[CALUG] Installing FreeBSD

[James Ewing Cottrell III]

On 4/4/2015 3:25 PM, Bryan J Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 1:42 AM, James Ewing Cottrell III
> <JECottrell3 at comcast.net> wrote:
>> Right, because Living in the Past is a Good Thing.
>> For Better or Worse (Better, actually), UNIX has mutated into Linux.
>
> Huh?
>
> I won't argue that GNU compatibility and related interfaces have
> brought much goodness to UNIX, it's not just GNU/Linux or not world.
>
>> I'd just as soon Forget the Incompatibilties the BSD folks foisted off
>> on us during the 4.3BSD to 4.4BSD transition.
>
> Ummm ... the AT&T lawsuit might have had a little bit to do with that.
> But even still, not that much changed.

Yes, it did. But I heard they were down to just 4 files that COULD have 
been rewritten.

>> The BSD folks never adopted the GNUtilites,
>
> I wonder why?  Could it be for licensing considerations and a
> different in approaches to downstream?  ;)  As much as I prefer GPL,
> there's a reason why there is a world where BSD-MIT is the norm.  I
> don't agree with it, but I do understand it.

Licensing? It's FREE!

> Even today there is a lot of debate over the new *d/*ctl
> daemon/utility approaches in Linux, while people forget that BSD
> continues to be the proven legacy of rc scripts and ports-based
> builds.  It's a very good platform for such, and should remain so.
>
>> never adopted the Standard Disk Partitioning,
>
> Define "Standard Disk Partitioning"?
>
> If you mean legacy BIOS/DOS, aka MBR, no thank you.  In fact, there's
> a reason I'm glad GPT is now here, although vendors not implementing
> uEFI completely does get old (not that it's worse than PC BIOS, the
> opposite).

Yes, BIOS Partitioning. There is no reason to slice it up again. I share 
your Love of GPT, but that's pretty new. Not sure about UEFI.

> But disk labels within disk labels (like the entire disk partition
> table) are not uncommon.  Even LDM and LVM are examples of such in NT
> and Linux, respectively.

Touche. But LVM does it for a Different Reason.

>> and even kept csh as the root shell.
>
> Licensing anyone?  Although they could adopt ksh93, there's a reason
> why csh is the default.  But one still has choice in even BSD.

CSH is an Abomination.

>> Need I mention their horrible version of make, stupid mandoc macros?
>
> Oh boy.

Boy.

>> Yes, I bled BSD and Solaris back in the day, but like they say...
>> You Can Never Go Home.
>
> But like they say ...
> Some Never Left.

Yes, but Most Did.

> -- bjs

JIM