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

81–90 of 371 posts

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#81

Post by microtonal »

nixos wrote: post #26
aaron-lebo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :(

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

Not completely. In Debian and others it's mostly a choice between a stable base and stale software or a moving base and up to date software (though backports improve things quite a bit for Debian Stable).

Since in FreeBSD packages are separated from the base system, it's possible to run a stable base system, while using quarterly updates or rolling release (latest) of packages.

(Note: I didn't have many problems running Debian Unstable, but it may depend on your requirements.)

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#82

Post by vesinisa »

rbanffy wrote: post #66
teacup50 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't "freely redistribute" it though. You have to comply with the viral decidedly non-freeing provisions.

The only freedom you give up by using the GPL is the freedom to screw your users over by denying them access to the source code. All you are demanded is to let others enjoy the freedom you enjoy. That, surely, isn't too much to ask.

Meh, hardware vendors routinely ignore GPL, and for the money it takes to sue them in court you could in most cases reverse engineer their drivers and write them for scratch.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#83

Post by darklajid »

nixos wrote: post #26
aaron-lebo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :(

What would you consider the advantage of FreeBSD ports/packages? Why would that be taken away by pkg?

pkg provides a way to manage (binary) packages. There are other tools (like poudriere, last time I dabbled in the FreeBSD world) to manage/create binary packages.

You could run FreeBSD on your tiny VPS, but build packages with all the custom ports options you could want in a jail on your local machine.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#85

Post by slyall »

Pity this documented is not dated. But judging from the version numbers of things he mentions it probably dates from around 2003 or perhaps 2004.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#86

Post by _wdzx »

> I like FreeBSD, and I use it as a server OS and on a NAS box but you only need look at https://wiki.freebsd.org/Graphics to understand that if the "Linux Desktop" is a joke compared to MacOS and Windows then the "FreeBSD Desktop" is even more so.

I've never heard anything good about the "MacOS desktop" and I'm pretty sure that the "windows desktop" is far behind the "linux desktop"(plugins, performance, menus etc.). Have you tried something else than xfce or unity?

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#87

Post by idobai »

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…

> 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 with a nice wm, browser, etc, in 15 minutes.

When I wanted to try FreeBSD the installation failed multiple times and after the first success I couldn't install a DE for hours. I've also had problems with the package manager because I couldn't install anything before doing something with some configuration files. OpenBSD is the same category but at least it doesn't failed at installation as much.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#88

Post by geff82 »

I have a lot of sympathy for the BSDs. I actually learned Unix with NetBSD in 2004. Problem with BSD nowadays, at least for me, is that all supported desktop hardware is really old. The newest, still available, Laptop that works is the Lenovo X240 (and other x40s....). And when everything works, like on my Samsung NP530, there is strange stuff like a super slow and unreliable Wi-Fi connection. So if you want a great OOTB development experience with the same, working, OS on Desktop and server, Linux is the way to go...

But I cannot help and sometimes try the BSD stuff out, as it feels like "my parents home".

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#89

Post by alblue »

lucaspiller wrote: post #62
nixos wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much RAM is required these days?

A big user of RAM in ZFS is dedup and compression - which can both be disabled.

Compression does not use a significant amount of memory - it's the deduplication which uses a lot of memory. In fact compression can make it run faster as there is less I/O data.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#90

Post by lajospajtek »

Another aspect of the "Linux vs. FreeBSD" story is Java. I was almost won over by FreeBSD few years ago, however what keeps me back is so to speak the "second class citizenship" of the JVM on FreeBDS. Or at least it was so pre-OpenJDK 8, when I looked.

Is anyone successfully using Java on FreeBSD in production?

Post reply on HN