How it fits BSD?

[Mjölnir]

Actually, formal definitions don't matter much in practice. What matters is, when you say “distribution” in the context of operating systems, 99 % will think “Linux”.

99% of computer nerds. Which is a small group of all people. Why do you care about their artificial narrowing of a otherwise commonly accepted meaning of a term? Which is, as you can easily verify, written down to look up in various dictionaries? Let them think what they want. If they can't mentally leave their universe, ok, but you can, I guess.

 

[olli@]

99% of computer nerds. Which is a small group of all people. Why do you care about their artificial narrowing of a otherwise commonly accepted meaning of a term? Which is, as you can easily verify, written down to look up in various dictionaries? Let them think what they want. If they can't mentally leave their universe, ok, but you can, I guess.

Aren’t we all computer nerds? The fact that this whole discussion exists proves that we are nerds.

And the rest of mankind probably doesn’t care at all what the word distribution means.

 

[20-100-2fe]

The question is: does it help? And if it does, for what?
Unfortunately, there is no single answer to these questions as everyone here likely has different goals.

As for me, I've found out that unpleasant emotions (and they're all unpleasant but joy) are invitations to figure out (or remember) what is really important to me, then decide what to do with the situation triggering the emotion. I found this approach very useful and my quality of life keeps improving since I began using it.

This approach could be dubbed "First Things First" - which is also the title of a book by S. R. Covey.

 

[drhowarddrfine]

Obviously, this danger and lack of respect are purely imaginary: no one in any Linux community cares about FreeBSD.

For a group that doesn't care about FreeBSD, they sure do talk a lot about it. Actually, more often in a positive light than a negative one except for the aforementioned "weanies".

But just as Windows is absorbing Linux into itself, and Linux users seem fine with that, they now adapt Windows terms and software along with all their inherent problems. This is an issue for them but, again, they seem fine with that. However, if one is going to start absorbing Linux-isms into FreeBSD just because it doesn't do any harm and no one cares, then there is a problem with that. You no longer define problems and wins based on your own product. Linux is good because it runs Docker. FreeBSD is bad because it doesn't run Docker. But why does FreeBSD need Docker? Should we now rename all our devices as /dev/sdax because Linux does and it's only a name? Like Linux, should we start calling directories "folders" because users think they're the same thing?

I could go on and on but I'm irritated enough about other things today.

 

[olli@]

I just implemented a new feature of the BSD hardware database that allows you to check desired computer models for BSD compatibility.

How can I correct the information?
I have uploaded the data for my workstation, and the web page lists several components as “detected but not tested”, for example the audio controller. But I can confirm that it works fine, I'm listening to music right now that's playing through that audio controller.

 

[aponomarenko]

How can I correct the information?
I have uploaded the data for my workstation, and the web page lists several components as “detected but not tested”, for example the audio controller. But I can confirm that it works fine, I'm listening to music right now that's playing through that audio controller.

Use big green button REVIEW on the probe page to submit your review.

 

[mark_j]

When talking about FreeBSD here, we don't care what Linux is, what matters is FreeBSD.

Yes, but when referring to distributions 9 out of 10 IT people will assume it's Linux.

 

[mark_j]

Well, that's often the problem with natural language. A sender sends a message intending X, the receipient receives it and applies meaning Y. Many respected members here use the term distribution according to it's definition given in various dictionaries. Of course you are free to apply any meaning you like to any term, but obviously that will make communication difficult. You can even invent your own new language... Maybe you should start a discussion with the editors of the dictionaries?
EDIT if you let others hijack a term & redefine it's meaning, that's your decision. You are free to take another decision and use the very same term in it's genuine and widely accepted meaning.

That's an absurd approach.

It's not about me letting the term be hijacked, it's about the common usage in the ecosystem of IT. Whether you like it or not, distribution as a noun, in IT circles, means Linux.

Whether many "respected members" use the term here, is neither relevant or validating your argument, when the other 99.95% don't use it in that context.

You can use it all you want to refer to FreeBSD derivations, it won't make you right. The word has undertaken a semantic shift; a narrowing of its definition in the IT sphere. I'm not discussing its wider usage nor its obvious definitions for statistics, for example.

 

[mark_j]

[...]
Obviously, this danger and lack of respect are purely imaginary: no one in any Linux community cares about FreeBSD.
[...]

You are clearly wrong with your hyperbole. A quick check on the most Linux-of-Linux fanboy sites, shows you this is never the case:

FreeBSD Getting Close To Finally Migrating Development From Subversion To Git - Phoronix Forums

Phoronix: FreeBSD Getting Close To Finally Migrating Development From Subversion To Git The FreeBSD project has published their Q2'2020 status report that outlines their neat-complete work on migrating from Subversion to Git plus many hardware support improvements for this BSD operating system...

www.phoronix.com

Systemd 246 Is On The Way With Many Changes - Phoronix Forums

Phoronix: Systemd 246 Is On The Way With Many Changes With it already having been a few months since systemd 245 debuted with systemd-homed, the systemd developers have begun their release dance for what will be systemd 246... http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=systemd-246-coming

www.phoronix.com

However, having proved this, I don't understand why you raised this? It's not about "danger and lack of respect" it is about differentiating FreeBSD from the swamp of Linux distributions.

 

[mark_j]

Aren’t we all computer nerds? The fact that this whole discussion exists proves that we are nerds.

And the rest of mankind probably doesn’t care at all what the word distribution means.

I think this is where he fails to understand the word "common". In the context of IT, common usage of "distribution" is a reference to Linux kernel, a GNU userland and systemd controller.
In the statistical field, distribution has another meaning. I don't expect my statistician friends to speak of "distribution" in the terms of Linux, nor do I expect the general populous to.
It's a nonsensical semantic argument, IMO.

 

[Mjölnir]

mark_j, your argumentation & thinking seems very 1-0-ish to me. When I talk to an IT guy about a FreeBSD distribution, s/he will not think of Linux as long s/he is aware that the BSDs are different from Linux. This is not meant to be offensive: I suggest to re-think reflect your mental absolutism.

 

[olli@]

Use big green button REVIEW on the probe page to submit your review.

The design of the site needs to be improved.

• That review button at the very top of the page is easy to miss, it doesn't even look like a typical button. Intuitively you would try to click on the field in the “Status” column that you want to correct, but that brings you to another page that doesn’t help at all.
• And when you finally manage to submit your review, it says that it will wait for approval. I’m not sure what that means. Who is going to approve it, and based on what? Someone else who happens to have the identical hardware? This seems unlikely. The whole workflow needs to be made clearer. Documentation needs to be improved.
• And then, when the data finally appears on the page, it says “Reviewed by the probe author” – I wonder how it claims to know that I'm the author? I did not authenticate with a login + password or anything like that. This causes a bit of an uneasy feeling about the security of the system.
• That also leaves the question how to review a probe that is not my own. While browsing the site I've found several probes that are clearly incorrect, i.e. devices that are supported, but not marked as such.
• Another mistake: My monitor is reported to be located on the EISA bus. That’s complete nonsense, of course. I don’t seem to be able to correct that myself.

 

[olli@]

PS: The NVMe SSD is missing from my probe. The NVMe controller is listed, but the disk itself is not. The SATA SSD and SATA HDD are listed, though.

 

[aponomarenko]

PS: The NVMe SSD is missing from my probe. The NVMe controller is listed, but the disk itself is not. The SATA SSD and SATA HDD are listed, though.

This is due to error: /dev/nda0 failed: INQUIRY failed

By: smartctl -x /dev/nda0

Is command smartctl -x /dev/nvme0 works on your machine?

 

[aponomarenko]

And then, when the data finally appears on the page, it says “Reviewed by the probe author” – I wonder how it claims to know that I'm the author? I did not authenticate with a login + password or anything like that. This causes a bit of an uneasy feeling about the security of the system.

You've authenticated your computer by creating the probe. No one else can submit review of your probe.

 

[aponomarenko]

That also leaves the question how to review a probe that is not my own. While browsing the site I've found several probes that are clearly incorrect, i.e. devices that are supported, but not marked as such.

This is not possible. Could you please point me to such probes?

 

[olli@]

Is command smartctl -x /dev/nvme0 works on your machine?

The SSD is attached as namespace 1 to the controller:

# smartctl -a /dev/nvme0ns1
smartctl 7.1 2019-12-30 r5022 [FreeBSD 12.1-STABLE-20200612 amd64] (local build)
Copyright (C) 2002-19, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org

=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Number:                       Samsung SSD 970 PRO 1TB
Serial Number:                      S462NF0K816531M
Firmware Version:                   1B2QEXP7
PCI Vendor/Subsystem ID:            0x144d
IEEE OUI Identifier:                0x002538
Total NVM Capacity:                 1,024,209,543,168 [1.02 TB]
Unallocated NVM Capacity:           0
Controller ID:                      4
Number of Namespaces:               1
Namespace 1 Size/Capacity:          1,024,209,543,168 [1.02 TB]
Namespace 1 Utilization:            284,502,929,408 [284 GB]
Namespace 1 Formatted LBA Size:     512
Namespace 1 IEEE EUI-64:            002538 5881b3bb74
Local Time is:                      Sun Jul 19 00:13:17 2020 CEST
Firmware Updates (0x16):            3 Slots, no Reset required
Optional Admin Commands (0x0037):   Security Format Frmw_DL Self_Test Directvs
Optional NVM Commands (0x005f):     Comp Wr_Unc DS_Mngmt Wr_Zero Sav/Sel_Feat Timestmp
Maximum Data Transfer Size:         512 Pages
Warning  Comp. Temp. Threshold:     81 Celsius
Critical Comp. Temp. Threshold:     81 Celsius

Supported Power States
St Op     Max   Active     Idle   RL RT WL WT  Ent_Lat  Ex_Lat
 0 +     6.20W       -        -    0  0  0  0        0       0
 1 +     4.30W       -        -    1  1  1  1        0       0
 2 +     2.10W       -        -    2  2  2  2        0       0
 3 -   0.0400W       -        -    3  3  3  3      210    1200
 4 -   0.0050W       -        -    4  4  4  4     2000    8000

Supported LBA Sizes (NSID 0x1)
Id Fmt  Data  Metadt  Rel_Perf
 0 +     512       0         0

=== START OF SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED

SMART/Health Information (NVMe Log 0x02)
Critical Warning:                   0x00
Temperature:                        39 Celsius
Available Spare:                    100%
Available Spare Threshold:          10%
Percentage Used:                    0%
Data Units Read:                    70,603 [36.1 GB]
Data Units Written:                 787,228 [403 GB]
Host Read Commands:                 2,198,620
Host Write Commands:                7,772,932
Controller Busy Time:               42
Power Cycles:                       275
Power On Hours:                     3,555
Unsafe Shutdowns:                   1
Media and Data Integrity Errors:    0
Error Information Log Entries:      9
Warning  Comp. Temperature Time:    0
Critical Comp. Temperature Time:    0
Temperature Sensor 1:               39 Celsius
Temperature Sensor 2:               46 Celsius

Error Information (NVMe Log 0x01, max 64 entries)
No Errors Logged

 

[olli@]

You've authenticated your computer by creating the probe. No one else can submit review of your probe.

How is my computer authenticated? How does the website know that my browser runs on this computer? By IP address? This is a dynamic and shared IP address, so it’s not a good idea to use it for authentication.

That also opens the question how to review probes from headless servers where you can’t run a browser?

 

[aponomarenko]

How is my computer authenticated? How does the website know that my browser runs on this computer? By IP address? This is a dynamic and shared IP address, so it’s not a good idea to use it for authentication.

Yep, your IP address is used. The potential attacker will need to know both your IP (on the moment of probe uploading) and probe ID to get access to your review. But where can he get them? Even if he gets access to your review, administrator approval is required for each new edit.

That also opens the question how to review probes from headless servers where you can’t run a browser?

In this case you need to write review from any device in the same network (with the same external IP).

 

[aponomarenko]

Another mistake: My monitor is reported to be located on the EISA bus. That’s complete nonsense, of course. I don’t seem to be able to correct that myself.

The hw-probe script has been ported from Linux, where it relies on hwinfo utility from OpenSUSE to detect monitors. I just asked authors to explain why bus of all detected monitors is identified as EISA. Is it just PCI nowadays?

 

[olli@]

In this case you need to write review from any device in the same network (with the same external IP).

The headless servers that I’m responsible for have their own IP addresses. What you’re suggesting might work for a private home server that’s behind a NAT gateway, but it doesn’t work for “real” servers.

 

[olli@]

The hw-probe script has been ported from Linux, where it relies on hwinfo utility from OpenSUSE to detect monitors. I just asked authors to explain why bus of all detected monitors is identified as EISA. Is it just PCI nowadays?

Well, monitors are not connected to any system bus. They're connected to a GPU (graphics card or whatever) with HDMI, DisplayPort, DVI and so on. Of course, the GPU is probably connected via PCI or PCIe, but that’s a separate entry.

 

[Jose]

Linux distributions are such a disjointed mess it took one of Linux's owners IBM/Redhat to design a wanna-be launchd/svcadm called systemd to try to align the dog's breakfast of inits, network and audio managers etc.

I agree with you about network and audio managers, but there was really only one init, and it had worked (and still works!) fine for more than a decade before the systemd crackerjacks arrived on the scene. That's part of what made its replacement so obnoxious, it was completely gratuitous at best.

 

[mark_j]

I agree with you about network and audio managers, but there was really only one init, and it had worked (and still works!) fine for more than a decade before the systemd crackerjacks arrived on the scene. That's part of what made its replacement so obnoxious, it was completely gratuitous at best.

One init? Like openrc, sysVinit, upstart, runit?
I'm not arguing the plus or minuses of systemd, but I can see the rationale for only one init system. systemd is attempting to make Linux into a *BSD where everything is homogeneous, where the kernel is matched to the init, is matched to userland and so on.
It's effectively attempting to do away with the various distributions. Linux will eventually be just IBM/RedHat.

The irony is that these distributions embrace systemd, some because they have no choice and some because they blindly choose to.

But again, I can understand Linux distribution developers being frustrated at maintaining a myriad of inits in their distributions. I also can not understand why they just don't pick one of them and stick with it, faults and all. This choice is slowly being taken away as systemd infiltrates everything from init, network, dns, user's home directories and so on.

That's why I say "Linux" is such a disjointed OS; a real mess. Every effort should be made to disassociate the term "distribution" from any BSD, in this case FreeBSD.

 

[mark_j]

mark_j, your argumentation & thinking seems very 1-0-ish to me. When I talk to an IT guy about a FreeBSD distribution, s/he will not think of Linux as long s/he is aware that the BSDs are different from Linux. This is not meant to be offensive: I suggest to re-think reflect your mental absolutism.

You can shoot the messenger, it won't change the message.