FreeBSD vs. RedHat

[Louis LeBlanc]

On 10/01/03 10:02 PM, SoloCDM sat at the `puter and typed:
>  <SNIP>
> 
> Is there FreeBSD ISOs with all the packages included.

That would be a bit excessive

> I'm tired of waiting for RPMs, when they are usually first made into
> tarballs.  Would a person prefer Slackware, RedHat (good installation
> package, but they complicate matters with RPMS and don't conform to
> the same directories as tarballs), or FreeBSD?

Well, the RPS are made FROM the tarballs, aren't they?  A lot of that
software is written on/for Linux, but building RPMs is one extra step
that a lot of developers just haven't bothered to learn.  So they
distribute the tarball, which is practically universally understood,
and let someone else build the RPM.

Of course this *doesn't* mean that FreeBSD always has first access to
the new version in a port.  Someone still has to write the port,
which, frankly is a little more work than building an RPM.  I've done
both, but I haven't done the RPM since I moved to FreeBSD over 2 years
ago.

> I noticed a lot of ISPs use FreeBSD.  Is it more widely accepted as
> the best up-to-date in packages?

In the past, FreeBSD has had a much better security reputation than
Linux, and the VM manager has been much better.  I was always
inundated with crack attempts when I was with MediaOne, and as far as
the VM, I've seen an indentical window manager config (same versions
of XFree86, Fvwm2, etc, on identical machines) take three times as
long on Linux as FreeBSD - though that was over 2 years ago, and I
don't know how Linux has progressed since then.

> Does FreeBSD conform to the directories that tarballs prefer?

Not always.  That's the point.  RPMs don't have to either, but both
depend on the software writer's install procedure.  Most gnu and open
source software is written with a configure tool that allows you to
specify the install prefix.

The port writer typically puts the software in a directory that won't
lead to the proliferation of /usr/local/ subdirectories.  But the
package registry keeps close track of the locations of every file in
the package.  It keeps the cruft rating surprisingly low.  When a port
is upgraded (like with portupgrade) the system removes all the files
belonging to the old system.  Also, if you want to install a port, the
system will automatically install or build all dependencies specified
in the port.  Last time I installed RedHat, it only told you what was
missing - one - package - at - a - time, so you'd try the install, go
find and install the RPM it complained about, then try the install
again, go get the next RPM it complained about . . . and this is a
recursive problem.  I once had to do this more than 15 times between
the original RPM I wanted (don't remember what it was) and the
dependencies, and the dependencies' dependencies, . . .

With the ports system, you go to the port you want installed, and it's
simply

$ make install clean

which will install all dependencies you don't have installed, or you
use portupgrade:

$ portupgrade -RN apache2

and all the dependencies that need upgrading will also be upgraded.

And 99% of the time, none of it requires any more effort than that.

> -- 
> Note: When you reply to this message, please include the mailing
>       list address and my email address in To: and/or Cc: with
>       any proper combination

Whups.  Didn't see that before . . .
I'll have to go back and get it . . . 

Lou
-- 
Louis LeBlanc               leblanc at keyslapper.org
Fully Funded Hobbyist, KeySlapper Extrordinaire :)
http://www.keyslapper.org                     Ô¿Ô¬

Eureka!
    -- Archimedes