Reasons Why You Should Not Use FreeBSD

[vertexSymphony]

Can't you FBSD guys

Sorry dear, just to clarify:

alex@Sylbit:~> uname -a
Linux Sylbit 3.4.0-26-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun May 27 19:46:37 UTC 2012 (8353c9e) i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux

P.S → I just gave up on you, it's pointless ...

[0xBADCODE]

Sorry dear, just to clarify:

alex@Sylbit:~> uname -a
Linux Sylbit 3.4.0-26-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun May 27 19:46:37 UTC 2012 (8353c9e) i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux

And what it supposed to prove? You see, I don't consider you as serious Linux user. You even failed point me some real package management issue when we clashed about package management. But in fact it exists in most of decent package managers and distros using them. But for some reason you're so unaware of that fact that you've failed to admit it while it could be fun to kick me into that weak place. So I suspect your knowledge of Linux is just as good as my knowledge of FBSD or even worse than that .

P.S → I just gave up on you, it's pointless ...

I'm kinda expected that. Because:
1) You would not make my AMD/Intel GPUs running properly by just some stupid forum posts. And you know that.
2) Some stupid forum post is not enough to resolve long standing package management idiocies.
3) Virtualization will not appear just due to some forum clashing either.
4) It's hard to reject that fact that FBSD guys play politics and it kicks them in their backs.
5) You failed to provide any reasonable use cases which could actually fit my real usage patterns where FBSD would perform better. Sure, it can survive damage of packages database since it virtually lacks package management. But it's like claiming that I should not use electricity because power facility could fail. Sure, it can. But it's rare. And if I would worry about it, I would have UPS/generators/whatever else fits the task and allows to accomplish mission. If I would be worried about package manager failure, I would have snapshots/backups/whatever else fits the task. Failure to understand this simple fact is futile.

[crazycheese]

Let me show you an example: Replay converter took ffpmeg (GPLv2) compiled and built an interface atop of it by invoking it as an executable, thus by workarounding the license ... that it's a 2cent polish and it's legally accepted.
And the company that sells it, is getting cute ammounts of money (ffmpeg used to have a "wall of shame" for those infractors, and replay converter was there sitting a loooong time )
Again, I invite you to read that article.

ApplianTechnologies:
We do - if you click the little symbol in the upper left hand corner of the user interface you will see that we FFMPEG credit.

This is their response. Replay converter is a ready to use utility with easy interface.
Because they made ffmpeg to much more and do support it, asking for money as in "commercial" is completely legal.
Notice, they do not stole any code or are hurting ffmpeg.
The sane thing they should do is - work for or donate some % ffmpeg.

If ffmpeg would be BSD licensed, they would be capable to steal whole codebase and integrate it inside in such a way, that any further cooperation will be non-existant.
This way, ffmpeg would really miss the improvements coming from commercial vector. And they would do that (stealing), because they would have much more control over source, as well as completely no legal resposibility. This is BSDM loose/win.

They can do that with GPL(fork), but the source would need to stay open. Win/win.

[crazycheese]

My reason for disliking the BSD license is more selfish. If someone wants to base something on code I wrote and then make that proprietary, I want a cut. You want to use my work for proprietary software? Pay me and I'll grant you a proprietary license. If not, make your work fully open or gtfo.

People who work for IT companies and are already getting paid to write BSD code obviously don't care about this. Individuals who aren't getting paid to begin with should care.

:] =b

(char limit)

[Korla Plankton]

Except that on Linux you just install OS and it works but in FBSD you should start heroic fight with dozen of technical difficulties instead.

By 'works' I can only assume you're talking about a functional desktop environment? If not, I can assure you, FBSD 'works' just fine after installing it. It wouldn't be any good to anyone otherwise.

If I wanted a linux system that I could just install and use straight away, I wouldn't install Gentoo. I'd install Fedora -- they've done the work for me.

If I wanted a FreeBSD system that I could just install and use straight away, I wouldn't install straight FreeBSD, I'd install PC-BSD -- they've done the work for me.

[techzilla]

@Libreman: I agree with you 100%, but then again I already held those beliefs. Just want to say your not alone, and I also prioritize preserving freedom, for the users and their communities.


Also a comment for the LLVM "rip-off" fork guy, we GNU people only call forks a "rip-off" when they become closed sourced and proprietary. The GNU GPL prevents such "rip-offs" from happening "legally". So your really using the term inconsistently, when comparing to how it's used by the GNU supporters. On the contrary, when a GPL project forks... we would not call it a "rip-off". regardless if the fork decision had merit originally, and regardless if some original developers are upset because of the fork.

[0xBADCODE]

By 'works' I can only assume you're talking about a functional desktop environment? If not, I can assure you, FBSD 'works' just fine after installing it. It wouldn't be any good to anyone otherwise.

Formally, you're right and I'm even somewhat agree with this point of view. However, various people tend to have different view on what "works" means. Fans have quite relaxed requirements and expect some discounts. I dont.

Be it a server and I would expect OS which is easy to install in common configurations, haves good hardware support, offers virtualization, decent package management system, requires as little administrative actions as possible in common setups and not terribly hard to customise if you need something uncommon.

Be it a desktop and I would expect good-looking pre-configured environment where it's possible to use it and not to puke due to poor look and don't fix half of system myself. Sure, I should have option to change things. But it shouldn't be a mandatory to fix half of idiocy or annoyances myself.

There are some more or less universal/general purpose distros who are not as polished but relatively easy to adapt for different purposes. As for me I would only use them when more specific ones prove to be less convenient for some task.

If I wanted a linux system that I could just install and use straight away, I wouldn't install Gentoo. I'd install Fedora -- they've done the work for me.

As for me, I don't see any real use for Gentoo. It's a kind of toy OS for those who just grown older and thinks Lego isn't cool enough for them. It's basically not targeted on any serious use but rather to those who want to have a playground and/or system lab. Some guys sometimes can construct something impressive from both Lego and Gentoo, but this does not implies than building machinery from Lego or servers from Gentoo is a normal way of doing things.

If I wanted a FreeBSD system that I could just install and use straight away, I wouldn't install straight FreeBSD, I'd install PC-BSD -- they've done the work for me.

You see, I don't need Lego-like OS on servers, so I have to build or fix half of things myself, fixing stupidities here and there. I want more or less assembled car when it comes to driving from town A to town B. And I don't need desktop OS who took worst from Win and MacOS X (PBI who resembles some MSI or mac stuff), haves worse hardware support, arrogant community, ignored by software authors, etc.

And you see, it's also convenient when you have same packagement management system and maybe even OS on both desktops and servers. This allows to learn less technical stuff (which is not a real value itself but rather some techincal details to achieve goals). It's convenient when package management tooks all software management hassle for you. It's convenient when system haves reasonable defaults for common tasks and makes them easy as these are most frequent ones. For desktop it's also neat when you do not have to build every recent program or game yourself. And the world chosen debian-based systems. So when you step on some author's page you will usually see Ubuntu packages suitable for them and derivatives. Often packages for debian as well (since building process is identical). But it would be much less frequent to see packages for Fedora/SUSe. And it's "mission impossible" to find any things for PC-BSD. And building huge program or game with ton of dependencies myself isn't a really great idea (unless I elect to be maintainer myself, if I have to, ever).

[Korla Plankton]

Formally, you're right and I'm even somewhat agree with this point of view. However, various people tend to have different view on what "works" means. Fans have quite relaxed requirements and expect some discounts. I dont.

well, 'fans' are generally silly to base their requirements on some sort of emotional attachment to the OS, if that is indeed what you are implying. I like tools that work and I don't care about much else. FreeBSD does what i want it to do, which is run a heavily customized server platform on a bandwidth starved network.

Be it a server and I would expect OS which is easy to install in common configurations, haves good hardware support, offers virtualization, decent package management system, requires as little administrative actions as possible in common setups and not terribly hard to customise if you need something uncommon.

Easy to install in common configurations? For most software, you can follow the upstream instructions and not worry about distro-specific things. It doesn't get simpler than that.
Good hardware support? Well, my job isn't to test hardware support but all of the hardware we use is supported just fine. I don't really care if FreeBSD doesn't support hardware I don't have.
Virtualization? Well, options seem to be limited to virtualbox-ose which I don't really like but jails are more appropriate for our situation anyway (in fact, jails are one of the main reasons we DO use freebsd)
As far as a package system, we have never had any problems building things from ports. Once again, these are servers so I'm not trying to build GNOME or anything (which can be painful to build on any platform.) If I wanted GNOME on FreeBSD I'd go with one of the prebuilt alternatives, just like you would go to Fedora or Ubuntu or whatever rather than building GNOME on Gentoo.

Be it a desktop and I would expect good-looking pre-configured environment where it's possible to use it and not to puke due to poor look and don't fix half of system myself. Sure, I should have option to change things. But it shouldn't be a mandatory to fix half of idiocy or annoyances myself.

Well, looks are a matter of taste. Ubuntu's default themes consistently make me want to puke I'm also not really clear on what sort of things you think you need to 'fix.' Have you used a recent version of PC-BSD? what needed fixing?

There are some more or less universal/general purpose distros who are not as polished but relatively easy to adapt for different purposes. As for me I would only use them when more specific ones prove to be less convenient for some task.

Right! Use the right tool for the job. For some of us, those nice pre-configured distros are only going to make MORE work for us as we work around their hand-holding.

As for me, I don't see any real use for Gentoo. It's a kind of toy OS for those who just grown older and thinks Lego isn't cool enough for them. It's basically not targeted on any serious use but rather to those who want to have a playground and/or system lab. Some guys sometimes can construct something impressive from both Lego and Gentoo, but this does not implies than building machinery from Lego or servers from Gentoo is a normal way of doing things.

Just an aside here: do you realize that your choice of words has an impact on the quality of the discussion? If i didn't have such faith in the general decency of my fellow humans, i'd swear that you were baiting gentoo users Anyway, i'm not sure where you get the idea that building a server from Gentoo isn't 'normal.' Not normal for you maybe but people do it all the time.

You see, I don't need Lego-like OS on servers, so I have to build or fix half of things myself, fixing stupidities here and there.

It was a huge pain in the butt to get Jack working with my USB audio interface and Pulseaudio on an Ubuntu system. And once I did get it working, an update broke it. Is that the sort of stupidity you're talking about? Because I get where you're coming from: I'm using Windows for all of my 'creative work' now -- it's much more reliable. Pick your battles and use the right tool for the job.

FreeBSD is an extremely 'correct' system. It doesn't make assumptions about what you want to do with it. Because it is so 'correct,' tailoring it to your task is very easy and not at all 'stupid.' No need to ask forums for questionable advice or search out-of-date, unvetted wiki pages.

I want more or less assembled car when it comes to driving from town A to town B. And I don't need desktop OS who took worst from Win and MacOS X (PBI who resembles some MSI or mac stuff), haves worse hardware support, arrogant community, ignored by software authors, etc.

So, what's your problem with PBI? I agree that sharing libraries and other resources the way that most linux distros and straight freebsd do is nice in terms of not having duplicate code everywhere, but it does have its disadvantages. What if you want to install something that requires a library version that is more recent than what your package manager has? And what if you have some other mission-critical application that the new library breaks? Now you get to figure out whatever distro-specific tricks you need to do to have both without your package manager crapping on one of them. This isn't hard, I'm just sayin it's one area where the .PBI and OS X's application bundles make things easier. OSX's method of bundling applications seems to have worked pretty well for them, that system is renowned for easy program installs.

And you see, it's also convenient when you have same packagement management system and maybe even OS on both desktops and servers.

If it is the case that a system can meet your needs both as a desktop and a server, sure. But you shouldn't compromise just for the sake of homogeneity.

It's convenient when package management tooks all software management hassle for you.

Sure, when package management works right. I stopped using Ubuntu specifically because updates kept breaking functionality in my system.

It's convenient when system haves reasonable defaults for common tasks and makes them easy as these are most frequent ones.

FreeBSD assumes that the user wants to tailor a custom system. To make this process 'reasonable' they use upstream's defaults wherever possible, so that you don't have to figure out a bunch of FreeBSD-specific idiosyncrasies to get it working. If you don't want to tailor a custom system, that's the best reasons why you should not use freebsd.

Also, the distributor's idea of "reasonable defaults" may not be the same as your own. Off the top of my head, Ubuntu shipped Pulseaudio before it was ready and they shipped Intel drivers that everybody knew were broken. These 'reasonable defaults' caused real problems for many of their users. A system like FreeBSD is safer in that respect, simply by virtue of it being more minimal. Of course, it expects that you actually know how to use UNIX.

For desktop it's also neat when you do not have to build every recent program or game yourself.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about "Ubuntu" and "recent programs" in the same sentence If you want to run a recent version of a program on ubuntu, you either have to hope the software author has a more up-to-date package than Ubuntu's repo (and hope they haven't slipped in some malware or don't suck at packaging or whatever) or you're building it yourself. Or wait 6 months for the next release.

And the world chosen debian-based systems. So when you step on some author's page you will usually see Ubuntu packages suitable for them and derivatives.

No, YOU will usually find Ubuntu packages probably because you're looking to upgrade software that is out of date in the Ubuntu repository. If an author knows they have a bunch of Ubuntu users, it makes sense for them to distribute an Ubuntu package for more up to date versions, thus getting around the main drawback of Debian-based systems (out of date software) and potentially breaking your security (you download an unsigned binary and force your system to trust it.)

So you can see that people have different requirements. Personally, I require the use of Adobe CS and reliable audio recording when I'm at home so that rules out Linux or FreeBSD. At work, I require a stable platform on which to run hundreds of servers on a satellite network. That rules out Linux (which doesn't have a convenient jails system) and Windows (which is just a hog in general.) Also at work, I need a workstation. That can be Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, Mac. What I use on my workstation is the least important part of the equation. So, in summary, it's not a feature pissing contest that determines what OS one *should* use. It's about what OS is the best choice given your particular situation. I would suggest you take another look at the thread on the FreeBSD mailing list. There, people who know a lot more about FreeBSD than you or I are having a much more useful discussion about the merits and problems.

cheers,

[russofris]

I specially register to reply this thread. In my views, it's even easier to set up OS X on (illegal) Hackintoshes (i.e. non-Apple PCs) than F*BSD.
OS X has a beautiful and elegant installer interface while ONLY ASCIIS are on BSDs.

While it may be easier to install than BSD, a Hackintosh is not some magic wand that turns any PC into a Mac. They're fairly constrained in terms of hardware compatibility, and often have annoying issues after the initial setup. I can see the point if you need to do cross platform testing without paying for a Mac. I can also see the point if your requirements simply exceed the capabilities of Apple's current hardware. I can see the point if you wish to try out OSX prior to making a purchase. Using one day-to-day is a PITA though.


F

[techzilla]

That's freedom. I treat corporations the same way as users.

... Bingo,
Now you know why we will never see eye to eye, it's why the GPL people are hostile to the permissive licences.