FreeBSDwiki - User contributions [en]

Package

2007-11-17T06:28:52Z

Heidi:

A package is a port, pre-compiled for maximum compatability and speed of install. You can't change the compile options and packages wontedly don't run as fast as ports.

Sometimes a package is helpful when the port or one of its dependencies is broken or when you only need something installed very quick.

Packages are added with the command [[pkg_add]] and removed with [[pkg_delete]]. You can identify which packages have been installed on your system via the [[pkg_info]] command.

[[Category:FreeBSD Terminology]]

Coherent

2007-02-27T08:13:19Z

Heidi: /* FreeBSD is coherent */

==FreeBSD is coherent==
FreeBSD is a complete, coherent operating system and this is one of its biggest strengths among open source OSes. GNU/Linux is fragmented as its name and Linux itself is but a [[kernel]], not an operating system. The sundry GNU/Linux distributions are gatherings of a particular build of the Linux kernel along with GNU and other utilities which have been bundled together. In [[User:Jimbo|Jimbo]]'s personal opinion the outcome of this is often rather arbitrary and scattered.

FreeBSD is not only a kernel, it's a whole operating system maintained by a group of folks called the [[core committers]]. The kernel and the core applications are all developed in tandem, keeping a coherent vision of how the overall package (those thousands of packages in the ports system) all work together. This is never possible with GNU/Linux its far flung development base isn't organized the same way.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

Etc/master.passwd

2007-02-27T05:30:30Z

Heidi:

'''Etc/master.passwd''' is the master password file on FreeBSD. Its Linux equivalent is the shadow password file. Don't ever edit master.passwd directly. Use [[vipw]], which calls the default editor (likely [[ee]] or [[vi]]) but checks for any format mistakes before allowing a save. As with Linux, /etc/passwd will have any public information such as shell info and so on.

[[Category:Important Config Files|Master.passwd]]

Updated

2007-02-27T05:11:18Z

Heidi:

FreeBSD is updated often. The most current, bleeding-edge software can be found and a system can be updated as often as wanted by using [[cvsup]] and the ports system.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

Updated

2007-02-27T05:10:57Z

Heidi:

FreeBSD is updated often. The most current, bleeding-edge software can be found and a can be updated as often as wanted by using [[cvsup]] and the ports system.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

Runs on various architectures

2007-02-27T05:07:33Z

Heidi: streamline

FreeBSD runs steadfastly and without performance worries on a variety of architectures including x86-based hardware platforms, Sparc hardware and Alpha processors.
[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

Modern programs

2007-02-27T05:05:38Z

Heidi: detail, clnup

FreeBSD is updated often, both the programs that make it up and the ports software apps which run on it. It's only a matter of getting the latest software from the net and running it. Many operating systems are updated infrequently for sundry reasons: Debian Stable must be tested on 11 architectures and have its bugs squashed before a new version is released and this often takes so long, the software released with it is already out of date. Microsoft's Windows OSes are updated whenever MS gets stirred up enough to do it and while patches and service packs are more or less free (never mind likely to break something), upgrades of the OS must be purchased.
[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

Customizable

2007-02-27T05:00:21Z

Heidi: more smoothing

The base installation of FreeBSD is meant to be lean and mean. It only contains the services absolutely necessary to operate the machine. Then, FreeBSD sysadmins are encouraged to install their own services, whether from the [[ports tree]] or elsewhere, choosing for themselves which software packages suit their needs.

For example, any webmaster will need a webserver but choosing which one depends on the needs. Some may need compatibility with older plug-ins from the [[Apache]] 1.x family while others will want the greater security and speed of the [[Apache]] 2.x family. Still others may need the highest speed and efficiency (but without CGI capability) found in the [[thttpd]] family. With FreeBSD it's easy, normal and even expected to pick and choose or even switch, with minimal pain, heartache or downtime.

Likewise, this holds true for FTP, DNS, mail, ssh, X-Window components and almost anything else. Even those services which do have a default system installation (such as [[sendmail]] for mail services) are designed to be easily swapped out with any other service the system administrator may choose. For example [[sendmail]] can be replaced by [[qmail]] with a single command:

cd /usr/ports/mail/qmail && make install && make disable-sendmail && make install-qmail clean

'''Please be aware though''', one must ''configure'' qmail after doing that so please don't be rash and blindly replace sendmail after reading this without being ready to learn a new system.

This is all in stark contrast not only with Microsoft Windows, in which sysadmins and users alike are tightly bound to whatever Microsoft provided in the way of system services, but with many GNU/Linux flavours too. For example, veteran '''Red Hat Linux''' admins are familiar with the notion that Apache 1.x "goes with" Red Hat 7, but Apache 2.x "goes with" Red Hat 8 and so on. It can be a rather daunting, canny mess to try changing from one to the other. What's more, upgrading a base Microsoft or Linux system is likely to blindly change a system's services like it or not and meanwhile, upgrading the OS can make needed (and maybe mission-critical) services inoperable and comes with widely known risks, downtime and often, unhappiness.

FreeBSD mostly succeeds in drawing a much sharper line between the base system and optional services. It's easy to install whatever type of service is wanted from whichever vendor or group chosen, open source or not.

Moreover, FreeBSD is truly open and free. For highly specialized projects the source code itself can be studied and modified. While this step is not taken by most FreeBSD users, it's a comfort.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

Community

2007-02-27T04:52:12Z

Heidi:

One of the best reasons to use FreeBSD may be its community. The mailing lists are full of people who are both helpful and respond quickly. Questions get helpful answers, often 90% of the time within the hour. What other OS can match that? Even if a question doesn't truly apply to the specific mailing list, a helpful reply will likely come. FreeBSD's community is what keeps a lot of people with the OS, never mind the stability, easy install of programs and all the other things which make FreeBSD so much more helpful.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

Community

2007-02-27T04:51:46Z

Heidi:

Community

2007-02-27T04:51:04Z

Heidi: smoothin

One of the best reasons to use FreeBSD may be its community. The mailing lists are full of people who are both helpful and respond quickly. Each time I've had a question I got helpful answers, 90% of the time within the hour. What other OS can match that? Even if a question doesn't truly apply to the specific mailing list, a helpful reply will likely come. FreeBSD's community is what keeps a lot of people with the OS, never mind the stability, easy install of programs and all the other things which make FreeBSD that much more helpful.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

Coherent

2007-02-27T04:44:55Z

Heidi: smoothin

==FreeBSD is coherent==
FreeBSD is a complete, coherent operating system and this is one of its biggest strengths among open source OSes. GNU/Linux is fragmented as its name and Linux itself is but a [[kernel]], not an operating system. The sundry GNU/Linux distributions are gatherings of a particular build of the Linux kernel along with the GNU and other utilities bundled together. In [[User:Jimbo|Jimbo]]'s personal opinion the outcome of this is often rather arbitrary and scattered.

FreeBSD is not only a kernel, it's a whole operating system maintained by a group of folks called the [[core committers]]. The kernel and the core applications are all developed in tandem, keeping a coherent vision of how the overall package (those thousands of packages in the ports system) all work together. This is never possible with GNU/Linux its far flung development base isn't organized the same way.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

FreeBSD is Free

2007-02-27T02:33:20Z

Heidi:

FreeBSD is free—free like speech and free like beer.

Here's a quick rundown of what "free" can mean and how "free" various OSes are:

*'''Microsoft Windows''' must be purchased, it's not cheap and must be run under the very narrow conditions set forth by Microsoft in the license (an infamous document called the EULA). The source code is nowhere to be seen and can't be had at any price, so the operating system can't be checked or adapted for any needs other than those which Microsoft sees fit to fill. One outcome is that Windows often looks and works more like a marketing platform than an operating system. Windows can't be legally reverse-engineered, which means even looking at the binary code to understand how it works could be illegal.

*'''Generic GNU/Linux''' does not cost money and can be redistributed by anyone as they see fit. The source code is not only available, but ''must'' be made available, which helps a lot with auditing and allows the OS to be altered in whatever way seems fit. However, the source code for any alterations must then also be made available under all the same terms. There is no way to make them proprietary.

**There are '''variants of GNU/Linux''', like some versions of '''Red Hat Linux''', which are "free" in the sense anyone can download the source code and audit, evaluate or alter it however they wish under the terms of the GPL as outlined above, but these licenses are neither free like beer nor free like speech. Crucial chunks of the operating system's base functionality are unlocked only if the maintainers get paid for a set of services Moreover, they ask for some kind of authentication to prove they've been paid. For example, the utility "up2date" keeps installed binaries current with the distribution's current versions. With some flavours of Red Hat, like the Enterprise series, up2date can be had only through a paid subscription and subsequent authentication with a certificate.

*'''FreeBSD''' does not cost money. It may be redistributed however one sees fit. The source code not only may, but '''must''' be made available, which helps with both auditing and altering the OS in whatever way seems fit. Moreover, unlike the GPL license, the BSD license allows using the BSD code for proprietary purposes. Aside from crediting the sources, there is no requirement to make any adapted or changed chunks of code available to anyone else, under the BSD license or any other license. Also, nothing in the operating system has been designed to be usable only if a "subscription" is bought from some organization. For example, the ports and packages systems, which roughly do the same things as RedHat Enterprise's up2date system, can be had by anyone and everyone without the need for SSL certificate identification.

==So is it free like GPL or free like BSD?==
The BSD vs Linux holy wars include disputes over which license is "better." Both have their strong sides and weak sides. The GPL not only urges but forces the free licensing of software, which many authors believe ensures their work will remain free and won't have its focus stolen by commercial and proprietary projects using their codebase. Meanwhile the BSD license encourages developers of commercial and proprietary products to adhere to open standards by giving them a codebase they can review and re-use as they see fit without being hampered by restrictive licensing, which could harm or altogether thwart their profitability as commercial developers. Without BSD's much less restrictive licensing scheme we likely wouldn't be using the TCP/IP protocol on an open Internet today. More or less every operating system on the planet used BSD's original TCP stack when adopting that protocol and a surprising number of them, both commercial and free, still have snippets of it here and there even today.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

FreeBSD is Free

2007-02-27T02:28:52Z

Heidi:

FreeBSD is free—free like speech and free like beer.

Here's a quick rundown of what "free" can mean and how "free" various OSes are:

*'''Microsoft Windows''' must be purchased, it's not cheap and must be run under the very narrow conditions set forth by Microsoft in the license (an infamous document called the EULA). The source code is nowhere to be seen and can't be had at any price, so the operating system can't be checked or adapted for any needs other than those which Microsoft sees fit to fill. One outcome is that Windows often looks and works more like a marketing platform than an operating system. Windows can't be legally reverse-engineered, which means even looking at the binary code to understand how it works could be illegal.

*'''Generic GNU/Linux''' does not cost money and can be redistributed by anyone as they see fit. The source code is not only available, but ''must'' be made available, which helps a lot with auditing and allows the OS to be altered in whatever way seems fit. However, the source code for any alterations must then also be made available under all the same terms. There is no way to make them proprietary.

**There are '''variants of GNU/Linux''' like some versions of '''Red Hat Linux''' which are "free" in the sense anyone can download the source code and audit/evaluate/alter it as they wish under the terms of the GPL as outlined above, but they are neither free like "free beer" nor free like "free speech." Crucial chunks of the operating system's base functionality are unlocked only if the maintainers get paid for a set of services and moreover, they require some kind of authentication to prove they've been paid. For example, under certain flavours of Red Hat like the Enterprise series, the utility which keeps installed binaries current with the distribution's current versions, called the "up2date" can be had only with a subscription and subsequent authentication with a certificate.

*'''FreeBSD''' does not cost money. It may be redistributed however one sees fit. The source code not only may, but '''must''' be made available, which helps with both auditing and altering the OS in whatever way seems fit. Moreover, unlike the GPL license, the BSD license allows using the BSD code for proprietary purposes. Aside from crediting the sources, there is no requirement to make any adapted or changed chunks of code available to anyone else, under the BSD license or any other license. Also, nothing in the operating system has been designed to be usable only if a "subscription" is bought from some organization. For example, the ports and packages systems, which roughly do the same things as RedHat Enterprise's up2date system, can be had by anyone and everyone without the need for SSL certificate identification.

==So is it free like GPL or free like BSD?==
The BSD vs Linux holy wars include disputes over which license is "better." Both have their strong sides and weak sides. The GPL not only urges but forces the free licensing of software, which many authors believe ensures their work will remain free and won't have its focus stolen by commercial and proprietary projects using their codebase. Meanwhile the BSD license encourages developers of commercial and proprietary products to adhere to open standards by giving them a codebase they can review and re-use as they see fit without being hampered by restrictive licensing, which could harm or altogether thwart their profitability as commercial developers. Without BSD's much less restrictive licensing scheme we likely wouldn't be using the TCP/IP protocol on an open Internet today. More or less every operating system on the planet used BSD's original TCP stack when adopting that protocol and a surprising number of them, both commercial and free, still have snippets of it here and there even today.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

FreeBSD is Free

2007-02-27T02:28:20Z

Heidi: /* So is it GPL "free" or BSD "free"? */

FreeBSD is free—free as in speech and free as in beer.

Here's a quick rundown of what "free" can mean and how "free" various OSes are:

*'''Microsoft Windows''' must be purchased, it's not cheap and must be run under the very narrow conditions set forth by Microsoft in the license (an infamous document called the EULA). The source code is nowhere to be seen and can't be had at any price, so the operating system can't be checked or adapted for any needs other than those which Microsoft sees fit to fill. One outcome is that Windows often looks and works more like a marketing platform than an operating system. Windows can't be legally reverse-engineered, which means even looking at the binary code to understand how it works could be illegal.

*'''Generic GNU/Linux''' does not cost money and can be redistributed by anyone as they see fit. The source code is not only available, but ''must'' be made available, which helps a lot with auditing and allows the OS to be altered in whatever way seems fit. However, the source code for any alterations must then also be made available under all the same terms. There is no way to make them proprietary.

**There are '''variants of GNU/Linux''' like some versions of '''Red Hat Linux''' which are "free" in the sense anyone can download the source code and audit/evaluate/alter it as they wish under the terms of the GPL as outlined above, but they are neither free like "free beer" nor free like "free speech." Crucial chunks of the operating system's base functionality are unlocked only if the maintainers get paid for a set of services and moreover, they require some kind of authentication to prove they've been paid. For example, under certain flavours of Red Hat like the Enterprise series, the utility which keeps installed binaries current with the distribution's current versions, called the "up2date" can be had only with a subscription and subsequent authentication with a certificate.

*'''FreeBSD''' does not cost money. It may be redistributed however one sees fit. The source code not only may, but '''must''' be made available, which helps with both auditing and altering the OS in whatever way seems fit. Moreover, unlike the GPL license, the BSD license allows using the BSD code for proprietary purposes. Aside from crediting the sources, there is no requirement to make any adapted or changed chunks of code available to anyone else, under the BSD license or any other license. Also, nothing in the operating system has been designed to be usable only if a "subscription" is bought from some organization. For example, the ports and packages systems, which roughly do the same things as RedHat Enterprise's up2date system, can be had by anyone and everyone without the need for SSL certificate identification.

==So is it free like GPL or free like BSD?==
The BSD vs Linux holy wars include disputes over which license is "better." Both have their strong sides and weak sides. The GPL not only urges but forces the free licensing of software, which many authors believe ensures their work will remain free and won't have its focus stolen by commercial and proprietary projects using their codebase. Meanwhile the BSD license encourages developers of commercial and proprietary products to adhere to open standards by giving them a codebase they can review and re-use as they see fit without being hampered by restrictive licensing, which could harm or altogether thwart their profitability as commercial developers. Without BSD's much less restrictive licensing scheme we likely wouldn't be using the TCP/IP protocol on an open Internet today. More or less every operating system on the planet used BSD's original TCP stack when adopting that protocol and a surprising number of them, both commercial and free, still have snippets of it here and there even today.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

FreeBSD is Free

2007-02-27T02:27:46Z

Heidi: so is it...

FreeBSD is free—free as in speech and free as in beer.

Here's a quick rundown of what "free" can mean and how "free" various OSes are:

*'''Microsoft Windows''' must be purchased, it's not cheap and must be run under the very narrow conditions set forth by Microsoft in the license (an infamous document called the EULA). The source code is nowhere to be seen and can't be had at any price, so the operating system can't be checked or adapted for any needs other than those which Microsoft sees fit to fill. One outcome is that Windows often looks and works more like a marketing platform than an operating system. Windows can't be legally reverse-engineered, which means even looking at the binary code to understand how it works could be illegal.

*'''Generic GNU/Linux''' does not cost money and can be redistributed by anyone as they see fit. The source code is not only available, but ''must'' be made available, which helps a lot with auditing and allows the OS to be altered in whatever way seems fit. However, the source code for any alterations must then also be made available under all the same terms. There is no way to make them proprietary.

**There are '''variants of GNU/Linux''' like some versions of '''Red Hat Linux''' which are "free" in the sense anyone can download the source code and audit/evaluate/alter it as they wish under the terms of the GPL as outlined above, but they are neither free like "free beer" nor free like "free speech." Crucial chunks of the operating system's base functionality are unlocked only if the maintainers get paid for a set of services and moreover, they require some kind of authentication to prove they've been paid. For example, under certain flavours of Red Hat like the Enterprise series, the utility which keeps installed binaries current with the distribution's current versions, called the "up2date" can be had only with a subscription and subsequent authentication with a certificate.

*'''FreeBSD''' does not cost money. It may be redistributed however one sees fit. The source code not only may, but '''must''' be made available, which helps with both auditing and altering the OS in whatever way seems fit. Moreover, unlike the GPL license, the BSD license allows using the BSD code for proprietary purposes. Aside from crediting the sources, there is no requirement to make any adapted or changed chunks of code available to anyone else, under the BSD license or any other license. Also, nothing in the operating system has been designed to be usable only if a "subscription" is bought from some organization. For example, the ports and packages systems, which roughly do the same things as RedHat Enterprise's up2date system, can be had by anyone and everyone without the need for SSL certificate identification.

==So is it GPL "free" or BSD "free"?==
The BSD vs Linux holy wars include disputes over which license is "better." Both have their strong sides and weak sides. The GPL not only urges but forces the free licensing of software, which many authors believe ensures their work will remain free and won't have its focus stolen by commercial and proprietary projects using their codebase. Meanwhile the BSD license encourages developers of commercial and proprietary products to adhere to open standards by giving them a codebase they can review and re-use as they see fit without being hampered by restrictive licensing, which could harm or altogether thwart their profitability as commercial developers. Without BSD's much less restrictive licensing scheme we likely wouldn't be using the TCP/IP protocol on an open Internet today. More or less every operating system on the planet used BSD's original TCP stack when adopting that protocol and a surprising number of them, both commercial and free, still have snippets of it here and there even today.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

FreeBSD is Free

2007-02-27T02:20:29Z

Heidi: GPL BSD

FreeBSD is free—free as in speech and free as in beer.

Here's a quick rundown of what "free" can mean and how "free" various OSes are:

*'''Microsoft Windows''' must be purchased, it's not cheap and must be run under the very narrow conditions set forth by Microsoft in the license (an infamous document called the EULA). The source code is nowhere to be seen and can't be had at any price, so the operating system can't be checked or adapted for any needs other than those which Microsoft sees fit to fill. One outcome is that Windows often looks and works more like a marketing platform than an operating system. Windows can't be legally reverse-engineered, which means even looking at the binary code to understand how it works could be illegal.

*'''Generic GNU/Linux''' does not cost money and can be redistributed by anyone as they see fit. The source code is not only available, but ''must'' be made available, which helps a lot with auditing and allows the OS to be altered in whatever way seems fit. However, the source code for any alterations must then also be made available under all the same terms. There is no way to make them proprietary.

**There are '''variants of GNU/Linux''' like some versions of '''Red Hat Linux''' which are "free" in the sense anyone can download the source code and audit/evaluate/alter it as they wish under the terms of the GPL as outlined above, but they are neither free like "free beer" nor free like "free speech." Crucial chunks of the operating system's base functionality are unlocked only if the maintainers get paid for a set of services and moreover, they require some kind of authentication to prove they've been paid. For example, under certain flavours of Red Hat like the Enterprise series, the utility which keeps installed binaries current with the distribution's current versions, called the "up2date" can be had only with a subscription and subsequent authentication with a certificate.

*'''FreeBSD''' does not cost money. It may be redistributed however one sees fit. The source code not only may, but '''must''' be made available, which helps with both auditing and altering the OS in whatever way seems fit. Moreover, unlike the GPL license, the BSD license allows using the BSD code for proprietary purposes. Aside from crediting the sources, there is no requirement to make any adapted or changed chunks of code available to anyone else, under the BSD license or any other license. Also, nothing in the operating system has been designed to be usable only if a "subscription" is bought from some organization. For example, the ports and packages systems, which roughly do the same things as RedHat Enterprise's up2date system, can be had by anyone and everyone without the need for SSL certificate identification.

==GPL "free," or BSD "free"?==
One of the biggest starting points for BSD-vs.-Linux holy wars is the issue of which is better, the BSD license or the GPL license. In fact, each have their strong points and their weak points. The GPL not only encourages but forces free licensing of software, which many authors feel ensures that their work will remain free and will not have its focus stolen by commercial and proprietary efforts using their codebase. The BSD license, however, encourages the developers of commercial and proprietary products to adhere to open standards by providing them with a codebase which they can review and re-use as they see fit without being hampered with restrictive licensing which could harm or destroy their profitability as commercial developers. Without BSD's considerably less restrictive licensing scheme, we might very well not all be using the TCP/IP protocol on an open Internet today: virtually every operating system on the planet used BSD's original TCP stack when adopting that protocol, and a surprising number of them, both commercial and free, still have snippets here and there even today.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

FreeBSD is Free

2007-02-27T01:58:58Z

Heidi: windows

FreeBSD is free—free as in speech and free as in beer.

Here's a quick rundown of what "free" can mean and how "free" various OSes are:

*'''Microsoft Windows''' must be purchased, it's not cheap and must be run under the very narrow conditions set forth by Microsoft in the license (an infamous document called the EULA). The source code is nowhere to be seen and can't be had at any price, so the operating system can't be checked or adapted for any needs other than those which Microsoft sees fit to fill. One outcome is that Windows often looks and works more like a marketing platform than an operating system. Windows can't be legally reverse-engineered, which means even looking at the binary code to understand how it works could be illegal.

*'''Generic GNU/Linux''' does not cost money. You may redistribute it as you see fit. You not only may, but '''must''' be allowed to see the source code to aid you in either auditing or altering it as you see fit. You must, however, make any alterations which you make to its source code also available under all of these same terms—you may not make them proprietary.
**Some specific '''variants of GNU/Linux''', such as some versions of '''Red Hat Linux''' are "free" in the sense that anyone may download the source code and audit/evaluate/alter it as they wish under the terms of the GPL as outlined briefly above, but are very distincly NOT free in the "free beer" sense—or in some cases of the "free speech" sense—in that crucial portions of the base functionality of the operating system are not unlocked unless you pay the maintainers for a set of services, and authenticate yourself to them to prove who you are and that you have so paid. As an example, you cannot use the "up2date" utility (which keeps your installed binaries current with the distribution's current versions) under certain versions of Red Hat (namely their Enterprise series) unless you have a subscription and authenticate yourself with a certificate.
*'''FreeBSD''' does not cost money. It may be redistributed as you see fit. You not only may, but '''must''' be allowed to see the source code to aid you in either auditing or altering it as you see fit. But where the BSD license differs from the GPL license is this: You '''may''' use portions of the BSD code for proprietary purposes, and aside from crediting your sources, you are NOT required to make portions of the code you reuse or your own alterations available under the BSD license or any other license. In addition, no part of the operating system is designed to be usable only if you maintain some sort of "subscription" to any organization; for example the ports and packages systems, which are roughly analogous to RedHat Enterprise's up2date system, are available to anyone and everyone without need for SSL certificate identification.

==GPL "free," or BSD "free"?==
One of the biggest starting points for BSD-vs.-Linux holy wars is the issue of which is better, the BSD license or the GPL license. In fact, each have their strong points and their weak points. The GPL not only encourages but forces free licensing of software, which many authors feel ensures that their work will remain free and will not have its focus stolen by commercial and proprietary efforts using their codebase. The BSD license, however, encourages the developers of commercial and proprietary products to adhere to open standards by providing them with a codebase which they can review and re-use as they see fit without being hampered with restrictive licensing which could harm or destroy their profitability as commercial developers. Without BSD's considerably less restrictive licensing scheme, we might very well not all be using the TCP/IP protocol on an open Internet today: virtually every operating system on the planet used BSD's original TCP stack when adopting that protocol, and a surprising number of them, both commercial and free, still have snippets here and there even today.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

Stability

2007-01-19T20:30:39Z

Heidi:

One can't argue with [http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html Netcraft]. Ok, one can (for starters, uptime alone is an unscientific indicator of OS stability), but FreeBSD's rock-solid stability and reliability are nonetheless legendary and widely documented. FreeBSD is the OS behind many of the world's most high traffic websites.
[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

Stability

2007-01-18T15:13:07Z

Heidi: qualify that

One can't argue with [http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html Netcraft]. Ok, one can (for starters, uptime alone is an unscientific indicator of OS stability), but FreeBSD's rock-solid stability and reliability is nonetheless legendary and widely documented. FreeBSD is the OS behind many of the world's most high traffic websites.
[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

Customizable

2007-01-18T15:07:27Z

Heidi:

The base installation of FreeBSD is meant to be lean and mean. It only contains the services absolutely necessary to operate the machine. Instead, FreeBSD sysadmins are encouraged to install their own services, whether from the [[ports tree]] or elsewhere, choosing for themselves which software packages suit their needs.

For example, any webmaster will need a webserver, but depending on the needs, a particular kind of webserver may be more or less appropriate. Some may need compatibility with older plug-ins of the [[Apache]] 1.x family, while others will want the greater security and speed of the [[Apache]] 2.x family. Still others may need the highest speed and efficiency (but with no CGI capability) found in the [[thttpd]] family. With FreeBSD it is easy, normal and even expected to pick and choose or even switch with minimal pain and heartache (or downtime).

This also holds true for FTP, DNS, mail, ssh, X-Window components and almost anything else. Even those services which do have a default system installation (such as [[sendmail]] for mail services) are specifically designed to be simply and easily swapped out with any other service the system administrator may choose. For example [[sendmail]] can be replaced by [[qmail]] with a single command:

cd /usr/ports/mail/qmail && make install && make disable-sendmail && make install-qmail clean

'''Please be aware though''', one must ''configure'' qmail after doing that so please don't be rash and blindly replace sendmail after reading this without being ready to learn a new system.

This is all in stark contrast not only with Microsoft Windows, in which sysadmins and users alike are tightly bound to whatever Microsoft provided in the way of system services, but with many GNU/Linux flavours too. For example, veteran '''Red Hat Linux''' admins are familiar with the notion that Apache 1.x "goes with" Red Hat 7, whereas Apache 2.x "goes with" Red Hat 8 and it can be something of a dire mess to try changing from one to the other. What's more, upgrading a base Microsoft or Linux system is likely to willy-nilly change its services whether this is wanted or not. Meanwhile, upgrading the OS may make needed (perhaps mission-critical) services inoperable and comes with widely known risks, downtime and often, unhappiness.

FreeBSD mostly succeeds in drawing a much sharper line between the base system and optional services. It's easy to install whatever type of service wanted from whichever vendor or group chosen (open source or not).

Moreover, FreeBSD is truly open and free. For highly specialized projects, the source code itself can be studied and modified. While this step is not taken by most FreeBSD users, it's a comfort.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

Customizable

2007-01-18T14:58:50Z

Heidi: format

The base installation of FreeBSD is meant to be lean and mean. It only contains the services absolutely necessary to operate the machine. Instead, FreeBSD sysadmins are encouraged to install their own services, whether from the [[ports tree]] or elsewhere, choosing for themselves which software packages suit their needs.

For example, any webmaster will need a webserver, but depending on the needs, a particular kind of webserver may be more or less appropriate. Some may need compatibility with older plug-ins of the [[Apache]] 1.x family, while others will want the greater security and speed of the [[Apache]] 2.x family. Still others yet may need the highest speed and efficiency (but with no CGI capability) found in the [[thttpd]] family. With FreeBSD it is easy, normal and even expected to pick and choose or even switch with minimal pain and heartache (or downtime).

This also holds true for FTP, DNS, mail, ssh, X-Window components and almost anything else. Even those services which do have a default system installation (such as [[sendmail]] for mail services) are specifically designed to be simply and easily swapped out with any other service the system administrator may choose. For example [[sendmail]] can be replaced by [[qmail]] with a single command:

cd /usr/ports/mail/qmail && make install && make disable-sendmail && make install-qmail clean

'''Please be aware though''', one must ''configure'' qmail after doing that so please don't be rash and blindly replace sendmail after reading this without being ready to learn a new system.

This is all in stark contrast not only with Microsoft Windows, in which sysadmins and users alike are tightly bound to whatever Microsoft provided in the way of system services, but with many GNU/Linux flavours too. For example, veteran '''Red Hat Linux''' admins are familiar with the notion that Apache 1.x "goes with" Red Hat 7, whereas Apache 2.x "goes with" Red Hat 8 and it can be something of a dire mess to try changing from one to the other. What's more, upgrading a base Microsoft or Linux system is likely to willy-nilly change its services whether this is wanted or not. Meanwhile, upgrading the OS may make needed (perhaps mission-critical) services inoperable and comes with widely known risks, downtime and often, unhappiness.

FreeBSD mostly succeeds in drawing a much sharper line between the base system and optional services. It's easy to install whatever type of service wanted from whichever vendor or group chosen (open source or not).

Moreover, FreeBSD is truly open and free. For highly specialized projects, the source code itself can be studied and modified. While this step is not taken by most FreeBSD users, it's a comfort.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

Gnome

2007-01-18T14:53:30Z

Heidi: cost benefit

Gnome is a desktop GUI for *nix-like systems. It's available both as a package or through ports. Gnome has been designed to appeal to Microsoft Windows users, with menus and icons on the desktop and several GUI interfaces to common operating system and configuration tasks. Its disdavantages stem mostly from a fairly heavy use of resources and underlying complexity. In an office environment, Gnome can be used to completely hide the underlying operating system from a user and in a migration (say from Windows XP) can significantly reduce the level of training needed for users of office applications.

See the website for more info: http://www.gnome.org

http://www.freebsd.org/gnome/docs/faq2.html#q1

[[Category:FreeBSD for Workstations]]

Customizable

2007-01-18T14:38:29Z

Heidi: rewrite for style and flow

The base installation of FreeBSD is meant to be lean and mean. It only contains the services absolutely necessary to operate the machine. Instead, FreeBSD sysadmins are encouraged to install their own services, whether from the [[ports tree]] or elsewhere, choosing for themselves which software packages suit their needs.

For example, any webmaster will need a webserver, but depending on the needs, a particular kind of webserver may be more or less appropriate. Some may need compatibility with older plug-ins of the [[Apache]] 1.x family, while others will want the greater security and speed of the [[Apache]] 2.x family. Still others yet may need the highest speed and efficiency (but with no CGI capability) found in the [[thttpd]] family. With FreeBSD it is easy, normal and even expected to pick and choose or even switch with minimal pain and heartache (or downtime).

This also holds true for FTP, DNS, mail, ssh, X-Window components and almost anything else. Even those services which do have a default system installation (such as [[sendmail]] for mail services) are specifically designed to be simply and easily swapped out with any other service the system administrator may choose. For example [[sendmail]] can be replaced by [[qmail]] with a single command: '''cd /usr/ports/mail/qmail && make install && make disable-sendmail && make install-qmail clean''' (be aware though, one must ''configure'' qmail after doing that so please don't be rash and blindly replace sendmail after reading this without being ready to learn a new system.)

This is all in stark contrast not only with Microsoft Windows, in which sysadmins and users alike are tightly bound to whatever Microsoft provided in the way of system services, but with many GNU/Linux flavours too. For example, veteran '''Red Hat Linux''' admins are familiar with the notion that Apache 1.x "goes with" Red Hat 7, whereas Apache 2.x "goes with" Red Hat 8 and it can be something of a dire mess to try changing from one to the other. What's more, upgrading a base Microsoft or Linux system is likely to willy-nilly change its services whether this is wanted or not. Meanwhile, upgrading the OS may make needed (perhaps mission-critical) services inoperable and comes with widely known risks, downtime and often, unhappiness.

FreeBSD mostly succeeds in drawing a much sharper line between the base system and optional services. It's easy to install whatever type of service wanted from whichever vendor or group chosen (open source or not).

Moreover, FreeBSD is truly open and free. For highly specialized projects, the source code itself can be studied and modified. While this step is not taken by most FreeBSD users, it's a comfort.

[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

User:Heidi

2007-01-02T14:04:41Z

Heidi: flag waving

[[image:Ch_wyss.gif]]<br>

File:Ch wyss.gif

2007-01-02T14:00:57Z

Heidi: animated Swiss flag

animated Swiss flag

User:Heidi

2007-01-02T13:53:21Z

Heidi:

i.am.such.a.geek

Modern programs

2007-01-02T13:51:18Z

Heidi:

FreeBSD -- both the programs that make it up and the ports of software that run on it -- are updated often. It's simply a matter of getting the latest software from the net and running it. Many operating systems are updated infrequently for a variety of reasons: Debian Stable has to be tested on 11 architectures and have bugs squashed before a new version is released and this often takes so long, the software released with it is already out of date. Microsoft's Windows OSs are updated whenever MS wants to update it, and you'll have to pay for newer versions of the OS (although patches and service packs are included).
[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]