Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BSD vs. Linux (2005)

over-yonder.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 371 posts

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#21

Post by erlehmann_ »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #16
nixos wrote: post #12

I know Linux (Debian) quite well and would like an excuse to try learning FreeBSD, but I just can't find any serious use-cases where FreeBSD would be of any advantage. I run a small site on a VPS, so: 1. I don't have GBs of free memory for ZFS 2. I don't have GB of RAM, CPU and HD space to build everything from ports, and most importantly, no need. Except for an Application Firewall for nginx, what does ports have ov…

1. zfs runs well on a lot of systems. You might have to change a setting or two but it's not as you say. 2. pkg install and the related pkg utilities have existed for awhile. 5. systemd isn't and shouldn't be a requirement for applications going forward. Any application that requires it is limiting its portability for unknown reasons. The joy of trying a new system is the little things you learn that you weren't even…

Regarding your point 5: Application developers embrace systemd (and thereby reject portability to some extent) because it makes it easier for them to not do infrastructure work. A description of that phenomenon in KDE can be read here: http://blog.davidedmundson.co.uk/blog/systemd-and-plasma

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#22

Post by nixos »

merlincorey wrote: post #17
nixos wrote: post #12

I know Linux (Debian) quite well and would like an excuse to try learning FreeBSD, but I just can't find any serious use-cases where FreeBSD would be of any advantage. I run a small site on a VPS, so: 1. I don't have GBs of free memory for ZFS 2. I don't have GB of RAM, CPU and HD space to build everything from ports, and most importantly, no need. Except for an Application Firewall for nginx, what does ports have ov…

> 1. I don't have GBs of free memory for ZFS ZFS does not require large amounts of RAM any more, unless you want to benefit from its impressive caching features and have large amounts of disk space. > 2. I don't have GB of RAM, CPU and HD space to build everything from ports, and most importantly, no need. Since FreeBSD 10, pkg-ng has been the standard. It unifies binary packages installable similar to apt and other…

> Each to their own, but MIT and BSD are, to me, free-er and more friendly to business applications.

True, but I'm not going to sell OSs, and plenty of corporations are working on Linux

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#23

Post by merlincorey »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #18
dkarapetyan wrote: post #15

I tried freebsd. Gone back to ubuntu. In this day and age not having proper dependency resolution for packages is not acceptable. I've more than once had some tool based on ports just go into an infinite cycle when asked to upgrade some packages. The philosophy laid out in this article seems more like rationalization of historical accidents more than anything else. Linux file system layout is just as predictable as a…

It's really not just a rationalization. BSDs control the kernel and the userland, meaning that file system layout is coherent. Check any Ubuntu installation and packages are all over the place. This is perhaps unavoidable. Also, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, and FreeBSD can all be used as server or desktops without much fiddling. Their installers are better than anything in the Linux world. You can have one up and running w…

+1 on the BSD installers being some of the best out there. OpenBSD's and FreeBSD's specifically are amazing, both for different reasons.

OpenBSD's is very minimal simple ASCII input and output questions with sane defaults.

FreeBSD offers a console dialog based approach similar in some ways to Debian's installer, but in other ways different (and to my mind, better).

Both of them will get you efficiently setup from nothing to installed within minutes, and since they are very simple and well documented, both of them are easily scriptable for installing servers or laptops quickly with a specific setup or your own prompts.

By contrast, linux installers are generally larger, slower, clunkier processes and I am not sure how easy it would be to integrate any random distribution's installer into a scripted workflow.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#25

Post by merlincorey »

dkarapetyan wrote: post #20
aaron-lebo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really not just a rationalization. BSDs control the kernel and the userland, meaning that file system layout is coherent. Check any Ubuntu installation and packages are all over the place. This is perhaps unavoidable. Also, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, and FreeBSD can all be used as server or desktops without much fiddling. Their installers are better than anything in the Linux world. You can have one up and running w…

I don't think the layout is coherent at all. Ubuntu layout is much more coherent. If I need nginx configuration I look in /etc/nginx. Following the same pattern if I need mysql configuration I look in /etc/mysql. If I need to figure out the actual daemon configuration for each I look in /etc/init. It's all very nice and tidy. Actual binaries go in /usr/local/bin or /usr/bin or /bin. That's pretty much all I need to k…

It isn't actually as nice and tidy as it would seem because you do not have a direct separation between system configuration and application configuration.

It's a small, subtle detail that for many is less important today than it once was; however, if I have two FreeBSD systems of mostly equal versions and I want to migrate applications and/or users from one to the other, I know ALL I have to do is copy from /usr/local -- try that on your Ubuntu machine. Good luck separating the system-specific configurations from your user and application configurations.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#26

Post by nixos »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #16
nixos wrote: post #12

I know Linux (Debian) quite well and would like an excuse to try learning FreeBSD, but I just can't find any serious use-cases where FreeBSD would be of any advantage. I run a small site on a VPS, so: 1. I don't have GBs of free memory for ZFS 2. I don't have GB of RAM, CPU and HD space to build everything from ports, and most importantly, no need. Except for an Application Firewall for nginx, what does ports have ov…

1. zfs runs well on a lot of systems. You might have to change a setting or two but it's not as you say. 2. pkg install and the related pkg utilities have existed for awhile. 5. systemd isn't and shouldn't be a requirement for applications going forward. Any application that requires it is limiting its portability for unknown reasons. The joy of trying a new system is the little things you learn that you weren't even…

> pkg install and the related pkg utilities have existed for awhile.

So have apt and apt-get. So that takes away one of the advantages of FreeBSD

> systemd isn't and shouldn't be a requirement for applications going forward. Any application that requires it is limiting its portability for unknown reasons.

True, tell RedHat that :(

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#27

Post by nixos »

cperciva wrote: post #13
nixos wrote: post #12

I know Linux (Debian) quite well and would like an excuse to try learning FreeBSD, but I just can't find any serious use-cases where FreeBSD would be of any advantage. I run a small site on a VPS, so: 1. I don't have GBs of free memory for ZFS 2. I don't have GB of RAM, CPU and HD space to build everything from ports, and most importantly, no need. Except for an Application Firewall for nginx, what does ports have ov…

I'm inclined to agree that there probably aren't any great reasons why you would benefit from FreeBSD rather than Debian, but just to correct one misconception: I don't have GBs of free memory for ZFS In the early days of ZFS it required many GB of memory -- it was developed for Solaris, and designed for servers with lots of memory. But it has improved dramatically since it first came to FreeBSD, and people run it wi…

How much RAM is required these days?

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#28

Post by vivin »

dkarapetyan wrote: post #20
aaron-lebo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really not just a rationalization. BSDs control the kernel and the userland, meaning that file system layout is coherent. Check any Ubuntu installation and packages are all over the place. This is perhaps unavoidable. Also, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, and FreeBSD can all be used as server or desktops without much fiddling. Their installers are better than anything in the Linux world. You can have one up and running w…

I don't think the layout is coherent at all. Ubuntu layout is much more coherent. If I need nginx configuration I look in /etc/nginx. Following the same pattern if I need mysql configuration I look in /etc/mysql. If I need to figure out the actual daemon configuration for each I look in /etc/init. It's all very nice and tidy. Actual binaries go in /usr/local/bin or /usr/bin or /bin. That's pretty much all I need to k…

FreeBSD is quite coherent. Anything not part of the base system goes into /usr/local.

If you're having trouble understanding the layout of the filesystem, you only have to man hier: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?hier(7)

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#29

Post by anexprogrammer »

nixos wrote: post #12

I know Linux (Debian) quite well and would like an excuse to try learning FreeBSD, but I just can't find any serious use-cases where FreeBSD would be of any advantage. I run a small site on a VPS, so: 1. I don't have GBs of free memory for ZFS 2. I don't have GB of RAM, CPU and HD space to build everything from ports, and most importantly, no need. Except for an Application Firewall for nginx, what does ports have ov…

ZFS only needs GBs if you need deduplication. 99% don't, almost everyone is better off with compression. 1GB is the min for ZFS though it can run in a little less.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#30

Post by nixos »

anexprogrammer wrote: post #29
nixos wrote: post #12

I know Linux (Debian) quite well and would like an excuse to try learning FreeBSD, but I just can't find any serious use-cases where FreeBSD would be of any advantage. I run a small site on a VPS, so: 1. I don't have GBs of free memory for ZFS 2. I don't have GB of RAM, CPU and HD space to build everything from ports, and most importantly, no need. Except for an Application Firewall for nginx, what does ports have ov…

ZFS only needs GBs if you need deduplication. 99% don't, almost everyone is better off with compression. 1GB is the min for ZFS though it can run in a little less.

Too much. I've got a 700-800 MB system.

It's unfortunate, as I'd love to have a versioned FS

Post reply on HN