FreeBSD Vows to Compete with Desktop Linux 370
AlanS2002 writes "FreeBSD developer Scott Long is being reported as saying that FreeBSD is quickly approaching feature parity with Linux. Apparently this is being achieved through efforts to more tightly integrate GNOME with FreeBSD, with one of the priorities being to 'GNOME's hardware abstraction layer--which handles hardware-specific code--working with FreeBSD'."
Did they alreay win? (Score:1, Interesting)
OS X core (darwin) is based off of FreeBSD. Or they are trying to beat linux by doing it the way that linux is trying to win, by focusing on technology that isn't that important to standard desktop users. getting most of the development effort in useless eye-candy and only minimum development in important features for desktop users like easy hardware detection for a wide variety of hardware, Brainless software installation, excellent wireless support...
What about KDE? (Score:1, Interesting)
didnt they have a completely goal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:didnt they have a completely goal? (Score:1, Interesting)
I've been using FreeBSD on the desktop and in my servers for years and it works fine for me. YMMV, and that's ok too.
Re:Did they alreay win? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know what Linux distributions you've been using recently but I have recently installed Fedora Core 5 on my laptop and my experience was the opposite: that they must have been primarily focused on important features for desktop users. FC5 supported suspend and resuming my laptop, where FC4 didn't. FC5 supported my Centrino wireless with autodetection and configuration for both open access and WEP and WPA PSK protected networks right from the GNOME Desktop. FC5 automatically detected my USB-attached smart UPS on my desktop at work and can report the remaining run-time. It was the least-hassle desktop Linux install I've done yet.
As far as software installation, I don't use it but you can go to Applications->Add/Remove software and graphically browse thousands of software packages that are a click and a download away from being installed.
Forgive Me I May Know Not What I Do (Score:5, Interesting)
In 1908, the Ford company released the Ford Model T [wikipedia.org]. The first Model Ts were built at the Piquette Manufacturing Plant. The company moved production to the much larger Highland Park Plant to keep up with the demand for the Model T, and by 1913 had developed all of the basic techniques of the assembly line and mass production. Ford introduced the world's first moving assembly line that year, which reduced chassis assembly time from 12½ hours in October to 2 hours, 40 minutes. However these innovations were not popular and turnover of workers was very high. Turnover meant delays and extra costs of training, and use of slow workers. In January 1914 solved the problem by doubling pay to $5 a day, cutting shifts from nine hours to an eight hour day, and instituting hiring practices that identified the best workers. Productivity soared and employee turnover plunged, as the cost per vehicle plummeted. Ford cut prices again and again and invented the system of franchised dealers who were loyal to his brand name.
By the end of 1913, Ford was producing 50% of all cars in the United States, and by 1918 half of all cars in the country were Model T's. Henry Ford is reported to have said that "any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black." This was because black paint was quickest to dry; earlier models had been available in a variety of colors. But most were black."
What the Model T was to the automobile DOS/Windows is to computer software. People faced with new technology that manages to takeoff tend to choice a brand that they gravitate toward in order to provide them with a base from which a general learning curve can be traced. As with the Model T, once a general concensus is arrived at as to what the new technology can do for the masses then competing models come into play and bells and whistles are taken in hand after the basics have been learnt. The computer industry has achieved a saturation level and the basics have been put in place. Now there is a chance for more competition. It's likely that Linux on the desktop is coming soon.
That freeBSD has chosen to announce its competition with Linux is more supplemental support to show that the basics of the desktop have been put in place. Competition between Linux and freeBSD is great and will foster competition between F/OSS alternatives that will soon provide greater incentive for the general computer population to move from Windows to alternatives.
I suspect the initial gauge of this movement will be a greater market share taken by Apple.
Just my loose change
FreeBSD VS's GNU/Linux on the desktop (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This isn't about the FreeBSD base system. (Score:1, Interesting)
If freebsd had v4l support, i would probably still be using it now. (i'm on gentoo at the moment)
Developer Laments: What Killed FreeBSD (Score:0, Interesting)
[ed. note: in this following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals.
Major Problems from a FreeBSD User (Score:4, Interesting)
Laptops Laptops Laptops! (Score:3, Interesting)
What I would like to see is a small core list of laptop models that are essentially "certified" to work. Pick the most popular lines, get them working 100% then add more and more models without breaking support for the laptops that worked previously. Ubuntu in particular seems to have a shockgun whack-a-mole approach to supporting laptops and it's maddening.
Re:That's just BULLSHIT! (Score:3, Interesting)
Furthermore, is there a reason beyond just mindshare that there aren't drivers for these high-end cards (it seems that mindshare is the major reason that a lot of decent Linux/ALSA audio/music programs don't work with anything else, though the developers always put in their FAQs when asked about BSD support, "BSD doesn't support ALSA, which is superior," but don't actually back up this assertion. I've never seen a good defense of the "OSS sucks, ALSA rules" argument, so if you have a good reason that ALSA is technically better I'd like to hear it.
Re:That's just BULLSHIT! (Score:4, Interesting)
Name a studio using Linux in any meaningful way for audio recording.
BSD is not ready for Business (Score:3, Interesting)
First, and I must say this, I don't "hate" FreeBSD. Life is too short to argue which operating system is the best overall (I still cringe that I did this sort of fanaticism with Atari and Amiga back in the day, and learned a valuable lesson about what really matters). FreeBSD is a great, tweakable, DIY hobbyist OS done for those who tinker with those sorts of things (which is how I learned it). But FreeBSD in the business enterprise is like hiring a bunch of guys who work out of their basement to do your IT work: may be good in some instances, but is a poor long-term strategy.
Why? Here are some of the problems:
- Hardware support. This is my #1 problem. You want FreeBSD to run on some of those new HP DL380 G4's with the dual Xeons? Oops... sorry. The special scsi blade won't run well with them when you need RAID5. But wait, there's a guy in the Netherlands who has a driver that sort of works... but his website hasn't been updated since 2002, and it's still considered alpha, and compiling it with the specialized kernel breaks...
- Software support. Almost neck and neck with #1. Let's leave out the scant vendors that support the BSD kernel, because FreeBSD fanatics always go, "Oh yeah... what about XXXX...?" For every example that some major vendor that supports FreeBSD that some gives me, I can give you ten examples of companies that don't. And those that do always patch or update their FreeBSD as an afterthought. "New FooPack 3.00 has been released! BSD? Um... yeah, in our FTP site the 1.24 version may still work, but it's EOL and unsupported." Then the stuff about ports is stupid. I don't want to keep my ports tree up-to-date and then have to recompile all the time.
- Finding anyone who knows about BSD is rare. Too rare. Last time I said this, some snide person commented that, "Well any person who worked on Sun systems should know FreeBSD." No. No, they don't. First, most Sun admins never worked on FreeBSD if they have even heard of it, and even if the "translation is easy," most Sun admins know they have Sun to support them when things go terribly wrong. FreeBSD is all community-based, except for a few small unheard-of enterprises, and neither one looks like a good strategy when mentioning them to management.
- FreeBSD community is very RTFM. Fine. There is nothing wrong with that at all. Except when people don't have time to RTFM. Your server is borked, and you don't know why, and you don't have the luxury of scanning bulletin boards, dealing with mailing lists, and snide FreeBSD gurus who say, "Look, we can't do this FOR you," like they have read, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" too many times.
The UNIX admins who forced FreeBSD on my company are gone. Most of them were considered foul-tempered and uncooperative zealots. Management had to go to the boards, and found much of the same reactions from the FreeBSD community. We had serious issues with these systems, and me and 2 other admins had to bail them out over the last year. Sure, we pay for Red Hat and Windows licenses, but FreeBSD gave us so much grief, that mentioning it to anyone is either done so as sarcastic humor or an insult:
Admin1: Hah! I totally fixed this.
Admin2: What did you do?
Admin1: Aw man, I don't have time to explain.
Admin2: Heh. Don't FreeBSD me, document it! Share the love.
Admin1: Ouch, man. Just was uncalled for.
Admin3: What did he say?
Admin1: He pulled the FreeBSD card on me.
Admin3: Dude, not cool. That was harsh.
Again, I don't hate FreeBSD as a concept. I just know it's not right for the business environment.