Intel Macs and FreeBSD?

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:47:37 -0500
James Riendeau <jtriendewisc.edu> wrote:

> Why?  Mac OS X has a complete unix freebsd-like core
called darwin  
> ( http://www.darwin.org ). 
There's no reason to install freebsd on  
> it.  Just install Mac Developer Tools (included in the
Applications  
> folder), compile your favorite progs and go.

Have you actually tried this?  Installing ports from FreeBSD
is about
50x easier than getting software compiled/installed on a
Mac.  I've
been working with the Macs here at the office for a few
weeks, and I've
come to realize just how wonderfully well-maintained
FreeBSD's ports
are!

I'd take FreeBSD over MacOS any day.  Perhaps it will get
better over
time, but I'm not impressed with it right now.

> On Apr 27, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Mark Edwards wrote:
> 
> > Does anyone know if the Intel Macs can boot and
install FreeBSD,  
> > now that the firmware includes BIOS compatibility?
 Has anyone seen  
> > it happen?
> >
> > I'm thinking of using a Mac Mini as a quiet
living-room server.   
> > Thanks!

-- 
Bill Moran
Collaborative Fusion Inc.

************************************************************
****
IMPORTANT: This message contains confidential information
and is
intended only for the individual named. If the reader of
this
message is not an intended recipient (or the individual
responsible for the delivery of this message to an intended
recipient), please be advised that any re-use,
dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message is prohibited.
Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your
system.
E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted,
lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
The
sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or
omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a
result of e-mail transmission.
************************************************************
****
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questionsfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-que
stions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-questions-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

On Apr 27, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Bill Moran wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:47:37 -0500 James Riendeau  
> <jtriendewisc.edu> wrote:
>
>> Why?  Mac OS X has a complete unix freebsd-like
core called darwin
>> ( http://www.darwin.org ). 
There's no reason to install freebsd on
>> it.  Just install Mac Developer Tools (included in
the Applications
>> folder), compile your favorite progs and go.
>
> Have you actually tried this?  Installing ports from
FreeBSD is about
> 50x easier than getting software compiled/installed on
a Mac.  I've
> been working with the Macs here at the office for a few
weeks, and  
> I've
> come to realize just how wonderfully well-maintained
FreeBSD's ports
> are!
>
> I'd take FreeBSD over MacOS any day.  Perhaps it will
get better over
> time, but I'm not impressed with it right now.

At the risk of digressing on this topic, I want to add that
I am  
actually at this point deciding between FreeBSD for the
migration  
(i.e. 4.x on an old Gateway to 6.x on a Intel Mac Mini) and
Ubuntu.

The idea of moving to Ubuntu is that it might be simpler and
less  
time-consuming to maintain a package-based system rather
than  
building so much from source as I end up doing on FreeBSD. 
And that  
the fact it is a GUI-focused distribution might simplify
things a bit  
(the idea being that Ubuntu has a very set design, less
open-ended  
than FreeBSD, perhaps easier to upgrade?).  The GUI might
also help  
when others who are less unix-savvy than I have to or want
to work  
with the server.

I considered migrating to OSX on the mini, and I do maintain
an OSX  
Server machine at work, but I don't like the lack of a port
system.   
Everything has to be built and fitted in manually, and all
monitoring  
of updates is also manual labor.  Fink has its usefulness
for desktop  
software, but the server packages are lacking.

For the record, this server runs apache/php/mysql, exim,
cyrus-imapd,  
proftpd, netatalk, samba, spamassassin, clamav,
squirrelmail,  
mailman, and DNS.  Stuff like that.  It has about 20 users,
it isn't  
super busy.

So, how about it?  Is the concept of running this off of
Ubuntu being  
easier than FreeBSD just a pipe-dream?  I have messed with
Debian and  
Ubuntu, but never tried to run a server off of either.  I
would love  
to hear from people who have been down both roads, whether
there is  
some sense to it, or if I should just stick with FreeBSD.

Thanks for any insight, and thanks for the responses to this
thread  
thus far...

--
Mark Edwards


_______________________________________________
freebsd-questionsfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-que
stions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-questions-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

Mark Edwards wrote:
> At the risk of digressing on this topic, I want to add
that I am 
> actually at this point deciding between FreeBSD for the
migration 
> (i.e. 4.x on an old Gateway to 6.x on a Intel Mac Mini)
and Ubuntu.
>
> The idea of moving to Ubuntu is that it might be
simpler and less 
> time-consuming to maintain a package-based system
rather than building 
> so much from source as I end up doing on FreeBSD.  And
that the fact 
> it is a GUI-focused distribution might simplify things
a bit (the idea 
> being that Ubuntu has a very set design, less
open-ended than FreeBSD, 
> perhaps easier to upgrade?).  The GUI might also help
when others who 
> are less unix-savvy than I have to or want to work with
the server.
>
> I considered migrating to OSX on the mini, and I do
maintain an OSX 
> Server machine at work, but I don't like the lack of a
port system.  
> Everything has to be built and fitted in manually, and
all monitoring 
> of updates is also manual labor.  Fink has its
usefulness for desktop 
> software, but the server packages are lacking.
>
> For the record, this server runs apache/php/mysql,
exim, cyrus-imapd, 
> proftpd, netatalk, samba, spamassassin, clamav,
squirrelmail, mailman, 
> and DNS.  Stuff like that.  It has about 20 users, it
isn't super busy.
>
> So, how about it?  Is the concept of running this off
of Ubuntu being 
> easier than FreeBSD just a pipe-dream?  I have messed
with Debian and 
> Ubuntu, but never tried to run a server off of either. 
I would love 
> to hear from people who have been down both roads,
whether there is 
> some sense to it, or if I should just stick with
FreeBSD.
>
> Thanks for any insight, and thanks for the responses to
this thread 
> thus far...
>
> -- 
> Mark Edwards
>
Ubuntu has a pretty good package manager system, open the
little window, 
find the program you want, and it installs it. It's nice,
much better 
than that RPM stuff. No ports system like freeBSD, but still
nice.

The GUI should not be an issue. You should take a look at
DesktopBSD 
http://www.desktopbsd.net/
 which is freeBSD configured for the GUI right 
off the install , much nicer on an environment where others
may be using 
it. Aside from these desktop friendly configurations, it's
exactly the 
same as any other freeBSD. This is the route I would go if I
wanted GUIness.

-John



_______________________________________________
freebsd-questionsfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-que
stions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-questions-unsubscribefreebsd.org"

On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 02:03:20AM -0700, Mark Edwards
wrote:

> So, how about it?  Is the concept of running this off
of Ubuntu being  
> easier than FreeBSD just a pipe-dream?  I have messed
with Debian and  
> Ubuntu, but never tried to run a server off of either. 
I would love  
> to hear from people who have been down both roads,
whether there is  
> some sense to it, or if I should just stick with
FreeBSD.

A good way to make the right decision would be intensive
testing of the
systems you don't know (Debian/Ubuntu). Install them, read
about them,
see how they fit your needs.

>From my experience, running a server using a
Debian-based system is a
lot easier and safer (as long as you choose one of their
"stable"
releases). You get a well-tested set of software that does
not change
if you don't want it. Installing the latest security fixes
is as easy
as typing "apt-get update" followed by an
"apt-get upgrade". The
downside with running "stable" is that after a
while the software will
be somewhat outdated. This is not a problem for servers, but
many people
don't like "old" software on their desktops
(Debian-Stable aka "Sarge"
comes with Gnome 2.8, for example). This is one of the
problems that
Ubuntu tries to solve: they try to get a new release done
twice a year.
A quite common answer to the question "which
distribution?" is:
Debian-Stable for servers, Ubuntu for workstations.

hth,
Uwe

_______________________________________________
freebsd-questionsfreebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-que
stions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-questions-unsubscribefreebsd.org"