Yes but chances are that ZFS isn't the only thing that place will want you to do with the box so saying you've used ZFS on FreeBSD when they're using Solaris won't be too helpful.
Have to disagree - thats like saying your apache knowledge is no good because you've used it under linux but they're running it on Solaris.
I agree that it's broken but apparently it's pretty easy to do because I just logged into a friends machine and ran pkg_info and got this:
Snipped for brevity...
Your autoconf packages are valid. Autoconf is pretty different between versions and some programs only work on certain ones. Not strictly FreeBSDs fault. Linux distributions may handle it differently - but thats not broken.
As opposed to one of my boxes, which in its current life span has gone from 5.0 through all 5 revisions, up to 6 before coming to 6.2 with all the ports being kept up to date along the way (ports not packages).
libltdl-1.5.22_2 System independent dlopen wrapper
libtool-1.5.22_4 Generic shared library support script
libxml2-2.6.27 XML parser library for GNOME
pfqueue-0.5.6 A console-based tool for handling Postfix 1, Postfix 2 and
php5-5.2.2 PHP Scripting Language (Apache Module and CLI)
php5-bz2-5.2.2 The bz2 shared extension for php
(sendmail not installed).
I can only say whoever looks after that machine has done something wrong somewhere.
You only have my word and a breif cut and paste from a random machine to prove it but you have to honestly ask yourself - if that was normal FreeBSD behaviour would anyone actually use it?
Then they should be completely separate. Having them intermingle like this and then saying "Don't do that" is utterly braindead, if mixing ports and packages is really that bad of an idea then why do ports eventually install just like packages and break your system without warning?
They are seperate. The installation process for both is different. The installation methodology is different. The only similarity is you end up with the same program installed at the end.
I'm not going to argue and say its not a common thing for a newcomer to FreeBSD to get confused about but its all clearly documented in the handbook.
As I've said previously sometimes it is unavoidable - at the end of the day its there for choice and flexibility.
I'd liken it to using rpm by hand or using yum. You'd expect the two to behave the same but realistically you'd never mix them.
I'm not going to tell anyone the FreeBSD package management system is flawless, without its foibles and with no shortcomings. Thats patently untrue and you've touched on some of the most widespread complaints.
However it's no better or worse than other package managers on other systems. They each have their advantages and disadvantages and its a case of which one you know best and identify with most.
If its worth anything to you everytime I have to update our Ubuntu boxes I curse at apt and its whole methodology and wish for ports
😉
And RedHat..well...at least 5 ships with yum now
🙂
But you can call HP since they offer Debian support contracts. And no I don't think Canonical will support everything Debian packages, they have their own subset of base packages and everything else is in repositories called universe and multiverse.
I didn't know that re: HP. However I'd argue the same as debian, theres no way they can offer comprehensive 'anything beyond how to install' support for all the packages.
On Debian they're more than just known to work, they're actually integrated into the system. When you install a Debian package they add menu entries for all installed WMs, update the alternatives system, Gnome things add themselves to the yelp index, etc.
I've touched on this earlier.
So does FreeBSD. However your point would be valid it you explained that Debian (as with most linux systems) is more *likely* to do it as ultimately its down to the discretion of the package maintainer. Lots of FreeBSD ports do this....lots don't. I think adding items to a window manager menu is alot different than saying it wouldn't compile / install / be supported.
Thats your right...I'm not sure what evidence you would have though. Again if no one bothered about these things why would anyone use FreeBSD?
I'm again not going to say its flawless and theres never something introduced or changed thats caused a problem - but thats the same situation for every package manager I've used at some point, including the mighty 'tested' Redhat. (a special mention to gentoos portage in this category!)
But in your case can't you get software support from IBM as well? It may be two separate departments within IBM but one would think that they'd be able to offer you support for both ends if RH won't help you.
They will support the SAN and the drivers they provide - but not the rest of the RH box. As it's not an idle file server (base for an Oracle RAC cluster) we need to keep the RedHat support.
IBM would I suspect handle OS support for us if needed - but at more cost. As we've already paid for it and charged the client paying more would eat into profits. Shortsighted by someone along the way but these things happen.
With Debian 90% of the work is done for me by the package maintainers and that's how it should be.
I find the same with FreeBSD. For what it's worth. Again, swings and roundabouts.
Support contracts yes, but general package support no. It seems to me that Debian devs put a lot more work into making their packages work well within the system than FreeBSD does with their packages and ports.
I'm not really sure what you mean by that - other than the slightly less tight at times X integration, which I'm not going to deny. But your statement makes it sound like FreeBSD ports maintainers and the overseeing port tree administrators toss things in willy nilly with no testing or thought to anything.
I know thats not true but to someone uneducated to FreeBSD thats a very bias thing to say and easy for a newcomer to take the wrong way. I daresay the hard working ports people wouldn't be too pleased either!
I have no doubt that all of the problems and inconveniences that I ran into could be worked around but I don't really see the point of learning all of that unless I need to because Linux already does everything I want and, IMO, in better and more manageable ways.
I was trying to be polite and diplomatic with my 'work around' phrase...rather than being blunt and saying the problems you're having are because of holes in your FreeBSD knowledge.
And I agree if you know and use linux and are happy with it, theres no need to switch.
But thats what the OP was looking for. He does want to perhaps branch out - my points where that your sweeping generalisations were largely ill informed and would likely put the OP off for no reason.
Yes and how they're all tied together within the system is important and IMO Debian does that much better than FreeBSD or RH.
And IMO (what a wonderful get out clause) FreeBSD does it just fine. No better or worse than the others when all is said and done.
I'll bow out now, we're going round in circles. Agree to disagree?
jonessoda - I hope you're still reading at this point and that you've got the message that FreeBSD isn't as broken as made out. And I hope you've not been put off trying it.
Even if you try it and come back to agree with Nuthinmans points - then at least you gave it a whir!
