sounds great,
what i wonder about is the linux binary compatibility. Do You know, what it
exactly means? Can i simply run binaries compiled for linux,
sure you can, see:
or can i even
compile for linux on a FreeBSD machine?
that's cross compiling IMO is a different thing
Is it possible to install rpm or deb
packages?
rpm is there as a port, I don't know about .deb.
il Thu, 22 Jul 2004 18:09:12 +0900, Ralf Müller <r_mueller@imp-ag.de> ha scritto::
sounds great,
what i wonder about is the linux binary compatibility. Do You know, what
it exactly means? Can i simply run binaries compiled for linux, or can i
even compile for linux on a FreeBSD machine? Is it possible to install rpm
or deb packages?
The other already mentioned, that some linux-progs might mork...
However I rarely feel the need for emulating linux...
Have a look at
http://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html
and you'll see that nearly all programs that come with a decent linux distro
is provided as a FreeBSD-port....
There are some exceptions like the linux-flashplayer or acroread which
aren't available as native BSD-ports... However they are in the ports as
Linux-Binary and none the less work very well.
Regards,
Michael
* Ralf M?ller <r_mueller@imp-ag.de> [0709 10:09]:
> To make it short: I love it
>
> I'm not using it as a server but as a workstation both at home and @work.
> I was always quite satisfied with woody on both my boxes but was since I'm
> not willing to use the old software woody provides (e. g. kde 2.2) I was
> using lots of backports.
> First I switched at home and after using it at home for about half a year,
> I switched at work too last week
>
> The imho coolest thing of FreeBSD ist the strict separation between base
> system and Ports. I'm using 4.10 stable - let's say that's somehow like
> using Debian woody - but I can always install the lates software like kde
> 3.2.3, ruby 1.8.1 etc....
> One thing to consider is, that if you want new versions, you nearly always
> have to compile them by yourself... in the case of ruby no big deal, but
> when you want to compile kde or openoffice you can easily keep your box
> occupied the whole night or more...
> I'm using it on a celeron 1100 and it's ok to do such things at night....
> but it wouldn't dare to compile big programs on let's say an P2-300...
>
> However FreeBSD when compared to linux lacks supports for some new
> hardware.. AFAIK there is no USB 2.0-support in the 4.X STABLE Line... But
> since I don't have any fancy Multimedia-equipment I don't care..
>sounds great,
what i wonder about is the linux binary compatibility. Do You know, what it
exactly means? Can i simply run binaries compiled for linux, or can i even
compile for linux on a FreeBSD machine? Is it possible to install rpm or deb
packages?
Yes, generally you just run the program as normal - the (Net|Free)BSD kernel recognizes it
as a Linux binary and sets up compatible syscall tables and a chrootesque filesystem
- linux binaries see /compat/linux/ or (/emul/linux on netbsd) as / -
if a file doesn't exist there, they 'fall through' to the real filesystem.
(this saves you putting a linux gtk+ into /usr/lib and hosing all your native apps).
On NetBSD you install the linux-base package and effectively install suse under /compat/linux,
then just run a binary mozilla build and away you go.
It's not just linux - this mechanism supports Darwin, Irix, SVR4, etc, etc.
There was a very comprehensive walkthrough on how it all works on onlamp.com, see:
Am Donnerstag, 22. Juli 2004 10:22 schrieb Michael Mueller:
--
The qotc (quote of the con) was Liz's:
"My brain is paged out to my liver"
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
David Ross wrote:
The imho coolest thing of FreeBSD ist the strict
separation between base
system and Ports. I'm using 4.10 stable - let's say
that's somehow likeOk, this seems pretty outdated to me. FreeBSD 5.2.1 is
out, and is very stable.
I don't feel that's even as near as stable as 4.10. If you want 4.10++, then try DragonFly (www.dragonflybsd.org).
Regards,
Michael
Michael Neumann wrote:
Ralf Müller wrote:
To make it short: I love it
I'm not using it as a server but as a workstation both at home and @work.
I was always quite satisfied with woody on both my boxes but was since I'm
not willing to use the old software woody provides (e. g. kde 2.2) I was
using lots of backports.
First I switched at home and after using it at home for about half a year,
I switched at work too last weekThe imho coolest thing of FreeBSD ist the strict separation between base
system and Ports. I'm using 4.10 stable - let's say that's somehow like
using Debian woody - but I can always install the lates software like kde
3.2.3, ruby 1.8.1 etc....
One thing to consider is, that if you want new versions, you nearly always
have to compile them by yourself... in the case of ruby no big deal, but
when you want to compile kde or openoffice you can easily keep your box
occupied the whole night or more...
I'm using it on a celeron 1100 and it's ok to do such things at night....
but it wouldn't dare to compile big programs on let's say an P2-300...However FreeBSD when compared to linux lacks supports for some new
hardware.. AFAIK there is no USB 2.0-support in the 4.X STABLE Line... But
since I don't have any fancy Multimedia-equipment I don't care..sounds great,
what i wonder about is the linux binary compatibility. Do You know, what it exactly means? Can i simply run binaries compiled for linux, or can i even compile for linux on a FreeBSD machine? Is it possible to install rpm or deb packages?Yes, you can run Linux binaries on FreeBSD. The linux syscalls are "simply" mapped to FreeBSD syscalls.
But that does not work in any case. Mostly, the problems are due to missing shared libraries. But for example the Linux version of Mathematica 5 runs fine on FreeBSD, Maple, too.
Regards,
Michael
Good point. This isn't emulation and precisely why Linux binaries can be run in FreeBSD with only +- 3% difference in performance for many apps.
Am Donnerstag, 22. Juli 2004 10:22 schrieb Michael Mueller:
Ok, this seems pretty outdated to me. FreeBSD 5.2.1 is
out, and is very stable.I don't feel that's even as near as stable as 4.10. If you want 4.10++,
then try DragonFly (www.dragonflybsd.org).
I think I'll stick with 4.X unless I need stuff like USB 2.0 etc... Probably
with my next computer-upgrade...
4.X works _very_ satisfactory for me!
BTW: Does DragonFly use the same ports-System?
my 2 Eurocents....
Michael
* Michael Neumann <mneumann@ntecs.de> [0721 16:21]:
David Ross wrote:
>>The imho coolest thing of FreeBSD ist the strict
>>separation between base
>>system and Ports. I'm using 4.10 stable - let's say
>>that's somehow like
>
>
>Ok, this seems pretty outdated to me. FreeBSD 5.2.1 is
>out, and is very stable.I don't feel that's even as near as stable as 4.10. If you want 4.10++,
then try DragonFly (www.dragonflybsd.org).
<aol>
me too
</aol>
5.2.1 *isn't* classed as stable - it might work but if it goes bang you
have only yourself to blame. It was released because they wanted to get som
of 5 out of the door (I'm using it because my brothers a committer and
he happened to give me a cd set when I was building my last box, and at
that point NetBSD firewire and usb2 was too shaky to use).
5.3 will be officially stable - if you want a production box use 4.10 for
now and wait for 5.3.
DragonFly is run by Matt Dillon, who knows his shit. He was responsible for
some *major* revamps of freebsd4, so if he's doing a new OS, it's worth
keeping an eye on. If 1.0 had been out when I needed an OS, I'd be running
it now....
--
The intelligence of any discussion diminishes with the square of the
number of participants.
-- Adam Walinsky
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
BTW: Does DragonFly use the same ports-System?
Yes, DragonFly uses the FreeBSD port system plus its
own override ports. It is better in all ways. 5.2.1 is
pretty stable for production use despite what others
say, they usually don't know how to get past the boot
screen because they don't know how to hit 2 to turn
ACPI on/off. 
Anyway, I use both FreeBSD 5.2.1 and
DragonFly 1.0-R. DragonFly took the FreeBSD 4.9 tree
and all sort of features from 5.x and other BSDs. It
is based on getting better features into the OS and
developing better and new techniques. This is in no
way related to Linux's releasing of new technology in
the kernel. DragonFlyBSD is stable. If you would like
to know more, drop by the website or even on the
official(more official, all the devels are on here,
plus matt) irc [EFNET#dragonflybsd]. --David Ross
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
5.2.1 *isn't* classed as stable - it might work but
if it goes bang you
have only yourself to blame. It was released because
they wanted to get some
of 5 out of the door (I'm using it because my
brothers a committer and
he happened to give me a CD set when I was building
my last box, and at
that point NetBSD firewire and usb2 was too shaky to
use).
OK. please do not answer again, you are trolling. It
is really stable already. You need to go do some
research on how many servers are using FreeBSD 5.x on
servers already, kthnx. Commiter big deal... whoever
wrote the old code in FreeBSD needs to get their head
exampled. Asomdai is having to go through all the code
to replace all the wrong doings. I can't believe
whoever wrote it released it like that.. some really
screwed up ways of doing explicit conversions that
work, but its horrible. I shriek at some of the code.
5.3 will be officially stable - if you want a
production box use 4.10 for
now and wait for 5.3.
I am fully aware of this. Its on the main site Thanks again.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
David Ross wrote:
BTW: Does DragonFly use the same ports-System?
Yes, DragonFly uses the FreeBSD port system plus its
own override ports. It is better in all ways. 5.2.1 is
pretty stable for production use despite what others
say, they usually don't know how to get past the boot
screen because they don't know how to hit 2 to turn
ACPI on/off.
Do you mean, the ACPI implementation on FreeBSD in general is not that stable? I'm running FreeBSD 5.2.1 on my laptop with ACPI enabled (and yeah, I know how to switch it off ;-). I'm experiencing strange things from time to time. But that's probably more related to my configuration.
Regards,
Michael
* David Ross <drossruby@yahoo.com> [0741 14:41]:
> 5.2.1 *isn't* classed as stable - it might work but
> if it goes bang you
> have only yourself to blame. It was released because
> they wanted to get some
> of 5 out of the door (I'm using it because my
> brothers a committer and
> he happened to give me a CD set when I was building
> my last box, and at
> that point NetBSD firewire and usb2 was too shaky to
> use).OK. please do not answer again, you are trolling. It
is really stable already. You need to go do some
research on how many servers are using FreeBSD 5.x on
servers already, kthnx.
wtf is wrong with you?
trolling my ass - I run it. I like it.
(I've been advocating it for 5 frigging years.)
So do most of the BSDers I know.
Commiter big deal... whoever
wrote the old code in FreeBSD needs to get their head
exampled. Asomdai is having to go through all the code
He's a doc committer. Thats how he gets free releases.
[snip]
> 5.3 will be officially stable - if you want a
> production box use 4.10 for
> now and wait for 5.3.
>I am fully aware of this. Its on the main site Thanks again.
So why am i trolling when I say the same thing?
Get over yourself mate.
--
Intolerance is the last defense of the insecure.
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
Do you mean, the ACPI implementation on FreeBSD in
general is not that
stable?
Yes, I do. It is BIOS manufacturer dependant. There
are a few BIOS chips out there that like acting up
with the FreeBSD 5.2.1 ACPI. People try to install
FreeBSD 5.2.1, they can't because they are having
trouble with ACPI related problems, so they go back to
Gentoo :). --David Ross
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Good god dude, grow up. Thats why I said not to
respond. Especially to the mailing list. I just don't
have anymore time to deal with people and their
worthless comments like on IRC anymore.. --David Ross
--- Dick Davies <rasputnik@hellooperator.net> wrote:
* David Ross <drossruby@yahoo.com> [0741 14:41]:
> > 5.2.1 *isn't* classed as stable - it might work
but
> > if it goes bang you
> > have only yourself to blame. It was released
because
> > they wanted to get some
> > of 5 out of the door (I'm using it because my
> > brothers a committer and
> > he happened to give me a CD set when I was
building
> > my last box, and at
> > that point NetBSD firewire and usb2 was too
shaky to
> > use).
>
>
> OK. please do not answer again, you are trolling.
It
> is really stable already. You need to go do some
> research on how many servers are using FreeBSD 5.x
on
> servers already, kthnx.wtf is wrong with you?
trolling my ass - I run it. I like it.
(I've been advocating it for 5 frigging years.)
So do most of the BSDers I know.> Commiter big deal... whoever
> wrote the old code in FreeBSD needs to get their
head
> exampled. Asomdai is having to go through all the
codeHe's a doc committer. Thats how he gets free
releases.[snip]
> > 5.3 will be officially stable - if you want a
> > production box use 4.10 for
> > now and wait for 5.3.
> >
>
> I am fully aware of this. Its on the main site
Thanks again.So why am i trolling when I say the same thing?
Get over yourself mate.--
Intolerance is the last defense of the insecure.
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/