"Here we are at the moment of truth for the FreeBSD operating system - the 7.0 release. This is what FreeBSD users and developers have been waiting for ever since the dark days of the 5.X series when the promises of superior performance, threading, and stability fell flat. Though each release in the FreeBSD 6.X series improved markedly in quality and performance, 7.0 has been widely anticipated as the release that FreeBSD fans can have confidence in. I wish I could say that FreeBSD 7.0 lived up to the hype."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-28
One of the most honest and thorough reviews of FreeBSD that exposes many of the real shortcomings of FreeBSD from a user's perspective.
It's 2008, not 1998. Adapt or die. Make both sysadmins and desktop users lives easier or you won't be around too long. Sun appears to understand this as the Indiana project seems to show and Linux distributors have long been providing easier to install and reliable operating systems for serious computing.
FreeBSD has potential, but it needs to focus on fundamentals and find its identity as an OS if it is to remain relevant in market terms.
Member since:2006-10-08
Interesting read, indeed. I liked the comment about the relationship to Mac OS X and the short summary about what FreeBSD is.
Just from adaption, you don't have innovation. Innovate != adapt.
From my point of view - and please note that that's a very individual feeling - FreeBSD does perfectly do what it is intended to. Of course, other audiences have different expectations regarding what FreeBSD is or what it should be like. But I'd have to mention many things that I'd like to see changed in future releases, but that's lots of fundamental and comfortability stuff, such as a better preconfigured shell... "hardcore stuff", you know. :-)
I think you're wrong. This is not because of the opinion you've expressed (which I do understand), but because of the words you chose: Serious computing - what's this exactly? Easier to install? Depends on point of view (for example, I found "Knoppix" Linux too complicated to install). Reliable: Isn't FreeBSD a reliable operating system? Why do you think it isn't? There are systems out there that are based upon FreeBSD and follow the most common expectations (KDE preinstalled, preconfigured, lots of stuff included, autodetecting this and that, use PC-BSD or DesktopBSD). Differentiate fine: "the base OS" and "everything else" - mentioned often before.
I think FreeBSD already found its identity. Just because users of other OSes don't seem to understand it, it's not FreeBSD's fault. Regarding marketing terms, you're basically right.
Let me comment on a few passages from the review:
Your FreeBSD skills and expertise will be totally meaningless at an OS X terminal.
Not totally. UNIX generics are handy everywhere. :-)
The freebsd-update utility, which provides binary release upgrades and security fixes, is now part of the base system
A very useful solution.
[...] selecting a large number of binary packages involves hours of disc-switching among the CDs.
In most "field study" cases, you only use CD1 to install the base system and add everything else via network. The CDs are handy for computers that don't offer a DVD drive (but you can create a FreeBSD DVD easily to get rid of the CDs). Especially this feature makes FreeBSD interesting for computers with low hardware ressources. In most cases, you install the packages you want afterwards.
The good news is that the partitioning scheme seems to scale better with larger disks than I remember in past releases. This can be difficult to understand from a Linux perspective because the largest partition -- /usr -- on FreeBSD is also the default location for the symlinked /home and /sys directories. I'm not sure that I agree with the small default size of /var, but it's not like you can't adjust that manually.
You can, however, move /home to an own partition to have it excluded from the /usr subtree. This makes it easier to backup your partitions, or, to speak more practically, to backup your data partition-wise. As you will notice, fixed partition sizes always have a good and a bad side ("out of space" vs. "too much spare space").
While I was working on benchmarking, I noticed that the GENERIC kernel config file had debugging symbols turned on by default. I disabled this, installed a properly tuned make.conf, compiled and installed a new kernel, and saw a measurable increase in performance (not a terribly significant increase, but it did show up in Sysbench).
For some users, creating a "tailored as you need" custom kernel is one of the most natural things. :-)
Annoyingly, on test systems that use USB keyboards, I would sometimes have to unplug and replug the keyboard in order for it to work at the login prompt. In the past, the USB keyboard problem was worse, so I suppose this is an improvement.
In fact, it is. This is due to kbdmux which now allows parallel use of AT and USB keyboards; in the past, you were required to switch between keyboards using kbdcontrol. At early boot stages the USB keyboard does not work, but I found the same "problem" with some Linux systems, too.
I used to be under the impression that FreeBSD had reasonably good hardware support, but in taking notes on hardware compatibility problems in 7.0, I've discovered that among all of the Unix-like operating systems I have tested in the past year, encompassing other BSD variants and Linux distributions, FreeBSD 7.0 has by far the worst hardware compatibility of all.
That's something I've experienced, too, but it usually depends on the hardware you're using. With standard-compliant hardware, you've got no problems, but with "strange" settings (such as they happen to appear in laptops) hardware support is not as good as commonly in Linux.
Aside from the above, I could detect no other significant changes in FreeBSD from an ordinary user's perspective. All of the same old FreeBSD processes and habits remain unchanged.
The same old ones? :-)
Though FreeBSD's internals have changed for better, it still needs a lot of work before I'd recommend it as a production-ready as a server or desktop operating system.
See? That's where the author and me do disagree. If setup correctly by an experienced user, FreeBSD is definitely a welcome and viable production system for desktops, servers and mixed forms. But you have to know how.
On paper, FreeBSD should be a technologically advanced operating system, but when you actually install it on a computer, its limitations are glaring: It lacks the network driver support that OpenBSD and Linux have, it doesn't work properly on established workstation hardware, and the lack of reasonably complete installed-by-default configuration files makes initial installation and configuration more of a hassle than it should be.
That's true, at least from my point of view. There are many things you usually will tweak before your system is in the state you want it to have. So I'm glad to have some scripts avaiable to do lots of the modification works. :-)
The "old" FreeBSD -- the reliable, stable, speedy network server -- died when 4.X ended development.
...
A more intelligent kernel profile. The default FreeBSD 7.0 kernel configuration has debugging symbols enabled, and excludes many drivers and options that could be quite useful. Instead of forcing people to make a LINT configuration to use as a reference, I'd rather see an updated and streamlined GENERIC config with all of the potential options commented out.
Agreed.
[The installation program] doens't have to be graphical, but it does have to be practical.
Very true.
After installation, FreeBSD is left with no real make.conf or rc.conf, although there are example files in /usr/share/examples.
That's not completely true. The /etc/rc.conf already contains every setting you made during sysinstall (Configure: keyboard, startup, services, networking, mouse...). The /etc/make.conf is a file you don't touch very often (except you're compiling something); in most cases, it just contains CPUTYPE, CFLAGS, some SUP stuff if desired, PAPERSIZE and PAGE for A4 compliance - important in Germany! - and some PERL variables.
Every time I install FreeBSD, I find myself copying over these files (and cvsup supfiles) to /etc and customizing them myself.
I know... :-) But after "make update ; make buildworld" (or freebsd_update) you encounter diff problems (mergemaster).
Member since:2006-05-12
Maybe from Joe Six-Pack user. If you call that review "thorough" then I have some ocean front property in Montana for you.
It's 2008, not 1998. Adapt or die. Make both sysadmins and desktop users lives easier or you won't be around too long. Sun appears to understand this as the Indiana project seems to show and Linux distributors have long been providing easier to install and reliable operating systems for serious computing.
Perhaps, focus on desktop joe users is lacking. However, for serious computing all 3 of them have been ready for some time.
FreeBSD has potential, but it needs to focus on fundamentals and find its identity as an OS if it is to remain relevant in market terms.
FreeBSD needs to do better marketing and if they want to become a more mainstream desktop OS then court the likes of Adobe and Nvidia, etc... with a co-ordinated plan. However, as a server OS I think they're in pretty good shape. Sure, Java could use a helping hand from Sun. However, all in all as a server OS FreeBSD is solid, well documented and rock solid assuming you have the right hardware
Member since:2007-08-06
This guy is full of it. He takes FreeBSD to task for "leaving debugging symbols enabled in the GENERIC kernel", and claims that they have a performance overhead -- but the debugging symbols are stripped out when the kernel is installed, and they have **no functional effect** on the running kernel.
It is completely bogus.
Member since:
2006-03-15
What a wasteful and stupid review. The guy is wrong on so many accounts it is not even funny. Obviously, the guy is a Linux user who tried BSD and did not like the fact that it was different. I was going to go one by one, shooting down each of the rants, but then I figured why bother. The guy claims to be writing a review but I do not see a review... just a long, amateurish rant. The guy is just trying to get attention by trashing a great, sleek OS that just happens to be out of his intelligence level.
Here is some honestly good advice for everyone out there trying to write a review:
1) Define the scope of your review
2) Compare product to previous versions
3) Compare product to other stuff on the market
4) Focus comparison on important stuff like manageability, security updates, upgrading, performance, scalability, ease-of-use, etc.
5) Don't bother to review something you are obviously not an expert in. Last thing anyone wants is someone's opinion on something they are relatively clueless in.
Member since:2005-07-21
As soon as I read your comment I knew it had to be a Jem review, flipped to the tab where it was loading and so it was! Whelp, no need to read that sucker. While I consider him a useless wind-bag I guess its nice that OSNews at least informs you that he has posted more drivel should you wish to subject yourself to that.
I only take pity upon the poor reader who may read that review without such context. Each of his reviews has been controversial and is met with hostility on here by numerous people. Take whatever he says with at least a barrel of salt.
For those not reading the review just imagine someone repeating "this server software is not noob friendly enough" over and over again. "OMG, the people who make particle accelerators are teh sux, why can't they learn usability and ease-of-use from Apple?"
Member since:2006-07-15
No Jem Matzan doesn't even like Linux, he doesn't like anything but he likes ranting.
From Jems report:
>AMD64 release testing. FreeBSD has always had the most buggy and unstable AMD64 port of any operating system I've tested.
This for example is mere crap,okay it's not perfect, but there are many users (desktop/server) who are using AMD64 without any problems.
>Less hassle for the JDK and JRE.
He should really ask Sun first.
>I could detect no other significant changes in FreeBSD from an ordinary user's perspective.
Maybe he should actually start using it before badmouthing any he doesn't understand.
>It's probably going to be Linux and OpenBSD for me from here on in
Apropos OpenBSD, his installation guide (10 bucks from O'Reilly) was a mere joke. So much for his 'experience'.
Most weblogs/news-sites don't even link Jems 'reviews' anymore. Guess why? It's pure flamebait.
Member since:2005-07-11
Yes I agree.
The author does not know what he's talking about. he is just ranting left and right claiming instability without giving evidence.
What's wrong with the AMD64 port?
I am running multiple AMD64 servers without any problems. I have been using the RELENG_7 Branch since it ever existed and until today I have NOT seen a SINGLE crash!
Member since:2006-05-12
I've been forced to use CentOS for a LAMP stack at work now and I cry for FreeBSD. The defaults settings, documentation and general cleanliness of the CentOS install blows compared to FreeBSD. Not to mention that PF walks all over ipchains.
Yes, FreeBSD has some hardware issues. However, I run it on a laptop, desktop and multple servers at home without issue. The only thing I miss is Flash support.
The JDK issue is annoying, but not a big deal.
The installer is awesome. Custom install for base and the kernel only and then CVSUP stable and build world.
Command line works great. Learn how to setup your own shell init files and login scripts and you too can have color.
Yes, the defaults can be considered "basic" and it does lack the flash and pomp of Ubuntu. However, the target audience of FreeBSD are for the most part admins and the like. PC-BSD is the version targeted at more end users.
If Adobe released Flash for BSD and apps like vmware console were released for BSD I wouldn't touch Linux. As it is, I need to have a Linux terminal server setup in the basement to run vmware-server-console. *blegh*
Member since:2006-10-08
Same here. I think it just depends on the hardware. It's well known (at least I think it is so) that Linux has the best hardware support overall, but if you have standard compliant hardware, FreeBSD should run fine.
That's true. For basal support, you can of course use "Flash" for Linux via the Linux ABI, or gnash. This causes trouble in some cases. Or just leave "Flash" stuff aside. Personally, I don't miss it. :-)
It is, but once you have downloaded the needed files, you can transfer them to any new system you setup. (Or you transfer the complete system using dump and restore to transfer 1:1 partition-wise, followed by changing some few configuration files to support the changed hardware setting.)
The installer just does what it is intended to. It installs the operating system and, if you wish it to, it installs additional software, and configures your system in a dialog driven way (in opposite to editing files or using the respective command line tools).
Just put into your /etc/csh.cshrc (and look if local a .cshrc eventually overrides it):
setenv LSCOLORS ExGxdxdxCxDxDxBxBxegeg
set promptchars = "%#"
set prompt = "%n@%m:%~%# "
set autolist
There are even some more special character sequences that could give you a colored prompt (e. g. brown user name, blue system name, yellow path and green or red clearance prompt). As I mentioned, console mode applications support color (e. g. Midnight Commander or CenterICQ - or simply the sysinstall utility). And you can play around with the vidcontrol utility to make all the pretty colors. :-)
On the other hand, Linusi like Ubuntu are distributions containing the OS and much additional stuff, for example GUI system administration tools. This is not what the FreeBSD philosophy implies. You are free to add it, if you want, but it's not the default.
The same is true for security reasons: Services need to be enabled. Security barriers need to be abandoned manually (to increase comfortability, e. g. file permissions in /etc/devfs.conf or an automated login without password). This is well intended. In a multi user setting, you'll see that it makes sense not to allow anyone put USB sticks into the system and copy classified data, or install stuff on his own, or destroy data by doing nonsense (dd, combined with /dev/null and an arbitrary hard disk device come into mind).
PC-BSD and DesktopBSD are good solutions for users that are not interested in learning the basic stuff of UNIX system operations. They provide (mostly) what they already might know or like from Linux systems.
Member since:
2007-02-26
Jem Matzan's ongoing FBSD complaints generally leave me with the impression that either a) there is some history behind all this that makes him unnecessarily bitter; or b) FBSD is legitimately not the correct choice for his needs. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter. FBSD doesn't work out for everyone. Move on with your life.
A couple snippets from the review:
This is why you get the bootonly CD, install just the base system, and then install packages or ports afterwards.
The default config file for rc.conf is in /etc/defaults. It would help to look in the correct place. Why does he want to mess with his make.conf? Who knows. This is normally not necessary and not advisable on FBSD.
cd /usr/ports && make search name=foo display=path
or
search fresports on the web.
Another comment that I find silly. You have the freedom to install and customize any number of available shells.
Member since:2006-10-08
And they are loaded by default anyway, as far as I know, so their settings are applied. You can change (!) how things work by editing //etc/rc.conf.
Excatly. Only if you need special optimization flags or non-obvious settings...
As I mentioned before, a friendly preconfigured C shell would be nice (see my proposals), centralized in /etc/csh.cshrc with no overriding values in /root/.cshrc and /usr/share/skel/dot.cshrc. But that's mostly nonsense from a user's point of view, it's just "hardcore stuff"; a Linux user would "pkg_add -r bash" and be happy with its default settings, I think.
Member since:2005-11-09
Yes!!! But I don't understand why ever is the same... There are people that is unsatisfied with a linux install, people in the same trouble with any BSD, and with ... well!!! It's impossible that with the large amount of different hardware, everybody have the same problems... Ok, english is not my native language and maybe all I write is a bit "obscure" or better, Inaccurate.
All I would to say is that I (for example), I had problems with a X Linux distro in a machine, and hadn't problem in the same machine with the Y Linux distro. And in the same machine, FreeBSD was a good trick but not with Net or OpenBSD... And so on...
Member since:
2007-01-13
Member since:2006-10-08
To be honest, I think he makes some (!) few (!!!!) valid or at least acceptable points. But along with them, he uses allquantified epxressions and often combines them conjunctively - something a scientist would not even try! :-) Okay, maybe he's not a scientist, but in order to write a review that includes some worth for its readers, he should be able to expand his narrow points of view (at least I think that's how he's evaluating things) to get a more objective relationship to the item of his review. Of course, it's hardly possible to write an objective review, you're always subjective - but I feel you should try to be fair, after all.
As it has been mentioned before, the author does not like FreeBSD. That's okay. He makes particular suggestions about what could be improved (in his opinion), and even I do follow some of his ideas, as I pointed out in my previous posting. In some cases - and this has been mentioned before, too - he looks like a Linux user who does not feel comfortable in a FreeBSD setting, because things he expected to exist there are different.
From my point of view, FreeBSD is an excellent, viable and modern OS. I'm using it since the 4.X days nearly exclusively (along with Solaris) for home and business uses, and it's even good enough to have a "do everything" OS on a 300 MHz P2. And I've tried many Linusi, but I always came back to FreeBSD. The 7.0 release offers much improvements to me (especially ZFS, faster startup). But I'm a bit old fashioned: I've still got a DEC vt100 running on a serial line, maybe I should get punished because of my abuse of this museum-like device. :-)
A final note: The author didn't mention the quality of the documentation of FreeBSD, the manpages, the handbook, the FAQ and the tidy source code - things that are very important for developers. Want to know something about system binaries, kernel interfaces, library functions, maintenance procedures or file layouts? Just use the "man" command. A difference to Linux: FreeBSD is a complete OS, developed by a core team and very consistent in layout and conception. Everything from one and the same hand. Linux distributions seem to be a compositum of more or less arbitrary selected pieces of software, causing many differences from distribution to distribution. That's something you don't have in FreeBSD.
So well, the author has his opinion, but you could argue if it's the opinion of a well educated and intelligently working reviewer. =^_^=
Member since:
2007-02-24
This should be a review ? I would call it
"All bad things about something called FreeBSD"
"FreeBSD 7.0 seems to be a marginal improvement over 6.2..." right dude :-) !
Please, Jam, if you don't know what are you talking about then... just leave it.
Do yourself a favor, take some time to read, here :
http://ivoras.sharanet.org/freebsd/freebsd7.html
and
http://ivoras.sharanet.org/freebsd/freebsd8.html
At least you will learn what happend between FreeBSD 6.2 and FreeBSD 7.0 and even what's cooking in FreeBSD 8.0 :-)
Member since:
2006-05-12
FreeBSD also leans towards more security by default then some of the more user orientated Linux distros. They don't have all the device files, etc... set to be readable / writeable by normal users. On a server or "public" workstation this is a good thing. Sure, it seems that the user experience is lacking, but if you take the time to learn the devfs.conf, install NFS, tweak sysctl.conf, etc.. and how stuff works you can do everything and anything Linux can do. It's better to be off and have to turn it on then to be running and not know about it. The amount of useless cruft linux "server" installs install is just ridiculous. Especially, the "corporate" distros like RedHat and SUSE, etc... A base debian install is good. However, then you wouldn't be able to attract the MCSE WinAdmins who don't know anything besides clicking through setup wizards.
Member since:2006-12-16
This is an example of the attitude I was talking about in my previous post:
"but if you take the time to learn the devfs.conf, install NFS, tweak sysctl.conf, etc.. and how stuff works you can do everything and anything Linux can do."
Ridiculous? Imagine if we told all Microsoft Windows users, "sorry, if you can't do admin stuff, edit the registry etc, it's [Windows] not for you". Is that daft or what?
A good operating system has things set up to work out of the box. OOB. Look it up. freeBSD is not user friendly, and I don't think the developers have had any intentions to make it so - if users don't like it, they can sod off. If that isn't elitist, I don't know what is.
Dave
Member since:
2007-10-26
This review bites and was a waste of my time. What I took exception to the most was his comments regarding the AMD64 port. My experience with the AMD64 port is completely opposite to his. My home development x86_64 box with 12GB runs perfectly under 7.0 and I can say that that was not the case with the other major free open source OS. I can go on and waste your time (and mostly mine) telling you why this review was basically garbage but why bother because I have the feeling the wise ones already have this one figured out.
Edited 2008-03-15 00:35 UTC
Member since:
2008-03-15
I believe the author must read the following books first before jumping in to a "Review"...
http://www.absolutefreebsd.com/
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/bsdhks/
It seems the review was an RPM package that can't be installed because of missing dependencies.
Member since:
2005-08-10
I've not been a FreeBSD user since the old 4.x days and my experience with version 7 is very limited and I've not yet tried it on anything other than a couple older P2/P3 boxes I have laying around. I am curious if many people have the same problems with the AMD64 version as Jem does, or if he just has some really oddball hardware. I know that FreeBSD isn't yet "legacy free*" but can it really be as bad as he makes it out to be?
The only general stability complaint I see about FreeBSD has to do with USB flakyness, be it booting with a USB keyboard or consistently panicking when mounted USB media accidentally gets unplugged.
As for hardware support, there's not much that I can say about it as the range of cards and things I have kicking around is limited, but the number of drivers included with FreeBSD at least seems impressive, and I do doubt they'd ship the thing if the vast majority of that hardware support didn't work**.
Sysinstall is a demon born of the ancient world, an evil that haunts FreeBSD users to this day. Well, I don't find it *that* bad, and from what I've read there is a new installer almost ready to replace it regardless. Sysinstall may be a fugly throwback, but it gets the job done.
One of the things I used to love about FreeBSD (well all the BSDs) is that it _Doesn't_ include a desktop environment in a default install. They let the user decide what is best to use, instead of standardizing on one DE or another, and having piss-poor support for the secondary choice. Anyone who prefers to use KDE and has used any recent RHEL/Fedora will know what I mean.
* http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2008/02/26/whats-new-in-freebsd-70....
** I am completely ignoring anything they released from 5.0-5.3 here when I say that, as they at least never made the claim that those versions were production ready, or even particulary useful for anything to a non-FreeBSD developer.
Member since:2006-07-15
>The only general stability complaint I see about FreeBSD has to do with USB flakyness, be it booting with a USB keyboard or consistently panicking when mounted USB media accidentally gets unplugged.
UBS flakyness is somewhat exaggerated. There are of course some quirks, but if you want to test it try some operating systems like Linux, Windows with different types of USB devices - common denominator: USB is a mess. Of course there are more fixes for several USB-devices in Linux, but you need these fixes to actually use these crappy devices.
For example I do know this problem with USB media as mentioned above, but I have never seen a problem booting with USB mice and keyboards (Logitech, Cherry).
Member since:2005-07-24
I don't find USB to be a mess in Linux or Windows. In fact, USB has worked quite well for a long time.
The owner of the device doesn't know or care if it is "crappy" by your definition or not. He only knows that it works well in Windows or Linux and doesn't in FreeBSD. So they need to be made to work well in FreeBSD... unless you guys have enough pull with the big retailers to get them to pull all those "crappy" devices from their shelves, or maybe get Wal-Mart to post warning signs that say: "These devices are crappy".
Edited 2008-03-15 14:19 UTC
Member since:2006-07-15
Well, well the usual saying "I don't have any problems apart from $os". Do you know LKML? No? Then you should first read there and _then_ you will certainly know. USB devices are most of the time crap, this is nothing new and one of the big problems e.g. in stability related problems for Windows. Yes, put the urband legends away and get the real facts. Instead badmouthing something you don't understand you should acquire some knowledge first. ACPI and USB are to standards and free operating systems are following these standards. This is a fact! The second fact is, most of your lovely companies give a shit on these standards and they are producing crappy USB devices and very bad bios.
Why do you think there are a lot of custom patches in Linux kernel for Asus, Toshiba etc.? Look at the LKML and see how many special patches are necessary to run some of your lovely USB devices. Read it first, then tell me something about the quality of the USB stack in FreeBSD or any other operating system!
>He only knows that it works well in Windows or Linux and doesn't in FreeBSD.
This stupid ignorance is the behaviour of a paying customer. Do you pay something for a free OS? Do you help a free OS? Do you test new software?
I can test it in $Linux and I will get maybe x different results, it depends on $kernel and $distro. "Linux can do it" yes it can with a lot of luck. So if you want to make such charges against FreeBSD. Tell me the version of FreeBSD, tell me something about the tested Linux distro like version, kernel etc. And then we can talk about your blathering. But I don't see anything just some people spreading FUD about something they don't understand.
And one huge advice, if you really have a problem with a free operating system, then stop whining and tell the developers! Making such charges without proof is just pure flamebait.
Member since:2005-07-24
I'm not sure that you took my post in the right way.
You said that more USB devices have problems with FreeBSD than Linux. I include this quote, for reference:
I merely pointed out that:
1. On the hundred or so Linux and Windows machines I administer, I have not found USB to be a particular problem (mess) in the past few years.
2. The user does not care if the device adheres to the standard or not. Only that it works (or not).
3. If FreeBSD needs more workarounds for common hardware, it would be best if they went in.
Of course there is plenty of hardware out there that does not adhere to standards. So what else is new? And as long as there is, the patching and blacklisting will have to continue.
Member since:
2007-07-11
I can agree with three things:
- the installer
Even the FreeBSD developers say that it sucks donkey balls (I remember Jordan Hubbart saying that it has to die even before the year 2000). And no, it doesn't matter if the installer has GUI or not. Personally, I like text-based installers, Debian's for example.
- endless cd swapping
That isn't too hard to fix, some Linux distros had the same problem a couple of years ago, you just have to make sure that you don't mess up the dependencies, like putting Konqueror on CD1 and KDELibs on CD2 (just an example..). I don't know if you can eliminate that problem completely with multiple CDs, but you can at least contain it.
But then again... *scratching head* the installer just copies the files into the correct directories right? Why would be switch CDs at all?!
Of course you can use the bootonly cd, but that's not the point. If someone (for whatever reason) wants to use the CDs, this behavior is unacceptable.
- still non working USB keyboard
Seriously, this is a joke. But the whole USB stack needs some serious love. E.g. still running under Giant and in my experience low performing.
Other than that, I don't think the review was particularly good
Member since:2006-10-08
Seriously, this is a joke. But the whole USB stack needs some serious love. E.g. still running under Giant and in my experience low performing.
This seems to depend on the keyboard used. For example, I have tested those:
% dmesg | grep "^u[mk]"
ums0: <vendor 0x0430 product 0x0100, class 0/0, rev 1.00/1.02, addr 2> on uhub1
ums0: 3 buttons.
uhub4: <Mitsumi Electric Hub in Apple Extended USB Keyboard, class 9/0, rev 1.10/4.10, addr 2> on uhub3
uhub4: 3 ports with 2 removable, bus powered
ukbd0: <Mitsumi Electric Apple Extended USB Keyboard, class 0/0, rev 1.10/4.10, addr 3> on uhub4
uhid0: <Mitsumi Electric Apple Extended USB Keyboard, class 0/0, rev 1.10/4.10, addr 3> on uhub4
ukbd1: <vendor 0x0430 product 0x0005, class 0/0, rev 1.00/1.02, addr 3> on uhub1
They work without any problems. No problems even if I plug them in and out. Along with the AT keyboard one more keyboards than I have hands for. :-)
Sadly, the Sun keyboard and mouse don't get identified with their name. This worked in FreeBSD 5 (and 6 I think), but in 7, it isn't the case anymore, and I can't imagine why. Maybe a small change in /usr/src/sys/dev/usb/usbdevs, ukbd.c and ums.c will lead to the expected result that should look like this:
% dmesg | grep "^u[mk]"
ums0: Sun Microsystems Type 6 USB mouse, rev 1.00/1.02, addr 2, iclass 3/1
ukbd0: Sun Microsystems Type 6 USB keyboard, rev 1.00/1.02, addr 3, iclass 3/1
Which kind of USB keyboard did you use?
I'm aware of the facts that some USB things don't work as expected (some crappy MP3 players, or detaching mounted USB stick), and I hope this will improve.
Member since:
2007-01-06
Seriously, there's one thing that accompanies each and every FreeBSD release and that's yet another shitty review from Jem Matzan. The guy just simply doesn't get it. He expects FreeBSD to be exactly as he envisions it and is unwilling to learn FreeBSD to the depth required to write a truly informed review. He consistently mistakes conscious design decisions for mistakes. This is how they want their OS to be. It's not wrong, it's just not what you want it to be. No need to rehash your same complaints every release.
Member since:2005-07-18
As far as I'm concerned, I'll be happy if people like Jem continue to stay away from FreeBSD. Otherwise they might be too tempted to "improve" it until it's just like another messy Linux release.
The day FreeBSD defaults to a graphic installer is the day I become a NetBSD user. Doubly so if FreeBSD starts shipping with every daemon in the world turned on, like Fedora or CentOS.
Due to my work, every day I am forced to compare between Fedora, CentOS and my FreeBSD servers. The Linuxen might ship an easier default server, but once you need an even moderately customized system, you end up spending 10X as long with them as with FreeBSD.
Member since:
2006-06-20
Member since:
2005-07-28
You know, I read the story before reading the comments and I predicted the tone of the comments beforehand. The rule for writing OS reviews seems to be - praise the OS first, then criticize gently, and then finish up saying, "It's great, but I just see a few things I'd like to change." That typically anaesthetizes the die hards. This reviewer didn't bother with this convention, so the comments aren't surprising (and it's possible that this guy is, in fact, full of it, but I'm not so sure.)
I don't know anything about this guy except, obviously, FreeBSD users here don't like him. So I'd like to see another review, preferably one from one of osnews.com's resident curmudgeons (who, to their credit, don't seem to have any problems skewering anything if they believe it is lacking).
I'm half considering doing it myself, but I don't have a spare machine to do it on right now. Might as well do it on amd64 just to really stir it up good.
My previous subjective experience with FreeBSD was that it worked just fine (late 5 and I believe early 6 series). I used it in a limited way, got networking going, a desktop running, and Apache serving pages.
I didn't push it too much harder than that but I did do my own kernel (which wasn't hard) because I was curious about that as well. Didn't have any problems other than the ordinary learning curve (different directories, etc.) I was surprised, given FreeBSD's reputation (that it's for propellerheads), how easy it all kind of went onto my system. I think when the desktop booted up I actually shrugged. No big deal.
As a Linux user, I know what's different about it and what perplexed me about it but I'm not sure that this is the case with this review (a Linux user annoyed because it doesn't work as he likes). I don't read it that way, anyway. These complaints seem unrelated to that orientation unless someone can point out something they suspect is a result of having Linux on the brain.
sysninstall didn't particularly bother me. It reminded me of Debian's old installer. I don't recall any disk geometry issues, but it's been awhile.
So how bout it - anyone at osnews.com with a spare machine willing to do a review of it and see how it compares? While I can see how a review of a new version of this by someone experienced with FreeBSD would be of use to FreeBSD vets, I don't think it's the only valid perspective. It's not one that helps me out, personally, at any rate, only because I'm not a FreeBSD vet.
FreeBSD users tend to be fairly derisive when it comes to Linux (it's a mess, etc.) - a viewpoint I don't quite understand (I don't have problems with Linux, nor find it a mess. Occasionally something goes pear- shaped but generally speaking, it makes perfect sense to me).
I guess I don't find FreeBSD particularly different from Linux from the perspective of a user. That's probably due in part to the fact that I use Gentoo, but also because I've used HP/UX and Solaris machines at work and I expect there to be differences.
Member since:2006-07-15
Member since:2005-07-28
One thing I notice in his reviews is that they tend not be overly fawning - even his article on OpenBSD v4.2, which he likes, has a list of recommendations/complaints at the end.
Again, I'm just not qualified to judge some of the stuff he says as I don't run FreeBSD but I would expect a bitchy review to come from a Windows user, or maybe a shit-stirring Linux partisan, but it seems weird that someone so into OpenBSD would have some kind of vendetta against FreeBSD, unless there is internecene snippiness between different xBSD camps that I am unaware of.
Maybe I'll just install it via QEMU over the weekend and see what happens for me.
Edit: I found this post re: this review interesting:
http://www.tjrforum.com/showthread.php?p=24235#post24235
Edited 2008-03-15 10:24 UTC
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2008-03-15
Jeff posted a reply to Nick Piggin's benchmarks, including new benchmarks (done by Linux folks) showing FreeBSD pipes are significantly faster:
http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/
Member since:2005-07-24
And he tested a development version of FreeBSD against a stable version of Linux, which makes the results meaningless. Or at least that was what some tried to argue when the situation was reversed. When FreeBSD8 is released and tested against the contemporary stable release of Linux, and we are then comparing apples to apples, then we will know which is faster in this particular test. ;-)
Edited 2008-03-15 15:23 UTC
Member since:2008-03-15
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:2006-07-15
It doesn't make anything meaningless if you see the *context*. This benchmark is a big help to develop FreeBSD in the proper direction. I did see these benchmarks in FreeBSD 7 current and I see the exact result in FreeBSD 7 release. Of course it is a problem to compare the messy development (it's no flame, they are really proud of it) with the academical development of $BSD. So maybe you don't know what's up with Linux kernel if it is ready, but you really know it in $BSD.
Member since:
2008-03-15
This is probably one of the worst reviews of an OS I've seen in a long time. The author, obviously, does not know the target audience of FreeBSD platforms.
1) I really don't care that a USB keyboard has issues on the system -- the only time I'd be at the console is during install.
2) Wireless? Again, I don't care. Gig and 10-Gig interfaces are for server platforms.
3) Sound? No thanks
4) Performance? YES! Something the review knows and talks nothing about.
Get a clue... If you want a desktop BSD system than look at PC-BSD or equivalents. If you want a lean, performance oriented BSD system then look at 7.0.
Member since:
2006-02-09
This guy is so desperate to be a media conglomerate so somebody will buy him out he'll do anything.
All these domains cross linking his own writing to get his name in Google more often.
http://www.softwareinreview.com
http://www.hardwareinreview.com
http://www.thejemreport.com
http://www.tjrforum.com
http://www.jemmatzan.com
Member since:
2006-06-28
I was working in this little benchmark. After take times, i think FreeBSD 7 can now compete with Linux in some areas.
http://www.tod-os.com/?page_id=3618
Member since:
2006-10-08
I'd like to ask if anyone (except me) did notice that the compile time for the system has increased? On the same hardware, FreeBSD 5 buildworld lasted approx. 2:30 and kernel 0:30, FreeBSD 7 buildworld lasted nearly 4:00 and buildkernel lasted 1:00. (Time for installation - installkernel, installworld - are not significant to me.)
Is this a normal observation? This is neasly a factor x 2 on the same hardware...
Member since:2007-08-06
Member since:2006-10-08
Thank you, I thought something into this direction. (I'll have to admit that I thought it would have a larger heap of source code that would of course last longer to compile.)
The recompiled system is working well and fast. Only downsides for me:
1. Compiled in keymap (ATKBD/UKBD_DFLT_KEYMAP) doesn't work anymore.
2. Sun Type 6 mouse and keyboard work, but no identification string is displayed at startup (ukbd, ums), allthough entries in usbdevs database are present.
Strange... No idea why... :-(
Member since:2007-08-06
1. Compiled in keymap (ATKBD/UKBD_DFLT_KEYMAP) doesn't work anymore.
You should probably bring this up on the stable@ mailing list and/or file a PR.
I am not sure if this is expected. It doesn't sound like it's causing any problems though.
Member since:2006-10-08
1. Compiled in keymap (ATKBD/UKBD_DFLT_KEYMAP) doesn't work anymore.
You should probably bring this up on the stable@ mailing list and/or file a PR. "
I'll surely do that. Up to this point, I didn't have any issues with 7.0-RELEASE so far. Setting keyboard layout manually (even in SUM) works.
I am not sure if this is expected. It doesn't sound like it's causing any problems though. "
That is the "fascinating" part - there is no problem except the missing identification string, but the mouse and the keyboard do work without any problems, even if constantly plugged in and out. It's just.. instead of
ukbd0: Sun Microsystems Type 6 USB keyboard, rev 1.00/1.02, addr 3, iclass 3/1
ums0: Sun Microsystems Type 6 USB mouse, rev 1.00/1.02, addr 2, iclass 3/1
I get
ukbd0: <vendor 0x0430 product 0x0005, class 0/0, rev 1.00/1.02, addr 3> on uhub1
ums0: <vendor 0x0430 product 0x0100, class 0/0, rev 1.00/1.02, addr 2> on uhub1
I checked the source code and I didn't find a hint why it could be that way. Well... I'm not a skilled kernel coder, so I don't expect myself to find the problem unless it's very obvious... :-)
But if I plug in an Apple USB keyboard, it works!
ukbd0: <Mitsumi Electric Apple Extended USB Keyboard, class 0/0, rev 1.10/4.10, addr 3> on uhub4
Strange things happen in the new kernel... :-)
Member since:
2006-12-16
It's not hard to see the freeBSD lovers - who still live in denial.
The last time I used freeBSD, it was not what I considered user friendly. What I can see here is people's attitude of "if you don't like it [freeBSD], then bugger off". That's a great attitude and sure to discourage people from trying freeBSD.
I also see people who dislike the reviewer, and thus make denigrating comments about it. Nice. Doesn't exactly endear me to the freeBSD public either.
A point in example - people saying that if the CD install system doesn't work, just do a network install. huh? If I'm on dialup (yes, some of us are unlucky sods stuck with dialup), that's not what we want to hear. I expect a CD install to work. Linux has been able to do that for years...
My experiences with a lot of freeBSD users (and BSD users in general) are that they are stuck up, anachronistic, rude, arrogant and generally unhelpful. They do not tolerate criticism, even valid criticism, and seek to make excuses to protect their beloved freeBSD. Anyone who doesn't see things there way is a whinger, or troublemaker, or just plain stupid (or D: All of the above). What a bunch of lovely people!
I'm really hoping that those that posted already aren't generic of the freeBSD lot of users, but I doubt it from my experiences.
Dave
Member since:2008-02-05
I have had far fewer problems (both with installs and with operation) since I switched from Linux to FreeBSD. I guess my experience differs from yours.
I've also encountered fewer self-righteous jerks like you who find it necessary to denigrate others as some kind of marketing for their OS of choice.
Member since:2006-12-16
I'm simply noting the reaction from loyal freeBSD users to any form of criticism about their operating system, and some of the replies posted here, which pretty much confirm the elitist nature of at least some freeBSD users (but I suspect the majority of them). Your reply is along the lines of many others.
I've used Linux for a good number of years and truth be told, it generally works, and works well, unless I tinker with it and start breaking things. I'll give you a hint - that's usually my fault for tinkering. I could easily install a Debian Etch system and it'll run for years. Install might take 30-60 minutes, depending on what I choose to install, but the vast majority of hardware will work out of the box, and work well, as will the applications. My experiences with freeBSD (admittedly a few years ago