Dear All , There is a thread "Why Are You Using FreeBSD ?" I think another thread with the specified subject '"Why Are You NOT Using FreeBSD ?" may be useful : If you are NOT using FreeBSD for any area or some areas , would you please list those areas with most important first to least important last ? These points may be used to remedy difficulty points over time with respect to importance levels suggested by the users . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
Hi!> I think another thread with the specified subject '"Why Are You NOT Using > FreeBSD ?" may be useful :- Exchange (MAPI) and its groupware functionality I'm eager to test any replacement that will pop up in the ports 8-) - Windows Terminalserver functionality - Telephony (ISDN to SIP gateways, Asterisk etc) -- I know, Hans Petter Selasky is doing wonderful work in that area, I had no time to dive into this. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 8 years to go !
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mehmet Erol Sanliturk" <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com>> If you are NOT using FreeBSD for any area or some areas , would you please > list those areas with most important first to least important last ?Although we would like to we cant use FreeBSD to run some Linux based services due to the lack support for mremap syscall :( Regards Steve ===============================================This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.
Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com> wrote: > If you are NOT using FreeBSD for any area or some areas , would you please > list those areas with most important first to least important last ? ISDN. This is popular in Germany, but I don't know about the rest of the world. We have a machine that has an ISDN card (ISA). Currently it's still running FreeBSD 6-stable because that's the last version with full ISDN support. Since 6.x went EOL, it costed me quite some time to keep it up to date with regard to security fixes. And now, since a few days, the Makefiles of the ports collection started to become incompatible with FreeBSD 6 (make(1) throws syntax errors) so I can't update BIND port anymore, for example. Of course I could build it manually, but this is costing more and more time, so finally I will have to think of a different solution, which probably means something other than FreeBSD. Other than that, well, there are the typical programs that are only available for Windows. For example the software for configuring my Logitech "Harmony" remote control. I'm using my wife's laptop (Windows) for that. But of course I'm not blaming FreeBSD for that, because it's not something that FreeBSD can fix, it's rather a vendor problem (in the aforementioned case: Logitech's problem). Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Gesch?ftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht M?n- chen, HRB 125758, Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them, One IP to bring them all and in the zone to bind them.
> Dear All , > > There is a thread > > "Why Are You Using FreeBSD ?" > > > I think another thread with the specified subject '"Why Are You NOT Using > FreeBSD ?" may be useful : > > > If you are NOT using FreeBSD for any area or some areas , would you please > list those areas with most important first to least important last ?1. The X-org changeover a few years ago screwed up a FreeBSD installation I had been using so badly I never trusted FreeBSD's rolling update ports system again. That should have been a major FreeBSD release, but instead it was done just in the ports with no version bump and no choice and no notice unless you read the fine print. 2. Broken ports galore. Much of the stuff I wanted broke on AMD64 after downloading tarballs for hours. Not good. Contacted package maintainer and received answer: yeah, I know it doesn't work on AMD64. I still feel i386 is the only safe FreeBSD platform and I have only one or two 32 bit boxes left so FreeBSD doesn't really give me a warm fuzzy anymore. But it is still ahead of NetBSD which got more and more unstable with every new major version to the point I can't trust it. FreeBSD never crashed or did anything bad for me except during the X-org episode. 3. gcc. I realize FreeBSD is moving to clang and that it can even be built with clang. When clang is the default build, I will probably try it again. Due to nearsighted/blind Linux developers, every OS besides Linux is going to lag because of autotools and gcc crapola. It often makes compiling apps a pain in the ass on FreeBSD when a port doesn't exist. I realize this is not FreeBSD's fault and it is still an inhibitor to all the BSD for me. 4. I transitioned to mostly headless operation. FreeBSD is probably the best overall desktop there is but I found other server OS better, specifically Solaris. For my needs, YMMV. I use a Linux box for a desktop and I have servers with different archs running headless with Solaris or OpenBSD and I am looking at Dragonfly again in the near future, because pkgsrc is much better than ports. Maybe FreeBSD should consider migrating to pkgsrc? 5. ZFS support on Solaris is current, on anything else, despite much appreciated efforts, it is just not there. FreeBSD has the best ZFS support outside of Solaris, but it's not enough right now and I don't think it will ever catch up until Oracle releases the source. Not holding my breath on that.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 05:03:26 -0700 , Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:> Dear All , > > There is a thread > > "Why Are You Using FreeBSD ?" > > > I think another thread with the specified subject '"Why Are You NOT Using > FreeBSD ?" may be useful : > > > If you are NOT using FreeBSD for any area or some areas , would you please > list those areas with most important first to least important last ?I use Mac desktops. X11 and I don't get along. I still live in a fullscreen green-on-black terminal, of course, and do all of my actual work in either the Mac's BSD userland or a FreeBSD machine over ssh. So, really, this is nothing to do with FreeBSD per se, and I will consider reevaluating FreeBSD as a desktop when something not X11 comes along (although I don't see that as incredibly likely). -- Thanks and best regards, Chris Nehren
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 05:03:26AM -0700, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:> > If you are NOT using FreeBSD for any area or some areas , would you please > list those areas with most important first to least important last ?As mentioned by several others, once you have a single applicaiton that demands Windows, you are mostly stuck running windows. My single biggest complaint about FreeBSD is that there appears to be absolutely no interest by anyone associated with the core team in supporting one version for an extended period. Extended, in this case, meaning 10+ years. Support meaning patching security vulnerabilities and permitting ports to build. It does not matter that that version will not run on current hardware or have new features as long as it can continue to run on the original hardware.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 13:56:45 -0400 , Michael R. Wayne wrote:> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 05:03:26AM -0700, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: > > > > If you are NOT using FreeBSD for any area or some areas , would you please > > list those areas with most important first to least important last ? > > As mentioned by several others, once you have a single applicaiton > that demands Windows, you are mostly stuck running windows. > > My single biggest complaint about FreeBSD is that there appears to > be absolutely no interest by anyone associated with the core team > in supporting one version for an extended period. Extended, in this > case, meaning 10+ years. Support meaning patching security > vulnerabilities and permitting ports to build. It does not matter > that that version will not run on current hardware or have new > features as long as it can continue to run on the original hardware.Show me one volunteer Unix OS with a 10+ year support infrastructure. -- Thanks and best regards, Chris Nehren
We used to have FreeBSD exclusively on desktops... Now, we have migrated to other desktops (mac) with FreeBSD running the build and file server... Why? Because - the mac updates itself! No pain, no installation, no keeping-up with mailing lists/announcements, just <click> and its done. Mac OS has a nice X11 server, the Mac UI is good enough, you don't have to install/update anything, the "app store" is perfect for downloading/installing whatever a desktop user might need. It was just too alluring... So, FreeBSD runs our NFS file server, and we log into a larger FreeBSD machine to do builds, etc... but, the desktop has moved. One developer here uses Linux Debian for about the same reason, it's trivial to update (via the network) to new versions, etc... Our web site used to be FreeBSD-based, but it was just too cost-effective to get a virtual Linux box on the backbone and move everything to that. Our requirements aren't too big, so that works beautifully. There _are_ people doing virtual FreeBSD boxes in a similar fashion, but they were quote a lot more for the annual fee.. so, Linux it was... I suppose, in some sense, you could argue that MacOS is FreeBSD... - Dave Rivers - -- rivers Work: (919) 676-0847 Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com
Hi all, Am 01.06.2012 um 14:03 schrieb Mehmet Erol Sanliturk:> [...] > If you are NOT using FreeBSD for any area or some areas , would you please > list those areas with most important first to least important last ?We are using two FreeBSD-Servers as a SAMBA-Server and as a plot-server, partly using the Linux-ABI. Both servers are rock solid (HP ProLiant). But I'm not brave enough to run an ORACLE Database-Server under FreeBSD. For a corporate database server I need official vendor support for that platform and therefor I have to use RedHat or SuSE. It's really a pity. I'm using FreeBSD since version 2.05 and was never disappointed. Best regards Matthias -- Ciao/BSD - Matthias Matthias Schuendehuette <msch [at] snafu.de>, Berlin (Germany)
Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com> writes:> If you are NOT using FreeBSD for any area or some areas , would you please > list those areas with most important first to least important last ?1) I don't use FreeBSD for virtualization as the host OS. I really want to, becaus I want to be able to somewhat trust the kernel hosting my virtual machines. FreeBSD technology, support, and documentation for this idea appears unavailable. 2) I don't use FreeBSD for a 'modern' desktop. By 'modern' I mean areas which most rank and file users would need: day-to-day non technical browsing with flash, applications like skype, syncing to mobile devices, etc. I'd imagine this is important for rank and file users. However, I'm an old schooler who likes text based applications and command lines, and I personally feel that a lot of the desktop technologies out there (Gnome, KDE, Aqua, Windows) are inherently unsafe (security wise) for a desktop I do software development on. One glance at my X-mailer should tell many people where I'm at. ;) As an example (please don't think I'm singling KDE out here, I can likely find examples for each desktop technology out there) I was given to understand that the KDE file browser allowed the execution of javascript. This single rumor has kept me from trying out KDE for years. Again, nothing against KDE in particular, all of the 'user friendly' desktop technologies likely have something just as egregious. Thus, in many ways I feel it's a *feature* of FreeBSD that the desktop software lags behind everyone else. I don't want flash in my Firefox. I don't want hal, bonjour, or dbus as an extra attack surface. I don't want gnome to auto discover all the fileshares on my network(s). 3) I don't use FreeBSD for games, sadly. This is the only place where I will tolerate having a Windoze box, for my love of games exceeds my hatred of windows (yes I -really- do love games) and it's hard to find a better platform for games. -- Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<Freedom is free of the need to be free. -George Clinton
Hi, On 01 June 2012 AM 5:03:26 Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:> > "Why Are You Using FreeBSD ?"there is only one reason for me not using FreeBSD: hardware which is not supported but found in the machine. I have had to move two machines within the last three years to Fedora because of this. The first machine has had an old network adapter which was not supported by FreeBSD. The second machine is my new X220 on which I could not get X running before I have had to use it for work. I will stick now with it while I am travelling. This will take some time. I will have a try with FreeBSD again after my return. I also noticed one small problem when people use FreeBSD mainly and have one machine with Linux. It is similar. Yes, but it is not the same. When options differ, it becomes real problematic. I was really considering moving back to Windows on that one machine. Fedora supports the built-in camera and finger print reader. I could not read memory cards with the built-in reader but have had to use my old external one. What really puts me off on Fedora is the maintenance. I do not understand why people do this to themselfs. FreeBSD is so much easier to maintain. How often did Fedora introduce basic changes which runs you crazy when you have to maintain several machines? Erich
On Jun 1, 2012 8:27 PM, "Glen Barber" <gjb@freebsd.org> wrote:> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:14:10PM -0400, David Magda wrote: > > ZFS is for storing file systems on locally connected block devices. > > Gluster is a network file system where data can be distributed over > > many nodes. > > > > Pardon my ignorance to not knowing what gluster is, but is this > conceptually similar to HAST?Similar in concept, but different layers in the storage stack. HAST sits between the physical disks and the filesystem, replicating data between two systems. So, disks -- HAST -- ZFS. Glustre sits above the storage system, replicating data between systems. So, disks -- ZFS (via Zvols) -- Glustre. The primary difference is that HAST provides only a single master node that all I/O goes through. The filesystem(s) above HAST cannot be mounted on more than one host. I/O is limited to what the master can handle. Glustre is distributed across hosts, so I/O is multiplied (to some extent), and data is accessible across multiple hosts.
On 02.06.2012, at 07:19, Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> wrote:> > Glustre sits above the storage system, replicating data between systems. > So, disks -- ZFS (via Zvols) -- Glustre. >How is this different than ZFS using remote zvols via iSCSI? Can it tolerate down nodes better than ZFS? Daniel
On Jun 2, 2012, at 00:51, Daniel Kalchev wrote:> On 02.06.2012, at 07:19, Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Glustre sits above the storage system, replicating data between systems. >> So, disks -- ZFS (via Zvols) -- Glustre. >> > > How is this different than ZFS using remote zvols via iSCSI? Can it tolerate down nodes better than ZFS?Gluster ~ NFS++.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:19:15PM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:> > Pardon my ignorance to not knowing what gluster is, but is this > > conceptually similar to HAST? > > Similar in concept, but different layers in the storage stack. > > HAST sits between the physical disks and the filesystem, replicating data > between two systems. So, disks -- HAST -- ZFS. >Got it, thanks. However, HAST is not specifically ZFS. (Just pointing it out.) Glen
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:15:55 +0200 Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> wrote:> <snip> > - Windows Terminalserver functionality > <snip>If you mean the lack of something similar in regards to reconnecting sessions, you may find xpra to be of interest to you.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 05:03:26AM -0700, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:> Dear All , > > There is a thread > > "Why Are You Using FreeBSD ?" > >Hello, I'm using FreeBSD for most of my tasks and servers and i think it's great, but this things could be improved: - Good FUSE support. On the desktop side, you can't use NTFS for write access. On the server side, you miss things like Gluster. You can't run things like truecrypt because they need it and things like geli/gbde doesn't work on anything but FreeBSD. Ie: FUSE is needed for interoperability. - Easier way to replicate FreeBSD infrastructure. I've found that maintain 1 server on FreeBSD is great. Requires lower maintenance that any other operating system. Once you start managing 20 or 30 things change. Suddenly you find yourself needing automated package building because ports are not versioned, so you must copy the repo, maintain local patches and build a tinderbox. If you find problems on a FreeBSD version and need patches you need to build a freebsd-update server to still use it, or start maintaining servers on two different ways: source and binary, which just adds testing time. Would be better if you could switch from source to binary and back in a easier way. - Hardware support. If you want to build a server on new atom boards, you will have problems, eg: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=amd64/166639 Same with laptop and other kind of hardware. Not just on computers, but also on peripherals. AFAIK no single all-in-one printer works fully with FreeBSD, so it's hard to configure as print/scan server. - I/O performance: If you do heavy I/O, the system becomes unresponsive. I've read a few days ago on the lists that it was a problem related to priorizing writes over reads and the recommendation was to use gsched, but haven't had time to check. Regards. Victor. -- La prueba m?s fehaciente de que existe vida inteligente en otros planetas, es que no han intentado contactar con nosotros.