problem downloading freebsd from ftp and torrent

[MrDudeMan]

i am trying to download freebsd from the ftp sites listed on the website, but it keeps stopping at 20-25%. i also havent been able to find a torrent that will work. it keeps saying "tracker not supported" or something similar.

what is the advantage of buying the DVD from the freebsd mall over downloading it for free?

 

[OSX]

In your case, it will actually work if you buy the DVD.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: OSX
In your case, it will actually work if you buy the DVD.

do you have an explanation for either of my problems? and why is the DVD 60 dollars? what do you get with it to warrant that price tag if you can download it for free?

 

[SleepWalkerX]

You could buy it cheaper at other places like osdisc.com. There are a ton of places that burn linux/bsd isos to cds and sell them. I guess it costs that much because the packaging, manuals, etc. for each copy you buy. And since FreeBSD supports buying from that site they most likely get some returns on the profit to go back to running the site, paying the developers, etc.

And try this site, tlm-project.org. They have question marks for the number of seeders/peers, but I just tried the i386-all and there are a lot of seeds on it.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
You could buy it cheaper at other places like osdisc.com. There are a ton of places that burn linux/bsd isos to cds and sell them. I guess it costs that much because the packaging, manuals, etc. for each copy you buy. And since FreeBSD supports buying from that site they most likely get some returns on the profit to go back to running the site, paying the developers, etc.

And try this site, tlm-project.org. They have question marks for the number of seeders/peers, but I just tried the i386-all and there are a lot of seeds on it.

the torrent for amd64 - all worked fine for a few minutes, and then dropped off around .7%

so osdisc charges 4 dollars for freebsd when the home site charges 60. that is a crazy difference. i think ill just buy it from osdisc and stop trying to download since it is simply not working.

edit: the i386 - all is working fine...i guess ill use that one instead. what is the difference between that one and the amd64 version?

 

[SleepWalkerX]

The amd64 is made to take advantage of amd's 64 bit processors rather than the most commonly found architecture x86 (or in this case, specifically i386 which won't take advantage of newer x86 architecture's features, but has the most compatibility because all x86 architectures can run it). As far as I know, there may be a slight performance increase if any at all right now, but in the future you'll see a lot more features being taken advantage of, like being able to access more memory.

 

[Nothinman]

edit: the i386 - all is working fine...i guess ill use that one instead. what is the difference between that one and the amd64 version?

64-bit vs 32-bit.

or in this case, specifically i386 which won't take advantage of newer x86 architecture's features, but has the most compatibility because all x86 architectures can run it).

I doubt that's true, almost everyone labels their stuff i386 when they just mean x86 so he'll most likely get a kernel with at least 586 or 686 optimizations, for the little bit that it'll matter. But I could be wrong, it's been a pretty long time since I messed with FreeBSD.

 

[aux]

If you are using a web browser for the ftp download, try using a real ftp client. Some browsers can't download large files.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

or in this case, specifically i386 which won't take advantage of newer x86 architecture's features, but has the most compatibility because all x86 architectures can run it).

I doubt that's true, almost everyone labels their stuff i386 when they just mean x86 so he'll most likely get a kernel with at least 586 or 686 optimizations, for the little bit that it'll matter. But I could be wrong, it's been a pretty long time since I messed with FreeBSD.

I'm not sure how much water that holds. I know that i386 code has to run flawlessly on i386 processors so if it included 586 or 686 optimizations it can't conflict with i386 processors at all. I kinda doubt you can run i586 optimized code on i386 processors, but hey I might be wrong. Maybe drag knows.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
why is the DVD 60 dollars? what do you get with it to warrant that price tag if you can download it for free?

You get to support further development.

If you're just trying it out for the first time, you generally don't buy the expensive stuff like that. If, however, you find that you want to do something to keep development going, it's a good thing to shell out the extra money. Of course, I couldn't vouch for how effectively that site transfers the money back to developers.

 

[Nothinman]

I know that i386 code has to run flawlessly on i386 processors.

True, but who actually supports them these days? I know that glibc only works on 486s and above because Debian had to drop support for 386s a while back, obviously FreeBSD has their own libc but I can't imagine them putting a lot of effort into supporting them.

I kinda doubt you can run i586 optimized code on i386 processors, but hey I might be wrong. Maybe drag knows.

I never said you could but I know that the FreeBSD kernel does have support for those instructions included in i586 and i686 CPUs so I was thinking that their installer would be smart enough to install a kernel compiled for those if it detected a new enough CPU like Linux distributions have been doing for years.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

edit: the i386 - all is working fine...i guess ill use that one instead. what is the difference between that one and the amd64 version?

64-bit vs 32-bit.

or in this case, specifically i386 which won't take advantage of newer x86 architecture's features, but has the most compatibility because all x86 architectures can run it).

I doubt that's true, almost everyone labels their stuff i386 when they just mean x86 so he'll most likely get a kernel with at least 586 or 686 optimizations, for the little bit that it'll matter. But I could be wrong, it's been a pretty long time since I messed with FreeBSD.

well im downloading freebsd to get more experience using unix. i know how to use it now, but i want to get better and be as comfortable using it as i am with windows. if you think freebsd isnt the best for that, then can you recommend another option?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
well im downloading freebsd to get more experience using unix. i know how to use it now, but i want to get better and be as comfortable using it as i am with windows. if you think freebsd isnt the best for that, then can you recommend another option?

Use whatever you use at work.

Personally, besides the big unix vendors of course, OpenBSD seems more true to the old unix roots than the others. But FreeBSD isn't a bad choice, IMO.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Nothinman

edit: the i386 - all is working fine...i guess ill use that one instead. what is the difference between that one and the amd64 version?

64-bit vs 32-bit.

or in this case, specifically i386 which won't take advantage of newer x86 architecture's features, but has the most compatibility because all x86 architectures can run it).

I doubt that's true, almost everyone labels their stuff i386 when they just mean x86 so he'll most likely get a kernel with at least 586 or 686 optimizations, for the little bit that it'll matter. But I could be wrong, it's been a pretty long time since I messed with FreeBSD.

well im downloading freebsd to get more experience using unix. i know how to use it now, but i want to get better and be as comfortable using it as i am with windows. if you think freebsd isnt the best for that, then can you recommend another option?

Why not a linux distro? The BSDs have a rep of being more for advanced users. Can't speak from experience though. A great way to learn about setting up a linux box is installing Gentoo from the command line. They have excellent documentation so you'll know all the steps you need to accomplish everything. You'll know how to setup partitions, recompile your kernel when necessary, and other tasks. However, if all you want to do is be comfortable in a linux environment then there's always Ubuntu, Suse, and other easy to use linux distros.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Why not a linux distro? The BSDs have a rep of being more for advanced users. Can't speak from experience though. A great way to learn about setting up a linux box is installing Gentoo from the command line. They have excellent documentation so you'll know all the steps you need to accomplish everything. You'll know how to setup partitions, recompile your kernel when necessary, and other tasks. However, if all you want to do is be comfortable in a linux environment then there's always Ubuntu, Suse, and other easy to use linux distros.

Linux isn't unix

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Why not a linux distro? The BSDs have a rep of being more for advanced users. Can't speak from experience though. A great way to learn about setting up a linux box is installing Gentoo from the command line. They have excellent documentation so you'll know all the steps you need to accomplish everything. You'll know how to setup partitions, recompile your kernel when necessary, and other tasks. However, if all you want to do is be comfortable in a linux environment then there's always Ubuntu, Suse, and other easy to use linux distros.

Linux isn't unix

Neither is BSD.

 

[Nothinman]

A great way to learn about setting up a linux box is installing Gentoo from the command line.

It's a great way to see if you can follow directions but that's about it. Typing 'emerge blah' and watching gcc output doesn't teach you a whole lot.

Linux isn't unix

Thankfully.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Why not a linux distro? The BSDs have a rep of being more for advanced users. Can't speak from experience though. A great way to learn about setting up a linux box is installing Gentoo from the command line. They have excellent documentation so you'll know all the steps you need to accomplish everything. You'll know how to setup partitions, recompile your kernel when necessary, and other tasks. However, if all you want to do is be comfortable in a linux environment then there's always Ubuntu, Suse, and other easy to use linux distros.

Linux isn't unix

Neither is BSD.

That depends on your definition of unix.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Why not a linux distro? The BSDs have a rep of being more for advanced users. Can't speak from experience though. A great way to learn about setting up a linux box is installing Gentoo from the command line. They have excellent documentation so you'll know all the steps you need to accomplish everything. You'll know how to setup partitions, recompile your kernel when necessary, and other tasks. However, if all you want to do is be comfortable in a linux environment then there's always Ubuntu, Suse, and other easy to use linux distros.

Linux isn't unix

Neither is BSD.

That depends on your definition of unix.

In what definition would it be?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
In what definition would it be?

How about a multiuser operating system based on the code and ideas originally created by Dennis Richie and Ken Thompson at AT&T Bell Labs.

Linux is a Minix clone, the BSDs had their start with AT&T code.

EDIT: Apparently Minix had it's start UNIX System V Release 2. But I'm not sure how much code they had... And still, Linux is a clone. I don't think Linus used minix code.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

A great way to learn about setting up a linux box is installing Gentoo from the command line.

It's a great way to see if you can follow directions but that's about it. Typing 'emerge blah' and watching gcc output doesn't teach you a whole lot.

Fine probably not in package management, but what about in setting up partitions, setting up fstab, (re)compiling your kernel, configuring network devices, setting up the bootloader, and setting up users and groups along with tons of other things... You'd definantly learn more than going through Debian's ncurses installation or going with a majority of other distributions.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: Nothinman

A great way to learn about setting up a linux box is installing Gentoo from the command line.

It's a great way to see if you can follow directions but that's about it. Typing 'emerge blah' and watching gcc output doesn't teach you a whole lot.

Fine probably not in package management, but what about in setting up partitions, setting up fstab, (re)compiling your kernel, configuring network devices, setting up the bootloader, and setting up users and groups along with tons of other things... You'd definantly learn more than going through Debian's ncurses installation or going with a majority of other distributions.

Go with slackware then.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Why not a linux distro? The BSDs have a rep of being more for advanced users. Can't speak from experience though. A great way to learn about setting up a linux box is installing Gentoo from the command line. They have excellent documentation so you'll know all the steps you need to accomplish everything. You'll know how to setup partitions, recompile your kernel when necessary, and other tasks.

The bsds are too technical so use gentoo instead?

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
In what definition would it be?

How about a multiuser operating system based on the code and ideas originally created by Dennis Richie and Ken Thompson at AT&T Bell Labs.

Linux is a Minix clone, the BSDs had their start with AT&T code.

Incorrect. The popular BSDs around today originated from 4.4BSD-Lite2, which contained no AT&T Unix source code. link

In many ways, Linux is more Unix than BSD today. BSD only recently is becoming POSIX compliant which as we all know is as close to the Single Unix Specification as you can get.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Why not a linux distro? The BSDs have a rep of being more for advanced users. Can't speak from experience though. A great way to learn about setting up a linux box is installing Gentoo from the command line. They have excellent documentation so you'll know all the steps you need to accomplish everything. You'll know how to setup partitions, recompile your kernel when necessary, and other tasks.

The bsds are too technical so use gentoo instead?

Gentoo has a HUGE forum dedicated to answering installation questions so if there was ever a problem to arise it would 99% be already answered there. But their handbook is hands down the best installation guide made for a linux distribution. When I was a linux newbie and I tried Gentoo I actually installed it easier than I did Ubuntu for the first time (this was back in Warty, tons of installation problems for me, their documentation did not cover my problem).