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

141–150 of 371 posts

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#141

Post by idobai »

microtonal wrote: post #118
_wdzx wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enlighten me - what's the problem with the linux desktops?

For a start, X11's security model. Every X11 application can read all keystrokes, mouse events, do screengrabs of other window's contents, etc. In other words, your browser can snoop on what passwords you type into an X terminal if it wanted to or is compromised.

Windows10 is already recording every keystroke/data of yours - what's the difference here? Also, Canonical's snappy packages can kinda solve this problem.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#142

Post by lisivka »

idobai wrote: post #102
rayiner wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used Linux on the desktop from 2001-2007 or so. Switched to OS X until then. It's no contest: OS X is smoother, more consistent, and lower maintenance. Linux desktops seem to have peaked with GNOME 2.x. I'm not even sure what's going on with Unity.

> Linux desktops seem to have peaked with GNOME 2.x. I'm not even sure what's going on with Unity. Gnome 2.x is a dead-end - it was buggy and ugly. Gnome 3.x is far better. Unity is just another canonical-outrage.

I use Mate (Gnome 2.x fork) daily. Gnome 3.x is ugly and buggy.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#143

Post by malka »

erlehmann_ wrote: post #21
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…

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

So it's a feature. I cut myself from shitty software by using FreeBSD.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#144

Post by voltagex_ »

snuxoll wrote: post #131
voltagex_ wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah crap. The advice I got was just about the opposite - I wanted an L2ARC device in my system for performance. Atom C2758, 32GB ECC RAM, 4x4TB in RAIDZ2 (losing that much storage was painful , and the $1200AUD upgrade path to 4x8TB even more so) with a 128GB SSD as L2ARC. I found out some time later that I probably wanted an SLOG device instead but I'm really too afraid to touch my config. FWIW it's pretty stable on…

Your L2ARC shouldn't be bigger than 5x your system memory, ZFS has to keep mapping tables in-memory to determine where data on the L2ARC is stored, the bigger it gets the more memory you take away from your in-memory ARC, which can lead to worse performance than before since more data is having to come from your much higher-latency and lower bandwidth L2ARC or straight from spinning disks. RAIDZ is a performance kill…

And at this point I give up and go back to an off the shelf solution.

I do have mirrored vdevs but now you've made me doubt what configuration I put them in.

This stuff is so advanced it's not funny.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#145

Post by _wdzx »

eropple wrote: post #110
_wdzx wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enlighten me - what's the problem with the linux desktops?

I would suggest reading (and comprehending) this excellent post for a review as to some of the tire-fire issues of X: http://blog.mecheye.net/2012/06/the-linux-graphics-stack/ DRI2 is an improvement over DRI, of course (which was already about five to eight years behind SOTA for GPUs when it came out ), but it's still a rickety, insecure mess--for one, any application can fire messages at any window in the X environm…

For summary - X is just as insecure as windows/macos - we know it: wayland, mir and snappy is coming.

For your disclosure - don't be too lofty with me - I'm trying to understand your problems because I've a very different experience.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#146

Post by voltagex_ »

snuxoll wrote: post #131
voltagex_ wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah crap. The advice I got was just about the opposite - I wanted an L2ARC device in my system for performance. Atom C2758, 32GB ECC RAM, 4x4TB in RAIDZ2 (losing that much storage was painful , and the $1200AUD upgrade path to 4x8TB even more so) with a 128GB SSD as L2ARC. I found out some time later that I probably wanted an SLOG device instead but I'm really too afraid to touch my config. FWIW it's pretty stable on…

Your L2ARC shouldn't be bigger than 5x your system memory, ZFS has to keep mapping tables in-memory to determine where data on the L2ARC is stored, the bigger it gets the more memory you take away from your in-memory ARC, which can lead to worse performance than before since more data is having to come from your much higher-latency and lower bandwidth L2ARC or straight from spinning disks. RAIDZ is a performance kill…

Also, where should I read up about DAS arrays? I didn't even know that was an option when I started building.

Edit: thanks for your help here - you don't have an email address listed in your profile but I'd like to discuss this further if you have the time.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#147

Post by vertex-four »

pimeys wrote: post #124
lloeki wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> far behind the "linux desktop"(plugins, performance, menus etc.). Have you tried something else than xfce or unity? You're missing the point, GP is talking about a level below the DEs, namely the graphics stack, which if unavailable or inefficient makes any discussion about the DEs moot since the GUI may very well be unusable at all in practice. In that regard the "Windows desktop" has plenty of favorable points an…

> As for the DE experience on other platforms, Windows has had a kinda-tiling WM that regular people do use in the form of AeroSnap, while macOS is now getting tabs-in-the-window-manager, and Exposé+Spaces that evolved into Mission Control has been a positively brilliant experience for years. > Meanwhile on Linux, the very fact that you have to massage it into something useful ever so slightly at every level is, to m…

Most people, otoh, enjoy playing games, watching videos, that sort of thing. Some people even do work that's dependent on the graphics card. Just because you use your computer for a very minimal amount of tasks doesn't mean everyone else does.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#148

Post by SFJulie »

I would have entitled it Linux AND BSD

This article is really about the objective difference between linux and BSD. It is not a rant in the form B > L or B I personally find it much more an help to guide people to come and as much as to stay away.

I am a former user of linux (that I used to like) and I am now using freeBSD. I switched without love or hate. I just was on linux to have video card and latest hardware support, and I am on freeBSD to have the ports, stability and easy upgrading.

I did it after years of experiences enabling me to build the information about the different fit use case of both OSes.

Having this summed up in 10 pages will spare people a lot of time in deciding.

And I think it is as important to have people come to BSD as to not delude them in coming for wrong reasons: disgruntled users are as much a pain that rigorous contributors are a gift.

So information to make choice, especially when they are not structured as an aggressive comparison are very welcomed.

The author should be praised.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#149

Post by soneil »

tempodox wrote: post #135

Disclaimer: I know this is a side issue. However, I'm really wondering what it is that makes people think using such a “creative” color scheme for publishing their texts would do any good. If it weren't for Safari's Reader view, I would be physically unable to decipher this text. Which would really be a shame, because this text deserves to be read. I guess, I'm still hoping that one of these days, I will reach one of…

It should be a side issue, but it's why I didn't read past the first page. It was physically uncomfortable to do so.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#150

Post by cm3 »

nixos wrote: post #30
anexprogrammer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

HAMMER1 on DragonflyBSD runs well with little memory, including running dedup. It also has the binary pkg system just like FreeBSD. Also, the DRM drivers are up to date and support current Intel GPUs.
Post reply on HN