[CALUG] Installing FreeBSD

[Bryan J Smith]

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.

> 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.

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).

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.

> 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.

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

Oh 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.

-- bjs