This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Feature: BSD

Setting up Linux compatibility on FreeBSD 6

By Gordon McEwen on March 31, 2006 (9:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

As a FreeBSD desktop user I occasionally feel left out when it comes to the availability of applications, particularly desktop applications or binary-only browser plugins produced by commercial closed source vendors. Sometimes a good alternative lurks in the vast FreeBSD ports collection, but not always. The version available may lag a couple of revisions behind what I need, or the port might exclude my particular architecture. Fortunately, FreeBSD can run binaries and shared libraries that have been compiled for Linux and other Unix ABIs (such as SVR4 and SCO).

In this article I will cover the steps necessary to enable and configure Linux binary compatibility on FreeBSD 6. I'll also share a couple of my own experiences with getting some well-known desktop Linux applications to run on FreeBSD 6.

How does it work?

Although it is by no means essential to understand how Linux compatibility actually works, it sometimes helps to have an idea when it comes to problem solving.

Linux compatibility isn't instruction-level emulation or some kind of virtual machine. The Linux ABI is implemented in the FreeBSD kernel, so in most senses the Linux binaries could be considered to be running natively. Through what appears to be some sleight-of-hand the system selects at run time the Right Thing to do to run an executable. This is partly figured out based on branding information encoded in an ELF binary header. A command-line tool called brandelf can be used to report the brand:

# brandelf /usr/X11R6/lib/firefox/firefox-bin
File '/usr/X11R6/lib/firefox/firefox-bin' is of brand 'FreeBSD' (9).

# brandelf /usr/X11R6/lib/linux-firefox/firefox-bin
File '/usr/X11R6/lib/linux-firefox/firefox-bin' is of brand 'SVR4' (0).

This tool will also brand a binary if you use the -t option. Normally this isn't needed -- the brand is always set correctly for any recently built binaries.

After looking at the brand, the FreeBSD ELF loader will arrange to use the correct set of system calls -- Linux as opposed to FreeBSD. It will also link the correct shared libraries at run time. Shell scripts can be forced to run similarly by setting the first line to #!/compat/linux/bin/sh and, although it isn't often needed, you can alter the environment by setting the UNAME_s environment variable (reported using uname -s) to Linux rather than FreeBSD.

For those who want to understand the real nuts and bolts, the FreeBSD Handbook has a more complete and accurate explanation.

Linux binary support is said to be less than 100% but I have rarely experienced any problems I could not trace to unresolved shared library dependencies. With this feature, FreeBSD users can run many Linux binaries easily and at performance levels that rival that of the native platform.

Preliminaries

If you are running the GENERIC FreeBSD 6 kernel you're already set -- kernel Linux compatibility is compiled in by default. If you are not running the GENERIC kernel, or you are not sure what options are turned on in your kernel, you can perform a quick check by attempting to load the Linux kernel loadable object by hand. Use the kernel load utility as root:

# kldload linux

If it reports kldload: can't load Linux: File exists, you know you already have Linux compatibility loaded or compiled in. If it reports nothing at all, you have just succeeded in loading the Linux kernel loadable object. You can verify this by using the companion kernel status utility:

# kldstat

It returns a list of the currently loaded dynamically loadable kernel objects. If you don't have Linux compatibility compiled in, kldstat should now report that the object linux.ko has been loaded. (You can unload it manually by using the kernel unload utility, kldunload .) If you want to load the Linux object automatically every time you boot, add the following line to /boot/loader.conf:

linux_load="YES"

If you want to build Linux compatibility into the kernel so that there is no need to load the object every time, follow the instructions for building a new kernel and make sure that the following options are uncommented in your kernel configuration file (use COMPAT_LINUX32 instead of COMPAT_LINUX if you're building for amd64):

option COMPAT_43
option COMPAT_LINUX
option PSEUDOFS
option LINPROCFS

The last of those kernel configuration options enables support for the Linux Process File System procfs which some Linux applications may require. The procfs normally allows applications to query process or device information from the kernel. You can add the following to /etc/fstab to ensure that the Linux procfs is mounted:

none /compat/linux/proc linprocfs rw 0 0

Note that it is mounted at /compat/linux/proc, not /proc as is usual on Linux. This is to distinguish it from the FreeBSD procfs which, if it is mounted at all, will be mounted at /proc.

Once you have updated /etc/fstab, type mount -a to mount the Linux procfs. It will happen automatically next time you boot.

Now that you have linux.ko loaded, or verified that it is compiled in, you are ready to run Linux binaries. In fact, you will be able to run 100% Linux binaries without any more ado. The only problem is that the Linux binaries you want to run are unlikely to be statically linked. They may have anything from a handful to dozens of shared library dependencies (for example, the native Firefox on my system has 29 shared library dependencies, and a version built for Linux will have at least as many). You can see these dependencies for yourself by running ldd on any native application.

# ldd /usr/X11R6/lib/firefox/firefox-bin

For a Linux binary, these dependencies must be met by shared libraries compiled for Linux (the ones already installed on your FreeBSD system won't do) and they must be the same versions of the libraries that were used when the binary was compiled.

You should resist the temptation to copy Linux libraries off your nearest Linux system into /usr/lib or /usr/local/lib -- it's a recipe for disaster to mingle foreign libraries with native FreeBSD libraries. On FreeBSD, foreign binaries are cordoned off under /compat/linux, a directory that's created and populated when you install a base Linux compatibility environment.

There are two main approaches to putting together a Linux base under /compat/linux: install it from ports or build it by hand using Linux packages from a Linux distribution of your choosing. The first approach is usually the way to go -- it's generally simpler and is consistent with the FreeBSD practice of using ports and packages for installation. The alternative method may be harder work but gives you more control and allows you to select a package-based Linux distribution of your own liking. I'll describe only the ports approach; if you want to follow the second approach, you should should check out the consise instructions by FreeBSD's Tim Robbins. (I'll vouch that it works, as I initially followed that route using Slackware 10.2 packages, with good success.)

Installing from ports

Yes, there are Linux ports that download Linux binary packages onto your FreeBSD system! To get a rough idea how many such ports there are, go to /usr/ports and type:

# make search name=linux | grep Path

Most of ports on this list are individual Linux libraries, some are Linux applications, and those under /usr/ports/emulators are the base Linux library sets. This is only a rough list though -- not all such ports include 'linux' in the name. For example, the Adobe Acrobat Reader 7 for Linux port is 'print/acroread7.'

The base port upon which many of the Linux ports ultimately depend is linux_base-8. This is a foundational set of packages using Red Hat 8 i386 binary RPM packages. It isn't the only base Linux port though. There are others -- most more recent than Red Hat 8 -- but they conflict with each other, so you'll only be able to install one. As linux_base-8 is the port upon which all the other Linux ports depend, it's the one to go for if you want things simple and want to take advantage of the hard work the port maintainers put into figuring out all the binary dependencies for each application. If, on the other hand, you want a more recent Linux base or one that you're already familiar with, and you don't mind getting your hands dirty figuring out and downloading dependencies yourself, then you have a choice. More about that approach later.

For now, let's deal with linux_base-8. To install it:

# cd /usr/port/emulators/linux_base-8
# make install && make clean

If you prefer not to install right away, just type make. This downloads the RPMs from Fedora Legacy to /usr/ports/distfiles/rpm/i386/8.0. Once they're downloaded, make install will unpack them so that they end up rooted at /compat/linux. Under this directory you'll then find usr, lib, etc, and var, under which you'll find all the Linux binary shared libraries and configuration files. It's usually not necessary but you can explicitly chroot to the environment by typing chroot /compat/linux /bin/bash. At this point you'll only be able to run the Linux binaries under FreeBSD compatibility, in the chrooted environment. Press Ctrl-D or type exit to leave it.

Now, if you wish to install, say, Linux Opera (native Opera is only available for i386 FreeBSD) go to /usr/ports/www/linux-opera and type make install && make clean. This will download more RH8 RPMs that meet additional dependencies not met by linux_base-8, as well as the Linux Opera RPM. Again, library dependencies will end up under /compat/linux, but a startup script for the Linux Opera (version 8.51) will be installed under /usr/bin, and Opera itself under /usr/X11R6/share/linux.opera. If you want Flash installed for the Linux browser binary, go to /usr/ports/www/linux-flashplugin7 and type make install && make clean again. Now if you run linux-opera, you should find it has the Flash plugin already configured.

Using this Red Hat 8 install you should be able to install a load of applications, including Skype, Firefox 1.5 (which will also use the Flash plugin), and Adobe Acrobat Reader 5 or 7. In general you will meet with success, but sometimes binary dependencies will fail to download, and some dependencies may not be met even if the install appears to succeed.

If this happens, you may be able to fix up the runtime dependencies by hand. If you run the Linux application from the command line and it complains about missing shared libraries, you may be able to make an educated guess as to what RH8 RPM a missing library lives in and download it from the Red Hat 8 RPM archives at Fedora Legacy. (And herein lies the black art of setting up compatibility -- RPMs often contain multiple libraries and may have additional RPM dependencies. Finding the right ones may not be as difficult as it sounds, though; RPMs usually have meaningful names, so you can often put two and two together, given the full list of RPMs at Fedora Legacy. You can also use rpm2cpio rpm-name.rpm | cpio -itv (both tools found under /usr/ports/archivers) to list the RPM table of contents.) Once you've located and downloaded it, install the RPM to /compat/linux as root as follows:

# /compat/linux/bin/rpm -ihv --root=/compat/linux rpm-name.rpm

If this command itself complains about missing RPM package dependencies, first check whether the library files are already present under /compat/linux (they may be, even if rpm is complaining). If they're not, as before, find, download, and install the RPM that supplies the missing library as identified by the rpm error message. Once you've installed the dependencies, go back and install the original RPM. You can force the RPM installion to go ahead even with missing RPM package dependencies by adding the --nodeps flag to the rpm command options. Do this if you figure the missing libraries are in place even if it is complaining that the RPM packages have not been installed.

If you decide you need to remove an RPM package, use the command:

/compat/linux/bin/rpm -e --root=/compat/linux package-name

Note that in all these cases you are using the Linux rpm tool -- not the native FreeBSD rpm tool that you may have on your system. Any attempt to use the FreeBSD rpm command on a Linux RPM file will have it complaining about the RPM being for the wrong architecture. Conceivably, you could use FreeBSD's rpm2cpio and cpio commands (under /usr/ports/archivers), as follows:

# cd /compat/linux
# rpm2cpio rpm-name.rpm | cpio -ih

This unceremoniously unpacks an RPM and dumps it under /compat/linux. Using the Linux rpm is a better method, however.

Using a different Linux base

At this point you may feel happy that you are able to run the Linux binaries you are interested in and that they complement your native FreeBSD applications nicely. You can run linux-opera or linux-firefox or Skype without any bother. But this may not be enough. You may not have the version of the Linux application that you want, or you may have trouble getting recently compiled binaries, for which you have no source and which don't appear in ports, to run on this older Red Hat environment. This may be the reason why there are a variety of other base Linux ports under /ports/emulators.

Note that you will not be able to install any of these other ports at the same time as linux_base-8, and if you install an alternative to linux_base-8 you will not be able to install any other Linux application from ports -- they all depend on linux_base-8. So, if you use any of these, you will have to install Linux binaries by hand using the techniques described above for resolving unmet dependencies -- using packages appropriate to your chosen Linux base rather than RH8 RPMs, of course. You will also have to deinstall linux_base-8 and any other Linux applications and libraries before you can install an alternative.

Of the alternative Linux bases, two -- linux_base-debian and linux_base-gentoo-stage1 -- are marked suitable for the Alpha architecture (in addition to i386 and amd64) and, in the case of Gentoo, ia64. However, both were marked as broken at the time of my writing. I was able to install the SUSE 9.3 base, linux_base-suse-9.3, and run applications I had trouble running under Red Hat 8. (On the other hand, I was unable to get Adobe Acrobat Reader 7 running under linux_base-suse-9.3 even though it ran fine when installed from ports using linux_base-8.)

I could not get RealPlayer10 to install and work under linux_base-8. With SUSE 9.3 I downloaded and unpacked the binary by hand and got it running after I applied a couple of fix-ups to the SUSE base environment. The base SUSE 9.3 is missing a couple of auto-generated configuration files, namely pango.modules and gdk-pixbuf.loaders. The first prevented RealPlayer from running and, once I'd fixed it, the second caused the buttons to have no pixmaps. I created these configuration files by hand using the following commands:

# cd /compat/linux/opt/gnome/bin
# ./pango-querymodules | sed 's/opt\//compat\/linux\/opt\//g' > /compat/linux/etc/opt/gnome/pango/pango.modules
# ./gdk-pixbuf-query-loaders | sed 's/opt\//compat\/linux\/opt\//g' > /compat/linux/etc/opt/gnome/gtk-2.0/gdk-pixbuf.loaders

Now I'm running SUSE 9.3 as my preferred base Linux environment, in preference to my earlier Slackware 10.2 hand-rolled effort (fonts looked bad with Slackware, although I'm sure I could have solved the problem) and Red Hat 8, despite the availability of associated ports for many Linux applications.

Why not just run Linux?

After all this, you may wonder why anyone would bother jumping through these hoops rather than simply wipe the box clean and install Linux. Maybe for the same reason Linux users run essential Windows applications under Wine -- I run FreeBSD because I like it. It has a huge number of applications available for it. Being able to run a few applications that are available only for Linux is a bonus. Hopefully the trend will continue and a shrinking number of applications will fall into this category. (It is always worth double-checking that an application is not already in ports before selecting the Linux version.) Perhaps soon we'll see an amd64 Opera (or substitute your closed-source app of choice) and the availability of good alternative open source browser plugins built for the common *BSD architectures and versions.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Setting up Linux compatibility on FreeBSD 6

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 01, 2006 10:47 AM
After all this, you may wonder why anyone would bother jumping through these hoops rather than simply wipe the box clean and install Linux. Maybe for the same reason Linux users run essential Windows applications under Wine -- I run FreeBSD because I like it.

Ok. That's a matter of taste, but your example does not apply. A "Windows application" is just that, an application, not an OS. Running a good Windows application under Wine is not at all comparible to running FreeBSD which is an OS. But ok - liking anything is a matter of taste.

It has a huge number of applications available for it.

WTF?!?! Debian Sarge has 18000+ applications, does FreeBSD come even close? No. In terms of stability and security Debian has been a match for *BSD for a quite a while now, so there is really no rational reason to stick with *BSD, in particular for a *desktop* which is what you say you are using it for.

I tried various flavors of *BSD and none come even close to the power of Debian which is a superior product to any *BSD (or any other Linux distro for that matter) in pretty much any use. Ok - between, say Lindows or OSX and FreeBSD I would definitely choose FreeBSD. But with Debian out there? Never.

I do not intend to troll by starting a "my OS/distro is better than yours" flamewar (although some will probably accuse me of just that) - but since your article concludes with exactly this issue, let me ask you this: can you name me one reason - besides issues of taste which are inherently subjective but still very legitimate - to use FreeBSD with some GNU/Linux application when Debian is out there?

And since you seem to like having a choice of many applcation - does *BSD have anything as good as apt-get?!

Cheers!

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 01, 2006 07:12 PM
Now that was funny<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) So just because *BSD doesen't have native applications like acrobat reader, real player or browser plugins, that means debian is better?
You haven't even used it and you claim you favorite linux distro is better.

By the way, I have linux_base-8-8.0_14 and I run
linux-sun-jdk-1.4.2.10
linux-realplayer-10.0.6.776
linux-opera-8.52.20060201
linux-flashplugin-7.0r63
acroread7-7.0.1,1

The article said that real player doesen't work with linux_base8, but it works fine for me.
I also run a linux binary of openoffice2.0 just because i didn't want to compile it or get the frebsd binary wich was compiled for a RELEASE version since I'm running stable.

All these apps took just one command each to install automatically, so yes, it does have something just as good as apt-get
The freebsd ports collection has 14271 applications and counting. If it's not in there, you don't need it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

The only problem I had with linux compatibility was that jdk 1.5 crashed badly when I tried running Azureus on it. jdk-1.4.2 also crashes, but not as bad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:). I only use java with linux compatibility because I use linux-opera, for the flash plugin, so I also need a java plugin. Freebsd also has a native version of java, so that's not a big problem.

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 05, 2006 01:22 AM
I really would like to know and hopefully understand the difference between "crashing badly" and "crashing, but not as bad".

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 01, 2006 09:08 PM
You are basing Debian based off the amount of applications it has. One difference between Linux and BSD they are nos's not desktop os's. Personally i would use BSD for a server, and linux as a Desktop why. Because the FreeBSD Linux Emu is still based off a old 2.4.2 version. I also am not here to troll but please explain power ? Debian is a Distro same as Fedora, Slackware each have it's good/bad just basing off the Distro and saying its powerfull just because it has 18,000 App's is stupid. I would think FreeBSD come close have you had a glance at www.freshports.org ? there is 14279 i would think that comes close wouldn't you think ? So please reread your post and act upon it because i feel you don't have a clue of what you are saying.

#

please re-post and make your point

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 01, 2006 10:34 PM
as is - your posts is wholly illegible. please edit it and re-post. thanks

#

FreeBSD has 14,281 apps available in ports

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 07:07 AM
so YES 14,000 is close to 18,000

#

Re:FreeBSD has 14,281 apps available in ports

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 10:10 AM
yes -14000+ is a lot, but it still is FOUR THOUSAND less than 18000+ and, thus, hardly a reason to choose BSD, ain't it? (in particular with a 18000+ Debian out there).

Its a stupid argument anyway

#

Re:FreeBSD has 14,281 apps available in ports

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 04:00 PM
Well, the fact is, debian sucks. All it's 3 branches suck:

Stable - Who the hell would use sarge in 2006 on a desktop? Stable is crap, you get "stable software" but it's like 2 years old. Just to compare: debian stable firefox 1.0.7, if I'm not mistaking, freebsd - firefox 1.5 available in the ports, so I can compile it with more than 486 instruction set (like in debian) and compilation optimization, and also as a binary package.
testing - compiled 486, not as current as freebsd package
sid - no security patches, "unstable" as the name sugests, 486 compiled, almost as current as freebsd. Still no gnome 2.14 in debian sid, huh?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P

#

Re:FreeBSD has 14,281 apps available in ports

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 01:19 AM
Well, the fact is, debian sucks. All it's 3 branches suck

Looks like these 129 distro developing folks do not know about this:

AbulÉdu • Adamantix • AGNULA GNU/Linux Audio Distribution • Amber Linux • ANTEMIUM Linux • Arabbix • ARMA aka Omoikane GNU/Linux • ASLinux • Auditor Security Linux • Augustux • B2D Linux • BeatrIX Linux • BEERnix • Biadix • BIG LINUX • Bioknoppix • BlackRhino • Bluewall GNU/Linux • Bonzai Linux • BrlSpeak • Càtix • CensorNet • Clusterix • ClusterKNOPPIX • Condorux • Damn Small Linux • Danix • DeadCD • DebXPde • Dizinha Linux • eduKnoppix • ERPOSS • ESware • Evinux • Euronode • FAMELIX • Feather Linux • Flonix • Vital Data Forensic or Rescue Kit (FoRK) • Freeduc-cd • Freeduc-Sup • GEOLivre Linux • Gibraltar Firewall • GNIX-Vivo • Gnoppix Linux • gnuLinEx • GNU/Linux Kinneret • GNUstep Live CD • grml • Guadalinex • Helix • Hikarunix • Hiweed Linux • Impi Linux • IndLinux • Julex • K-DEMar • Kaella • Knoppix Linux Azur • Kalango Linux • KANOTIX • KlusTriX • knopILS • Knoppel • Knoppix • Knoppix 64 • Knoppix STD • KnoppiXMAME • KnoppMyth • KnoSciences • Kurumin Linux • LAMPPIX • Libranet GNU/Linux • LIIS Linux • LinEspa • Linspire • Linux Live Game Project • Linux Loco • LinuxDefender Live! CD • Linuxin • LiVux • Local Area Security Linux (L.A.S.) • Luinux • Luit Linux • MAX: Madrid_Linux • Mediainlinux • MEPIS Linux • Metadistro-Pequelin • MIKO GNYO/Linux • MoLinux • Morphix • Munjoy Linux • Nature's Linux • NordisKnoppix • OGo Knoppix • Oralux • Overclockix • Quantian • PaiPix • ParallelKnoppix • Parsix GNU/Linux • Penguin Sleuth • PHLAK • PilotLinux • Progeny Debian • Rays Linux • ROSLIMS Live CD • Salvare • Santa Fe Linux • Skolelinux • Slavix • Slix • Slo-Tech Linux • Soyombo Mongolian Linux • SphinxOS • Tablix on Morphix • Tilix Linux • TupiServer Linux • Ubuntu Linux • UserLinux • WHoppiX • X-evian • Xfld • Xandros Desktop OS • Xarnoppix • Zen Linux • ZoneCD • Zopix

Not to mention all the perfectly blissful Debian GNU/Linux users worldwide (-: obviously including myself<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

How many distros did *BSD spawn-off? LOL.

With your kind of attitude, BSD will disappear into the trash heaps of IT history while claimoring to be the very best up to its last breath instead of asking itself the question of why Debian (or even the rest of GNU/Linux) succeeded so brilliantly were *BSD so utterly failed...

Serioulsy - if you know how to use apt-get all your so-called 'arguments' turn into (cow dung) dust. Heck - believe it or not, you can even compile something if you prefer.

Lastly - trashing another OS hardly makes your OS better. Think about it.

#

Re:FreeBSD has 14,281 apps available in ports

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 01:34 AM
Well usually when a distro spawns off of something is because the distro from wich it spawned off is crap, and the author thinks he can do a better job at it.

And may I add, all those 129 distros are crap. They are many, and incopatible. You can run binaries from freebsd, and linux, and netbsd in openbsd, but you can't run a stinkin program build for one linux in another linux verion.

4 freebsd distros: pcbsd and desktopbsd - user friendly BSDs, frenzy - livecd, freesbie -costumizable livecd

#

Re:FreeBSD has 14,281 apps available in ports

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 05, 2006 01:26 AM
1,000,000,000,000 flies cannot be wrong: eat shit.

Or rather enjoy:

Elvis Presley
Britney Spears
Cosmo magazine
Quentin Tarantino
MTV
"Reality" shows
Madonna
Eminem
Weezer
FOX News
Oprah

Talk about popularity...

#

oh really?!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 01:23 AM
then how come the article is called "Setting up Linux compatibility on FreeBSD 6" and not "Setting up FreeBSD 6 compatibility on Linux"?!

BWAHAHAHAHA!!

#

Re:FreeBSD has 14,281 apps available in ports

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 06:11 PM
#apt-cache pkgnames|cat -n
18170
This includes 786 "-doc" packages, 2087 "-dev" packages and for example bacula in freebsd has two ports (bacula-server and bacula-client). How do you count this? 14 packages only for one program? So, FOUR THOUSAND less or more in FreeBSD?

bacula
bacula-client
bacula-common
bacula-console
bacula-console-gnome
bacula-director
bacula-director-common
bacula-director-mysql
bacula-director-pgsql
bacula-director-sqlite
bacula-doc
bacula-fd
bacula-sd
bacula-server

#

what a stupid argument you made

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 12:02 AM
1) how do you think BSD packages are counted?
2) packages such as bacula-director-mysql bacula-director-pgsql bacula-director-sqlite bacula-doc are DRAMATICALLY different from each other (-: no? Try useing a postgreSQL client on a sqlite server and see for yourself<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
3)you think doc and dev packages are not important?! Then you must be a Mac or Windows user

#

Re:what a stupid argument you made

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 01:44 AM
1) freebsd ports are fewer because i can have a single port and customise the configure options before installing. Debian has to have multiple precompiled versions of the package. I think it's pretty clear<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
2) The bacula client or server or whatever port is configured on installation to have support for mysql, postgresql whatever.
3) The port installation usually also installs the docs.

#

RTFAFFL!! (empty spaces to bybass the caps limit)

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 01:30 AM
That stands for "Read the Friggin' Article's Friggin' First Line" which says:

As a FreeBSD desktop user I occasionally feel left out when it comes to the availability of applications

Get it? No? Read it again. Three times. Got it Now?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P

#

Re:RTFAFFL!! (empty spaces to bybass the caps limi

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 01:38 AM
Really? Well, I don't care what the author thinks, I have every application I want. Find me a linux application that you use and doesen't run on freebsd.

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 09:19 PM
I use FreeBSD on servers and desktop. I use jdk/jboss/postgresql application every day. Recent task was to install jdk-1.5 and postgresql-8.1.3 on a debian-3.1. This was really problem. You need to download some kind of patches to create postgresql-8.1.3.debs and jdk.debs. In FreeBSD i just type: cd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/ports/java/jdk15 && make install clean. But in Debian there is now automatic installation of last postgresql (8.1.3) and jdk. And there is no tomcat-5.5 package. I think Debian is just another one linux with standard linux problems. There are many things you cant do with linux without googling and reading forums. This is linux-way. I like freebsd way.

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 11:42 PM
" In FreeBSD i just type: cd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/ports/java/jdk15 && make install clean"
Yes, you do have to manually download the packages from sun's website<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(, but if you allready have them and throw them into the distfiles it all goes smoothly.

I don't like compiling them because it takes too much time and disk space, but it works fine. Finally, freebsd will have java binaries for freebsd 5.4 and 6.0 <a href="http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/downloads/java.shtml" title="freebsdfoundation.org">http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/downloads/java.s<nobr>h<wbr></nobr> tml</a freebsdfoundation.org>, but what about 6.1?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(
You've got to admit, the java license sucks.

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 11:11 AM
Oh, yeah, another thing which is quite a problem with Debian: they're quite idealistic, and tend to ignore those issues which are not "politically correct".
Example: the Qemu mantainer doesn't want to package the closed source Kqemu, leaving his users with only a crippled emulator.
FreeBSD is more grounded, generally speaking, less politically inclined.

#

to the Debian Kqemu maintainer: BRAVO!!!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 12:25 PM
Example: the Qemu mantainer doesn't want to package the closed source Kqemu, leaving his users with only a crippled emulator.

You just friggin broke my heart!!!

How many users,not matter how totally stupid they might be, would go to DEBIAN to have their *proprietary applications* on their computers? For RMS' sake - you got a totally value-free, no ethics or morals, 100% technology centered Mepis or Lindows out there, and you would turn to Debian, with a Social Contract, Free Software Guidelines and a Debian Manifesto?!?!

I say that Debian Kqemu maintainer should get a standing ovation for not paying attention to anyone pissed off that Debian does not package proprietary apps (there are special repositories of contributed aps for that). He should pay no more attention to these guys as a chef in a vegan restaurant should pay attention to the cowboy demanding a steak or 100% beef hamburger.

So I will readily agree to this: Debian sucks for those who want proprietary applications. But for the rest of us: Debian is Nirvana!

#

Re:to the Debian Kqemu maintainer: BRAVO!!!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 01:00 PM
Yes, I agree. GNUflash is nice... it's not all that colourfull, it might crash your browser from time to time, but hey, it's "free".

#

Re:to the Debian Kqemu maintainer: BRAVO!!!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 04, 2006 03:29 AM
there is a point to this, when I use Debian I want to be sure to depend just on free software, so I won't be screwed in the future when a license changes/company goes bankrupt.

Won't save me from Microsoft with their patent threats though.

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 02:04 AM
FreeBSD has 15000+ applications available for it. And I think this is enough. I used Linux from 1997 to 2004. Do you know what made me to erase Linux? I tried FreeBSD at that time and I realised that it's the best OS I have ever met. Ok you don't understand why people use *BSD and I don't understand why people are stuck with Linux. Please let it be, everyone has a freedom of choice. I chose FreeBSD, because for me, Linux is a hell of a mess.

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 03:12 AM
Ok you don't understand why people use *BSD and I don't understand why people are stuck with Linux

Almost. I would re-phrase it like this:

Ok I don't understand why people are stuck with *BSD and you don't understand why people use GNU/Linux

just pulling your leg..

Seriously, you are correct on this: let each person choose whatever he/she prefers.

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 01:38 PM
...there is really no rational reason to stick with *BSD...



I tried various flavors of *BSD and none come even close to the power of Debian which is a superior product to any *BSD (or any other Linux distro for that matter) in pretty much any use.



I do not intend to troll by starting a "my OS/distro is better than yours" flamewar...





No, I can see you're not planning anything like that...

#

scapegoating for flamepeace

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 08:32 PM
Now taking three quotes out of context is one great way to achieve a 'flamepeace' while blaming the OP for the flamewar

#

Re:scapegoating for flamepeace

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 04, 2006 07:48 AM
Which context was that? The first quote being followed by

in particular for a *desktop* which is what you say you are using it for.

Or the second quote being followed by

Ok - between, say Lindows or OSX and FreeBSD I would definitely choose FreeBSD. But with Debian out there? Never.

because I don't see that this context helps excuse the baiting much.

Not for a moment did I expect to quell the flaming, nor did I attribute blame solely to one poster. (Two straw men! Bonus!) I simply highlighted a disingenuous disclaimer.

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 04, 2006 03:24 AM
I like Debian Sarge too but still I have some problems. Can anybody tell me
1.how do I setup rollbacks with debian packages?
2.if apt-get is the best what is aptitude?
3.three years in the making and wtf is this mess called "Debian menu" on my desktop?
4.why is there no large file support in Apache2?
5.why is something called Appletalk started on boot?

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 04, 2006 07:54 AM
I will try to answer some of them:

1.how do I setup rollbacks with debian packages?
what do you mean rollback? Uninstalling>

2.if apt-get is the best what is aptitude?
different use. there is dpkg, apt-get, aptitude, synaptic. different levels, but all are based on dpkg. Any good Debian book, or a google seach, would list the differences.

3.three years in the making and wtf is this mess called "Debian menu" on my desktop?
No idea. I do not have it

4.why is there no large file support in Apache2?
No idea. Is that something Debian-specific?

5.why is something called Appletalk started on boot?
Yes, I noticed that too. I do not see any explanation other than a shall we say "less than perfect" maturity of the Sarge installer.

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 04, 2006 11:34 PM
I will try to answer some of them:

Thanks for your answer.


1.how do I setup rollbacks with debian packages?
what do you mean rollback? Uninstalling>

Not just uninstalling, but reverting to a previous version of a package if I decide an update breaks compatibility with something else. Is there a way with the default package managers provided?

This is possible with for example up2date in CentOS and a big thing in many cases.


2.if apt-get is the best what is aptitude?
different use. there is dpkg, apt-get, aptitude, synaptic. different levels, but all are based on dpkg. Any good Debian book, or a google seach, would list the differences.


Yes, I know but which one should one use? The sarge release notes recommends aptitude for the dist-upgrade, but almost all documentation(via google) still refers to apt. My dist-upgrade from Woody to Sarge provided a much different looking desktop than a clean install to Sarge;)

4.why is there no large file support in Apache2?
No idea. Is that something Debian-specific?


Yeah, it's a compile time option. Forces me to use bittorrent to serve dvd-images(unless I compile and maintain Apache2 myself).

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 05, 2006 12:50 AM
I have to admit that you are asking the wrong person here, at least if you are asking only me: I am a recent Debian convert (from Mandriva) and my knowledge is still very limited. Basically - I looked at the stuff which was relevant to me, but I did not read up (yet) on the rest of it. So here are my lame answers to you, but you should really post them on the debian-user mailing list where you would immediately get a competant answer. Anyway -

I have absolutely no idea how to rollback anything with Debian since I never had a conflit by upgrading anything. I found some info on apt rollbacking here <a href="http://www.lsv.ens-cachan.fr/Publis/PAPERS/PDF/wsl06.pdf" title="ens-cachan.fr">http://www.lsv.ens-cachan.fr/Publis/PAPERS/PDF/ws<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> 06.pdf</a ens-cachan.fr>
but I did not research this beyond one google search. Apt-get rollback sounds like a neat thing though. Does *BSD have it?

A small google seach on dpkg, apt, aptitude and synaptic will give you all the info you need. I can add a personal opinion only. Synaptic (the high-level GUI) is better than even Mandrake's package manager as it allows user interaction on a console during the install and it shows you exactly what is going on. So if you are the GUI type - try Synaptic. Its *awesome*.

However, even though I am a former Mandraker, ever since I tried apt-get I cannot imagine anything more pleasant, simple, and fast to use. I have no desire to go back to any GUI package manager at all. Try it once or twice and I suspect you will get hoocked too. Now I use apt for everything. I only use dpkg -i packagename when I download a package from a non-Debian repository (like the package "when" for example). Dpkg does *not* handle dependencies I was told, so for anything beyond a simple package I would not reccommend using it (not that I ever had a problem though). I hope I answered this question to your satisfaction.

The jump from Woody to Sarge is a big one. I only upgraded Sarge releases and nothing at all was changed on my desktop. Again - I would ask on the debian user list.

I cannot answer your Apache question either. I do not use Apache at all and never used bittorrents either<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(

Sorry for the lame answers. One last thing. I have found Kanotix to be a super-simple Debian variant with a very friendly IRC were you get instant answers not only about Kanotix, but also about Debian in general. Try it!

Have a good one!

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 05, 2006 03:30 AM
FreeBSD can rollback an upgraded port, but you first have to create a back-up. This is not done by default because you need extra disc space for the old packages, so you do like this:

PKG_TMPDIR=/var/tmp/pkg_backup portupgrade -b port_name

This creates a backup of all the packages installed or upgraded and their config files. To restore them, you delete the new version, cd to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var/tmp/backup and pkg_add the previous packages.

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 06, 2006 05:44 PM
Don't worry about the answers. I've never liked irc or the Debian mailing lists, a web forum is the easy way for me. I just though someone here might have the answers, since there are some very confident and loud Debian advocates on Newsforge who probably should also know the stuff.

I'm not really the biggest gui-type, even on Ubuntu I just apt away for the speed and simplicity. I've yet to try FreeBSD, so I'm not the other guy writing this thread either.

Thanx.

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 06, 2006 12:55 AM
The real problem is that you can't run recent applicaitons easily or at all with linux "emulation". I'm more concerned with server apps rather than desktop apps.

For example, I'd love to install and run Sun WebServer, Appserver, Oracle 9 OR 10.

As for desktop mode, you get into video driver problems. ATI has no support for FreeBSD and if you have anything higher than a radeon 9200, you are SOL. nVidia is another story and i recently bought a card to work in my freebsd home router/file server/desktop machine. Its great and I can run games like enemy territory and quake 3 without problems.

As for apps, don't assume the ports collection is the only source for software. FreeBSD can run a lot of software and you can compile it without incident. Ports are handy but not needed to run stuff!

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 06, 2006 04:30 AM
If you want to run Oracle, I think you would be better off with Solaris<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

The ports are freebsd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) Why would I install anything manually if it's in the ports?

#

Pain

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2006 02:16 PM
[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]

  [URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]

  [URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/painrelief<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]

#

Re:Gordon - sorry, but this is nonesense

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 23, 2006 11:18 PM
As for desktop mode, you get into video driver problems. ATI has no support for FreeBSD and if you have anything higher than a radeon 9200, you are SOL.


I can remember a day when Linux had no binary support from NVidia, ATI, or Matrox. But apparently Linux users still saw some reason to continue on despite this obvious flaw.



Also, I can tell you've never heard of DRI, the Direct Rendering Infrastructure, which is a standard interface for acceleration for XFree86 and Xorg that ATI, Matrox, and other vendors have been contributing to for a while now. The development DRI can drive quite a bit of the r300 chipset, and all of the r250 and previous chipsets. The infrastructure is a real extension to X, and it's all open sourced and available on sourceforge! It's very ironic that Linux users, the self-acclaimed champions of open source software, would prefer to rely on a binary released libGL hack to drive their hardware rather than champion an open source infrastructure.

#

a BSD on the desktop?!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 01, 2006 04:05 PM
That's just got to be an April's Fool joke, right?!

#

Alternative linux base ports

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 01, 2006 07:49 PM
Hi,

if you want to use an alternative linux base port you should use OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT in make.conf (have a look at PORTSDIR/Mk/bsd.port.mk for the syntax) to change the linux base port in dependencies.

Using any non-default linux base port except for linx_base-fc3 is discouraged, since it isn't supported by emulation@ and contains some well known bugs (e.g. no X11 path configured in the runtime linker). The fc3 one is supposed to replace the old linux_base-8 port as the default one (after 6.1 release and some more testing) and all outdated linux base ports will be marked as deprecated then. Yes, fc3 is not the most recent one, but we do a step by step transition to a more recent one and want to make sure we don't break too much linux ports on this way.

Regarding the pango and gdk problems: this shouldn't happen, maybe one of the problems in this non-default linux base port. The pango and gtk ports handle this at install time, so reinstalling them should solve this issue too.

Bye,
Alexander (netchild@FreeBSD.org).

#

Why not RHEL-based, eg. CentOS 4?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 24, 2006 09:29 PM
Would it not make sense to use a RHEL-based
distro as the base? These have good application
support and are by definition more stable than FCS
and are being actively updated wrt security bugs,
meaning you emulation people would probably have
less work to do.

Apropos, what is the mechanism to apply
security patches to the apps inside linux
emulation? If there is no easy one, I would count
this as a very good reason to run a real Linux
instead.

#

it's no joke

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 01, 2006 08:06 PM
freebsd on a desktop is just as good as any linux distro. Really<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

now repeat it thousand times please :]

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 12:42 AM
"...no joke. no joke. just as good. just as good..." -- and maybe you'll make yourself believe that utter overgeneralized crap.

I have too much freebsd-loving friends not to have a good laugh at that nice joke.

> Maybe for the same reason Linux users run
> essential Windows applications under Wine
Windows -- and usually "essential apps" for it -- aren't free software. So it is a leap over the river.

OTOH Linux is a mainstream free OS, so it's not a matter of any reason but someone's taste, don't even try to provide it.

It's no problem, but still funny.

--
Michael Shigorin

#

Re:now repeat it thousand times please :]

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 02:36 AM
Well, jsut because you can't use it doesen't mean that it's bad for everyone.
People don't use operating systems, they use applications. Go to the freebsd website, or freshports.org and search all your linux applications that you use. I'm sure you'll find all of them.

Not user friendly enough? Try pcbsd or desktopbsd.

#

Re:it's no joke

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 02:59 AM
"> Maybe for the same reason Linux users run
> essential Windows applications under Wine
Windows -- and usually "essential apps" for it -- aren't free software. So it is a leap over the river."

Well, browser plugins are just as esential for freebsd. That's why linux compat was built, to run closed source applications wich only have a linux version. Flash is not free software.

I really don't care about your mainstrem OS crap, wtf is mainstrem anyways?!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

FreeBSD has all the applications I need, I can even play quake3 on an ATI board with the opensource driver.

Stop talking about things you don't know shit about.

#

compat_43

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 02:02 AM
in 7-current there is no need for compat_43 anymore as the patch for linuxolator was commited. I hope we can remove compat_43 from generic and all builds as it only rottens code and brings general slowdown...
(capitals were removed because the filter here is dumb)

#

a "compare and contrast" question: *BSD vs. Debian

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 10:20 AM
Debian is a community and a project, but not a corporation. It can not be sold, or bought or acquire anything. It also has over 1000 developers & maintainers located all over the world (see: <a href="http://www.debian.org/devel/developers.loc" title="debian.org">http://www.debian.org/devel/developers.loc</a debian.org>). Its foundation documents are the Debian Social Manifesto, the Debian Social Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

Could somebody please post a similar blurb about OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD?

I would be particularly interested in the number of developers/maintainers involved in these three BSDs.

Many thanks for the info!

#

Re:a "compare and contrast" question: *BSD vs. Deb

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 04:18 PM
You can check the freebsd website <a href="http://www.freebsd.org/about.html" title="freebsd.org">http://www.freebsd.org/about.html</a freebsd.org>. I've heard they're about 1000, but I'm not sure, so don't take my word for it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

OpenBSD has a rather small team of developers, about 40 I think + the commiters, but they do a really good job, and they have brought a lot of advances not only to openbsd but the other bsds, linux, and just about any unix and unix-like operating system. You do use openssh, don't you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) They have also built a lot of drivers, and the pf firewall framework, wich has been ported to netbsd and freebsd as well.

I don't know about netbsd, this link might help you <a href="http://www.netbsd.org/People/" title="netbsd.org">http://www.netbsd.org/People/</a netbsd.org>

All BSDs are "free" you can even incorporate BSD code into you proprietary programs and sell them.

The developer's number doesen't matter that much, it's the advanced features these operating systems have, check <a href="http://www.freebsd.org/features.html" title="freebsd.org">http://www.freebsd.org/features.html</a freebsd.org>

#

many thanks!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 11:50 PM
many thanks for all the very interesting info and for the links. I will read on further!

One more question: how easy (or not) is it to install FreeBSD?

#

Re:many thanks!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 01:27 AM
Well, it is pretty easy to install, but in order to use it you need to have basic unix skills.
The handbook is a very good source of documentation, it's something most linux distros lack: good documentation. And it is one of the main reasons I use BSD.<a href="http://freebsd.org/handbook" title="freebsd.org">http://freebsd.org/handbook</a freebsd.org>

For a user friendly BSD, try
<a href="http://www.pcbsd.org/" title="pcbsd.org">http://www.pcbsd.org/</a pcbsd.org>
or
<a href="http://www.desktopbsd.net/" title="desktopbsd.net">http://www.desktopbsd.net/</a desktopbsd.net>

The only one i tried is pcbsd, and although they haven't released a final version, it's pretty stable, and very polished<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) They have a nice packaging system, PBI. You donwload the PBI packages from their webseite, click, next, next, and there you go, just like in windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
You can also use the ports and freebsd packages system as well.

desktopbsd looks promising too, and it has a final release.

#

Don't you just mean GNU/BSD?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 06:19 PM

You can use the BSD kernel as the kernel for a GNU system. Isn't that all this is about?


The resulting system would be indistinguishable, for most users (including most "Linux" fans), from a GNU/Linux system.


The main difference that could be noticed is that the Linux kernel has support for a wider range of hardware devices than any BSD. So most people would be better off with GNU/Linux. Which presumably is one of the reasons it's more popular.

#

Re:Don't you just mean GNU/BSD?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 07:49 PM
Well, it's not quite GNU/BSD. The freebsd base contains some GNU programs, like gcc and a few other, but most of it is not GNU.
There are projects to make the freebsd kernel run on a GNU base system, like debian/kfreebsd, but none of them are ready yet.

FreeBSD has some features unavailable to linux <a href="http://www.freebsd.org/features.html" title="freebsd.org">http://www.freebsd.org/features.html</a freebsd.org>, but it also lacks some features that linux has. It depends on what you need. I have support for every piece of hardware I own. Including an ATI 9200se video board for wich I use the opensource driver and I can play quake3 on it.

And also, it has IMHO the most flexible package manager. I can install freebsd from binaries, I have binary security updates, I can compile and optimise it, I cand install from source and configure every compile option my programs have, optimise them etc.
The only linux distro that comes close to this is gentoo, but it doesen't have so much binary packages.

The only driver that I had a problem with was the nvidia mcp network card driver. It's based on a reverse engenered linux driver and I've also seen it misbehave on linux, but on freebsd it doesn't work. OpenBSD has made some progress with that driver, maybe it will be fixed in a future release.

#

I might be mistaken here but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 02, 2006 11:57 PM
The main difference that could be noticed is that the Linux kernel has support for a wider range of hardware devices than any BSD.

Coming from a raving Debian GNU/Linux fan like me this info might be incorrect, but I read somewhere that NetBSD runs on something like 50 architectures (are there really so many out there? and, if yes, who cares?) whereas the most portable GNU/Linux distro - my beloved Debian - runs on "only" 11 (soon to be reduced to, I think).

So if my wholly untrusworthy recollections are correct, in this sense BSD beats GNU/Linux hands down. Not that I would care in any way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

Re:I might be mistaken here but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 01:18 AM
Well, yes, but he was talking about "normal" hardware like sound and video cards, not cpu architectures<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
And yes, netbsd does rule<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Re:I might be mistaken here but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 03, 2006 01:25 AM
heck no! Debian rules<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

(I know - this is hardly an argument, but it feel oh-so-sweet every time. Besides, its true!)

#

Re:Don't you just mean GNU/BSD?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2006 06:26 PM
You are completely missing the point.

First of all, a GNU person like you ought to know that Linux is not GNU. Second, as far as I know, the FreeBSD Linux emulation isn't based on GPL'd code (or at least it isn't Linux kernel code), third of all, for me, it's to run something like 2 applications -- it's for pragmatic reasons anyway. Of course, someone who uses GNU/Linux probably wouldn't need Linux emulation (and keep in mind the term emulation is misleading in this case, they don't really run any slower than they do on Linux assuming a proper control group) if they used FreeBSD, because the sorts of applications that need Linux application are proprietary: eg. Acroread, Epsxe, Proprietary Nvidia driver.

It's really no different in intent than a project like Wine, really. It has nothing to do with envy of another operating system, other than wanting a few specific applications for practical reasons.

Please stop making these sound-byte arguments, it is a waste of time for all of us.

You are a dumbass.

#

Re:Don't you just mean GNU/BSD?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2006 09:57 PM
Well, in fact, linux_compat doesen't run drivers, the nvidia driver is native.

#

correction

Posted by: gmcewen on April 03, 2006 04:20 PM
It was pointed out to me that the correct kernel conf option for i386 is COMPAT_LINUX. COMPAT_LINUX32 applies to amd64 where currently only
32bit compatibility is supported. COMPAT_LINUX would be used for amd64 should 64bit Linux compatibility ever be implemented. Thanks to those who pointed this out and explained the rationale.

Gordon McEwen

#

Re:correction

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 04, 2006 10:00 AM
but everyone knows that archlinux beats debian again.

#

Debian zealots are not funny anymore

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 05, 2006 06:00 AM
What's with this debian shit? There are other distros arround. Debian is not the universal solution to all problems. It's like every linux user except for the debian zealots died. So what if debian is the biggest and the brightest?
Newsflash: NO ONE CARES!

This is an article about linux binary compatibility in freebsd 6.0. No one cares about your debian. And please do not try to enlighten us, and tell us that debian is better, or debian has more packages, or debian is more free, or whatever. We'll just stick to our not for desktop, dying, impossible to cluster, BSD.

#

but *BSD zealots are hilarious though!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 05, 2006 07:05 AM
I really had to laugh at your hysterical post. The tone so clearly frustrated and defensive and the open admission that no matter what you will stick to your own OS (which is your right, even if it is a little "religious" and not very rational). Its the "do not confuse me with fact, I have my opinion" stance.

Debian is not the universal solution to all problems

Oh, and BTW - as of now, Debian is exactly that: THE universal operating system. This might change in the future and I wish will all my heart that *BSD become hyper-competitive or, even better, that it would take up that role. I would switch in a blink of an eye as I am not religious about my OS at all (even if you think of me, and others here, as "zealots").

Anyways, relax and take a deep breath. Debian is here to stay so you might as well get used to it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

Hang in there and good luck to your OS!

#

Re:but *BSD zealots are hilarious though!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 06, 2006 04:42 AM
I stick to it because everything else sucks ass.

#

Re:but *BSD zealots are hilarious though!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2006 06:36 PM
It is you who are religious.

I don't have anything against Debian, but I'm happy with FreeBSD, so why would I want to change to a badly licensed operating system when FreeBSD works nicely?

Also, you seem to be insanely arrogant, claiming that a distribution is more important than an operating system (at one point someone who I think was you cited that you would rather use FreeBSD over Lindows, but not over Debian?)

Come on, that argument is tottally bullshit. If FreeBSD is really so baroque and terrible in your eyes, then shouldn't _LINUX_ be the distinguishing factor.

You seem to be asking what empirically distinguishes FreeBSD from GNU/Linux. Well, I know you will try to redefine terms to your favor, but I really do prefer the BSD license over restrictive copyleft licenses.

That aside, no one cares. Shut up.

#

relief joint

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2006 02:20 PM
<tt>[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.c<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> m] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/pa<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> nrelief.htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]</tt>

#

relief joint

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 30, 2006 01:56 AM
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/painrelief<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.back.painreliefnetwork.net/lowbac<nobr>k<wbr></nobr> pain.htm] Low back pain [/URL]
[URL=http://blog.gala.net/uploads/painreliefback/<nobr>b<wbr></nobr> ackpainrelief.htm] Back pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.weblog.ro/usercontent/13155/profi<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> es/kneepainrelief.htm] Knee pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Pain-R<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> lief.html] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.sitefights.com/community/scifi/pa<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> nrelief/painreliefpreved.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Medica<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ion-Pain-Relief.html] Medication pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Natura<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> -Pain-Relief.html] Natural pain relief [/URL]


[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.com] Pain relief [/URL]

#

FUD between the largest OS projects is ridiculous

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 05, 2006 10:43 PM
Ok, I must make this a top level comment, because somewhere along the road the flame war became ridiculuos.

Some people around here obviously have no clue that Debian and FreeBSD are VERY similar.

1) The are both commited to OpenSource.
2) They are both huge organizations (Debian ~1500 devs, FreeBSD ~1000 devs - IIRC).
3) Their developers are major contributors to crossplatform OpenSource apps like Apache, MySQL, Gnome and many more.
4) They both have excellent package management, repositories, mirrors, and much more.
5) They both are community projects, with vibrant communities.

Just because you know your system better doesn't mean the other one suscks. If you don't like it, good for you, have a cookie and shut up. Or help them make it better.

If this was a discussion about Microsoft and Debian or FreeBSD it would have been reasonable, but Debian and FreeBSD are too similar to throw around all this FUD.

Anyway, who wants to hear probably knows this already, and who doesn't want to, doesn't deserve better...

#

LUNIX p0wnZ U!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 04, 2006 04:35 PM
bwahahahaha! }:)

o_O

Oh, come on!! ¬_¬

#

Setting up Linux compatibility on FreeBSD 6

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 90.189.100.172] on December 22, 2007 03:28 PM
Just read over another related article, "Running Commercial Linux Software on FreeBSD", have a look:

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2006/01/12/Big_Scary_Daemons.html

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya