albertlee Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 I am currently now studying FreeBSD, I am confused about the terms being used in Unix softwares, what is port? and what is package? secondly, when I download the softwares,do I get only the source codes? because I wonder will the program work in other platform with also FreeBSD... Apreciating for furthur responds Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 FreeBSD (as far as I'm aware) comes pre-compiled with the major librarys (i.e. glibc, libstdc++) that you need. It's up to you to compile/install your own stuff as you need it, and as far as I know it doesn't have a package management system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted June 28, 2004 Author Share Posted June 28, 2004 Ok, so dave, what you mean is that you install the softwares by compiling them with the major libraries? Any way, again, in FreeBSD/Unix terms, what is port? and what is package? Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 A package is (and I don't know whether this is the proper definition in terms of BSD/Linux) a file that tells the computer information about a certain program. For example, an rpm package for RedHat Linux might contain a certain program as well as the information about it, how to compile it, where it's got to be stored, etc. A port of a program is the modification of the program to make it work on a different operating system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted June 28, 2004 Author Share Posted June 28, 2004 Ok, in my own words, to make sure I understand those terms...... a package contains the programs and tell the computer how to install it....is it like the InstallationShield on Windows? which you click it and it runs? A port is like Java binary codes in principle right? Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 A package is very similar to the installation shield on windows, yeah. I'm not sure you're right about the port though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cohen Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 a package contains the programs and tell the computer how to install it....is it like the InstallationShield on Windows? which you click it and it runs? A port is like Java binary codes in principle Warning, sharp learning curve ahead, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 rofl, bit harsh tbh, FreeBSD isn't the ideal brand of *nix to be starting with. Something like redhat or suse is probably better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted June 28, 2004 Author Share Posted June 28, 2004 well, I have tried Mandrake, and I see that it is not very well on installing, maybe because of the hardware compability...... Any way, I dont think It is not good to start out FreeBSD, because to me, it is just like Dos commands... It is somehow that easy Linux looks more windows and FreeBSD looks more Dos, and I rather choose FreeBSD,which is more fundamental to learn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossoi Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Not really. There's plently of shell stuff and config files in any Linux distro to keep you busy. DOS is not the way forwards. Regardless of what people believe and say DOS is NOT the underlying structure of Windows. It is dead. It lies next to Latin, Dodo's and MC Hammer's music. It's handy sometimes for troubleshooting Windows because there is a handy little emulator built in but that's about the extent of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted June 28, 2004 Author Share Posted June 28, 2004 Well, first of all, I think I hate those Linux distributors who make Linux with GUI and make it tends to be so easy, like windows......... I think this is just personal reason that I want to start FreeBSD, because as I have heard, since Linux is so free, some programs that were designed on certain distro of linux may not work on others, no one maintains a level of compability........ Most of all, I know Dos is dead, completely..... What I am saying is just an idea that if DOS is the underlying kernel, and Windows is somehow the X window, then I would probably start learning the commands......... because for Unix/Linux, it is very important to know its commands without x window, same as Dos, you have to know how to use the commands and their config... FreeBSD would be probably better to use while learning the fundamental computer knowledge, and there is also plenty of free educational softwares for science, maths, etc.......that makes it so better than XP......well, except for playing games.... Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossoi Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 You could just install Linux and not run the GUI at startup. Then you'd get all the fun of shell scripting plus the bonus of a decent OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Although to be honest I don't know why you wouldn't want to run xfree. There's no point in not having it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted June 29, 2004 Author Share Posted June 29, 2004 Well, I think originality shall be better than clone ;-) To Dave, well,I know it is no point not to x window, but when I am learning Unix, I would not want to start from x window................ More over, I donnot mean that Linux is bad, it is at least easier than Unix (I think), but somehow it works slower than Unix, and the Linux I got is not compatible with my CD-Rom on my laptop (but it works on my Desktop).........So, I dont want to bother to download others again,............ Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 To Dave' date=' well,I know it is no point not to x window, but when I am learning Unix, I would not want to start from x window................[/quote'] Uhm, well here's an idea: when you boot your linux, do not type startx More over, I donnot mean that Linux is bad, it is at least easier than Unix (I think), but somehow it works slower than Unix I see that you're still very, very confused about the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 If he wants to run a server, let him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 I just don't see the point of running linux without xfree. It just makes it easier to use, it doesn't detract from the actual power of the OS. Oh well, live and learn I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cohen Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Uhm, well here's an idea: when you boot your linux, do not type startx Most desktop distros set it to start up the X server automatically, you can change it during the installation but the default is (usually) for it to hold your hand. Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends entirely on your pont of view though. Although to be honest I don't know why you wouldn't want to run xfree Nerd chic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted July 2, 2004 Author Share Posted July 2, 2004 Below is a table of the comparison of windows, linux and unix........... http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html I just still dont get why people still think that Linux has a better performance....... In my situation, Unix would be better than Mandrake Linux, because it supports all my devices...............and it works just fine on installation.... For mandrake, when I use its CD to install, it has an error on the sector of CD........ and for the drivers, it cant detect my wireless lan card...... Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossoi Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 There's quite a few things I really don't agree with in that comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cohen Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Ditto, three reasons: 1. It's out of date by quite a severe margin. Notice it makes no mention of XP which superceded 2000 also: and the 2.4 release of the Linux kernel will introduce If I recall the 2.4 kernel came out quite a while ago. The version of SuSE I'm running is using 2.6.4. 2. Consider the source, a website hosted by freebsd.org. Enough said really. 3. Some of it's criteria appears to be based on opinion rather then testable fact, you'll notice on the very first criteria is uses the phrase "numerous testimonials". This is furthar compounded by the second point, testimonials can be interpreted to suit their purpose due their vague nature compared to scientific benchtesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted July 2, 2004 Author Share Posted July 2, 2004 Any way, what's the point to try out Linux instead of Freebsd? I think since Mandrake is not compatible with my laptop, I am going to try out Slackware...... Compared to FreeBSD, what is its difficulty on installation? Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 What do you mean, "not compatible"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted July 2, 2004 Author Share Posted July 2, 2004 To dave, As I have said before, I got those pissing-me-off bad CD sectors when my DVD-ROM is trying to load Mandrake in my laptop.......and I am so sure that the CD is fine because it works on my desktop, but not laptop.... For FreeBSD, it is just fine when installing to my laptop.... Again, what is the point of using linux instead of FreeBSD? More over, compared with Slackware, which one is easier? Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Linux is more of a desktop-based OS, BSD is geared towards servers and enterprise application. I've not installed or used either slackware or FreeBSD to any great extent, so I can't really help you with that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now