreeBSD is staggering. > > > > That and the fact you get an OS with a set of > > > base software and a compiler out of the box. Linux > > is > > > only the kernel, you have to make hundreds of > > > independant software packages work together to get > > a > > > system running. Each one with their own > > independant > > > configuration files, and hundreds of man pages to > > > read. Even the rc.d system is a separate package. > > > > > > I doubt things magically work in FBSD, either. The > > maintainers probably have > > build scripts that automate fetching this or that, > > but it's all gotta be > > done. > > > > now I'm sure things have progressed with Fedora Core > > > where updating is nice and simple, but the shear > > > amount of chaos that is Linux just drives me nutz. > > > > > > Linux is chaos? > > ABSOLUTELY, but only because I am not a developer, and > know of C code... I find you have to be completely on > top of what it is and then some to get anything done. > None of the core utilities seem to work together with > a common configuration. But this is my biased opinion. > Each POSIX system follows a spec, how they follow it > is up to them. I find Linux takes a helical route > occastionally emergeing from event horizons. Plus can > any one really list what and why the kernel was > changed since its creation??? No even Linus can do > that, Do you have proof of it? patches come in from everywhere, But are only accepted if they get the go-ahead from the "core team", to use a FreeBSD term... and weren't > docuemented until releatively recently. That is Chaos > my friend... > > > > Sysinstall does take a few installs to get down pat, > > > but once you do it can be setup almost in your > > sleep. > > > You do need to get used to the differences of Unix > > vs > > > most PC OSs whereby you need to in laymens term > > > partition twice. A feature I love because it keeps > > > fstab making sense. > > > > > > Like anything you can't expect to try something > > > completely new without expecting to fall on your > > face > > > a few times. I wouldn't just through on scuba gear > > and > > > dive the Atlantic Ocean in search of the > > Titanic... I > > > would expect to have to read, maybe take some > > classes > > > (mess up FreeBSD bad and start over) and try in a > > pool > > > instead of the ocean a few times (use non-mission > > > critical machines to learn with) > > > > > > The unfortunate truth is Unix is not Microsoft > > > Windows, well some might consider it > > unfortunate... > > > > > > Yeah, I think you mean "fortunate truth"! > > > > Windows tells you what to do, what software you must > > > use, what drivers you must use, where you must > > install > > > things, what daemons listen to what ports and > > their is > > > little you can do to change it. Unix is just a set > > of > > > simple commands strung together in scripts and > > pipes > > > that can do whatever you want it to do. X11 is not > > > Unix it is a software package designed to allow > > > netrocentric GUI applications to talk to a screen, > > > keyboard and mouse. Its a monster in and of > > itself... > > > Complete with its own documentation... > > > > > > Unfortunately it takes some time to learn how to > > work > > > with FreeBSD and Unix in general. Some people have > > > been doing it there whole professional lives and > > > probably still are amazed when they see a new > > little > > > trick come out of some new hackers "toolbox." > > There > > > are a few simple rules, and the rest is on you. > > It's > > > Unix's greatest strength and weakness rolled into > > one. > > > Please don't give up on FreeBSD because of one bad > > > experience. Take the time to mess around with it > > and > > > learn the basics and go from there. Or stick with > > > Linux its up to you. I will guarantee that when it > > > comes to upgrading the Linux box you will come > > back to > > > FreeBSD real quick... > > > > > > Or Gentoo, Ubuntu or SuSE! ;-) > > if you must but I'm done with that penguin and its a > messy break up. I've always liked what Linux was > doing, but I HATE the way it does it, and thats my > totally biased opinion. Well, at least you're honest! Jeff Rollin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8a0028260609120605h5c3e0dfey4b0976bf93d2c3d1>