LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Other *NIX Forums > *BSD
User Name
Password
*BSD This forum is for the discussion of all BSD variants.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 05-10-2004, 04:34 PM   #16
slakmagik
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,113

Rep: Reputation: Disabled

Quote:
Originally posted by Stack
You switch to bsd when you get tired of poor documentation, random file system locations for files and dependancy hell. Or you just get pissed at all the stupid GPL politics.
Or just use Slack and cut it down to the first and last of those. The last about has me jumping ship sometimes, though, besides being curious. Think BSD wants a primary partition for 'slices' though, and I don't have any free. Don't think I'd like it though - the big selling point of Gentoo is portage and is the part I like least. (I know they're different, but still.) LFS is closer to what I want (if I was just another Patrick Volkerding).

Not sure if I'm thread-crashing or contributing, but is that primary partition thing true? Am I misunderstanding portage? Do you *really* use csh?
 
Old 05-10-2004, 05:59 PM   #17
chort
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Silicon Valley, USA
Distribution: OpenBSD 4.6, OS X 10.6.2, CentOS 4 & 5
Posts: 3,660

Rep: Reputation: 75
It's not true that Linux is simpler than BSD, it's just that Linux markets itself more to beginners. BSD is written by BSD people, for BSD people--period. Linux is all about advocacy and getting people to switch (primarily from Windows). With Linux, people try to convince you to see things "the GNU way". With BSD, you'll use it if you think "the BSD way", otherwise you won't use it. No one tries to convince you to convert.

As far as moving back to Linux from BSD, there really isn't any point. Every BSD that I've used has had Linux binary and file system compatibility, so you can run Linux binaries on *BSD. In fact, in some benchmarks the Linux applications actually ran faster on BSD.
 
Old 05-10-2004, 07:10 PM   #18
vectordrake
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: NB,Canada
Distribution: Something alpha or beta, binary or source...
Posts: 2,280
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally posted by apache363
Are there any annoyances with BSD that would make a user sorry they switched or even switch back?
All it takes to find out is 3 gigs..... <Vectordrake says, "Jump! Do it! You'll like it!"...> **evil grin**
 
Old 05-10-2004, 07:49 PM   #19
Stack
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Distribution: FreeBSD
Posts: 325

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by digiot
Or just use Slack and cut it down to the first and last of those. The last about has me jumping ship sometimes, though, besides being curious. Think BSD wants a primary partition for 'slices' though, and I don't have any free. Don't think I'd like it though - the big selling point of Gentoo is portage and is the part I like least. (I know they're different, but still.) LFS is closer to what I want (if I was just another Patrick Volkerding).

Not sure if I'm thread-crashing or contributing, but is that primary partition thing true? Am I misunderstanding portage? Do you *really* use csh?
Slackware fixes dependancy hell? It prevents GPL zealots? I was always put off with the Slackware people and their make everything hard to configure. I has been my experience that people who use Slackware somehow think they are better because their systems are harder to administrate and maintain. Some people just want a flawless system that just works with no crap about getting dependancies.

Gentoo portage != BSD ports
I can install my operating system in under 15 minutes, try doing that with Gentoo. Heck try doing that with bloated linuxes... When i choose to i can install for packadges(pkg_add -r "name") or compile the source with a quick (cd /usr/ports/"name" make install clean). I want to update my operating system? I cvsup the source, compile world while still running, reboot and not a minute of down time. I want to update every single port/packadge on my pc i just fire up portupgrade. Ports/Packadges will still run just fine while this does the updating. You can still launch the same old programs etc...

I use tcsh and sh. I cannot stand bash and the other shells.

Quote:
FreeBSD must be installed into a primary partition. FreeBSD can keep all its data, including any files that you create, on this one partition. However, if you have multiple disks, then you can create a FreeBSD partition on all, or some, of them. When you install FreeBSD, you must have one partition available. This might be a blank partition that you have prepared, or it might be an existing partition that contains data that you no longer care about.

If you are already using all the partitions on all your disks, then you will have to free one of them for FreeBSD using the tools provided by the other operating systems you use (e.g., fdisk on DOS or Windows).

If you have a spare partition then you can use that. However, you may need to shrink one or more of your existing partitions first.
From the freebsd handbook you can find your answer there...

As for you vectordrake

Quote:
A minimal installation of FreeBSD takes as little as 100 MB of disk space. However, that is a very minimal install, leaving almost no space for your own files. A more realistic minimum is 250 MB without a graphical environment, and 350 MB or more if you want a graphical user interface. If you intend to install a lot of third party software as well, then you will need more space.
again from the freebsd handbook

3 gigs will be a lot

Last edited by Stack; 05-10-2004 at 07:51 PM.
 
Old 05-10-2004, 07:50 PM   #20
vectordrake
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: NB,Canada
Distribution: Something alpha or beta, binary or source...
Posts: 2,280
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally posted by digiot
Not sure if I'm thread-crashing or contributing, but is that primary partition thing true? Am I misunderstanding portage? Do you *really* use csh?
Sort of. (I was gonna be a smartass and leave it at that, but that'd be a crappy post. )

If you are referring to the FreeBSD ports system, then you're a bit off, but only a little. Ports is a good thing. If there isn't a good binary, you can compile from the port. The beauty of ports is that you find the package that you want in the /usr/ports section and you go to the directory where the script lies and you can install by typing
Code:
make && make install && make clean
That fetches the package and its dependancies and compiles it, installs it, and cleans up after. Its a good system. However, you don't have to use the ports for everything. You can install a binary as well (and it does the same thing - fetches the dependancies too, like apt-get) by using the pkg_add command. In that respect, its kind of like having Debian and ROCK Linux in the same package.

Primary partition? Not sure. Maybe not any more than doing that with Linux. I haven't tried it, though. I did have Windows(hda1), Mandrake(hda3,4,5 - which was in hda2), Slax (hda6) and Debian Sarge (hda7) on one drive and it all worked, though. I used Mandrake's LILO install to boot them all from. Don't know if one could do that with FreeBSD too. I hope so, as I want to install a few OSs when I get my new drive - whenever that is...

csh? ALL TRUE! But, as with Linux, you can choose your shell. Bash is not usually included on the cd, but its just a download away
Code:
pkg_add -r bash
and its yours. For everyday navigation, csh, sh, tcsh, zsh, ash, bash are all the same to me. I prefer bash or csh, as the tab-complete is turned on by default. For most jobs the syntax is usually the same (but I'm used to bash like most Linuxen)

Make more sense? Or have I added to the confusion?
 
Old 05-10-2004, 07:56 PM   #21
vectordrake
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: NB,Canada
Distribution: Something alpha or beta, binary or source...
Posts: 2,280
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 47
3 gigs is reasonable for a working system. I expected apache363 to install a whole system and some apps and get used to using FreeBSD as a useful every day system. 3 gigs may be a lot, but its also all that'll be needed for likely a lifetime of system use (assuming that a seperate data partition is created if lots of mp3s, etc are loaded on the system too)if I could spell, I wouldn't have to edit, now. Would I?

Last edited by vectordrake; 05-10-2004 at 08:01 PM.
 
Old 05-10-2004, 09:41 PM   #22
vectordrake
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: NB,Canada
Distribution: Something alpha or beta, binary or source...
Posts: 2,280
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 47
Heh heh. I did read the FreeBSD handbook, and the NetBSD one (and Debian's and Gentoos) and I still advocate using about 3 gigs, as I like to play with multimedia stuff and desktops too (I can fill 2 gigs with ease - call it bloat if you want). But, that's not what this post is about.

Stack, I was wondering what version of FreeBSD you are running now. BTW, your answers just ooze with know-how. Please keep posting! I downloaded Freesbie, which is based on 5.2.1 (bleeding as I burnt it) and fired it in the cdrom drive. Its the first time *BSD has worked with sound out of the box. I was impressed. When I get a new drive (any free 80G and bigger can be sent to me by post.LOL), its on the list of mainstays.
 
Old 05-11-2004, 12:03 AM   #23
Stack
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Distribution: FreeBSD
Posts: 325

Rep: Reputation: 30
I am running 5.2.1 snapshot from march 29th.
 
Old 05-11-2004, 07:49 AM   #24
vectordrake
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: NB,Canada
Distribution: Something alpha or beta, binary or source...
Posts: 2,280
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 47
Have you found it to be even remotely buggy? They seem to put the fear of Daemon into you for using the bleeding edge, but I found Freesbie to be stable, even though it had a lot of eye candy and was based on 5.2.1 - from cd. When I was running 5.0, it was considered bleeding edge and I was told that 4.7 would have been a better choice. The only problem that I found was that a lot of packages hadn't been ported over yet, so many apps I had to fetch myself and compile. I am lured by the better hardware support of the 5.x tree, but so many are to scared to leave 4.x (even though they are both on the edge, if you pick current)
 
Old 05-11-2004, 11:22 AM   #25
Stack
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Distribution: FreeBSD
Posts: 325

Rep: Reputation: 30
*shrug* i have been running 5.x since it became the new technology release and have yet to run into bugs that are not my fault. Packadges (mostly) dont have to be ported or changed to 5.x, they run pretty much the same as they did on 4.x. As long as you cvsup your ports tree or connect to some up to date mirrors you will be fine.
 
Old 05-11-2004, 03:52 PM   #26
vectordrake
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: NB,Canada
Distribution: Something alpha or beta, binary or source...
Posts: 2,280
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 47
That's the answer I wanted to hear. Now, for a fundraiser for that drive.....
 
Old 05-11-2004, 08:03 PM   #27
apache363
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Distribution: OS X; FreeBSD; Debian
Posts: 172

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Stack
You switch to bsd when you get tired of poor documentation, random file system locations for files and dependancy hell. Or you just get pissed at all the stupid GPL politics.
Are there any other significant reasons that one would want to switch to BSD?
I'm thinking of making that switch myself As much as I love Debian, I just think that I'd prefer BSD.

Stupid question: What are the major differences between the different shells? I know I'd have to learn new syntaxes and commands probably, but besides that, are there any advantages to using something other than bash?
 
Old 05-11-2004, 08:57 PM   #28
vectordrake
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: NB,Canada
Distribution: Something alpha or beta, binary or source...
Posts: 2,280
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 47
There would be an advantage to using sh. It would be the same as using vi - its on every Unix box.
 
Old 05-11-2004, 09:01 PM   #29
apache363
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Distribution: OS X; FreeBSD; Debian
Posts: 172

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
OK.
What about the other shells?
 
Old 05-11-2004, 09:36 PM   #30
vectordrake
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: NB,Canada
Distribution: Something alpha or beta, binary or source...
Posts: 2,280
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 47
Beyond my uses. If you're a programmer, there might be a use...
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What are the major differences between Solaris and Linux? apache363 Solaris / OpenSolaris 42 09-30-2009 03:48 PM
..differences between linux distributions ... hubabuba Linux - General 4 10-25-2004 04:57 PM
Major DNS problems with BIND in freebsd 4.8 release jamminparidise *BSD 2 02-03-2004 09:42 AM
linux kernel differences spyghost Linux - Newbie 1 10-20-2003 04:51 AM
Major differences between C and C++ Daoc_junky Programming 5 11-20-2002 03:55 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Other *NIX Forums > *BSD

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration