Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers? - BSD

This is a discussion on Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers? - BSD ; On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:52:51 GMT, TomB wrote: > On 2008-10-30, Andrew Reilly was urged to write the following: >>> The *FreeBSD ports collection* and, or package >>> management system in its current incarnation *SUCKS*. >> >> You're clearly ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 55 of 55

Thread: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?

  1. Re: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?

    On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:52:51 GMT, TomB wrote:
    > On 2008-10-30, Andrew Reilly was urged to write the following:
    >>> The *FreeBSD ports collection* and, or package
    >>> management system in its current incarnation *SUCKS*.

    >>
    >> You're clearly welcome to your opinion, but I don't share it. I've
    >> used several package management systems, on several Unix-like
    >> platforms. None are perfect, all have their strengths and
    >> weaknesses. I happen to like the tradeoffs that the FreeBSD ports
    >> system has made. I particularly like the easy visibility of what is
    >> going on that comes from storing both the database of available
    >> packages and the database of installed files as simple trees of
    >> regular text files.

    >
    > Totally seconded. I'm a Debian user, but whenever I find the time I
    > tinker with FreeBSD. Over time I grew very fond of the way the ports
    > collection works. The control you've got over how the software will be
    > installed is great. I'm even considering a migration to Slackware, as
    > I understand they have a similar approach to installing software.


    Why not ``the real thing'', aka FreeBSD?

    /me ducks and runs...


  2. Re: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?

    On 10/31/2008 04:22 AM, TomB wrote:
    > On 2008-10-30, Andrew Reilly was urged to write the following:
    >
    >>> The *FreeBSD ports collection* and, or package
    >>> management system in its current incarnation *SUCKS*.

    >> You're clearly welcome to your opinion, but I don't share it. I've used
    >> several package management systems, on several Unix-like platforms. None
    >> are perfect, all have their strengths and weaknesses. I happen to like
    >> the tradeoffs that the FreeBSD ports system has made. I particularly
    >> like the easy visibility of what is going on that comes from storing both
    >> the database of available packages and the database of installed files as
    >> simple trees of regular text files.

    >
    > Totally seconded. I'm a Debian user, but whenever I find the time I
    > tinker with FreeBSD. Over time I grew very fond of the way the ports
    > collection works. The control you've got over how the software will be
    > installed is great. I'm even considering a migration to Slackware, as
    > I understand they have a similar approach to installing software.


    One can easily build, compile and, or fine tune any of the Debian,
    Ubuntu and, or Mint distributions and any or all of the apt packages; it
    is how Ubuntu and, or other such distributions based Debian were created.

    Interestingly, the Nexenta, an OpenSolaris based distribution has been
    built on GUN userland and uses apt as a package management and build system.

    Please do have a look at ArchLinux too, particularly the
    http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_vs_Others page and do compare
    how much it takes to upgrade and, or update a Debian, Arch and FreeBSD
    machine; well I'm serious and talking about a upgrade/update based on
    pre-build binary packages.

    I extensively use and like the clean, efficient and stable FreeBSD
    personally, but I also need to earn as well. So learning, using and, or
    recommending the popular one is my need though not a requirement.

    Why I'm mentioning all these here in a FreeBSD group, just for a
    comparison; definitely do not intend distracting anyone from FreeBSD.

    Think about a FreeBSD and, or any other package build and, or management
    system where you want to re-build, improve, debug and, or fine-tune only
    a particular package and the dependencies and you need not fetch the
    whole ports collection, but it retrieves and builds only relevant ports.

    Think of configuring and compiling a source package only once, and then
    subdivide the same in to sub/meta/virtual packages; Please do have look
    at the *FLAW* in current ports collection and build system that how a
    same source package QT4 is being *RE*-extracted, *RE*-configured and, or
    *RE*-compiled around 34 or more times, just to subdivide it in to
    sub-packages.

    Think of separating development files -- headers, libs and, or other
    tools, which most of the end-users do not need either.

    IMHO, the current FreeBSD ports collection, build and package system
    needs a complete overhaul.

    --
    Dr Balwinder S "bsd" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
    Anu'z Linux@HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
    Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Gentoo, Fedora, Debian/FreeBSD/XP
    Home: http://cto.homelinux.net/~bsd/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/

  3. Re: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?

    On 10/31/2008 05:42 AM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
    > That's, unfortunately, one of the characteristics of not making choices for
    > you, but empowering *you* to make the choices for yourself. This is the
    > traditional ``provide tools not policies'' philosophy of FreeBSD:
    >
    > Instead of bundling a `standard httpd' into the base system, FreeBSD gives
    > you a stable `base' system with a well-known and very slowly changing set
    > of really important tools, and then the Ports. This means that you have
    > extra work to do to:


    Hey, a particular SMTP, FTP, NTP, and, or other servers or clients are
    already there in the base system, but why and for what? What is the
    base-system and what is must and, or must not contain? Why you need a
    cvs client in the base-system?

    --
    Dr Balwinder S "bsd" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
    Anu'z Linux@HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
    Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Gentoo, Fedora, Debian/FreeBSD/XP
    Home: http://cto.homelinux.net/~bsd/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/

  4. Re: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?

    TomB writes:

    > Totally seconded. I'm a Debian user, but whenever I find the time I
    > tinker with FreeBSD. Over time I grew very fond of the way the ports
    > collection works. The control you've got over how the software will be
    > installed is great. I'm even considering a migration to Slackware, as
    > I understand they have a similar approach to installing software.



    Slackware provides a good but limited number of binary packages. The
    rest is up to you. It is however not usually too difficult to create a
    Slackware package from source code, and the wonderful Slackbuilds site
    has lots of build scripts for commonly used software.


    http://slackbuilds.org/

    My own machines run FreeBSD because I have fallen in love wih the
    system!!, the wife and children get Slackware because it does more of
    the multi-media stuff out of the box :-)



    Glyn

  5. Re: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?

    On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:34:15 +0530,
    Balwinder S Dheeman wrote:
    > On 10/31/2008 05:42 AM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
    >> That's, unfortunately, one of the characteristics of not making
    >> choices for you, but empowering *you* to make the choices for
    >> yourself. This is the traditional ``provide tools not policies''
    >> philosophy of FreeBSD:
    >>
    >> Instead of bundling a `standard httpd' into the base system, FreeBSD
    >> gives you a stable `base' system with a well-known and very slowly
    >> changing set of really important tools, and then the Ports. This
    >> means that you have extra work to do to:

    >
    > Hey, a particular SMTP, FTP, NTP, and, or other servers or clients are
    > already there in the base system, but why and for what? What is the
    > base-system and what is must and, or must not contain? Why you need a
    > cvs client in the base-system?


    Well, the short and long of it is that if you can convince a large
    number of committers that it is worth the extra maintenance cost, then
    we can always add new software to the base system


  6. Re: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?

    On 2008-10-31, Giorgos Keramidas was urged to write the following:
    > Totally seconded. I'm a Debian user, but whenever I find the time I
    >> tinker with FreeBSD. Over time I grew very fond of the way the ports
    >> collection works. The control you've got over how the software will be
    >> installed is great. I'm even considering a migration to Slackware, as
    >> I understand they have a similar approach to installing software.

    >
    > Why not ``the real thing'', aka FreeBSD?


    Mostly because of the lack of a native Flash player. My kids also use
    my box, and they like to play on-line flash games. I tried gnash, but
    unfortunately it doesn't handle most of the games very well.

    Another thing is audio production. I don't understand yet how the FBSD
    kernel handles realtime audio processing. I even haven't got to
    installing alsa yet on my FBSD install.

    > /me ducks and runs...


    No need to ;-)

    --
    Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
    ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

  7. Re: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?

    Ranter writes:

    >The build stopped again (hour 47) to let me do more
    >configuration, this time of the Ghostscript drivers. The
    >instructions are that I shouldn't be too stingy, because some
    >other port *might* fail unless it can find a certain driver, and
    >that I should have fun with this new configuration style.


    >For my inconvenience, nearly all the more than 200 (I lost count)
    >entries were pre-checked. I had no idea that other FBSD
    >installations were so well-supplied with printers; I feel
    >positively deprived in only having one for my whole lan.


    >Or perhaps the fun he urges me to have lies in going through and
    >un-checking all those > 200 selections?


    Although I hate to feed the troll, I have to say that I tire of
    having to select individual drivers for Ghostscript after every
    micro-revision. Come on, guys, I'm never going to connect this
    system to an IBM Proprinter. Can't we remember that for next
    time?

    --
    J. Porter Clark

  8. Re: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?

    Balwinder S Dheeman wrote:
    > Think of configuring and compiling a source package only once, and then
    > subdivide the same in to sub/meta/virtual packages; Please do have look
    > at the *FLAW* in current ports collection and build system that how a
    > same source package QT4 is being *RE*-extracted, *RE*-configured and, or
    > *RE*-compiled around 34 or more times, just to subdivide it in to
    > sub-packages.
    >
    > Think of separating development files -- headers, libs and, or other
    > tools, which most of the end-users do not need either.


    While i agree with the rest of your post, i don't agree with that. For
    me, one of the good points of FreeBSD is having all the include and
    development files present if i want to build a given port from source.
    What is the benefit of not having them? some space on disk. This costs
    essentially nothing.

    >
    > IMHO, the current FreeBSD ports collection, build and package system
    > needs a complete overhaul.
    >


    I think it needs some thought, to discover what exactly is needed to
    provide a working binary upgrade system, that is, i consider having to
    read UPDATING absolutely prohibitive. An upgrade system has to be
    completely automatic or it is worth nothing. The system of knobs
    provided by FreeBSD packages is insufficient for that, as attested by
    the existence of UPDATING. On the other hand there are totally useless
    knobs. Once the correct knobs are found (i don't pretend having a clear
    idea of this correct set) i am convinced that only very small
    adaptations of the ports system are necessary to cope with them. On this
    basis, one can then write something like apt-get which, based on these
    data does the effective job. This is not very difficult, since examples
    abound, notably apt-get written in C++, and more recently the RedHat
    system, yum, written in python. To get a quick result, a scripting
    language is certainly the best solution, but i think FreeBSD people are
    against that.







    --

    Michel TALON


  9. Re: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?

    Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
    > That's fine too, and it is well known that
    > sometimes too many choices are a major hindrance of progress by the sheer
    > amount of effort needed to weed through all the options[2].


    I agree completely with what you are saying here, Giorgos. Contrary to
    what free software people say, too much choice (or even choice) is a
    major hindrance of progress, an obvious example being the choice between
    Gnome and KDE. Windows and Mac OS run circles around the Linux desktop
    because they don't provide any choice in the desktop. They have chosen
    for you and spend their efforts in polishing their choice.


    --

    Michel TALON


  10. Re: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?


    > Totally seconded. I'm a Debian user, but whenever I find the time I
    > tinker with FreeBSD. Over time I grew very fond of the way the ports
    > collection works. The control you've got over how the software will be
    > installed is great. I'm even considering a migration to Slackware, as I
    > understand they have a similar approach to installing software.


    Well, I played with FreeBSD again, diving into it now and again and
    starting with some version 4. This time I installed it on a laptop and,
    after quite a bit of trying I got wifi working. I admit that I learned
    something by doing this.
    FreeBSD is easy as it is clean. Most settings can be changed in text-
    based files. Being a Slackware user this is not new to me and is much
    appreciated.
    My gripe with FreeBSD is that many applications don't work. Flashplayer
    is not there, Realplayer does not compile, even a simple image viewer,
    qiv, does not work after it installed apparently correctly. I think this
    is the same as with all other package-based distributions, Linux or BSD:
    they work fine if they work but if they don't they are a pain to fix. The
    method that Slackware is using, simple tar.gz files, is still the best.
    Usually I get enough information to add libraries or other software. Up
    to now, and this is in the last 13 years, I never failed to get the
    software I wanted to work. With BSD I am still trying.
    JB

  11. Re: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?

    danube wrote:
    > My gripe with FreeBSD is that many applications don't work. Flashplayer
    > is not there,


    Flash 7 has worked on FreeBSD since ages, and apparently new fixes have
    been introduced to the Linux emulation, so that Flash 9 now works. Of
    course this is with the most recent version of FreeBSD, not with some
    dinosaur. In general for me, all applications i want to use work on
    FreeBSD.


    --

    Michel TALON


  12. Re: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?

    On 11/03/2008 03:38 AM, Michel Talon wrote:
    > danube wrote:
    >> My gripe with FreeBSD is that many applications don't work. Flashplayer
    >> is not there,

    >
    > Flash 7 has worked on FreeBSD since ages, and apparently new fixes have
    > been introduced to the Linux emulation, so that Flash 9 now works. Of
    > course this is with the most recent version of FreeBSD, not with some
    > dinosaur. In general for me, all applications i want to use work on
    > FreeBSD.


    Who cares what you want and, or don't want to use. Please either try
    addressing issues the other FreeBSD users face or keep mum if you don't
    understand the problem and have a solution.

    --
    Dr Balwinder S "bsd" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
    Anu'z Linux@HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
    Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Gentoo, Fedora, Debian/FreeBSD/XP
    Home: http://cto.homelinux.net/~bsd/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/

  13. Re: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?

    On 11/03/2008 12:34 AM, danube wrote:
    > My gripe with FreeBSD is that many applications don't work. Flashplayer
    > is not there, Realplayer does not compile, even a simple image viewer,
    > qiv, does not work after it installed apparently correctly. I think this
    > is the same as with all other package-based distributions, Linux or BSD:
    > they work fine if they work but if they don't they are a pain to fix. The
    > method that Slackware is using, simple tar.gz files, is still the best.
    > Usually I get enough information to add libraries or other software. Up
    > to now, and this is in the last 13 years, I never failed to get the
    > software I wanted to work. With BSD I am still trying.


    Nothing in this world is perfect not even the God.

    Hundreds of thousands of FreeBSD developers and, or contributors are
    already trying to make work hundreds of third party packages, some of
    which are not portable enough and, or have been written and, or shipped
    with a specific target OS in mind.

    With that much of your expertize and, or exposure to some flavor of
    Linux, I hope you definitely will/can make the flash player work on
    FreeBSD too and submit your work and, or port soon.

    --
    Dr Balwinder S "bsd" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
    Anu'z Linux@HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
    Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Gentoo, Fedora, Debian/FreeBSD/XP
    Home: http://cto.homelinux.net/~bsd/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/

  14. Re: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?

    On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 20:04:03 +0100 (CET), danube wrote:
    >> Totally seconded. I'm a Debian user, but whenever I find the time I
    >> tinker with FreeBSD. Over time I grew very fond of the way the ports
    >> collection works. The control you've got over how the software will be
    >> installed is great. I'm even considering a migration to Slackware, as I
    >> understand they have a similar approach to installing software.

    >
    > Well, I played with FreeBSD again, diving into it now and again and
    > starting with some version 4.


    This is a release that is so old that it is no longer supported even by
    the security team. It may be worth downloading one of the latest stable
    releases, i.e. FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE.

    > My gripe with FreeBSD is that many applications don't
    > work. Flashplayer is not there, Realplayer does not compile, [...]


    With a release as old as 4.X it would be surprising if they _did_ work.
    While it was a stable system, it is now anything from three to eight
    years old. Please try with one of the newer releases too

    You can find a listing of the most recent releases at:

    http://www.freebsd.org/releases/


  15. Re: Is FreeBSD just a sandbox for hackers?

    On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 04:54:36 +0530, Balwinder S Dheeman wrote:
    > On 11/03/2008 03:38 AM, Michel Talon wrote:
    >> danube wrote:
    >>> My gripe with FreeBSD is that many applications don't
    >>> work. Flashplayer is not there,

    >>
    >> Flash 7 has worked on FreeBSD since ages, and apparently new fixes
    >> have been introduced to the Linux emulation, so that Flash 9 now
    >> works. Of course this is with the most recent version of FreeBSD, not
    >> with some dinosaur. In general for me, all applications i want to use
    >> work on FreeBSD.

    >
    > Who cares what you want and, or don't want to use. Please either try
    > addressing issues the other FreeBSD users face or keep mum if you
    > don't understand the problem and have a solution.


    I think Michel's response _was_ helpful. He pointed out that important
    and useful changes are under way to support Flash. After all the time
    he has spent answering questions in this group, I think he deserves more
    than a `dismissive' holier-than-thou comment of this sort.

    Can we get back to _really_ answering the user's questions and stop the
    personal attack nonsense please?


+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3